format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The experimental search for supersymmetric (SUSY) particles will have high priority at the upgraded Tevatron and at LHC. The precision determination of the SUSY parameters will be the main goal of a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider . The analysis of scalar top quarks $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i,i=1,2`$, will be particularly interesting, because of the large top Yukawa coupling involved in this system. Due to the effects of the top Yukawa coupling the lighter stop may be relatively light if not the lightest charged SUSY particle .

A phenomenological study of production and decays of 3rd generation sfermions at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with cms energy in the range $`\sqrt{s}=0.51`$ TeV has been given in Ref. . There it has been shown that by measuring production cross sections with polarized beams the masses of the top squarks $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$ and their mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ can be determined. It has also been shown that with an integrated luminosity of $`500fb^1`$ a precision of about $`1\%`$ can be achieved. The precision to be expected for the underlying SUSY parameters has also been estimated. This analysis has been performed in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with real parameters.

However, the assumption that all MSSM parameters are real may be too restrictive. In principle, the Higgs–higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and the trilinear scalar coupling parameters $`A_f`$ of the sfermions $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ may be complex. These complex parameters are new sources of $`CP`$ violation and may provide potentially large SUSY contributions to the electric dipole moments (EDM) of electron and neutron. The very small experimental upper limits of the electron and neutron EDMs, therefore, may lead to restrictions on the complex phases. Recent analyses have shown that in mSUGRA–type models the phase of $`\mu `$ is restricted to $`|\phi _\mu |\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.1}0.2`$ for a universal scalar mass parameter $`M_0\stackrel{<}{}`$ 400 GeV, whereas the phase of the universal trilinear scalar coupling parameter $`A_0`$ is correlated with $`\phi _\mu `$, but otherwise unrestricted . One can conclude that in models with more general parameter specifications the phases of the parameters $`A_f`$ of the 3rd generation sfermions are not restricted at one–loop level by the electron and neutron EDMs. There may be restrictions at two–loop level . Furthermore, a complex trilinear coupling parameter $`A_t`$ in the stop system can also lead to interesting $`CP`$ violating effects in top quark production, as discussed in .

For a complete analysis of the stop sector one has to take into account that the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ may be complex. The parameter $`|\mu |`$ and its phase $`\phi _\mu `$ will presumably be determined by measuring suitable observables of the chargino and neutralino sector . For the determination of $`|A_t|`$ and its phase $`\phi _{A_t}`$ appropriate observables in the stop sector have to be measured. However, it may be difficult to define a suitable $`CP`$ sensitive observable in stop decays if the main decay modes are two–body decays.

In the present paper we define a $`CP`$ sensitive asymmetry in the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$. As this is a three–body decay the polarization of the $`\tau ^+`$ normal to the decay plane is sensitive to $`CP`$ violation. The appropriate $`CP`$ sensitive observable is defined by the asymmetry of the $`\tau `$ polarization perpendicular to the decay plane. As we will show this asymmetry can go up to $`30\%`$. Moreover, we show the existence of parameter regions where the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$ has a sufficient branching ratio allowing for the measurement of this asymmetry. We perform our analysis in the MSSM with $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ complex. We focus on scenarios where only the decays $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1c\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$  and four body decays  are kinematically allowed. We assume that the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP). The $`CP`$ asymmetry defined above is analogous to that defined in Ref.  in case of top quark decays.

In Section 2 we shortly review stop mixing in the presence of complex parameters. In Section 3 we give the formulae of the CP violating observable. In Section 4 we present numerical results for the phase dependences of the CP asymmetry. We give an theoretical estimate of the event rates necessary to observe the $`CP`$ sensitive asymmetry at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 0.5 – 1 TeV. Section 5 contains a short summary.

## 2 $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$$`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ Mixing

We first give a short account of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$$`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ mixing in the case the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ are complex. The masses and couplings of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$–squarks follow from the hermitian $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix which in the basis $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)`$ reads

$$_M^{\stackrel{~}{t}}=(\stackrel{~}{t}_L^{},\stackrel{~}{t}_R^{})\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2& e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|& \\ e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|& M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{RR}}^2& \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{t}_L& & \\ \stackrel{~}{t}_R& & \end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W)\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2+m_t^2,`$ (2)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{RR}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_W\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2+m_t^2,`$ (3)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{RL}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2)^{}=m_t(A_t\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta ),`$ (4)
$$\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\mathrm{arg}[A_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta ],$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ with $`v_1(v_2)`$ being the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field $`H_1^0(H_2^0)`$, $`m_t`$ is the mass of the top quark and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_W`$ is the weak mixing angle, $`\mu `$ is the Higgs–higgsino mass parameter and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{U}},A_t`$ are the soft SUSY–breaking parameters of the stop system. The mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ are $`(\stackrel{~}{t}_1,\stackrel{~}{t}_2)=(\stackrel{~}{t}_L,\stackrel{~}{t}_R)_{}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}{}_{}{}^{T}`$ with

$$^{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}& \end{array}\right),$$
(6)
with

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|}{\sqrt{|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2)^2}},\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{\sqrt{|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2)^2}}.$$
(7)
The mass eigenvalues are

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{1,2}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left((M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{RR}}^2)\sqrt{(M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LL}}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{RR}}^2)^2+4|M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_{LR}}^2|^2}\right).$$
(8)
$`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$$`\stackrel{~}{t}_R`$ mixing is naturally large because of the large top quark mass entering in the off–diagonal elements of the mass matrix (see Eqs. (1) and (4)). This is important for the $`CP`$ sensitive observable discussed below, because it is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. Note further that for $`|A_t||\mu |\mathrm{cot}\beta `$ we have $`\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}\phi _{A_t}`$.

## 3 Tau Polarization Asymmetry

The parts of the Lagrangian relevant for the three–body decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$ are

$$_{b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=g\overline{b}(k_{1j}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}P_L+l_{1j}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}P_R)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{c+}\stackrel{~}{t}_1+h.c.,$$
(9)
$$_{\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_j\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=g\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^{c+}}(k_{j}^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }{}_{}{}^{}P_R+l_{j}^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }{}_{}{}^{}P_L)\tau \stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau ^{}+h.c.,$$
(10)
where

$$l_{1j}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}=e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}V_{j1}+Y_t\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}V_{j2},k_{1j}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}=Y_be^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}U_{j2}^{},$$
(11)
$$l_j^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=V_{j1},k_j^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=Y_\tau U_{j2}^{}.$$
(12)
$`g`$ is the weak coupling constant, $`P_{R,L}=1/2(1\pm \gamma _5)`$ and the Yukawa couplings are $`Y_t=m_t/\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`Y_b=m_b/\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`Y_\tau =m_\tau /\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. The unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$ diagonalize the chargino mass matrix . A convenient parametrization of $`U`$ and $`V`$ for complex parameters can be found in .

The three body decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$ proceeds via exchange of charginos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^\pm ,i=1,2`$. We consider the polarization of the outgoing $`\tau ^+`$ perpendicular to the decay plane, which is sensitive to $`CP`$ violation. We define the unit vector

$$\stackrel{}{e}_N=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_\tau \times \stackrel{}{p}_b}{|\stackrel{}{p}_\tau \times \stackrel{}{p}_b|}.$$
(13)
The average polarization of the outgoing $`\tau ^+`$ in the direction $`\stackrel{}{e}_N`$ in the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$ is given by

$$𝒫_N^{\tau ^+}=\frac{B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}{B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))+B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}.$$
(14)
For the CP conjugated process we get

$$𝒫_N^\tau ^{}=\frac{B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}{B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))+B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}.$$
(15)
Note that $`𝒫_N^\tau ^{}=𝒫_N^{\tau ^+}`$ since the couplings are complex conjugate to each other. The observables $`𝒫_N^{\tau ^+}`$ and $`𝒫_N^\tau ^{}`$ are odd under naive time reversal $`T_𝒩`$, where only the polarization and momentum vectors are reversed but initial and final states are not interchanged. We can define a $`CP`$ sensitive asymmetry of the form

$$𝒜_{CP}=\frac{1}{2}(𝒫_N^{\tau ^+}𝒫_N^\tau ^{}).$$
(16)
In order to obtain a $`CP`$ asymmetry which for practical reasons is more useful, we have to take into account the subsequent decay $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$. The complete decay chain is then $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+b\tau ^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$. Another decay chain leading to the same final state is $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\nu _\tau b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$, where in the second step the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$ decays into $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. In the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i`$ rest system $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ has an isotropic decay distribution. The decay mode $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\nu _\tau b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$ can be easily incorporated in our consideration.

However, the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1bW\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$ also leads to the same final state . The decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1bW\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$ is more involved, because the $`W`$ polarization leads to a non-vanishing correlation between the $`\stackrel{}{p}_\tau `$$`\stackrel{}{p}_b`$ plane and the $`\tau `$ polarization. While this may also lead to $`CP`$ sensitive effects, in the present paper we confine ourselves to the discussion of the $`CP`$ asymmetry in the decay chains $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\nu _\tau b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$, assuming that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}<m_W+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+m_b`$.

