text:
# A pedagogic model for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering with quark-hadron duality

## I Introduction

There has been much recent interest in two related, though distinct, processes: (i) Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS), measured in non-forward Compton scattering $`\gamma ^{}(q^2)p\gamma p`$ ; (ii) Bloom-Gilman duality  for the imaginary part of forward Compton scattering, where the electroproduction of $`N^{}`$’s at lower energies and momentum transfers empirically averages smoothly around the scaling curve $`F_2(W^2,Q^2)`$ measured at large momentum transfers for both proton and neutron targets .

In this paper we shall develop a pedagogic model of the structure functions for non-diffractive inelastic scattering from a simple composite system that satisfies duality. Then we shall investigate its implications for the non-forward distribution amplitudes of DVCS  in certain kinematic regimes, compare with existing models and abstract some general features in hope of gaining insight into the physical significance of measurements planned at Jefferson Lab and HERA.

Our point of departure is the work of Refs. , where the partons (“quark”) were treated as spinless constituents. Reference  analysed duality in the context of a large-$`N_c`$-based relativistic model with an empirically inspired linear potential; it focussed on the dynamics required for a confined struck parton to behave as though it were free, and illustrated how scaling ensured. In a complementary approach, Ref.  investigated the circumstances whereby the structure function for inelastic scattering $`F(x)`$ \- whose magnitude in leading twist is in proportion to the (incoherent) sum of the squares of the constituent charges - can in general match with the excitation of individual resonances which is driven by the coherently summed square of constituent charges. In the present paper we shall combine these to show how the (non-diffractive, “valence”) scaling function emerges for a two body state, whose spinless constituents have arbitrary charges.

This $`F(x)`$ is intimately related to the imaginary part of the forward Compton amplitude, data for which lead to the probability distributions for the partons. Analogously, data on Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering may be used to determine non-forward parton distribution amplitudes $`F(x,\xi ,t)`$. Here restricting ourselves to a system of two spinless constituents, we study the implications of the model for DVCS, and discuss the structure and physics of $`F(x,\xi ,t)`$.

The text is arranged as follows. In Sec. II, a simple model for a two-body system with arbitarily charged scalar constituents is introduced; structure functions and sum rules for the forward and non-forward Compton scattering are derived. In Sec. III, we show how the scaling functions for the forward and non-forward Compton scattering arise in this model and note also relations between DVCS and the forward amplitudes which may be more general than the specific model. Functionally the generalised parton distribution function for the DVCS is discussed for both Ji and Radyushkin’s frames in Sec. IV. Based on the functionally generalised form, a phenomenological investigation of the non-forward parton distribution in DVCS is made in Sec. V. Summary remarks are given in Sec. VI.

## II A Simple Model

The original model of Refs.  ignored spin entirely and considered the inelastic scattering of a “scalar electron” via exchange of a “scalar photon” from a composite system of (two) spinless constituents. The differential cross section was then written as

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{g^4}{16\pi ^2}\frac{E_f}{E_i}\frac{1}{Q^4},$$
(1)
where the scalar coupling $`g`$ had dimensions of mass, and the factor multiplying the scalar structure function $``$ corresponded to the Mott cross section.

In this paper we shall consider the more physical situation where a spin 1/2 electron scatters by exchanging a vector photon. The cross section then has the standard form in terms of two structure functions $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$, which depend on $`\nu `$ and $`Q^2`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{Mott}[W_2(\nu ,Q^2)+2W_1(\nu ,Q^2)\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _e}{2}}]`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{Mott}}{ϵ(1+\tau )}}[(1ϵ)W_1+ϵ(1+\tau )W_2],`$ (3)
where $`\tau \nu ^2/Q^2`$, and $`ϵ\rho _{LL}/\rho _{TT}`$ is the ratio of longitudinal and transverse density matrix elements. As before we consider a composite system of two spinless constituents. While this is still not the real world, the model contains many of the important physical features: there are analogues of resonances, the inelastic structure function exhibits scale invariance and “quark-hadron” duality .

Ref.  demonstrated the duality for the case of a single particle in a potential (effectively bound to an infinitely massive electrically neutral partner). Ref.  extended some of those ideas by considering a composite state made of two equal mass scalars, i.e., “quarks” $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ with charges $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ respectively at positions $`\stackrel{}{r}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_2`$. It was shown how for the imaginary part of the forward Compton amplitude (hence the inelastic structure function), the excitation of resonance states of opposite parity interferes destructively in all but leading twist. In this paper we demonstrate how the model leads to scaling behaviour for the structure functions and then extend it to the imaginary part of the non-forward Compton amplitude (non-forward distribution function ). In subsequent section some general features for the relation between the forward and non-forward parton distribution function will be abstracted and discussed.

### A Forward Compton Scattering

The ground state wavefunction for the composite state is $`\psi _0(\stackrel{}{r})`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_{1,2}=\stackrel{}{R}\pm \stackrel{}{r}/2`$ defines the centre of mass and internal spatial degrees of freedom. A photon of momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ is absorbed with an amplitude proportional to $`_ie_i\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}_i)`$, which excites a “resonant” state with angular momentum $`L`$, described by the wavefunction $`\psi _L(\stackrel{}{r})`$.

In the previous work which ignored spin entirely , the inelastic structure function in Eq. (1) was given by a sum of squares of transition form factors weighted by appropriate kinematic factors,

$$(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{N=0}{\overset{max}{}}\frac{1}{4E_0E_N}|F_{0,N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2\delta (E_NE_0\nu ),$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{p_i}\stackrel{}{p_f}`$, the form factors $`F_{0,N}`$ represent transitions from the ground state to states characterised by principal quantum number $`N(L+2k`$, where $`k`$ is the radial and $`L`$ the orbital quantum numbers).

Focussing on the internal coordinate $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, the transition amplitude is proportional to

$`(e_1+e_2)[\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2)+\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2)]`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`(e_1e_2)[\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2)\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2)].`$ (6)
The expansion, $`\mathrm{exp}(iqz/2)=_Li^LP_L(\mathrm{cos}\theta )j_L(qr/2)(2L+1)`$, projects out the even and odd partial waves such that the form factor is proportional to

$`F_{0,N(L)}(\stackrel{}{q})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑rr^2\psi _L^{}(r)\psi _0(r)j_L(qr/2)}`$ (8)
$`\times [(e_1+e_2)\delta _{L=even}+(e_1e_2)\delta _{L=odd}].`$
The resulting structure function, summed over resonance excitations, will receive contributions from $`L=even(odd)`$ in proportion to $`(e_1\pm e_2)^2`$. Since $`NL+2k`$, $`L=even(odd)`$ will imply also that $`N=even2n`$ or $`N=odd=2n+1`$, and we can expose these separate contributions to the structure function (we factor out the charges to make them explicit too),

$$(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{N(n)}{}\frac{1}{4E_0E_N}[F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})(e_1+e_2)^2+F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q})(e_1e_2)^2]\delta (E_NE_0\nu ),$$
(9)
or equivalently:

$`(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N(n)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_0E_N}}[(F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})+F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q}))(e_1^2+e_2^2)+2e_1e_2(F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q}))]`$ (11)
$`\times \delta (E_NE_0\nu ).`$
This simple example exposes the physics rather clearly. The excitation amplitudes to resonance states contain both diagonal ($`e_1^2+e_2^2)`$ and higher twist terms ($`\pm 2e_1e_2`$) in the flavour basis. The former set added constructively for any $`L`$ and the sum over the complete set of states can now logically give the deep inelastic curve ; the latter enter with opposite phases for even and odd $`L`$ and destructively interfere. The critical feature that this exposes is that at least one complete set of resonances of each symmetry-type has been summed over. In general, the strength of the structure function will be proportional to $`e_1^2+e_2^2`$ only if the excitation of even and odd $`L`$ states sum to equal strengths. Ref.  derived the circumstances under which this can occur.

Consider scalar quarks confined in a linear potential, and described by the Klein-Gordon equation such that $`V^2(\stackrel{}{r})=\beta ^4r^2`$, where $`\beta ^4`$ is a generalized, relativistic string constant (compare also Ref. ). The energy eigenvalues are then $`E=\pm E_N`$ where $`E_N=\sqrt{2\beta ^2(N+3/2)+m^2}`$ and $`m`$ is the mass of the interacting constituent (“quark”). This choice gives a spectrum that is in accord with that observed empirically  since the energy eigenvalues follow from the similarity to the Schrödinger equation for a non-relativistic harmonic oscillator potential; the wave functions are algebraically as for the non-relativistic case and thereby enable analytic solutions.

The contribution to $`(q)`$ from the $`N(L+2k)`$ set of degenerate levels is

$$F_{0,N}^2(\stackrel{}{q})=\frac{1}{N!}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2\beta ^2})^N\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2\beta ^2}),$$
(12)
from which one can immediately see that $`_{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_{0,N}^2(\stackrel{}{q})=1`$. It is interesting to note that any individual contribution, $`F_{0,N}(\stackrel{}{q})`$, reaches its maximum value when $`\stackrel{}{q}^2=2\beta ^2N`$, at which point $`F_{0,N}^2=F_{0,N+1}^2`$. This coincidence is true for all juxtaposed partial waves at their peaks, which gives a rapid approach to the equality of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})`$ and $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q})`$.