We define a $`CP`$ asymmetry similar to Eq. (16), but for the final state $`b\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau `$:

$$𝒜_{CP}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(𝒫_{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{\tau ^+}𝒫_{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{\tau ^{}}),$$
(17)
with

$$𝒫_{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{\tau ^+}=\frac{B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1f(\stackrel{}{e}_N))B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1f(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}{B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1f(\stackrel{}{e}_N))+B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1f(\stackrel{}{e}_N))},𝒫_{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{\tau ^{}}=\frac{B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}{B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))+B(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))},$$
(18)
where we have introduced a shorthand notation $`f(\stackrel{}{e}_N)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\overline{\nu }_\tau b\tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N)`$ and $`\overline{f}(\stackrel{}{e}_N)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau \overline{b}\tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N)`$. The branching ratio for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau `$ is to a good approximation given by

$$B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau )B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau )B(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau )+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\nu _\tau )B(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ).$$
(19)
This can also be seen by using the formulas for the 4–body stop decays given in . Relation (19) holds if $`|m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i}m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }`$, which is naturally fulfilled. If $`B(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau )1`$ and $`B(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau ^+)1`$, then Eq.(17) can be rewritten as

$$𝒜_{CP}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+(\stackrel{}{e}_N))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1\overline{b}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}_\tau \tau ^{}(\stackrel{}{e}_N))}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}},$$
(20)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau )+_{i=1}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\tau }_i\nu _\tau )`$. A very useful approximation for $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ can be obtained in the limit $`\phi _\mu 0`$

$$𝒜_{CP}^{}\frac{g^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}}2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}Y_tY_\tau |\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}||\mu |\mathrm{sin}\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}},$$
(21)
where

$$=\frac{1}{2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}}\frac{d^3p_b}{(2\pi )^32E_b}\frac{d^3p_\tau }{(2\pi )^32E_\tau }\frac{d^3p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }}{(2\pi )^32E_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }}(2\pi )^4\delta (p_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}p_bp_\tau p_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau })\frac{|\stackrel{}{p}_\tau ||\stackrel{}{p}_b|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{b\tau }}{(p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}^2)(p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}^2)},$$
(22)
where $`p_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1},\stackrel{}{0}),p_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }=p_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}p_b`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1,2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}`$ are the masses of the charginos and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{b\tau }`$ is the angle between the $`b`$ quark and the $`\tau `$ lepton. Eq. (21) is very instructive, because it exhibits the main features of the behaviour of $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$. For example, the sign of $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ is given by $`sgn(𝒜_{CP}^{})=sgn(\phi _{\stackrel{~}{t}})`$. The unpolarized decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}`$ appearing in Eq. (20) and (21) is given in  for real parameters and in  for complex parameters.

Finally, we want to remark that the absorptive part of the amplitude caused by the Breit–Wigner form of the chargino propagators is strongly suppressed, because we have assumed that the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+b`$ is not accessible. Therefore the rate asymmetry is expected to be at most of the order of $`10^3`$.

## 4 Numerical Results

In the following we present numerical results for the $`CP`$ sensitive asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ defined in Eqs. (17) and (18). Our input parameters are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau },|A_t|,\phi _{A_t},A_\tau ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,M_2,|\mu |`$, assuming $`M_1=5/3\mathrm{tan}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_WM_2`$, with $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ real. For simplicity we set $`\phi _\mu =0`$. We impose the approximate necessary condition for the tree–level vacuum stability $`|A_t|^2<3(M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+(m_A^2+m_Z^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\beta m_Z^2/2)`$ . For the pseudoscalar Higgs mass which appears in this condition we choose for definiteness $`m_A=150`$GeV. We have checked that in the numerical examples studied below the restrictions from the electron and neutron EDMs at two–loop level  are fulfilled.

First we consider the influence of the parameter $`\phi _{A_t}`$. In Figs. 1a and 1b we show $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ as a function of $`\phi _{A_t}`$ for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}>M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}(|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|<|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|)`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}<M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}(|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|>|\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|)`$, respectively. We display the asymmetry for the four scenarios $`(|\mu |=400`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3),(|\mu |=400`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10),(|\mu |=700`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3)`$ and $`(|\mu |=700`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10)`$, taking $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=240`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=800`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=200`$ GeV, $`M_2=350`$ GeV. We fix the mass of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ by taking $`M_{\stackrel{~}{E}}=0.9M_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$. As can be seen, the $`CP`$ asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ is much larger for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}>M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$ than for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}<M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$. The reason is, that for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}<M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$ the $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ has a larger $`\stackrel{~}{t}_L`$ component than for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}>M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$, implying a stronger coupling to the gaugino component of the charginos. This in turn implies a larger $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}`$ for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}<M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$. Cearly $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ has to vanish for the $`CP`$ conserving case $`\phi _{A_t}=0,\pm \pi `$ (see the corresponding factor in Eq.(21)). For better understanding of the value of $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ in the region $`|\phi _{A_t}|\stackrel{<}{}\pi /4`$, we show in Fig. 2 the branching ratio $`B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau )`$ as a function of $`\phi _{A_t}`$, for the two scenarios $`(|\mu |=400`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3)`$ and $`(|\mu |=700`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3)`$, keeping the other parameters as in Fig. 1a. The decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau )`$ has a similar behaviour. The minimum at $`\phi _{A_t}=0`$ can be traced back to the fact that $`|l_{11}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ (see Eq. (11)) has a minimum there, due to a negative interference between the gaugino and higgsino contribution.

In Fig. 3 we show $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ for three values of $`|A_t|=`$ 600 GeV, 1000 GeV and 1300 GeV, assuming $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}>M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}`$. The other parameters are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=240`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=800`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau }=200`$ GeV, $`A_\tau =0`$, $`M_2=350`$ GeV, $`|\mu |=600`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$. For $`|A_t|\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1000}`$ GeV $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ increases with increasing $`|A_t|`$, because $`|\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$ increases (see Eq. (21)). The decrease of $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ for $`|A_t|\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1000}`$ GeV is explained by the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{unpol}}`$ increases stronger than $`|\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}|`$.

The polarization of the $`\tau `$ is analysed through its decay distributions. Usually the decay modes $`\tau \pi \nu ,\rho \nu ,a_1\nu ,\mu \nu \overline{\nu },e\nu \overline{\nu }`$ are used as analyzers. As we are interested in the transverse polarisation of the $`\tau `$ lepton, we take only the $`\rho \nu `$ and $`a_1\nu `$ final states for our analysis. The sum of the branching ratios of these two decay modes is $`34`$%. We take for the sensitivities for measuring the polarization of the $`\tau `$ lepton the values quoted in Ref.  for an ideal detector. Moreover, the numbers quoted are for longitudinal tau polarization and it is expected that the sensitivities for transversely polarized tau leptons are somewhat smaller. To account for both effects we assume a reduction of the sensitivity $`S`$ of $`10\%`$ . Furthermore, we assume that the direction of flight of the $`\tau `$ lepton can be reconstructed. Following , the error in measuring the polarization asymmetry is given by

$$\delta 𝒫_{}^{}{}_{N}{}^{\tau ^{}}=\frac{1}{S_{\mathrm{red}}\sqrt{N_\tau }},$$
(23)
where $`S_{\mathrm{red}}=0.3,N_\tau =B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau )N_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, with $`N_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ being the number of produced $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1`$ pairs in the process $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1`$.

The minimum number $`N_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ of produced $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ pairs necessary to observe $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ at $`90\%`$ confidence level (CL) is then given by

$$N_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=\frac{1}{B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _\tau b\tau )}\left(\frac{1.64}{S_{\mathrm{red}}|𝒜_{CP}^{}|}\right)^2.$$
(24)
In Table 1 we display the values of the asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ and the numbers $`N_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ needed to observe this asymmetry at $`90\%`$ CL.

The cross section for $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=240`$ GeV is about 5$`fb`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 500 GeV and in the range 15 – 120$`fb`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 800 GeV, depending on stop mixing and beam polarization. If the branching ratio $`B(\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+)`$ is of the order of 5$`\%`$ or larger, then there are good prospects to measure the $`CP`$ asymmetry $`𝒜_{CP}^{}`$ at a linear collider with an integrated luminosity of 500$`fb^1`$.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have studied the $`CP`$ violating observable defined by the asymmetry of the $`\tau `$ polarization perpendicular to the decay plane in the three–body decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$. In the parameter domain $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }+m_b,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}<m_W+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+m_b`$ the branching ratio for this decay mode can be quite large. We have calculated this $`CP`$ asymmetry and the branching ratios in the MSSM with the parameters $`\mu `$ and $`A_t`$ complex. We give numerical predictions for the case of an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with cms energy $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 0.5 – 1 TeV. The asymmetry can reach values up to $`\pm 30\%`$. We give a theoretical estimate of the number of produced $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{t}}_1`$ pairs necessary for measuring this asymmetry at 90$`\%`$ CL. There are good prospects to measure this $`CP`$ asymmetry at a linear collider with an integrated luminosity of 500 $`fb^1`$, if the branching ratio of the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1b\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\tau \tau ^+`$ is about 5$`\%`$ or larger.

## Acknowledgements

We thank M. Davier for clarifying discussions and A. Stahl for helpful discussions and correspondence about the measurement of tau polarization. We also thank A. Pilaftsis for correspondence on 2-loop contributions to the elelctron and neutron EDMs. This work is supported by the ‘Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung’ (FWF) of Austria, project no. P13139–PHY and by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN–CT–2000–00149. W.P. is supported by the Erwin Schrödinger fellowship Nr. J2095 of FWF Austria and partly by the Swiss ‘Nationalfonds’.


text:
# The Chandra Deep Field-North Survey and the Cosmic X-ray Background

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 The Cosmic X-ray Background

The cosmic X-ray background was the first cosmic background radiation discovered (Giacconi et al. 1962) and has $`10`$% of the energy density of the cosmic microwave background (see, e.g., Fabian & Barcons 1992 and Hasinger 2000 for reviews). In contrast to the cosmic microwave background, the cosmic X-ray background is comprised of the integrated contributions from a large number of discrete sources. The X-ray background thus represents the summed emission from all X-ray sources since the Universe was less than a billion years old, and by surveying it we can learn about the nature and evolution of X-ray emitting objects over most of the history of the Universe.

The X-ray background is detected over a broad energy band from $``$ 0.1–200 keV, peaking in energy density from 20–40 keV; the logarithmic frequency/energy coverage is comparable to that of the far-infrared to extreme ultraviolet bandpass. Current deep imaging surveys of the X-ray background, however, have been primarily conducted in the narrower $``$ 0.1–12 keV band due largely to technological limitations.

Observations with the new generation of X-ray observatories, Chandra (Weisskopf et al. 2000) and XMM-Newton (Jansen et al. 2001), have revolutionised studies of the X-ray background and the sources that comprise it. Early observations with Chandra resolved most of the 2–8 keV background into point sources (e.g., Brandt et al. 2000; Mushotzky et al. 2000; Giacconi et al. 2001); most of the 0.5–2 keV background had already been resolved by ROSAT (e.g., Hasinger et al. 1998). The accurate positions from the new observatories, particularly Chandra, also allow X-ray sources to be matched unambiguously to (often faint) multiwavelength counterparts. X-ray surveys have finally reached the depths needed to complement the most sensitive surveys in the radio, submillimeter, infrared, and optical bands. The focus has now shifted from simply resolving the X-ray background to understanding in detail the sources that comprise it at all X-ray fluxes. While it is clear that massive, accreting black holes produce the bulk of the X-ray background, the deepest X-ray surveys are now allowing the study of other source classes, including starburst and normal galaxies.

In this article, we will review some of the current results from the ongoing Chandra Deep Field-North (CDF-N) survey. Other ongoing deep X-ray surveys that have published results at present include the Chandra Deep Field South Survey (e.g., Giacconi et al. 2002; Rosati et al. 2002), the Lockman Hole Survey (e.g., Hasinger et al. 2001; Lehmann et al. 2001), and the SSA13 Survey (e.g., Mushotzky et al. 2000; Barger et al. 2001a). Many other important X-ray surveys are being performed over larger solid angles to shallower depths.

Throughout this article we adopt $`H_0=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1/3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=2/3`$.

### 1.2 The Chandra Deep Field-North Survey

The CDF-N survey is currently the deepest X-ray survey ever performed. It is comprised of 1.4 Ms (16.2 days) of exposure with the Chandra Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) covering an $`18^{}\times 22^{}`$ field (see Fig. 1) centred on the Hubble Deep Field-North (HDF-N; see Ferguson et al. 2000); these observations are publicly available. This is an excellent field for study, since it already has intensive coverage at optical, infrared, submillimeter and radio wavelengths (see Ferguson et al. 2000 for a review). More than 800 spectroscopic redshifts have been obtained in the field (e.g., Cohen et al. 2000). In the soft (0.5–2 keV) and hard (2–8 keV) X-ray bands, the Chandra data reach fluxes $`55`$ and $`550`$ times fainter than surveys by previous X-ray missions (see Fig. 2). Near the centre of the field, sources with count rates as low as $`1`$ count per 2 days can be detected. Source densities near the soft-band and hard-band flux limits are $`7200`$ deg-2 and $`4200`$ deg-2 (e.g., Brandt et al. 2001b; Cowie et al. 2002); the fraction of the X-ray background resolved in the soft and hard bands is $`>90`$% and $`>80`$%, respectively (the main uncertainty in the resolved fraction is the absolute normalisation of the background itself). Source positions are typically accurate to better than $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ over the entire field, allowing multiwavelength counterparts to be identified reliably.

The CDF-N team includes $`20`$ researchers from The Pennsylvania State University, The University of Hawaii, The University of Wisconsin, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The California Institute of Technology, and Carnegie Mellon University. To see all the contributors to the various CDF-N projects, please refer to the author lists of the cited CDF-N publications.

## 2 Some Key Results from the Survey

### 2.1 Detected Point and Extended Sources

The CDF-N data have been searched intensively for point sources using the Chandra X-ray Center’s wavdetect algorithm (Freeman et al. 2002). At a wavdetect false-positive probability threshold of $`1\times 10^7`$, $`430`$ independent sources are detected in the 1.4 Ms exposure. In addition, a substantial number of sources have been found at lower significance levels that are spatially correlated with objects found at other wavelengths (e.g., optically bright galaxies). Many of these sources are real, but it is more difficult to define a complete X-ray flux-limited sample of these sources. In the full band (0.5–8 keV), the typical source has $`90`$ counts which is too small for detailed X-ray spectral analysis. Assessment of spectral hardness is possible, however, and X-ray spectral analysis can be performed for the brighter sources in the field. Catalogs of the detected sources and related analysis products have been made publicly available for the 1 Ms exposure (see Brandt et al. 2001b).111http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/hdf/hdf-chandra.html

Six extended X-ray sources have also been detected in the CDF-N (Bauer et al. 2002). Their X-ray spectral properties, angular sizes, and likely luminosities ($`10^{42}`$ erg s-1) are generally consistent with those found for nearby groups of galaxies. Two extended X-ray sources of note are (1) a group in the HDF-N associated with the $`z=1.013`$ FR I radio galaxy VLA J123644.3+621133, and (2) a likely poor-to-moderate cluster at $`z\stackrel{>}{}0.7`$ that is coincident with an overdensity of Very Red Objects (VROs; $`IK4`$), optically faint ($`I24`$) radio sources, and optically faint X-ray sources. The surface density of extended X-ray sources is $`167_{67}^{+97}`$ deg-2 at a limiting soft-band flux of $`3\times 10^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. No evolution in the X-ray luminosity function of clusters is needed to explain this value.

Fig. 3 shows the $`I`$-band magnitudes of the X-ray point sources near the centre of the CDF-N field. There is a wide spread of $`I`$-band magnitudes at faint X-ray fluxes, corresponding to a range of source types. The faint X-ray sources with $`I`$ 15–22 counterparts are normal galaxies, starburst galaxies, low-luminosity AGN, and stars. The faint X-ray sources with $`I\stackrel{>}{}22`$ counterparts appear to be mostly luminous AGN; these often show evidence for X-ray absorption via large hardness ratios.

Optical spectra are presently available for $`120`$ CDF-N objects. The majority of the sources with spectroscopic redshifts lie at $`z\stackrel{<}{}1.3`$ (see Fig. 4). This result is at least partially due to a selection effect: as implied by Fig. 4, the X-ray sources at $`z\stackrel{>}{}1.3`$ will frequently be too optically faint for spectroscopy (with $`I\stackrel{>}{}24`$). These sources are discussed further in §2d. Even after making plausible corrections for selection effects, however, it appears likely that more X-ray power originates from $`z\stackrel{<}{}1.3`$ than predicted by some X-ray background synthesis models; these models will require revision.

### 2.2 Results for the Hubble Deep Field-North

Fig. 5 shows the 27 HDF-N X-ray point sources detected thus far (Hornschemeier et al. 2000; Brandt et al. 2001a; W.N. Brandt et al., in preparation); 16 are found with a false-source probability threshold of $`1\times 10^7`$ while the other 11 are found with lower significance but align spatially with optical galaxies (see §2a). As expected from Figs. 3 and 4, most sources are at $`z<1.5`$, and their optical counterparts have a wide range of brightness. In at least one HDF-N object (CXOHDFN J123641.7+621131 at $`z=0.089`$) the X-ray source is offset from the nucleus; the X-ray emission may arise from a starburst region in the host galaxy as it is coincident with a bright, blue “knot.”