We turn now to the more physical case of real spinning electron and photon. For scattering from a system of spinless constituents, the leading contributor at large $`Q^2`$  is the longitudinal response function

$$R_L\frac{\nu }{4M^2x^2}[\nu W_22MxW_1].$$
(13)
The resonance sum for $`R_L`$ is analogous to that in Eq. (4) for $``$ but with an extra factor of $`(E_0+E_N)^2`$. Hence

$$R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{N=0}{\overset{max}{}}\frac{1}{4E_0E_N}|f_{0,N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2[(E_0+E_N)^2\delta (\nu +E_0E_N)],$$
(14)
where

$$|f_{0,N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2(e_1^2+e_2^2)[F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})+F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q})]+2e_1e_2[F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q})],$$
(15)
one has $`\nu _{max}<|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ and the sum over $`N`$ denotes equivalent sum over $`n`$ for $`N=2n`$ and $`N=2n+1`$. Furthermore, recall that the energy eigenvalues for the Klein-Gordon equation are $`E=\pm E_N`$ where $`E_N=\sqrt{2\beta ^2(N+3/2)+m^2}`$. It will be helpful now to take $`E_N0`$ and to rewrite $`R_L`$ as

$`R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{max}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_0E_N}}|f_{0,N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2`$ (17)
$`\times [(E_0+E_N)^2\delta (\nu +E_0E_N)(E_0E_N)^2\delta (\nu +E_0+E_N)].`$
This immediately gives the sum rule

$`S(\stackrel{}{q}){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu R_L(\stackrel{}{q},\nu )={\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}|f_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2,`$and hence

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})=[(e_1^2+e_2^2)+2e_1e_2e^{(2\stackrel{}{q})^2/4\beta ^2}],$$
(18)
which generalizes as

$$S(\stackrel{}{q})_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})=[(e_1^2+e_2^2)+2e_1e_2F_{00}(2\stackrel{}{q})].$$
(19)
That this is the correct generalisation rather than $`F_{00}^4(\stackrel{}{q})`$ as in Ref. , will be obvious from the results of the next Section \[Eq. (23)\]. It also agrees with the physical picture in Fig. 1, where absorption and emission by different constituents leads to a momentum mismatch in the internal wavefunction of $`\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k}2\stackrel{}{q}`$. Ref.  has shown how such a model satisfies scaling and duality in the particular case when $`e_2=0`$. Our results enable this to be generalised to constituents with arbitrary charges. We shall show this in Sec. III. First we generalise the above to non-forward Compton scattering amplitudes as preparation for our derivation of the scaling form of DVCS.

### B Non-forward Compton Scattering

We have calculated the imaginary part of the forward Compton scattering amplitude as a sum over the intermediate coherent “resonance” states. This is experimentally accessible by measuring $`\frac{d\sigma }{dE^{}d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}(eAeX)`$ from the target $`A`$. We now consider the generalisation to the imaginary part of the non-forward amplitude: $`\gamma (q)A\gamma (k)A`$. Clearly, when we specialise to the case $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q};t0`$, we must recover our results above.

As before, focus on the internal coordinate $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, and separate the transition amplitude into contributions from $`N2n=even`$ and $`N2n+1=odd`$ excited states.

The generalization is:

$`R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n(N)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_0E_N}}(E_0\pm E_N)^2\delta (\nu +E_0E_N)`$ (21)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \underset{L=0(1)}{\overset{N}{}}}[_{0,2n}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{q})_{0,2n}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{k})(e_1+e_2)^2+_{0,2n+1}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{q})_{0,2n+1}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{k})(e_1e_2)^2]d_{00}^L(\widehat{k}\widehat{q})\right),`$
where $`d_{00}^L(\theta )\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{2L+1}}Y_{L0}(\theta )`$, and $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{k}`$ denote the unit vector in the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, respectively. Whereas in the forward case we dealt immediately with $`_N|F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2`$, here we must first sum over the various $`L`$ states within a given $`N`$. Thus (see Appendix 1) one now has

$$\underset{N}{}F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})F_{N0}(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{N}{}\frac{1}{N!}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}\right)^N\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}),$$
(22)
where due to the $`\delta `$ function in Eq. (21), $`t|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}|^2`$. Hence the sum over all states gives

$`({\displaystyle \underset{N=even}{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{N=odd}{}})F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})F_{N0}(\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k})^2}{4\beta ^2}})F_{00}(|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}|),`$while that over opposite phases gives

$`({\displaystyle \underset{N=even}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{N=odd}{}})F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})F_{N0}(\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k})^2}{4\beta ^2}})F_{00}(|\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k}|).`$

The generalisation to the non-forward case of the sum rule Eq. (19) is

$$S(\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k})_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)=F_{00}(|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}|)\left[(e_1^2+e_2^2)+2e_1e_2\frac{F_{00}(|\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k}|)}{F_{00}(|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}|)}\right].$$
(23)
If we restrict attention to $`t<<Q^2`$, in which case $`|\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}|<<|\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{k}|`$, we have the sum rule

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)=F_{00}(t)(e_1^2+e_2^2)F_{00}(t){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q}).`$This is the essence of the Ji-Radyushkin sum rule .

For Compton scattering at $`90^{}`$, for the case $`q^2k^2`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})(e_1+e_2)^2e^{(\stackrel{}{q}^2/2\beta ^2)}(e_1+e_2)^2F_{el}^2(\stackrel{}{q}),`$which illustrates how the counting rules of elastic scattering at large angles can emerge from duality. An essential part of such a derivation is the assumed mass degeneracy between states of a given $`N`$ but of different $`L`$. Generally, there will be $`L`$-dependent mass shifts within a given $`N`$ level in the spectrum (e.g. in a more realistic picture with spin 1/2 $`q\overline{q}`$, these can be induced by gluon exchange and described perturbatively with a Fermi-Breit Hamiltonian). These will spoil the exact $`L`$-degeneracy within any fixed $`N`$ and lead to oscillations about a smooth $`s^n`$ dependence at 90, where $`s`$ is the c.m. energy squared. Such oscillations are seen in the data It is important to realise that such oscillations at 90 will be a signal primarily for mass splitting $`within`$ a given $`N`$ level. This is distinct from the more usual measure of duality, as discussed in most of this paper, which involves the energy gap $`between`$ multiplets of different $`N`$ and different parity (and would be present even in the absence of gluon exchange mass splittings).

We now establish how scaling obtains in this picture.

## III Forward Compton Scattering: Scaling of $`F_2(x,Q^2)`$

It is not immediately obvious that the above model scales. Nor do the detailed algebraic manipulations that follow easily reveal why this property emerges. One can begin to see how the scale invariance arises by focussing on the shape of the curve for an excited state $`N`$, and in particular the position of its maximum. This maximum is at $`x_{bj}1/A`$ for $`A`$ constituents, for any excited state $`N`$ as we now show.

The scattering is on energy shell whereby $`\nu _N=E_NE_0`$. The three momentum is dispersed, giving a maximum magnitude for the contribution to the structure function when $`\stackrel{}{q}_N^2=2\beta ^2N`$. The energy eigenvalues $`E_N=\sqrt{2\beta ^2(N+3/2)+m^2}`$ satisfy $`E_N^2E_0^2=2\beta ^2N`$ and so at the maximum we have $`E_N^2E_0^2\stackrel{}{q}_N^2`$, whereby $`\stackrel{}{q}_N^2\nu _N^2Q_N^2=(E_NE_0)2E_0`$. Hence the peak occurs when

$`Q_N^2=2E_0\nu _N.`$Thus using the kinematic variable $`x_{bj}Q^2/2M\nu `$, where $`M`$ is the mass of the ground state hadron $`_iE_0^{(i)}`$ (i.e., summed over all constituents), then for excitation of the $`N`$-th level, the peak occurs at

$`x_{bj}^{(N)}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_N^2}{2M\nu _N}}={\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{M}},`$which suggests that the peak occurs at a common value of $`x_{bj}`$ for all $`N`$. Consequently we find the physically sensible result that the peaking of the structure function occurs at $`E_0/M1/A`$ where $`A`$ is the number of active constituents. To obtain the explicit form of the distribution we replace the sum over discrete levels by an integral, and use Stirling’s formula (for details see Sec. V of Ref. , where we generalize their results to the case of constituents with arbitrary charge).

Focus on Eq. (17) and the leading piece at high $`Q^2`$, i.e., the $`(e_1^2+e_2^2)`$ term. Write this, following Ref.  as

$`R_L(\stackrel{}{q},\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`(e_1^2+e_2^2){\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_0E_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2\beta ^2}})^N\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2}{2\beta ^2}})`$ (26)
$`\times [(E_N+E_0)^2\delta (E_NE_0\nu )`$
$`(E_0E_N)^2\delta (E_N+E_0+\nu )],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=1`$.

Some essential steps in manipulating this are to rewrite the $`\delta `$-functions, e.g.