We have been able to find likely optical or near-infrared counterparts for all of the X-ray sources in the HDF-N; this contrasts with the case in the radio where some truly “blank-field” sources have been found (e.g., Richards et al. 1999). We find a good correspondence between our brighter X-ray sources and micro-Jy radio (1.4 GHz and 8.5 GHz) sources, but this trend does not continue for our faintest X-ray sources. For instance, 10 of the 16 brightest Chandra sources have radio matches, but only 12 of the 27 total Chandra sources have radio matches. The properties of the X-ray/radio sources suggest a broad range of emission mechanisms (e.g., Richards et al. 1998; Brandt et al. 2001a). We also find a good correspondence between Chandra and ISO (6.7 $`\mu `$m and 15 $`\mu `$m; Aussel et al. 1999) sources in the HDF-N. Ten of the 16 brightest Chandra sources have ISO matches, and 14 of the 27 total Chandra sources have ISO matches. This good X-ray/IR correspondence bodes well for future IR follow-up of X-ray sources with SIRTF (see §3b). In this field with both exceptionally sensitive X-ray and IR coverage, we find a broad range of X-ray/IR source types including starburst galaxies, obscured AGN, and normal elliptical galaxies. In the majority of the sources, the IR emission appears to be from dust re-emission of primary X-ray and ultraviolet radiation.

### 2.3 X-ray Connections with Infrared, Radio and Submillimeter Sources

More detailed studies of the X-ray/IR sources in the CDF-N have recently been completed by Alexander et al. (2002b) and Fadda et al. (2002). These use the 21.5 arcmin2 region with uniform ISO coverage at 15 $`\mu `$m rather than just the HDF-N (5.3 arcmin2). Only $`20`$% of the X-ray/IR sources are likely AGN. The majority rather appear to be $`z`$ 0.4–1.3 starburst galaxies and $`z<0.2`$ normal galaxies (see Fig. 6). A notable finding is that up to 100% of the X-ray detected emission-line galaxies (see Cohen et al. 2000 for the optical spectral classification) have 15 $`\mu `$m counterparts (Alexander et al. 2002b); the majority of these are luminous IR starburst galaxies representative of the population making the bulk of the IR background. The X-ray/radio matched galaxies trace the same star-forming population as the X-ray/IR sources with nearly 100% of the matched galaxies in common (F.E. Bauer et al., in preparation). In addition, the X-ray/radio matches appear to trace a population of optically faint AGN.

Barger et al. (2001b) have shown that the ensemble of CDF-N X-ray sources contribute about 15% of the extragalactic submillimeter background light at 850 $`\mu `$m, with the strongest submillimeter emission being seen from optically faint X-ray sources that are also detected at 1.4 GHz. At the current CDF-N flux limit, $`20`$% of the submillimeter sources have X-ray counterparts.

### 2.4 Optically Faint and High-Redshift X-ray Sources

As mentioned in §2a, a significant fraction of the CDF-N X-ray sources are too optically faint for easy spectroscopic follow-up studies. One notable example from the HDF-N is shown in Fig. 7. Alexander et al. (2001) present a detailed study of the 47 optically faint X-ray sources (defined as having $`I24`$) in an $`8.4^{}\times 8.4^{}`$ region centred on the HDF-N. The number of optically faint X-ray sources increases at faint X-ray fluxes. However, the fraction of optically faint sources within the X-ray source population stays roughly constant at $`35`$% for full-band fluxes from $`10^{16}`$$`10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 due to the emergence of a population of optically bright sources (see §2a and Fig. 3). Many of the optically faint X-ray sources have red optical-to-near-IR colours, and a significant fraction are classified as VROs (see also Alexander et al. 2002a for a detailed X-ray study of CDF-N VROs). They also have harder X-ray spectra on average than the sources with $`I<24`$ (see Fig. 8a). Roughly half of the optically faint sources with enough X-ray counts to allow an effective search for X-ray variability show it, and the redshifts of the majority of the optically faint X-ray sources are estimated to be $`z`$ 1–3 (see Fig. 8b). All of these facts support an interpretation where most of the optically faint X-ray sources are luminous, obscured AGN (e.g., Seyfert 2 galaxies and type 2 quasars) at intermediate redshifts.

A minority of the optically faint X-ray sources, however, may be AGN at high-to-extreme redshifts ($`z`$ 4–10). One notable example is CXOHDFN J123642.0+621331 (Brandt et al. 2001a; $`I=25.3`$) which lies just outside the HDF-N and is a micro-Jy radio source at a likely redshift of $`z=4.424`$ (Waddington et al. 1999). With an X-ray luminosity of $`5\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1, this is by far the lowest luminosity X-ray source known at $`z>4`$. Its detection directly demonstrates that Chandra is achieving the sensitivity needed to study Seyfert-luminosity AGN at high redshift.

A large population of Seyfert-luminosity AGN at $`z`$ 4–10 has been postulated by Haiman & Loeb (1999). These objects would represent the first massive black holes to form in the Universe. At $`z\stackrel{>}{}6.5`$ an AGN should appear not only optically faint but optically blank; the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest and Gunn-Peterson trough will absorb essentially all flux through the $`I`$ band. Thus, an upper limit on the space density of extreme redshift AGN can be set simply by counting the number of X-ray sources that lack any optical counterpart.222Of course, this method requires the plausible assumption that extreme redshift AGN be X-ray luminous. The best available data suggest that this should be the case (e.g., Vignali et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2002). Note also that at $`z10`$ Chandra provides rest-frame sensitivity up to $`90`$ keV; such high-energy X-rays can penetrate a substantial amount of obscuration. Unfortunately, however, confusion between truly optically blank sources at extreme redshift and very optically faint sources at moderate redshift (e.g., objects like that in Fig. 7) occurs without exceptionally deep optical imaging. At present, the CDF-N data suggest that there is $`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ AGN detected at $`z\stackrel{>}{}6.5`$ per $`12`$ arcmin2 (Alexander et al.. 2001). This limit should soon be tightened substantially via the GOODS project (see §3b).

The highest redshift AGN discovered in CDF-N follow-up studies has $`z=5.18`$ (A.J. Barger et al., in preparation). This is the highest redshift X-ray selected AGN, and it has relatively narrow emission lines. This source is not optically faint ($`I=22.7`$) and has an X-ray luminosity of $`3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1; it could have been detected by Chandra out to $`z10`$.

### 2.5 Stacking Studies of Galaxies at Cosmologically Interesting Distances

At the fainter X-ray fluxes of the CDF-N, a significant number of “normal” galaxies are detected at $`z\stackrel{<}{}0.3`$ where the observed emission appears to originate from X-ray binaries, ultraluminous X-ray sources, supernova remnants, and perhaps low-luminosity AGN (e.g., Hornschemeier et al. 2001; A.E. Hornschemeier et al., in preparation). For example, in the HDF-N Chandra has detected all optically luminous galaxies out to $`z=0.15`$ (Brandt et al. 2001a).

X-ray studies of normal galaxies at cosmological distances are of importance since normal galaxies are expected to be the most numerous extragalactic X-ray sources at the faintest X-ray fluxes; in Fig. 5 there are $`3000`$ galaxies but only 27 X-ray sources, so “there’s plenty of room at the bottom” (cf. Feynman 1960). Normal galaxies are expected to dominate the number counts at soft-band fluxes of $`5\times 10^{18}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (e.g., Ptak et al. 2001; Hornschemeier et al. 2002; Miyaji & Griffiths 2002), and they should be one of the main source types detected by missions such as XEUS and Generation-X. Furthermore, the X-ray properties of galaxies might well have changed in response to the substantial change in the cosmic star formation rate over the history of the Universe; changes in the star formation rate should affect the production of X-ray binaries and supernovae (e.g., Ghosh & White 2001).

Most normal galaxies at $`z\stackrel{>}{}0.3`$ cannot be individually detected in the current CDF-N data, but their average properties can be probed using stacking techniques where the X-ray emission from many individually undetected galaxies is added together. Using stacking techniques, Hornschemeier et al. (2002) have measured the average X-ray luminosities of $`L_\mathrm{B}^{}`$ spiral galaxies out to $`z=1.2`$, corresponding to a look-back time of $`9.0`$ Gyr. These measurements allow the first reliable predictions of the number of normal galaxies that should be seen in deeper X-ray exposures; typical observed soft-band fluxes are $``$ (3–7)$`\times 10^{18}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. There is evidence for a factor of 2–3 increase in X-ray luminosity (per unit $`B`$-band luminosity) with redshift (see Fig. 9), although this is weaker than some theoretical models have predicted.

At higher redshifts ($`z=`$ 2–4), X-ray stacking analyses have allowed an average detection of the Lyman break galaxies in the HDF-N (see Fig. 10; Brandt et al. 2001c). In the rest-frame ultraviolet and optical bands these galaxies share many of the properties of local starburst galaxies and have estimated star formation rates of $``$ 20–50 M yr-1. We find their average X-ray luminosity ($`3\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 in the rest-frame 2–8 keV band) to be similar to those of the most luminous local starburst galaxies (these have star formation rates comparable to those estimated for the Lyman break galaxies). For Lyman break galaxies, the observed ratio of X-ray to $`B`$-band luminosity is somewhat, but not greatly, higher than that seen from local starburst galaxies.

## 3 The Future

### 3.1 Additional X-ray Coverage

The current CDF-N survey is far from the limit of Chandra’s capability. The full-band detector background is so low that, with appropriate grade screening, Chandra will not fully enter the background-limited regime near the aim point for exposure times of $`\stackrel{<}{}5`$ Ms. In the soft band the situation is even better due to the lower background, and Chandra should remain photon limited to $`10`$ Ms. At present, Chandra observation time is allocated to extend the survey to 2 Ms, and additional observations will be proposed.

Fig. 11 shows that with sufficient exposure (5–10 Ms), Chandra surveys can reach depths comparable to those discussed for missions such as XEUS. They would thereby bolster the science cases for missions such as XEUS and Generation-X, providing key information on the existence and nature of the sources to be targeted by these missions. Important targets would include the first massive black holes at high redshift as well as normal and starburst galaxies at intermediate redshift. Detailed spectral, temporal, and spatial constraints would be obtained for all the sources currently detected. Furthermore, Fig. 11 shows that Chandra positions are likely to be the best available for $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 15–20 years; these will be essential for the reliable identification of optically faint sources at high redshift.

### 3.2 Observations at Other Wavelengths

Multiwavelength follow-up studies of the CDF-N sources continue, and a catalog presenting the current optical photometric and spectroscopic results will be completed shortly (A.J. Barger et al., in preparation). The Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) project will soon obtain deep, public HST Advanced Camera for Surveys and SIRTF coverage over the deepest $`1/3`$ of the CDF-N (see Fig. 1).333http://www.stsci.edu/science/goods/ These projects, along with others already completed and in progress, will provide a panchromatic data set with the sensitivity and angular resolution needed to complement fully the CDF-N.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank all the members of the CDF-N team. This work would not have been possible without the efforts of the entire Chandra and ACIS teams. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of NASA grant NAS 8-38252 (Gordon P. Garmire, PI), NSF CAREER award AST-9983783 (WNB, DMA, FEB), and NASA GSRP grant NGT 5-50247 and the Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium (AEH).


text:
# The form factors existing in the 𝑏→𝑠𝑔^∗ decay and the possible CP violating effects in the noncommutative standard model

## 1 Introduction

The quantum field theory over noncommutative spaces  has been reached a great interest in recent years . The string theory arguments are the reason for the re-motivation of the physics on the noncommutative spaces . Noncommutative field theories (NCFT’s) are difficult to handle since they have non-local structure. Besides this, it has been argued that they were sensible field theories and they have been studied extensively in the literature. The renormalizability of NCFT’s in general have been studied in . The unitarity in noncommutative theories has been discussed in . In , the unitarity properties of spontaneously broken noncommutative gauge theories have been examined. The noncommutative quantum electrodynamics (NCQED) and anomalous magnetic moments have been studied in  and a detailed calculation for the noncommutative electron-photon vertex has been presented. The noncommutative Yang-Mills theory has been studied in . In  the noncommutative CP violating effects has been examined at low energies and it was ephasized that CP violation due to noncommutative geometry was comparable to the one due to the standard model (SM) only, for a noncommutative scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2TeV`$. Noncommutative SM (NCSM) building has been studied in  and recently, the determination of triple neutral gauge boson couplings has been done in .

In noncommutative geometry the space-time coordinates $`x_\mu `$ are replaced by the Hermitian operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ where they do not commute

$`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }.`$ (1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ is real and antisymmetric tensor. On the other hand noncommutative field theory is equivalent to the ordinary one except that the usual product is replaced by the $``$ product

$`(fg)(x)=e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }_\mu ^y_\nu ^z}f(y)g(z)|_{y=z=x}.`$ (2)
The commutation of the Hermitian operators $`\widehat{x}_\mu `$ (see eq. (1)) holds with this new product, namely,

$`[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]_{}=i\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }.`$ (3)
For constructing the effective low energy theory it is convenient to choose the energy scale as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}}`$ . Here the parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is taken the average magnitude of the tensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$. NCSM can be constructed at least up to $`O(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ by replacing the ordinary products by $``$ product. This replacement modifies the Feynman rules considerably (see the appendix of ).

In our work, we study the form factors appearing in the inclusive decay $`bsg^{}`$, in the framework of the NCSM. When the noncommutative effects are switched on, the form factors due to the SM are modified and new structures with the corresponding form factors arise. The noncommutative effects are at least at the order of $`p\mathrm{\Theta }k`$ where $`p`$ ($`k`$) are the four momenta of incoming (outgoing) $`b`$ quark (virtual gluon). Here, we take the noncommutative scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}}1Tev`$ and at these low energies, the problems of unitarity and causality are supressed. The combination $`p\mathrm{\Theta }k`$, which appears in the expressions are at the order of the magnitude of $`10^610^4`$ for our process. This is a small number which creates weak noncommutative effects in the calculation of form factors. However, these noncommutative effects may be stronger for the decays including heavy flavors. On the other hand, this parameter is a new source for the CP violation which exists with the help of the complex Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements in the ordinary SM.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present the structures and the form factors appearing in the $`bsg^{}`$ decay in the SM, including the non-commutative effects. Section 3 is devoted to the analysis of these form factors and our discussions.

## 2 The form factors existing in the $`bsg^{}`$ decay, in the SM including the non-commutative effects

In this section, we calculate the form factors of the decay $`bsg^{}`$ in the framework of the SM, including the noncommutative effects. As it is well known, $`bsg^{}`$ decay is created by flavor changing neutral currents at loop level in the SM. The possible interactions at one loop level are self energy and vertex type (see Fig.1). At this stage, we use the on-shell renormalization scheme to get rid of the divergences appearing in the ordinary SM and obtain a gauge invariant vertex function. Notice that, in this scheme, the self energy diagrams do not contribute and only the vertex part survives. When the non-commutative effects are switched on, there appears new structures and the corresponding form factors, that contain new UV and IR divergences. Use of on-shell renormalization scheme helps one to get a gauge invariant vertex function however, the form factors appearing due to the noncommutative effects still need renormalization. Now, we will present the calculations  to get the form factors for the decay underconsideration.

The starting point of the calculation is to use the exponential representation for the propagators, i.e. the Schwinger parametrization

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2m^2+iϵ}}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_1e^{ix_1(p^2m^2+iϵ)}`$ (4)
and to obtain the denominator of the momentum integral for the vertex function, which we call the core integral,

$`I=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i(qz\frac{1}{2}(pq)(\stackrel{~}{p^{}q})}\frac{1}{(q^2m_W^2)\left((pq)^2m_i^2\right)\left((p^{}q)^2m_i^2\right)}}.`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{v_\mu }=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }v^\nu `$, $`p`$ ($`p^{}`$) is four momentum of $`b`$ ($`s`$) quark, $`p=p^{}k`$ and $`k`$ is virtual gluon four momentum. Here, the new factor $`e^{i\frac{1}{2}(pq)\stackrel{~}{p^{}q}}`$ is due to the non-commutative geometry and it can be rewritten as $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}e^{\frac{i}{2}q\stackrel{~}{k}}`$. The factor $`e^{iqz}`$ is introduced to obtain the expressions appearing in the numerator of the momentum integral, by differentiation . Using the parametrization in eq. (4) and making the momentum integration, the integral I in eq. (5) can be written as

$`I={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{i(\stackrel{~}{k}+4x_2p^{}+4x_3p2z)^2+16(x_1+x_2+x_3)m_W^2(x_1+x_i(x_2+x_3)x_bx_3)}{16(x_1+x_2+x_3)}}}{(4\pi )^2(x_1+x_2+x_3)^2}},`$ (6)
where $`x_i=\frac{m_i^2}{m_W^2}`$, $`x_b=\frac{m_b^2}{m_W^2}`$. Notice that we take $`m_s=0`$ in the expressions.

Here we will summarize the procedure used in the following:

* Calculating the the numerator of the integral by differentiating the momentum integrated core integral with respect to the auxilary variable $`z`$ and set $`z`$ to zero at the end.
* Applying the Wick rotation $`x_i\frac{x_i}{i}`$ and using the identity $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho \delta (\rho (x_1+x_2+x_3))=1`$
* Making the rescaling $`x_i\rho x_i`$
* Redefining the core integral by introducing the UV regulator $`e^{\frac{i}{(x_1+x_2+x_3)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}`$ as

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}e^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}dx{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}dyexp[{\displaystyle \frac{e_1}{\rho }}+e_2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(1x)],`$ (7)
with the functions $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$

$`e_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2}},`$
$`e_2`$ $`=`$ $`m_W^2\left(x+x_i(1x)x_b(1xy)(x+sy)\right),`$ (8)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}{16}}},`$ (9)

where $`s=\frac{k^2}{m_b^2}`$. With this procedure one obtains all the structures and the corresponding raw coefficients due to the decay under consideration. Now, we use the on-shell renormalization scheme and extract the nonvanishing structures to get a gauge invariant result. In this scheme, only the vertex diagram (Fig. 1) contributes and the self energy diagrams vanish. Using the raw bare vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{0a}`$, introducing the counterms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{Ca}`$ to satisfy the expression