$`\delta (E_N(E_0+\nu )){\displaystyle \frac{E_N}{\beta ^2}}\delta \left[(N+{\displaystyle \frac{E_0^2}{2\beta ^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{(\nu +E_0)^2}{2\beta ^2}}\right],`$then to use Stirling’s formula whereby

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^N}}e^N,`$and to take a continuum limit $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }N}𝑑\nu `$. Then tedious algebra gives

$$R_L(\stackrel{}{q},\nu )=\frac{(\nu +2E_0)^2}{4\beta E_0\sqrt{\pi }\nu }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\nu ^2+2E_0\nu }{2\beta ^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{Q^2+\nu ^2}{\nu ^2+2E_0\nu }\right)\frac{Q^2+\nu ^2}{2\beta ^2}+\frac{\nu ^2+2E_0\nu }{2\beta ^2}\right](e_1^2+e_2^2),$$
(27)
and a similar term with $`\nu \nu `$.

As $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ for fixed $`x_{bj}\frac{Q^2}{2M\nu }`$,

$`R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q})F_L(x_{bj},Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{8\beta \sqrt{\pi }Mx_{bj}E_0}}e^{\frac{M^2}{\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj})^2}(e_1^2+e_2^2)`$ (29)
$`\times \left[\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2Mx_{bj}}}\right)\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2Mx_{bj}}}\right)\right].`$
For spinless consituents it is $`R_L`$ that has been forced to scale. The transverse response function $`R_T`$ in this model is suppressed by $`O(1/Q^2)`$ . This is in agreement with the result for spinless partons in the deep inelastic regime. The implication for the structure function $`W_2`$ is that

$$|\nu |W_2(x_{bj},Q^2)=F_2(x_{bj})=\frac{x_{bj}^2M^2}{\beta \sqrt{\pi }E_0}e^{\frac{M^2}{\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj})^2}(e_1^2+e_2^2).$$
(30)
As discussed in Section II A, the higher twist term vanishes in the limit of $`N(n)\mathrm{}`$, where the parity even and odd partial waves are summed to the same strengths, i.e., $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_{0,2n}^2(\stackrel{}{q})=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}F_{0,2n+1}^2(\stackrel{}{q})`$.

Equation (30) immediately gives the sum rule:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{F_2(x_{bj})}{x_{bj}}𝑑x_{bj}=e_1^2+e_2^2,$$
(31)
which can be compared to Eq. (19), and is analogous to the Gottfried sum rule of the naive parton model .

The momentum sum rule for the structure function $`F_2(x_{bj})`$ can be also investigated,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}F_2(x_{bj})𝑑x_{bj}=\frac{1}{M}(E_0+\frac{\beta ^2}{2E_0})(e_1^2+e_2^2).$$
(32)
This result sheds light on the “dynamics” of the duality picture, namely, the relation between resonance phenomena and naive parton model. On the one hand, it shows that the results of the most naive parton model, which is valid at high $`Q^2`$ and where the partons can be regarded as quasi-free particles with distribution $`\delta (x1/A)`$, can be only realised at $`\beta 0`$. In this case, we find

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}F_2(x_{bj})𝑑x_{bj}=\frac{E_0}{M},$$
(33)
which is the analogue of the familiar sum rule that gives the energy fraction carried by the charged constituents.

The structure function $`F_2(x_{bj})`$ exhibits an intuitive connection between resonance excitations and the naive parton model. With $`\beta =0.4`$ GeV for the potential and $`m=0.33`$ GeV for the constituent mass, we plot $`F_2(x_{bj})`$ versus $`x_{bj}`$ in Fig. 3 (solid curve); this has a broad and flattened behavior and is dominated by the resonance excitations. Obviously, if $`\beta 0`$, we obtain the Delta function peaking at $`x_{bj}1/2`$ for the equal mass constituents, which recovers the naive parton model prediction for the valence contribution to $`F_2(x_{bj})`$ . To show this, we also present the calculation (dashed curve) for a weak potential with $`\beta =0.1`$ GeV in contrast to the solid curve, where the dashed curve peaking at $`x_{bj}=E_0/M`$ is clear. Thus we see how the physics of the naive parton model is recovered as $`\beta 0`$: in this limit the constituents are free, all excitation levels are degenerate and the structure function collapses to an effective expression, $`(e_1^2+e_2^2)\delta (x_{bj}1/A)`$. The physical distribution is smeared around $`x_{bj}=1/A`$; the position of the peak is related to the number of active participants that share momenta, and the width of the peak is driven by their momentum spread which is in turn related to their confinement and the energy gap for resonance excitation.

Equation (32) suggests that the resonance phenomena violate the naive parton model result. Recalling that the groundstate energy $`E_0=\sqrt{3\beta ^2+m^2}`$, where $`3\beta ^2\stackrel{}{p}_T^2+p_z^2`$ denotes the Fermi motion momentum of a constituent, the second term in Eq. (32) can be understood as a kinetic energy correction to the naive parton model result associated with the longitudinal component of the Fermi momentum.

Certainly, this model has many features that prevent it being a serious dynamical description of the real world. In particular, although we have generated a pedagogic picture of how the sum over all the resonances leads to a scaling curve which peaks in a physically sensible region, the quantitative details of how the scaling function behaves away from this region are not sensibly produced by the model. For example, the model allows a kinematic range $`\mathrm{}<x<+\mathrm{}`$, whereas the physical region for deep inalastic scattering is limited to $`0x1`$.

With such caveats in mind, we now investigate the (unmeasured) non-forward DVCS amplitude in this model, with the goal of abstracting its general features.

## IV Nonforward DVCS: Scaling of $`F_2(x,\xi ,t)`$

The extensive discussions of non-forward Compton scattering in the literature have used two frames. One (which we shall refer to as the Radyushkin’s kinematics) has the momenta of the initial state as for forward Compton and throws all of the momentum transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ into the final state. Thus $`\gamma (q)+A(P)\gamma (k=q\mathrm{\Delta })+A(P+\mathrm{\Delta })`$ where $`t\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Here we use $`A`$ to denote the target system which consists of two spinless constituents. In this frame, the initial $`\gamma A`$ system defines the longitudinal $`z`$ direction and the final state particles have in general transverse components. An alternative choice is the symmetric frame of Ji, where the transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is shared by initial and final states. Thus $`\gamma (q)+A(P\mathrm{\Delta }/2)\gamma (k=q\mathrm{\Delta })+A(P+\mathrm{\Delta }/2)`$. In this frame, both the initial and final $`\gamma A`$ systems have non-zero transverse momenta.

First we define the four vectors as follows

$`P`$ $``$ $`[\overline{M};0;0],`$ (34)
$`q`$ $``$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\overline{M}\eta }}\eta \overline{M};0;{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\overline{M}\eta }}\eta \overline{M}]/2,`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`[0;\mathrm{\Delta }_T;\xi \overline{M}].`$ (36)
For Radyushkin’s kinematics one has the initial target momentum $`pP`$ and hence $`\overline{M}M`$. Furthermore $`x_{bj}\eta \xi `$. For Ji’s kinematics on the other hand, one has $`p(P\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})`$ and $`\overline{M}^2M^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4}`$. In this frame $`x_{bj}\frac{2\xi }{2+\xi }`$.

Comparison with our previous calculation is most immediate if we use Radyushkin’s frame which has the initial $`\gamma A`$ system defining the longitudinal $`z`$ direction. Results are identical in Ji’s frame, as we shall illustrate later.

The analogy of Eq. (26) for nonforward scattering becomes (see also Appendix 1),

$`R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }N{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4E_0E_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}})^N\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}})(e_1^2+e_2^2)`$ (38)
$`\times [(E_N+E_0)^2\delta (E_NE_0\nu )(E_0E_N)^2\delta (E_N+E_0+\nu )].`$
First replace $`kq\mathrm{\Delta }`$ throughout, so we consider $`R_L(\nu ,q,\mathrm{\Delta },t)`$. Then after tedious algebraic manipulations, analogous to those used in Sec. III, we find a scaling behaviour as follows:

$$R_L(\nu ,q,\mathrm{\Delta },t)F_L(x_{bj},\mathrm{\Delta },t,Q^2)=\frac{Q^2}{8\beta \sqrt{\pi }Mx_{bj}E_0}e^{\frac{M^2}{\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2M\nu })^2}e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})}(e_1^2+e_2^2).$$
(39)
Note that in this model $`F_{00}(t)e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})}`$ and so we see the explicit presence of the elastic form factor multiplying a skewed distribution function where, in effect, the $`x_{bj}`$ has been shifted relative to the forward Compton case, in a $`t`$-dependent manner: $`x_{bj}x_{bj}(1\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{Q^2})`$.

The above was all in Radyushkin’s frame. If instead we had calculated in Ji’s frame, all the steps follow analogously leading to an identical expression to the above except that the argument of the exponent is modified:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{M}}x_{bj}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2qp}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{M}}x_{bj}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2q(p\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2})}}\right)^2.`$Although superficially these appear to differ, when expressed in terms of observables they are identical.