$`k^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(Raw)Ren,a}=0,`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(Raw)Ren,a}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{(Raw)Ren,a}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{0a}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{Ca}`$ and neglecting the $`s`$-quark mass we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{Rena}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2g_s}{32m_W^2\pi ^2}}\lambda ^a(F_1^{Raw}(k^2)(k_\mu /kk^2\gamma _\mu )L+iF_2^{Raw}(k^2)m_b\sigma _{\mu \nu }k^\nu R+iF_3^{Raw}(k^2)m_b\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu R`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`iF_4^{Raw}(k^2)(\gamma _\mu /k/\stackrel{~}{k}k_\mu /\stackrel{~}{k})L+F_5^{Raw}(k^2)\stackrel{~}{k}_\mu /\stackrel{~}{k}L`$
where $`k_\mu `$ is the gluon momentum 4-vector and $`k^2`$ dependent functions $`F_1^{Raw}(k^2)`$ and $`F_2^{Raw}(k^2)`$ are proportional to the charge radius and dipole form factors. $`F_3^{Raw}(k^2)`$, $`F_4^{Raw}(k^2)`$ and $`F_5^{Raw}(k^2)`$ are the new form factors appearing when the noncommutative effects are switched on and they read as

$`F_1^{raw}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑y`$
$`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}e^{\frac{e_1}{\rho }+e_2\rho \frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(x1)}(x_i(x^2(23y)x+1+2y^24y)+2(x^2+2y(y1)`$
$`+`$ $`x(3y2)),`$
$`F_2^{raw}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑y`$
$`e^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}e^{\frac{e_1}{\rho }+e_2\rho \frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(x1)}\left(x_i+x^2(2+x_i)+x(x_i(y2)+2y)\right),`$
$`F_3^{raw}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑ye^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{e_1}{\rho }+e_2\rho \frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(x1)}}{\rho }}(2+x_i)(1xy),`$
$`F_4^{raw}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}e^{\frac{e_1}{\rho }+e_2\rho \frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(x1)}}{\rho }}(2x_i+x(2+x_i)),`$
$`F_5^{raw}(k^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\rho {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑ye^{\frac{i}{2}p\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{e_1}{\rho }+e_2\rho \frac{i}{2}\stackrel{~}{k}.p(x1)}}{\rho ^2}}(2+x_i),`$ (12)
In the calculation of the coefficients, at first, the $`\rho `$ integrations are taken. These integrations bring the modified Bessel functions of first and second type. For the high energy limit, namely $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{}`$, or the low energy limit $`k0`$ simultaneously, the integration of $`F_1^{raw}`$ and $`F_2^{raw}`$ over $`\rho `$ does not bring any divergence. However, the $`\rho `$ integrations of $`F_3^{raw}`$ and $`F_4^{raw}`$ result in the modified Bessel functions of first type, where the logarithmic divercences appear. Here we assume that these divercences can be overcome by adding the necessary counter terms, i.e. the NCSM model is renormalizable at least at one loop level, similar to NCQED . The result of the integration of the form factor $`F_5^{raw}`$ over $`\rho `$ is proportional to the cut-off factor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2`$. Fortunately, this term is irrelevant because of the following reason (see ). If we consider the UV limit, namely, $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}<<\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}^2\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{k}^2}`$, this term is finite. However as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ tends to zero, we have $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}>>\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\stackrel{~}{k}^2<<1`$. Since the structure due to $`F_5^{raw}`$ contains the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{k}^2`$, this term is irrelevant in the IR limit. Finally, we end up with the form factors $`F_1(s)`$, $`F_2(s)`$, $`F_3(s)`$ and $`F_4(s)`$:

$`F_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑y`$
$`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{k}(1x)}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i(x^2(23y)x+1+2y^24y)+2(x^2+2y(y1)+x(3y2)}{2(x_i+x_by(y1)sx(1+x_i+x_by(1s))}},`$
$`F_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑y`$
$`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{k}(1x)}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i+x^2(2+x_i)+x(x_i(y2)+2y)}{2(x_i+x_by(y1)(s1)x(1+x_i+x_by(1s))}},`$
$`F_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{EulerGamma}m_bm_W^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑ye^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{k}(1x)}(2+x_i)(1xy),`$
$`F_4(s)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{EulerGammam_W^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{1x}}𝑑ye^{\frac{i}{2}p.\stackrel{~}{k}(1x)}(2x_i+x(2+x_i)).`$ (13)
$`F_3(s)`$ and $`F_4(s)`$, the integration over the parameters $`x`$ and $`y`$ can be performed easily and we get

$`F_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\text{EulerGamma}m_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ip.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}(4p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}+i((p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}})^2+8(e^{\frac{ip.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{2}}1))(2+x_i))}{2(p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}})^3}},`$
$`F_4(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=,u,c,t}{}}V_{ib}V_{is}^{}\text{EulerGamma}m_W^2`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{ip.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}(4p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}(2e^{\frac{ip.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{2}}+x_i)+i((p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}})^2(x_i2)+8(e^{\frac{ip.\stackrel{~}{p^{}}}{2}}1)(2+x_i)))}{2(p.\stackrel{~}{p^{}})^3}}.`$
For $`s>\frac{4m_i^2}{m_b^2}`$, $`i=u,c`$, the internal u and c quarks are on mass-shell and an absorptive part appears in the coefficients related with the light quark part. Notice that when the non-commutative effects are switched off the form factors $`F_3(s)`$ and $`F_4(s)`$ disappears and we obtain the form factors in the ordinary SM.

## 3 Discussion

This section is devoted to the analysis of the form factors appearing in the $`bsg^{}`$ process in the framework of the SM including noncommutative effects. The new parameter existing in this geometry is $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and it is at the order of the magnitude of $`10^610^4`$ for the process underconsideration. This factor is also a new source for the CP violating effects in addition to the complex CKM matrix elements in the SM, $`V_{ub}`$ in our case. It enters into expressions as an exponential and its odd powers in the expansion of the exponential factor bring new CP violating effects, even for real CKM matrix elements. In our work, we study $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and the $`sin\delta `$ dependence of the real and imaginary parts of the form factors. Here, we use the parametrization $`V_{ub}=e^{i\delta }|V_{ub}|`$ and $`sin\delta `$ is proportional to the imaginary part of $`V_{ub}`$, which is the only source of the CP violating effects in the commutative SM. Note that we take the numerical value $`|V_{ub}V_{us}|=6\times 10^3`$.

In Fig. 2 we present the $`sin\delta `$ dependences of the real parts of the form factors $`F_3`$ and $`F_4`$, for different values of the parameter $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$, namely $`10^6`$, $`10^5`$ and $`10^4`$. It is seen that $`Re[F_3]`$ and $`Re[F_4]`$ are not sensitive to $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$. However, there is a weak sensitivity to $`sin\delta `$. $`Re[F_3]`$ ($`Re[F_4]`$) decreases (increases) with the increasing values of $`sin\delta `$. Both form factors are almost at the order of the magnitude of $`58.5\pm 0.05GeV^2`$.

Fig. 3 (4) is devoted to the $`sin\delta `$ dependence of the imaginary part of the form factor $`F_3`$ ($`F_4`$), for three different values of the parameter $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$, $`10^6`$, $`10^5`$ and $`10^4`$. It is seen that $`Im[F_3]`$ ($`Im[F_4]`$) is sensitive to $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and it increases (decreases) as a magnitude when $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ decreases. $`Im[F_3]`$ can have both signs for large values of $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$, depending on the parameter $`sin\delta `$. The sensitivity of $`Im[F_3]`$ ($`Im[F_4]`$) to the parameter $`sin\delta `$ is strong. $`Im[F_3]`$ ($`Im[F_4]`$) can reach to the values $`1.7GeV^2`$ ($`0.9GeV^2`$)

Fig. 5 (6) shows the $`sin\delta `$ dependence of the real part of the form factor $`F_1`$ ($`F_2`$), for three different values of the parameter $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$, $`10^6`$, $`10^5`$ and $`10^4`$. $`F_1`$ ($`F_2`$) is not sensitive to $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ and weakly sensitive to $`sin\delta `$. It is predicted that its magnitude is $`0.0845\pm 0.0005`$ ($`0.0038\pm 0.0001`$).

Finally Fig. 7 is devoted to the $`sin\delta `$ dependence of the imaginary part of the form factor $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$. $`Im[F_1]`$ and $`Im[F_2]`$ are not sensitive to $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$, however the sensitivity to $`sin\delta `$ not small. Their magnitudes are at the order of $`0.001\pm 0.001`$.

As a summary, there are additional structures and corresponding form factors in the non-commutative geometry. The factor $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is the new source for the CP violating effects and its magnitude depends on the process studied. In our case $`p\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is small, namely $`p\stackrel{~}{k}10^5`$ and the form factors are not so much sensitive to this parameter. In the calculation of the CP violation of any decay which is based on the process $`bsg^{}`$, the non-commutative effects probably weak. However, we belive that these effects would be stronger when the processes with heavy flavors have been considered, even in the framework of the SM.