To see most immediately what is happening, we first ignore corrections of $`O(\mathrm{\Delta }^2/Q^2)`$. Then the argument of the exponent becomes in Radyushkin’s kinematics:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{M}}x_{bj}+\xi _{Rad}/2\right)^2,`$while for Ji’s kinematics it is:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E_0}{M}}x_{bj}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{Ji}}{2+\xi _{Ji}}}\right)\right]^2.`$However, for the imaginary part, which is all that we are considering here, there are the identities :

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{Ji}}{2+\xi _{Ji}}}\right)\xi _{Rad}/2x_{bj}/2,`$and so in either frame and in the particular kinematics $`t<<Q^2`$, we have

$$F_Le^{(\frac{E_0}{M}\frac{x_{bj}}{2})^2}F_{00}(t),$$
(40)
which leads to the amusing factorization:

$$F_L(x,\xi ,t)F_L(\frac{x}{2},0,0)F_{el}(t),$$
(41)
where $`xx_{bj}`$. This is in contrast to a commonly used ansatz $`F(x,\xi ,t)F(x,0,0)F_{el}(t)`$ . We shall return to this later at Eqs. (51) and (55). This specific example reinforces the result of a recent study  which suggested that the factorization form $`F(x,0,0)F_{el}(t)`$ is not a general result in DVCS.

We now show how this generalises when $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/Q^2`$ corrections are included. In this case we need to look more carefully at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q\mathrm{\Delta }}{qp}}=\xi {\displaystyle \frac{q_3}{q_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \left(1+\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{Q^2}}\right)/\left(1\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{Q^2}}\right)`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`x_{bj}\left(1+\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{Q^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{\eta }}.`$ (43)
The most general form is to write these in terms of invariants:

$`\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}q\mathrm{\Delta }(k^2+Q^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)/2.`$The symmetry of the ensuing expressions is clearest if we define $`K^2k^2`$. A particular example is forward Compton scattering for which $`K^2Q^2>0`$. Although in practice we will be interested in $`K^2=0`$, we keep this variable in the formula to give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2qp}}{\displaystyle \frac{x_{bj}}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{K^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{Q^2}}\right),`$which also confirms that $`\eta =\xi `$ for large $`Q^2`$. We therefore define

$$x_{bj}^{in}\frac{Q^2}{2pq};x_{bj}^{fin}\frac{K^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2pq}.$$
(44)
Hence for the forward case, since $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }^20`$, $`x_{bj}^{fin}x_{bj}^{in}`$ will be recovered when $`K^2Q^2`$.

Then Eq. (39) can be manipulated into the following form

$`F_L(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(e_1^2+e_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2(K^2+t)}}{8\beta \sqrt{\pi }M\sqrt{x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}}E_0}}`$ (46)
$`\times \left[e^{\frac{M^2}{2\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}^{in})^2}e^{\frac{M^2(x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin})^2}{4\beta ^2}}e^{\frac{M^2}{2\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}^{fin})^2}\right]e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})},`$
and by steps analogous to section III, the structure function can be expressed as

$`F_2(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t)`$ $`=`$ $`(e_1^2+e_2^2)x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\beta \sqrt{\pi }E_0}}`$ (48)
$`\times \left[e^{\frac{M^2}{2\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}^{in})^2}e^{\frac{M^2(x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin})^2}{4\beta ^2}}e^{\frac{M^2}{2\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}^{fin})^2}\right]e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})},`$
which is to be compared with Eq. (30) for the forward case.

Thus Eq. (48) can be written as

$$F_2(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t)\sqrt{F_2(x_{bj}^{in})\times F_2(x_{bj}^{fin})}\times F_{00}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_T).$$
(49)
The factor $`F_{00}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_T)`$ is dependent on $`x_{bj}^{in}`$, $`x_{bj}^{fin}`$ and $`t`$. When $`x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}(\xi )0`$ this form reduces to the parton density distribution modulated by the transverse momentum transfer (compare Ref. ). However, we can restore the $`F_{el}(t)`$ by recognising the full import of Eqs. (46) and (48).

Comparison with the forward scattering Eq. (30) shows that the first and third exponentials in the square bracket of Eq. (48) are effectively the amplitudes for finding a parton at $`x_{bj}^{in}`$ in the initial hadron and at $`x_{bj}^{fin}`$ in the final hadron. From Eq. (48) the term outside the square bracket, $`e^{(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2/4\beta ^2)}`$, is seen to be the elastic form factor for the composite state $`A`$, $`F_{el}(t)F_{00}(t)`$, which arises because the initial and final states are effectively scattered elastically with invariant four momentum transfer squared $`t\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2`$. The central term in the square bracket, $`e^{M^2(x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin})^2/4\beta ^2}`$, appears to be a specific property of the sum over intermediate states in the dual model and merits some discussion.

As Fig. 4 schematically illustrates, we explicitly included coherent intermediate “resonant” states. Although we recover the leading twist of the quasi-free parton model, nonetheless confinement is present and imposing itself throughout, in particular in the intermediate hadron state for which a parton has entered with $`x_{bj}^{in}`$ and departed with $`x_{bj}^{fin}`$. If we considered the limit $`\beta 0`$, recovering the most naive form of a quasi-free independent parton model, with no memory of confinement and no non-trivial excitation spectrum in the intermediate state, this term will vanish (unless $`x_{bj}^{in}=x_{bj}^{fin}`$), as will the entire amplitude. As mentioned in section III, $`\beta 0`$ leads to a physical excitation gap, which both smears the distributions and leads to a finite overlap when $`x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}`$.

It is $`\beta 0`$ that enables duality via this intermediate state overlap. Specifically, the basic photon-parton ($`Q`$) scattering $`\gamma (q)Q\gamma (k)Q`$ has a non-zero cross section, as does the hadronic process $`\gamma AA^{}\gamma (k)A`$ via a specific intermediate state $`A^{}`$. However, the duality is non-trivial. If confinement is “hidden” such that $`\beta 0`$, then although $`\gamma (q)Q\gamma (k)Q`$ exists, its embedding in the initial and final composite states will vanish due to the misalignment of momenta of the struck parton relative to that of the spectator(s). In this case the duality is still realised because all the $`A^{}`$ states become degenerate and destructively interfere unless $`x_{bj}^{in}=x_{bj}^{fin}`$.

Thus, the structure in Eq. (46) suggests that the non-forward structure function may generalize to a factorisation between:

(i) the hadron-parton distribution amplitudes;

(ii) a “quark-in, quark-out” term associated with the intermediate coherent state;

(iii) the invariant momentum transfer $`t`$.

We can restore the appearance of $`F_{00}(t)`$ by recognising that contribution (ii) describes the longitudinal part of the momentum transfer being “shared” in a two-step process - excitation and decay of the intermediate coherent state. In effect it is an indication of so-called $`\xi `$-dependence discussed in the literature , arising from the “memory” of coherent confinement in the (sum over) intermediate states. Thus Eq. (48) may be generalised to,

$`F_2(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{F_2(x_{bj}^{in})\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_{00}^2[M^2(\xi )^2]}}\times F_2(x_{bj}^{fin})}\times F_{00}(t)`$ (50)
$``$ $`\sqrt{F_2(x_{bj}^{in})\times F_2(x_{bj}^{fin})}\times F_{00}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_T).`$ (51)
Equation (51) has the advantage of separating out the form factors governed by the external composite system \[$`F_{00}(t)`$\] and internal ones. As discussed in the previous paragraph, such a form also explains the onset of the “quark-hadron” duality in DVCS.

It is also interesting to note that the original non-forward structure function automatically satisfies the positivity constraint of Ref. . In Eq. (38), one can treat the non-forward structure function as a product of two forward ones with incoming photon momenta $`q`$ and $`k`$ associated with a rotation function. Apart from the rotation function, the positivity bound for the non-forward structure function thus can be realized. Equation (51) possesses the same feature, in which the positivity bound gives an inequality as follows:

$$F_2(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t)\sqrt{F_2(x_{bj}^{in})\times F_2(x_{bj}^{fin})}.$$
(52)
An alternative way to write Eq. (46) is

$`F_L(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t,Q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(e_1^2+e_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Q^2(K^2+t)}}{8\beta \sqrt{\pi }M\sqrt{x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin}}E_0}}`$ (54)
$`\times \left[e^{\frac{M^2}{\beta ^2}\left(\frac{E_0}{M}\frac{x_{bj}^{in}+x_{bj}^{fin}}{2}\right)^2}\right]e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})},`$
which can be generalised to

$$F_L(x_{bj}^{in},x_{bj}^{fin},t,Q^2)F_L(x,t,Q^2)\times F_{00}(t)\times \left[1\left(\frac{\xi }{x}\right)^2\right],$$
(55)
where we have defined:

$$x(x_{bj}^{in}+x_{bj}^{fin})/2;\xi (x_{bj}^{in}x_{bj}^{fin})/2.$$
(56)
Accordingly, in this case the structure function can be written as

$$F_2(x,\xi ,t)=(e_1^2+e_2^2)\frac{(x\xi )(x+\xi )}{x^2}F_2(x)F_{el}(t),$$
(57)
where $`F_2(x)`$ is the structure function for the forward scattering.

The reduction of Eq. (57) to forward Compton scattering is obvious. If there were no intermediate coherent state, we expect that the physics would be symmetric in $`x_{bj}^{in}`$ and $`x_{bj}^{fin}`$, through which the forward Compton scattering ($`x_{bj}^{in}=x_{bj}^{fin}`$) corresponds to the kinematics, $`x=x_{bj}^{in}=x_{bj}^{fin}`$ and $`\xi 0`$. We conjecture that if the intermediate coherent state were absent, as in the incoherent parton model description, a plausible factorisation between the overall $`F_{el}(t)`$ and parton effective probability distribution, symmetric in $`x_{bj}^{in}`$ and $`x_{bj}^{fin}`$ would be

$$F_2(x_{bj}^{in}=x_{bj}^{fin},t)F_2(x,\xi =0,t)=F_2(x)\times F_{el}(t).$$
(58)
Note that $`x(x_{bj}^{in}+x_{bj}^{fin})/2`$ and so this contains Eq. (41) as a special case in the approximations that were used there, whereby $`x_{bj}^{fin}0`$ and, as remarked earlier, differing from a commonly used ansatz.

In the Gaussian wavefunction model, the equivalence between Eq. (51) and (57) is exact. In Eq. (58) the non-forward amplitude effectively becomes an “average” of the forward distributions, modulated by the kinematic factor $`[1(\xi /x)^2]`$ where $`\xi 0`$ in the forward case. It remains to be investigated whether this analytic equivalence between Eqs. (51) and (57) is an artifact of the Gaussian distributions and the restriction to $`F_L`$ with spinless constituents. The latter in particular needs study as the imaginary part of DVCS is measurable in electron scattering from a polarised target, and with spinless constituents this is manifestly a non-leading effect.

## V Phenomenology

In this paper we have constructed a model for composite systems consisting of two spinless particles. The functional relations between the forward and non-forward distributions, and the elastic form factor of the composite system, are summarised in Eqs. (51) and (57). For phenomenology we want to investigate the implications of these factorisations for the non-diffractive structure functions of the nucleon. We adopt a dipole elastic form factor $`F_{el}(t)=1/(1t/\lambda )^2`$, where $`\lambda =0.7`$ (GeV/c)<sup>2</sup> is the empirical energy scale, and choose $`|t|=1`$ (GeV/c)<sup>2</sup>, whereby the factorisation of Eq. (51) implies that the non-forward parton distribution will have the form:

$$F_2(x_i,x_f,t)=\sqrt{F_2(x_i)F_2(x_f)}\frac{F_{el}(t)}{1+(x_ix_f)^2M^2/\lambda }.$$
(59)
Moreover, for more realistic predictions relevant to a three-body constituent system, we adopt the commonly used parametrisation $`F_2(x)=x(1x)^3`$. The results are displayed in Fig. 5. As $`x_i(x_f)<1`$, one has $`(x_ix_f)^2<<1`$ and the $`F_2(x_i,x_f,t)`$ is almost symmetric in $`x_i`$ and $`x_f`$. Hence for fixed $`x_f`$ the figure shows a rise and fall as a function of $`x_i`$ similar to that observed for the “usual” forward structure function, and to a bag model study by Ji et al . However, there are significant dynamical differences with that model: we find the distribution exhibits a sensitivity to $`x_f`$, which is not apparent in . In contrast to Ref. , in which the origins of the $`\xi `$ insensitivity are obscure , the systematics of the distribution in the present model, especially its $`x_f`$ dependence, are more transparent.

For comparison, we also investigate the factorisation of Eq. (57) using the same quark counting rule parametrization as input. The original form only applies in the limit $`x_{bj}^{in}>x_{bj}^{fin}`$ and so it is not clear whether its generalisation should be taken seriously out of that region. However, if we take the generalized form to apply throughout the entire physical range where the variable $`x`$ and $`\xi `$ each have $`1x1`$ and $`\xi 0`$, we obtain some interesting features. As shown in Fig. 6, with $`|t|=1`$ (GeV/c)<sup>2</sup>, the distribution function is positive at $`x>\xi `$, which is the region dominated by the constituent (quark) distributions. The distribution function exhibits significant sensitivity to $`\xi `$. The region $`x>>\xi `$, which corresponds to $`Q^2|t|`$, is the place where resonance effects could play a role if $`|t|`$ is small. As is to be expected with our quark counting rule parameterization, the largest probabilities of the quark distribution occur at $`1/3`$. A sign change occurs at $`x=\xi `$, where $`Q^2>>|t|`$. In the region $`x<\xi `$ where $`K^2+t>Q^2`$, the partons have negative momentum fraction $`x_{bj}^{fin}=x\xi <0`$; this may be interpreted as due to antiquark $`\overline{q}`$ which can play a role in this kinematic region. Interestingly, the interpretation of this generalisation is consistent with that in Ji’s frame (see e.g. discussions in Ref. ). One can see that with $`\xi 0`$, which corresponds to larger $`Q^2`$ with a fixed $`t`$, this factorisation succeeds in reproducing the forward Compton scattering. A scaling behavior is also observed. However, notice that a fast crossover occurs at $`x=0`$ if $`x<\xi `$, where the usual quark density becomes infinite. This feature could imply that the physical region of this generalisation form only make sense at $`x>\xi `$ .

## VI Conclusion and discussion

We have an explicit model, in which both forward and non-forward Compton scattering have been investigated. The model also exhibits scaling. Although this model is far from reality, we may still draw intuition from it as to how the physical DVCS and related processes may behave.

For forward scattering we have extended the work of Ref.  to constituents with arbitrary charges and given an explicit dynamical model realising the general picture outlined by Close and Isgur . For the first time we have also determined the implications of such models for the non-forward Comption scattering. We stress that this is at best only a pedagogic picture due to its emphasis on spinless constituents.

The model showed scaling behavior explicitly for the forward scattering and also satisfied well known sum rules. This also has been extended to the non-forward case. We find here too that scaling is predicted and explicit $`\xi `$ dependence is also seen.

The behaviour of the Compton amplitude at $`90^{}`$ showed how the effective simple $`s^n`$ dependence, previously derived from counting rules , arises. For us it is directly driven by the dependence of $`F_{el}(t)`$ once our Gaussian forms are generalised to phenomenological form factors. We found that the degeneracy among states with a common $`N(=L+2k)`$ but different $`L`$ causes a destructive interference among all but the elastic Born term. Thus the $`s^n`$ behaviour, in this interpretation, is effectively dominated by elastic scattering in the direct channel. Away from $`90^{}`$ in the model this interference is no longer exact. Indeed, in the real world where this $`N`$-$`L`$ degeneracy is broken (e.g. by spin dependent effects arising from one-gluon exchange), oscillations around the overall average smooth $`s^n`$ are predicted rather naturally. It is therefore interesting that such effects are qualitatively evident in the data . A quantitative investigation of this will be reported elsewhere.

Our work is restricted to the imaginary part of DVCS. This in turn is measurable in electron scattering with polarized target. This exposes the limit of our spinless model. It is the longitudinal response functions that are leading in such a model and exhibit interesting factorisations (e.g. Eq. (51) and (57)). We expect that such relations will survive for investigations with more realistic models. However, it is perhaps interesting to note that the factorizations exhibited in the present model are novel and different from some popular ansatz used in the literature .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported, in part, by the European Community Eurodafne, contract CT98-0169, and the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Grant No. GR/M82141). We are grateful to W. Melnitchouk, W. Van Orden, S. Jeschonnek, M. Guidal, and N. Isgur for discussions about their work and to J. Dudek for comments on the manuscript.

## Appendix 1

For a given excited level $`N`$, there are degenerate states with $`L=N,N2,\mathrm{}0(1)`$ for $`N=even(odd)`$. Whereas in the forward scattering we dealt immediately with $`_N|F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})|^2`$, here we must first sum over the various $`L`$ states within a given $`N`$, thus

$`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{L=0(1)}{\overset{N}{}}}_{0N}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{k})_{N0}^{(L)}(\stackrel{}{q})d_{00}^L(\theta )\right),`$where $`\theta `$ is the relative angle between the incoming and outgoing photon momentum, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}=kq\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ (in what follows $`q`$ and $`k`$ denote the magnitudes of the three-vector momenta $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, respectively). In the potential model of Ref. , after sum over $`L`$ the above expression reduces to

$$\underset{N}{}F_{0N}(\stackrel{}{q})F_{N0}(\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{N}{}\frac{1}{N!}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}\right)^N\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}).$$
(60)
As illustration we show the first non-trivial case for $`N=2`$. Here, for $`L=2`$

$`_{02}^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k})_{20}^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{q})d_{00}^2(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )1}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{kq}{2\beta ^2}}\right)^2e^{(\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2)/4\beta ^2},`$and for $`L=0`$

$`_{02}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{k})_{20}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{q})d_{00}^0(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kq}{2\beta ^2}}\right)^2e^{(\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2)/4\beta ^2}.`$Thus

$`F_{02}(\stackrel{}{q})F_{20}(\stackrel{}{k})=_{02}^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{k})_{20}^{(2)}(\stackrel{}{q})d_{00}^2(\theta )+_{02}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{k})_{20}^{(0)}(\stackrel{}{q})d_{00}^0(\theta ),`$which is the $`N=2`$ component in Eq. (60).