## 4 Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA/GEBIP).


text:
# A conspicuous tangential alignment of galaxies in a STIS Parallel Shear Survey field: A new dark-lens candidate ? Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Space Institute (STScI) which is operated by AURA Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555

## 1 Introduction

The STIS CCD camera on-board Hubble Space Telescope has been providing an unique view of faint galaxies. The characteristics of this instrument which offers good depth, excellent resolution and a good sampling of the HST PSF, together with the possibility of obtaining data using the parallel observing mode, makes it a suitable instrument for studies such as the STIS Parallel Shear Survey (hereafter refered as SPSS), whose main goal is the study of cosmic shear on scales below one arcminute. Data for this program started to be collected on September 24th, 2000, within the scope of an HST GO cycle 9 parallel proposal (8562 and 9248, P.I.: P. Schneider) and up to date, more than 500 different pointings have been obtained. The use of STIS CCD imaging in the CLEAR filter mode allows to combine good spatial resolution (originally $`0.05^{\prime \prime }`$ per pixel) with very deep exposures since the CCD is un-filtered and sensitive to wavelengths between 2500 and 11000 Å(Pirzkal et al. 2001). We report in this paper the discovery of a conspicuous alignment of galaxies in a deep exposure obtained with that program. This field contains several high-ellipticity galaxies which seem oriented around a point near the center of the field giving a striking visual impression that caught our attention. Also, there are several fainter galaxies in this field which also contribute to the visual impression of an alignment of galaxies. We used the aperture mass technique and an analysis of the most elliptical objects in the field to try to quantify the significance of this effect and test the visual impression. Section 2 describes our data and the reduction procedure. The core of section 3 presents the aperture mass analysis, discussing the significance of the peak of mass obtained and the errors on its position. Section 4 presents the most elongated objects in the field, and discusses their orientation with respect to the peak found with the aperture mass technique. We discuss also in this part the similar characteristics of 2 of these candidate arclets that could be compatible with being multiply imaged. Finally, section 5 summarizes and discusses the indications presented in the paper which, taken together, could make a case for the presence of a possible underluminous lens in this field.

## 2 Data

These data were obtained as part of the large HST GO cycle 9 parallel proposal aimed at the study of cosmic shear (see Pirzkal et al. 2001 and http://www.stecf.org/projects/shear for more details on the STIS data characteristics). The field considered here was, coincidentally, the first one observed as part of that program. The associated image is composed of 18 individual 400s exposures with a field of view of $`50^{\prime \prime }\times 50^{\prime \prime }`$, taken in the CLEAR filter mode. The exposures were individually cleaned for hot pixels and cosmic rays using the Eye algorithm in SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts 1996)111Eye and SExtractor are part of the Terapix software suite and can be found at http://terapix.iap.fr/soft/, which creates masks of the pixels that are not used during the combination, eliminating 99% of the spurious pixels. The shifts between the different exposures were computed using the method described in Pirzkal et al. (2001), which can align these images to an accuracy of 1/10 of a pixel. Finally, the individual exposures were drizzled to a pixel size of $`0.025^{\prime \prime }`$ (Fruchter and Hook 2002) and combined by median averaging with the IRAF Imcombine procedure, achieving a total exposure time of 7200s. The use of this reduction procedure, basically similar to the one described in Pirzkal et al. (2001), is known to preserve the original PSF shape and size (Hämmerle et al. 2001) which is extremely important for an accurate analysis of the shear. The coordinates of the field are R.A: $`01^\mathrm{h}35^{}06.7^{\prime \prime }`$ and Dec: $`41^o21^{}20.18^{\prime \prime }`$ (J2000), about $`7^{}`$ north of the local Seyfert galaxy NGC625, which was the primary target observed with the WFPC2. Throughout this paper we will refer to this field as the Slens1 field. The coadded image is available in fits format at http://www.stecf.org/projects/shear/slens/slens.fits. The SExtractor parameter file used is also available there in order to enable others to reproduce the SExtractor catalog.

## 3 $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistical analysis

Over the whole field of view of our $`50^{\prime \prime }\times 50^{\prime \prime }`$ STIS image, we recognize a strong apparent tangential alignment of galaxies towards the center (see Figs. 1 and 2). Although the small $`50^{\prime \prime }\times 50^{\prime \prime }`$ field does not allow a quantitative weak lensing analysis to verify or to falsify the hypothesis of a massive dark matter halo in the image center, we use the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistic (Schneider 1996) to test whether we can identify a significant and stable peak. The details of the creation of an object catalog are the same as for the rest of the SPSS project. They are described and justified in depth in Hämmerle et al. (2001). In short, we performed an analysis of the data using two different software packages. Objects were detected with SExtractor and a modified version of the IMCAT package (Kaiser, Squires & Broadhurst 1995 hereafter referred to as KSB; Erben et al. 2001). Finally, we only retained objects detected with both programs, assigning them the photometric information from SExtractor and the shape parameters from IMCAT. There are not enough foreground stars in a STIS image to allow directly a PSF correction in the KSB style from the data itself, which is the usual procedure with wide-field ground-based observations. On the other hand, our analysis of STIS data, especially starfields obtained over the same period of time as our observations, showed that the PSF is sufficiently stable (Hämmerle et al. 2001) so that these starfields provide a good estimate of the quantities used for the KSB anisotropy and smearing correction (see also Hoekstra et al. 1998 for a similar procedure with WFPC2 data). The final correction was performed using the PSF information from the starfields as described in Erben et al. (2001). We removed from the catalog the objects with an axis ratio larger than two; those will be considered in the next section as candidate arclets. Their alignment towards the direction defined by the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistics will provide an independent test of the shear signal. In the end, our catalog contained 54 objects, with fully corrected ellipticities, which were used for the subsequent analysis.

We use standard lensing notations in this paper. For a broader introduction to this topic, the reader should refer to Bartelmann & Schneider (2001). We used the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistic (Schneider 1996) for the weak lensing analysis. The family of $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistics uses the fact that a filtered integral over the convergence $`\kappa `$ can be converted into a filtered integral over the observable tangential shear $`\gamma _\mathrm{t}`$ \[see equations (9) and (15) in Schneider 1996\], if the filter function $`U(|\mathit{\vartheta }|)`$ satisfies $`_0^\theta d\theta ^{}\theta ^{}U(\theta ^{})=0`$ but is arbitrary otherwise. It is straightforward to construct an unbiased estimate $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}^{}`$ for the integral by a discrete sum over observed image ellipticities $`ϵ_\mathrm{t}`$ and considering the coordinates origin being at the center:

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}^{}(\theta )=\frac{\pi \theta ^2}{N}\underset{i}{}ϵ_\mathrm{t}(\mathit{\vartheta }_i)Q(|\mathit{\vartheta }_i|)$$
(1)
with $`Q(x)=q(x/\theta )/\theta ^2`$ and $`q(\rho )=(6/\pi )\rho ^2(1\rho ^2)`$.

Moreover, as it is a scalar quantity, expressions for the variance and hence the $`S/N`$ for a derived $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ value are easily calculated. For the $`S/N`$ one obtains (see Schneider 1996):

$$S=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sigma _ϵ}\frac{\underset{i}{}ϵ_\mathrm{t}(\mathit{\vartheta }_i)Q\left(|\mathit{\vartheta }_i|\right)}{\sqrt{_iQ^2\left(|\mathit{\vartheta }_i|\right)}},$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _ϵ`$ is the intrinsic dispersion of image ellipticities. It is estimated by the dispersion of the galaxies entering the calculation of $`S`$ \[$`\sigma _ϵ^2=N^1_i(ϵ_{1i}^2+ϵ_{2i}^2`$)\]. Hence the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistics are the ideal tool to evaluate the significance and robustness of a mass concentration. In our case, with only a $`50^{\prime \prime }\times 50^{\prime \prime }`$ field and 54 objects in hand, the possibilities for this kind of analysis are limited. We are confined to small radii for our filter scale $`\theta `$ (about $`25^{\prime \prime }`$) for which the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistic is extremely noisy. Moreover, applying (1) to a grid of points on our data will not give an unbiased estimate of $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ since the data do not cover a complete circle with radius $`\theta `$ at most positions. However, even if $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}^{}`$ can no longer be interpreted as an unbiased estimate of the filtered density profile, it yields a measure of the tangential alignment around a point and as such is a useful statistical quantity.