That this result generalises is readily seen in the Cartesian basis where the sum over resonances for non-forward Compton scattering in this relativistic model. We start with the general form

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{P}_i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{P}_f){\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r})|[e_1e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}/2}+e_2e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}/2}]|\mathrm{\Psi }_N`$ (62)
$`\times \mathrm{\Psi }_N|[e_1e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2}+e_2e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{r}/2}]|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\stackrel{}{r}),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_N=\psi _{n_x}\psi _{n_y}\psi _{n_z}`$ is the harmonic oscillator wave function, and $`N=n_x+n_y+n_z`$ is the main quantum number. The one dimension harmonic oscillator, e.g. the $`z`$ component has the expression

$$|\psi _{n_z}(z)=\left[\frac{\beta }{2\sqrt{\pi }2^{n_z}n_z!}\right]^{1/2}e^{\frac{1}{8}\beta ^2z^2}H_{n_z}(\beta z/2),$$
(63)
where $`H_{n_z}(\beta z/2)`$ is the Hermite polynomial and the orthogonal relation is,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}H_n(x)H_m(x)e^{x^2}𝑑x=\sqrt{\pi }2^nn!\delta _{nm}.$$
(64)
For the excitation process we fix the incoming photon momentum to be colinear with that of the target, and refer to it here as the $`z`$ direction. Only the $`z`$ compoment $`\psi _{n_z}`$ will be excited. We have

$$\psi _{n_z}(z)|e^{iqz/2}|\psi _0(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_z!}}\left(\frac{iq}{\sqrt{2}\beta }\right)^{n_z}e^{q^2/4\beta ^2}.$$
(65)
The excited intermediate state will emit a photon with momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and fall to the ground state. The transition amplitude thus can be expressed as

$$\psi _0(x)\psi _0(y)\psi _0(z)|e^{i(k_xx+k_yy+k_zz)/2}|\psi _0(x)\psi _0(y)\psi _{n_z}(z).$$
(66)
Following the same strategy, we can explicitly derive,

$$\psi _0(z)|e^{ik_zz/2}|\psi _{n_z}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_z!}}\left(\frac{ik_z}{\sqrt{2}\beta }\right)^{n_z}e^{k_z^2/4\beta ^2},$$
(67)
for the $`z`$ component. The $`x`$ and $`y`$ components are

$`\psi _0(x)|e^{ik_xx/2}|\psi _0(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{k_x^2/4\beta ^2},`$ (68)
$`\psi _0(y)|e^{ik_yy/2}|\psi _0(y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{k_y^2/4\beta ^2}.`$ (69)
Thus, we obtain

$$\psi _0(x)\psi _0(y)\psi _0(z)|e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}/2}|\psi _0(x)\psi _0(y)\psi _{n_z}(z)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_z!}}\left(\frac{ik\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{2}\beta }\right)^{n_z}e^{\stackrel{}{k}^2/4\beta ^2},$$
(70)
where $`k_z=k\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`z`$ direction (the direction of $`\stackrel{}{q}`$).

The total transition of Eq. (62) can be then expressed as

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{P}_i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{P}_f){\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{(\stackrel{}{k}^2+\stackrel{}{q}^2)/4\beta ^2}`$ (72)
$`\times \left[(e_1^2+e_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ikq\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\beta ^2}}\right)^N+2e_1e_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ikq\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\beta ^2}}\right)^N\right],`$
where the main quantum number $`N=n_z`$ in this transition (which in general will include degenerate states with $`L=N,N2\mathrm{}`$). The above deduction gives the origin of Eqs. (60) and (38).

## Appendix 2

In the previous Sections, the term proportional to $`e_1e_2`$ has not been discussed in detail. Here, we shall show that this term would vanish in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ for the non-forward Compton scattering process.

The positive energy term proportional to $`e_1e_2`$ in the structure function (Eq. (11)) is,

$$2e_1e_2\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}}{4E_0\beta ^2}\frac{1}{N!}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}\right)^Ne^{\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}}\delta (E_NE_0\nu ).$$
(73)
Correspondingly, the term proportional to $`e_1e_2`$ in the scaling function is,

$$R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)=2e_1e_2\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}}{4E_0\beta ^2}\frac{1}{N!}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}\right)^Ne^{\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}}\delta (E_NE_0\nu ),$$
(74)
where $`|\stackrel{}{q}|^2=2\beta ^2N`$. Compared to the term proportional to $`(e_1^2+e_2^2)`$, a factor $`(1)^N`$ arises from the sum over the resonances. We therefore separately consider the $`N=even`$ and $`odd`$ terms which gives,

$`R_L(\nu ,\stackrel{}{q},\stackrel{}{k},t)`$ $``$ $`R_L^{even}+R_L^{odd}`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`2e_1e_2e^{\frac{\stackrel{}{q}^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2}{4\beta ^2}}[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}}{4E_0\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2n)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}}\right)^{2n}\delta (E_{2n}E_0\nu )`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}|\sqrt{\nu ^2+Q^2}}{4E_0\beta ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2n+1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{k}}{2\beta ^2}}\right)^{2n+1}\delta (E_{2n+1}E_0\nu )].`$
Following the analogous steps as outlined for the term of $`(e_1^2+e_2^2)`$ in Sec. III, the factorial part can be expanded the same way by using the Stirling’s formula. After some tedious, but essentially the same algebra, we obtain,

$`R_L^{even}+R_L^{odd}`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e_1e_2}{4\beta \sqrt{\pi }E_0}}e^{\frac{M^2}{\beta ^2}(\frac{E_0}{M}x_{bj}+\frac{\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2M\nu })^2}e^{(\frac{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}{4\beta ^2})}`$ (80)
$`\times [\delta (E_{2n}E_0\nu )\delta (E_{2n+1}E_0\nu )],`$
where the $`\delta `$ functions are shown explicitly because we assume that the photon energy $`\nu `$ always satisfies the condition that the excited states are $`2n`$ for $`R_L^{even}`$ and $`2n+1`$ for $`R_L^{odd}`$. Consequently, taking the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`E_{2n}=E_{2n+1}`$ can be satisfied, which thus leads to $`R_L^{even}+R_L^{odd}=0`$. Namely, the twist term vanishes. Similar investigation for the energy negative solution results in the same conclusion.


format: text

text:
# I. Introduction

## I. Introduction

Supersymmetric(SUSY) model is now widely regarded to be the most plausible extension of the Standard Model(SM). It stabilizes the gauge hierarchy and allows for the grand unification of all known gauge interactions. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model(MSSM) there are additional complex couplings which may give rise to CP violation compared to the SM. These new sources of CP violation contribute to CP violation in various processes, the neutron and electron electric dipole moments, rare Kaon decays and B decays, etc. Although the CP-violating phases associated with sfermions of the first and second generation are severely constrained by bounds on the electric dipole moments of the electron, neutron and muon, but the CP violation phases in the mass matrices of the third generation sfermions might be large and can induce sizable CP violation in the MSSM Higgs sector through loop corrections, furthermore, these phases also directly affect the couplings of Higgs bosons to third generation sfermions. In the MSSM with the simple universal soft supersymmetry breaking, the tau slepton sector contains two new sources of CP violation in its couplings to Higgs particles. It can be defined to be the complex phases of the $`\mu `$ term in the Higgs superpotential and soft-SUSY-breaking A terms. These new sources of CP violation are generic to all SUSY theories and provide non-SM sources of CP violation required for the baryon asymmetry of the universe. On the other hand, the effects of these new CP violation are expected to be probed in the near-future colliders, such as LHC and NLC, which could provide an opportunity of detecting new CP violating phenomena. Therefore, it should be important and interesting to investigate mechanism and consequence of this CP violating source in collider phenomenology.

In this paper, we work in the framework of the MSSM with CP violation, and we focus on the CP asymmetry in tau slepton decays. If a tau slepton is sufficiently heavy, its dominant decay modes are tree-level two-body decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ denote a chargino and a neutralino, respectively. These final states are also produced at one-loop level by the final state interactions. If the interactions of the tau slepton violate CP invariance, these decays are expected to have different rates from their CP conjugate process, which are measured by the asymmetries:
$`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+)}},`$    $`A_{cp}^\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)}}.`$
Assuming CPT invariance, the decay widths satisfy the relation:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+)=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0)]`$ (2)
making the total width of the tau slepton the same as that of the anit-tau slepton. We will calculate and discuss the asymmetries.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II is devoted to a brief review of the mass spectra and mixing patters of the tau sleptons, charginos and neutralinos. In Sec.III we present a Lagrangian of the relevant coupling and analytical expressions of the rate asymmetry. A detailed numerical analysis of the asymmetries for a representative SUSY parameter set is given in Sec.IV. Final section is for summary and conclusions.

## II. SUSY particles masses and mixing

To fix our notation, we simply summarize in this section the masses and mixings of the tau slepton and chargino, neutralino sectors of the MSSM, which will be needed later when evaluating the decay widths.

### A. Tau slepton mass and mixing

The mass-squared matrix for the tau slepton in the left-right basis is given as

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L^2& m_\tau (A_\tau +\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_\tau (A_\tau ^{}+\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )& M_R^2\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
with
$`M_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}^2+m_\tau ^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_Z^2M_W^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,`$    $`M_R^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2+m_\tau ^2+(M_Z^2M_W^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,`$
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{L,R}}`$ are the left- and right-handed soft SUSY-breaking tau slepton masses, respectively. The tau slepton soft breaking trilinear coupling $`A_\tau `$ and Higgs mass mixing parameter $`\mu `$ are complex,

$`A_\tau =|A_\tau |e^{i\phi },\mu _\tau =|\mu _\tau |e^{i\eta }.`$ (7)
The complex phase $`\phi `$ and $`\eta `$ are the source of CP violation, which can vary in the range $`0\phi ,\eta 2\pi `$. In the later context, we will take $`\mu `$ as real, i.e. only the phase $`\phi `$ is left so as to reduce the number of parameters and simplify the discussion. The tau slepton mass eigenstates can be realized by a unitary transformation $`U`$ which diagonalizes the mass-squared matrix $`M_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2`$ ,

$`UM_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2U^{}=Diag(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2),`$ (8)
where diagonalization matrix can be parameterized as

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\tau & \mathrm{sin}\theta _\tau e^{i\delta }\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _\tau e^{i\delta }& \mathrm{cos}\theta _\tau \end{array}\right)`$ (11)
with

$`\delta =\mathrm{arg}(A_\tau +\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta ).`$ (12)
The tau slepton mixing angles and mass eigenvalues are then given as
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\tau |A_\tau +\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta |}{M_L^2M_R^2}},`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[M_L^2+M_R^2\sqrt{(M_L^2M_R^2)^2+4m_\tau ^2|A_\tau +\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta |^2}\right]`$
with convention $`0\theta \frac{\pi }{2},m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2`$. For large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu `$, the mixing in the tau slepton sector can be very strong.

### B. The chargino and neutralino systems

The general chargino mass matrix is given by

$`M_C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}M_Ws_\beta \\ \sqrt{2}M_Wc_\beta & \mu \end{array}\right),`$ (16)
where $`M_2`$ is the wino mass parameter and we use $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta ,c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, etc. It can be diagonalized by two real rotation matrices $`C_L`$ and $`C_R`$ ,

$`C_LM_CC_R^1=Diag(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm },m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm })`$ (17)
with two rotation angles given by
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}M_W(M_2c_\beta +\mu s_\beta )}{M_2^2\mu ^22M_W^2c_\beta }},`$    $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}M_W(M_2s_\beta +\mu c_\beta )}{M_2^2\mu ^2+2M_W^2c_\beta }}.`$
The two mass eigenvalues of the charginos, in the limit $`|\mu |M_2,M_W`$ , are reduced to
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$ $``$ $`M_2{\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}}(M_2+\mu s_{2\beta }),`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }`$ $``$ $`|\mu |+{\displaystyle \frac{M_W^2}{\mu ^2}}ϵ_\mu (M_2s_{2\beta }+\mu ),`$
where $`ϵ_\mu `$ is for the sign of $`\mu `$ . For $`|\mu |\mathrm{}`$ , the lighter chargino corresponds to a pure wino state with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }M_2`$ , while the heavier chargino corresponds to a pure higgsino state with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^\pm }|\mu |`$ .

The neutralino mass matrix is

$`M_N=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& M_Zs_Wc_\beta & M_Zs_Ws_\beta \\ 0& M_2& M_Zc_Wc_\beta & M_Zc_Ws_\beta \\ M_Zs_Wc_\beta & M_Zc_Wc_\beta & 0& \mu \\ M_Zs_Ws_\beta & M_Zc_Ws_\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (24)
where $`M_1`$ is the Bino mass parameter and $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,c_W=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$, etc. are used. It can be diagonalized by a single real orthogonal matrix $`N`$ ,

$`NM_NN^1=Diag(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}).`$ (25)
In the limit of large $`|\mu |`$ values, the mass eigenvalues of the neutralinos $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}(i=1,2,3,4)`$ are simplified to
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ $``$ $`M_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\mu ^2}}(M_1+\mu s_{2\beta })s_W^2,`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ $``$ $`M_2{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\mu ^2}}(M_2+\mu s_{2\beta })c_W^2,`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}`$ $``$ $`|\mu |+{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2\mu ^2}}ϵ_\mu (1s_{2\beta })(\mu +M_2s_W^2+M_1c_W^2),`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}`$ $``$ $`|\mu |+{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2\mu ^2}}ϵ_\mu (1+s_{2\beta })(\mu M_2s_W^2M_1c_W^2).`$
Again, for $`|\mu |\mathrm{}`$ , two neutralinos are pure gaugino states with masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}M_1,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}M_2`$ , while the two others are pure higgsino states with masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}|\mu |`$ . The matrix elements of the diagonalizing matrix, $`N_{ij}`$ with $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},4`$ , are given by
$`N_{i1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+a_i^2+b_i^2+c_i^2)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$    $`N_{i2}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{i1}a_i,`$    $`N_{i3}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{i1}b_i,`$    $`N_{i4}`$ $`=`$ $`N_{i1}c_i`$
with
$`a_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_1ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}}{M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}}},`$    $`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`[\mu (M_1ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})(M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})`$      $`M_Z^2s_\beta c_\beta [(M_1M_2)c_W^2+M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}]]`$      $`/\left[M_Zs_W(M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})(\mu c_\beta +ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}s_\beta )\right],`$    $`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}(M_1ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})(M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})`$      $`M_Z^2c_\beta ^2[(M_1M_2)c_W^2+M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}]]`$      $`/\left[M_Zs_W(M_2ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0})(\mu c_\beta +ϵ_im_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}s_\beta )\right],`$
where $`ϵ_1=ϵ_2=1,ϵ_3=ϵ_4=ϵ_\mu `$ .

### C. Mass spectra in the mSUGRA scenario

To reduce the number of the parameters, we will adopt the mSUGRA scenario with universality hypothesis to discuss the SUSY particle spectra, where the scalar fermion masses and the gaugino masses are respectively unified as $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ at the GUT scale $`M_{GUT}`$ . The relation between the SUSY particle masses at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$ and at the weak scale $`𝒪(M_Z)`$ are obtained by running renormalization group equations(RGE) as
$`M_1`$ $``$ $`0.4m_{1/2},M_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8}m_{1/2},`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}^2`$ $``$ $`m_0^2+0.15m_{1/2}^20.23M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}^2`$ $``$ $`m_0^2+0.52m_{1/2}^20.27M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }^2`$ $``$ $`m_0^2+0.52m_{1/2}^2+0.5M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta ,`$
where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }`$ is the left-handed soft-SUSY-breaking tau sneutrino mass. All of the free parameters now include $`|A|,\phi ,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_0,m_{1/2}`$ . We will take them as input and use the above-mentioned equations, all the mass spectra of the involved SUSY particles can then be worked out.

## III. Relevant couplings and decay rate asymmetry

A nonvanishing value for the asymmetry $`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }`$ in Eq.(1) is generated, if the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$, in addition to the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$, is allowed kinematically. The produced tau lepton and neutralino can become a tau neutrino and a chargino by exchanging charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$, $`W^\pm `$ bosons, and tau sneutrino $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$, as shown in Fig. 1. The interferences of these one-loop diagrams with the tree diagram make the rate of the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ different from that of the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+`$. The relevant interaction Lagrangian for $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau `$ as well as $`H^\pm `$ and $`W^\pm `$ is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \overline{\tau }(A_{Ll}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}+A_{Rl}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_k\overline{\nu _\tau }(B_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l^+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }_k\overline{\tau }(F_{Ljk}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}+F_{Rjk}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \overline{\nu _\tau }(G_j{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}H^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\gamma ^\mu (I_{Ljl}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}+I_{Rjl}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l^+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}H^{}\overline{\tau }(K{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}})\nu _\tau `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}W_\mu ^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\gamma ^\mu (H_{Ljl}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}+H_{Rjl}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma ^5}{2}})\stackrel{~}{\chi }_l^+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}W_\mu ^{}\overline{\tau }\gamma ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma ^5}{2}}\nu _\tau `$
$`+h.c.`$
with
$`A_{Ll}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{M_Wc_\beta }}C_{Ll2},A_{Rl}=\sqrt{2}C_{Rl1},`$    $`B_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{M_Wc_\beta }}C_{Ll2}U_{k2}^{}\sqrt{2}C_{Ll1}U_{k1}^{},`$    $`F_{Ljk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{M_Wc_\beta }}N_{j3}U_{k1}^{}2\mathrm{tan}\theta _WN_{j1}U_{k2}^{},`$    $`F_{Rjk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{M_Wc_\beta }}N_{j3}U_{k2}^{}(N_{j2}+\mathrm{tan}\theta _WN_{j1})U_{k1}^{},`$    $`G_j`$ $`=`$ $`N_{j2}\mathrm{tan}\theta _WN_{j1},`$    $`H_{Ljl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}N_{j2}C_{Rl1}+N_{j4}C_{Rl2},`$    $`H_{Rjl}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}N_{j2}C_{Ll1}N_{j3}C_{Ll2},`$    $`I_{Ljl}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\beta [\sqrt{2}N_{j4}C_{Rl1}+(N_{j2}+\mathrm{tan}\theta _WN_{j1})C_{Rl2}],`$    $`I_{Rjl}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta [\sqrt{2}N_{j3}C_{Ll1}(N_{j2}+\mathrm{tan}\theta _WN_{j1})C_{Ll2}],`$    $`K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{M_W}},`$
where $`k,l=(1,2)`$ and $`j=(1,\mathrm{},4)`$. We now consider the decay of the heavier tau slepton into the tau neutrino and the lighter chargino $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and its CP conjugate process. The decay rate asymmetry for the processes are obtained as