The application of this approach to our data gives the results shown in Fig. 1. There, we show a significance map for one filter radius ($`\theta =25^{\prime \prime }`$). We could slightly vary the size of the filter, but we are limited by the size of the field and the number of objects in it. Changing the filter size down to $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ or up to $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ does not modify the results. We recover a peak located at the image pixel coordinates $`x=1066;y=1297`$ (here and in the following, ‘pixels’ denote the subsampled pixels of size $`0.025^{\prime \prime }`$ and with an origin for the coordinate system at the lower left corner of the image), whose position approximately coincides with the position of the brightest galaxy in the field. With a $`S/N2.42`$ for this smoothing, the peak is marginally significant. Here, the significance was estimated with (2). We found that these estimates are in very good agreement with those obtained from randomizing the orientations of galaxy ellipticities. To judge whether the peak is a robust statistical signal, we repeated the calculation of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistics drawing randomly $`70\%`$ and $`50\%`$ of the galaxies out of the initial 54 objects catalog. This exercise was repeated 100 times and the positions of the most significant peaks in the realizations were considered. The mean and standard deviation for the recovered positions of the peak are in the $`70\%`$ case: $`x=1250;\sigma _x=265;y=1383;\sigma _y=244`$ and for the $`50\%`$ case: $`x=1234;\sigma _x=300;y=1286;\sigma _y=350`$. The number of ”catastrophic outliers”, where the most significant peak is located at the very border of the frame, is about $`12\%`$ in both cases. The mean amplitude for the peaks is $`S/N2.4`$ ($`70\%`$ case) and $`S/N2.1`$ ($`50\%`$ case). These values are a bit higher than expected from simple Gaussian statistics. Also if we choose our samples not randomly but remove the $`30\%`$ and $`50\%`$ most elliptical galaxies from the initial catalog, we recover peaks consistent in position with these results (although in the $`30\%`$ case, a strong peak appears at the border of the frame).

Finally we checked the probability of obtaining at least a $`S/N2.42`$ detection in fields with randomly oriented galaxy ellipticities. As mentioned above, equations (1) and (2) applied to our field do not provide unbiased estimates of $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ and its uncertainty, since our data do not cover a complete circle of the smoothing radius at the peak position. In order to estimate this probability, we generated 10000 $`50^{\prime \prime }\times 50^{\prime \prime }`$ fields with 54 objects randomly placed, with random galaxy ellipticities drawn from the distribution $`P(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\mathrm{exp}(|ϵ|^2/\sigma _ϵ^2)`$ with $`\sigma _ϵ=0.36`$ matching the $`\sigma _ϵ`$ of our data. We find that we can reproduce a peak of at least $`S/N2.42`$ with $`700<x_{\mathrm{peak}}<1300;1000<y_{\mathrm{peak}}<1600`$ in $`2.85\%`$ of all cases. We conclude that the 54 objects detected in our frame show a fairly robust alignment towards the upper middle part of our image. As stated above, the lack of knowledge about the shear outside the Slens1 field does not permit decisive conclusions about the existence of a possible massive structure within the field.

## 4 Arclet-like features and multiple object candidate.

We selected arclet candidates solely on the basis of their elongation. The criterion choosen was that the elongation, as defined in SExtractor (major axis over minor axis), should be greater than two. Eleven objects met the requirement, with isophotal magnitudes ranging from 22.7 to 27.3 (see Table 1), which are shown in Fig. 2. A2, which appears to have 2 components, is detected by SExtractor as two distinct objects (A2a and A2b), each with axis ratio larger than two. As stated in section 3, these objects were not included in the catalog used to compute the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ statistic. Eight of those galaxies are distributed tangentially to the position of the peak center at $`x=1066;y=1297`$, but three of them (A5, A6 and A8) are oriented more radially. The angle between their minor axis and the direction towards the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}^{}`$-peak center is on average 24 degrees. The probability that the mean of this angle for 11 objects is smaller than the measured one form randomly oriented objects is only $`0.3\%`$, indicating that those galaxies are well oriented tangentially with respect to the peak center that was defined by the less elongated objects. This seems difficult to explain unless we consider a gravitational effect.

The high-resolution of STIS CCD imaging permits the identification of candidate multiply imaged galaxies, even in the absence of any color information as it is the case here, just by using morphology and surface brightness. The strongest case for a multiply imaged galaxy candidate comes from objects G1 and G2 (Fig. 2). These two galaxies show an unusual and similar V shape morphology, superimposed on an extended and dimmer halo. They have also equal maximum surface brightness, 23.29 mag/arcsec2 for G1 and 23.34 mag/arcsec2 for G2. They are located at opposite sides of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ peak: G1 being at $`19.45^{\prime \prime }`$ from the position of the peak and G2 at $`22.53^{\prime \prime }`$. Also their tangential alignment relative to the direction of the peak is nearly perfect. This symmetry, combined with the characteristic morphology and the identical surface brightness of these objects, may indicate that they are multiple images of the same background galaxy. However, the two images seem to show the same parity, with a brighter star-forming region located on the right side, when we would expect an odd parity in the case of a double image.

Without color information, the question of whether G1 and G2 are indeed a double image is impossible to decide. The indication of the same parity could be false if the bright spot on the right in G2 is an unrelated object. However, if they have indeed the same parity, a lens interpretation is difficult. Simple three-image lens models would predict a third image within the field-of-view, unless the putative lens is extremely massive. One such example would be a barely critical lens, whose caustic consists only of a lips singularity (see Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992); in this case, two equal parity images appear on either side of the lens, with the third image near the center. No indication for such a central image is found.

## 5 Discussion

The data presented in the previous sections indicate a systematic alignment, and possibly a multiply-imaged object in the field. The easiest interpretation of these findings is the existence of a mass in the line of sight of Slens1 which could produce both strong (one candidate multiple image galaxy but with a puzzling parity problem) and weak (a coherent tangential alignment which can be quantified through the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$-statistics as a significant peak together with several candidate arclets distributed tangentially around the same position) gravitational lensing effects. However, with our current STIS data, it is not possible to proceed further with the analysis and to confirm that a massive dark halo is present in this field. The significance of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ peak is too low to discard the possibility that it is a statistical fluctuation, even if we would not expect a better significance given the size of the field and the number of objects in it. We therefore considered the result of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$-analysis only to define a ‘center’ of alignment, relative to which the orientations of the arclets were measured. The mean of these orientations is small and is expected to occur randomly with a probability of only $`0.3\%`$. The arclets show a pattern strongly resembling those of lensing clusters.

If these image features are produced by a gravitational lens, it does not seem to be associated with any luminous objects visible in the deep exposure obtained with STIS. Only the location of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ peak could suggest that this mass may somehow be associated with the group of bright elliptical galaxies on the center-top part of the field. If we suppose that this is the case, the mass necessary to produce the candidate multiply imaged galaxy like G1 and G2 within a $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ radius would be similar to the mass of a rich cluster of galaxies. If the lens is really associated with those bright galaxies located close to the peak, then the M/L ratio is at least 2 orders of magnitude above the normal values for groups of elliptical galaxies. In any case, if this is a lens, the mass we find is unacounted for in terms of light for what is normally regarded as the M/L ratio in groups or clusters of galaxies. We tested also the light profile of the brightest elliptical in this group. This galaxy could be at a redshift of 0.5-0.6 based on similar galaxies in terms of magnitude and apparent size for which we have spectroscopic redshifts from the CFRS (Lilly et al. 1995). If this galaxy had a cD profile, it would strongly suggest the presence of an underlying cluster, but this galaxy clearly has a deVaucouleurs profile, which makes the test inconclusive.

In conventional models of structure formation, the most massive halos detected by aperture mass techniques like the one described in section 3 would be easily observed because they should have accreted gas which, after subsequent cooling, would form stars. Nevertheless, it is possible that one could find a number of dark lenses, where the dark matter would have collapsed in structures massive enough to create a strong lens effect, while prohibiting baryonic matter to settle in the dark matter halos and initiating the star formation. So far, two other candidates have been found (Erben et al. 2000, Umetsu & Futamase 2000) but neither of them has been clearly confirmed. Also, a class of X-ray Over-Luminous Elliptical Galaxies (OLEGs, Vikhlinin et al. 1999) show similar characteristics of a dark halo, being compatible in X-ray with the mass of a poor cluster but presenting a very low optical luminosity. Recently White et al. (2001) have suggested that those detections could be explained by projection effects of several mass sheets along the line of sight. Another explanation could be that most of the objects observed in this field are at the same redshift and belong to the same gravitational structure, the preferred orientation of the galaxies being then just a product of their infall into the gravitational potential.

To confirm the reality and the nature of the $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ peak, wider deep exposures centered on the position of the peak are necessary. At the same time, wider deep multicolor imaging would allow us to obtain photometric redshifts that would give an indication for the redshift of all the objects, including G1 and G2, in the field and its surroundings. If G1 and G2 present similar photometric redshifts then, if this is a lens, a third image should be detected in those images unless this is a very unexpected configuration. The combination of weak-lensing analysis and photometric redshift information can then be used to unveil the true nature of the objects in this field. Wittman et al. (2001) have recently used the combination of these techniques for the discovery of a new cluster of galaxies. The detection and confirmation of only a single dark-lens would already have important consequences for the standard picture of structure formation (Trentham et al. 2001). It would also show the importance of using gravitational lensing as a tool for surveys, selecting objects by mass instead of by light as in traditional methods.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Yannick Mellier and Ludovic Van Waerbeke for long and helpful discussions and for first pointing out at us the double image candidate. This work was supported by the TMR Network “Gravitational Lensing: New Constraints on Cosmology and the Distribution of Dark Matter” of the EC under contract No. ERBFMRX-CT97-0172, by the DLR grant 50 OR 0106 and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.