$`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^a+T^b+T^c}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2)^2|B_{21}|^2}},`$ (32)
where $`\alpha _2=g^2/(4\pi )`$. The contributions of the diagrams (a),(b), and (c) in Fig.1. are represented by $`T^a`$, $`T^b`$, and $`T^c`$, respectively. these terms are written as
$`T^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{Im}(X_j^n)J_n^a(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}),`$    $`T^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{Im}(Y_j^n)J_n^b(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}),`$    $`T^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\text{Im}(Z_j^n)J_n^c(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}})`$
with
$`X_j^1=KB_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}I_{Lj1},`$ $`X_j^2=KB_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}I_{Lj1},`$     $`X_j^3=KB_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}I_{Rj1},`$ $`X_j^4=KB_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}I_{Rj1};`$     $`Y_j^1=B_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}H_{Lj1},`$ $`Y_j^2=B_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}H_{Rj1},`$     $`Y_j^3=B_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}H_{Lj1},`$ $`Y_j^4=B_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}H_{Rj1};`$     $`Z_j^1=A_{R1}B_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}G_j,`$ $`Z_j^2=A_{R1}B_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}G_j,`$     $`Z_j^3=A_{L1}B_{21}F_{Lj2}^{}G_j,`$ $`Z_j^4=A_{L1}B_{21}F_{Rj2}^{}G_j`$
and
$`J_1^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}\left[T+(m_\tau ^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{H^\pm }^2)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S+T}{ST}}\right|\right],`$    $`J_2^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}\left[T+(m_\tau ^2m_{H^\pm }^2)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S+T}{ST}}\right|\right],`$    $`J_3^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2T+(m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{H^\pm }^2)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S+T}{ST}}\right|\right],`$    $`J_4^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S+T}{ST}}\right|,`$    $`J_1^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2M_W^2+m_\tau ^2}{M_W^2}}T+(m_\tau ^22M_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^4}{M_W^2}})\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}+T}{S^{}T}}\right|\right],`$    $`J_2^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2}{2M_W^2}}T+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)`$      $`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2}{2M_W^2}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_\tau ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2}{2M_W^2}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)\left]\mathrm{ln}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}+T}{S^{}T}}|,`$    $`J_3^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2M_W^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2}{M_W^2}}T+[2(m_\tau ^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2M_W^2)`$      $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)}{M_W^2}}]\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}+T}{S^{}T}}\right|\},`$    $`J_4^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2)}{2M_W^2}}\left(T+3M_W^2\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}+T}{S^{}T}}\right|\right),`$
where
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2)}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2}}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^4+m_\tau ^4+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^42m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_\tau ^22m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^22m_\tau ^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2},`$    $`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2m_\tau ^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2m_{H^\pm }^2),`$
$`S^{}`$ is derived from $`S`$ by changing $`m_{H^\pm }`$ to $`M_W`$. In addition, $`J_n^c`$ are also obtained from $`J_n^a`$ by $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }`$ replacing $`m_{H^\pm }`$. The sum for the intermediate neutralinos in the formula (23) should be done for those which satisfy the kinematical condition $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}>m_\tau +m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}`$ .

## IV. Numerical results

In this section, we will illustrate our numerical results of the CP asymmetry in the tau slepton decay based on the mSUGRA scenario for the relevant SUSY parameters. Since we have assumed a universal mass $`m_0`$ for the scalar fermions and a mass $`m_{1/2}`$ for the gauginos at the GUT scale, therefore, the parameters appearing in our analyses are $`|A|,\phi ,\mu ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_0,m_{1/2},m_{H^\pm }`$. For simplicity, although these parameters are not all independent of each other, we assume them are independent and assume only rough constraints coming from theoretical and experimental considerations. The simple expressions (19) will be used for the soft SUSY-breaking Bino and Wino mass, as well as left- and right-handed slepton masses when performing the RGE evolution to weak scale at one-loop order if the Yukawa couplings in the RGE’s are neglected. We will choose two representative values for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$: a low value ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$) and a large value ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$), as well as two values for phase $`\phi `$: $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi /4`$, respectively. The other parameters are typically taken, for example, as the followings

$`\eta =0,|\mu |=2\text{TeV},|A_\tau |=1.5\text{TeV},m_{H^\pm }=1\text{TeV},m_0=m_{1/2}=400\text{GeV}.`$ (37)
As a result, the masses of the relevant SUSY particles are immediately leaded to

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}M_2320\text{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}M_1160\text{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }490\text{GeV},`$ (38)
which do not depend on the value of $`\phi `$ and there is only a very small variation with the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The masses of the tau sleptons , however, are more sensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and there is a very small change with the value of $`\phi `$. For $`\phi =\pi /4`$, the numerical results is given by
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}430\text{GeV},`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}498\text{GeV},`$ $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5)`$    $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}266\text{GeV},`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}604\text{GeV}.`$ $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta =40)`$
Since for tau slepton, large enough off-diagonal elements of the mass matrices are obtained only for large $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values and trilinear couplings $`A_\tau `$ play only a marginal role, we will fix the latter in the entire analysis. The soft SUSY-breaking masses for the Higgs bosons are however disconnected from the sfermions, moreover, our results are not sensitive to the charged Higgs bosons mass $`m_{H^\pm }`$, so it will also be fixed.

In the Fig. 3 and Fig. 3, the absolute values of $`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }`$ are shown as a function of the unified gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}`$ for the low value ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$) and the large value ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$), respectively. The other involved parameters are fixed to the same as Eq.(27). Two curves of each figure correspond respectively to two value of the phase $`\phi =\pi /4`$ and $`\phi =\pi /2`$. The plots show that the rate asymmetries $`|A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }|`$ are very sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. They have approximately a magnitude of order of $`10^4`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and of order of $`10^6`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, respectively. The asymmetries are enhanced with increasing value of $`m_{1/2}`$. In the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and $`\phi =\pi /2`$, for large values of $`m_{1/2}`$($`m_{1/2}500\text{GeV}`$), the asymmetry $`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }`$ can significantly reach the order of $`10^3`$. In addition, the parameters $`\phi ,|A_\tau |,m_0`$ do dot change the whole trends of the plots, nevertheless, they can slightly shift the values of $`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }`$ in the same order of magnitude. The mass of the charged Higgs boson does not however affect the asymmetries obviously.

In the Fig. 5 and Fig. 5, the rate asymmetries $`|A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }|`$ are shown as a function of the Higgs mass parameter $`|\mu |`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, respectively. The unified gaugino mass and the other parameters are still given by Eq.(27). Plots show that the magnitude of order of the asymmetries are similar to that of the Fig. 3 and Fig. 3, respectively. For a larger value of $`|\mu |`$, the asymmetries are smaller. In the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and $`\phi =\pi /2`$, the values of $`|A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }|`$ also become of order of $`10^3`$ for small values of $`|\mu |`$($`|\mu |1\text{TeV}`$).

In most region of parameter space in Fig. 3–Fig. 5, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau _2}`$ dominantly decays into $`\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$, $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ . In Fig. 7 and Fig. 7, the branching ratios of these decays are shown as a function of the gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.5`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$, respectively. Where, the phase $`\phi `$ is fixed to $`\phi =\pi /4`$ and values of the other parameters are the same as Eq.(27). The graphs show that the trends of plots obviously change with the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For a smaller value of $`m_{1/2}`$, $`\text{Br}(\stackrel{~}{\tau _2}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{})`$ is larger. The interactions which induce the rate asymmetry between the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^+`$ also yield a rate asymmetry between the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0`$, satisfying the relation in Eq.(3). As seen In Fig. 7 and Fig. 7, the width of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ is generally several times smaller than that of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, and accordingly the former decay rate asymmetry becomes larger than the latter by the same order of magnitude. For the detection of an asymmetry $`A_{cp}^{\nu _\tau }10^3`$, a necessary number of pairs of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^+\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}`$ should be in the order of $`10^6`$. This luminosity are expected to be produced at a future $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ linear collider with a c.m. energy of 500GeV, where it will be possible to examine CP violation through the decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm `$.

## V. Conclusions

In summary, we have studied in detail the signal for CP violation in the tau slepton sector in the MSSM. The relevant sources of CP violation come from the soft SUSY-breaking terms associated with third generation slepton, as well as the Higgs mass parameter $`\mu `$. We presented a general formalism of the effect of the CP-violating mixing in the tau slepton sector on their decays. A detailed analysis about that was focused on the rate asymmetry of the decay of the heavier tau slepton into the lighter chargino and tau neutrino final states. In the mSUGRA scenarios where the scalar fermion and gaugino masses are unified at the GUT scale, we illustrated this asymmetry and branching ratios in the parameter space which are constrained by experiments. It was shown that a rate asymmetry between the decays $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^{}\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2^+\overline{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ can be induced at a magnitude of order of $`10^3`$ in a region of the parameter space where CP violation becomes maximal at lagrangian level. Even though this CP-violating tau slepton mixing only proceeds through loop diagrams, it can give rise to order of $`10^3`$ CP-violating asymmetry even in the absence of other CP phases. As a result, the intrinsic property of CP violation in the MSSM can be expected to be detectable in the near-future collider experiments.

## Acknowledgments

W.M.Yang thanks M.Ablikim for helpful discussions. This work is in part supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.