text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Experiments at future high-energy colliders will be able to discover supersymmetric particles and to investigate their properties. Provided their masses are not too high, a linear electron-positron collider will be the best environment for precision studies of supersymmetric models , especially of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). From precise measurements of masses, cross sections and asymmetries in chargino and neutralino production, the fundamental parameters can be reconstructed , to shed light on the mechanism of SUSY breaking.

In view of the experimental prospects it is inevitable to include higher-order terms in the calculation of the measureable quantities in order to achieve theoretical predictions matching the experimental accuracy. Former studies on chargino-pair production  and scalar-quark decays  have demonstrated that Born-level predictions can be influenced significantly by one-loop radiative corrections. In , with complete one-loop calculations performed in on-shell renormalization schemes, it was shown that besides the fermion- and sfermion-loop contributions also the virtual contributions from the supersymmetric gauge and Higgs sector are not negligible.

Since the masses of charginos and neutralinos are among the precision observables with lots of information on the SUSY-breaking structure, the relations between the particle masses and the SUSY parameters as well as the relations between the masses themselves are important theoretical objects for precision calculations. Previous studies were done in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme  with running parameters. In  an on-shell scheme has been proposed to calculate the one-loop mass matrices $`X`$ and $`Y`$ of the chargino and neutralino sector, which after diagonalization yield the one-loop corrected mass eigenstates. The concrete evaluation of the mass spectrum in  has been performed with the subset of the diagrams involving only fermion and sfermion loops and is thus not yet complete at the one-loop level.

In this paper we present an on-shell calculation of the chargino and neutralino mass spectrum of the MSSM at the one-loop level, based on the entire set of one-loop diagrams. We specify the on-shell renormalization scheme by treating all particle masses as pole masses, and with field renormalization implemented in a way that allows to formulate the renormalized 2-point vertex functions as UV-finite matrices which become diagonal for external momenta on-shell. The masses of the two charginos and of one neutralino are used as input to fix the MSSM parameters $`\mu ,M_1,M_2`$. Since only the gaugino-mass parameters $`M_1,M_2`$ and the Higgsino-mass parameter $`\mu `$ can be renormalized independently in terms of three pole masses, with all other renormalization constants fixed in the gauge and Higgs sector, the residual eigenvalues of the tree-level mass matrices are no longer the pole positions of the corresponding dressed propagators; the pole masses hence receive a shift versus the tree-level masses, which is calculable in terms of the renormalized self-energies. As a byproduct, we obtain all the renormalization constants required to determine the various counterterms for the chargino–neutralino sector of the MSSM, being implemented in the MSSM version of FeynArts  for completion at the one-loop level.

After explaining the general structure of the renormalization of parameters and fields in sections 3 and 4, we specify the on-shell conditions in section 5 and give the explicit solutions for the renormalization constants. The calculation of the predicted neutralino masses is outlined in section 6, and a presentation and discussion of the numerical results is given in section 7.

## 2 Notations and parameters

The bilinear part of the Lagrangian describing the chargino/neutralino sector of the MSSM,

$``$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{kin}}+_{\mathrm{mass}},`$ (1)
is composed of the kinetic term

$`_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\lambda }^a\overline{\sigma }^\mu \left(_\mu \lambda \right)^a+i\overline{\lambda ^{}}\overline{\sigma }^\mu \left(_\mu \lambda ^{}\right)+i\overline{\psi }_{H_1}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi _{H_1}+i\overline{\psi }_{H_2}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi _{H_2}`$ (2)
and the mass term following from the expression

$`_{\mathrm{mass}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\left[iH_1^{}\left(g\lambda ^aT^a+\frac{1}{2}g^{}\lambda ^{}\right)\psi _{H_1}+iH_2^{}\left(g\lambda ^aT^a+\frac{1}{2}g^{}\lambda ^{}\right)\psi _{H_2}+\text{h.c.}\right]`$ (3)
$`+ϵ_{ij}\left(\mu \psi _{H_1}^i\psi _{H_2}^j+\text{h.c.}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(M_1\lambda ^{}\lambda ^{}+M_2\lambda ^a\lambda ^a+\text{h.c.}\right)`$
by substituting the vacuum configurations of the two Higgs-doublet fields $`H_{1,2}`$. The Lagrangian in two-component notation involves the Weyl spinors $`\lambda ^{},\lambda ^a(a=1,2,3)`$ for the gauginos and $`\psi _{H_i}^{1,2}`$ for the Higgsino isospin components accompanying the components of the Higgs doublets, i.e.

$$H_i=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_i^1\\ H_i^2\end{array}\right),\psi _{H_i}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{H_i}^1\\ \psi _{H_i}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Besides the gauge couplings $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$, the Lagrangian involves the $`\mu `$ parameter, the soft-breaking gaugino-mass parameters $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, and the Higgs vacua $`v_i`$, which are related to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ and to the $`W`$ mass $`M_W=gv/2`$ with $`v=(v_1^2+v_2^2)^{1/2}`$.

## 3 Charginos

### 3.1 Lagrangian and mass eigenstates

Introducing a compact notation by collecting the chiral parts parts according to

$`\psi ^R\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^R\\ \psi _2^R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\lambda ^{}\\ \psi _{H_1}^2\end{array}\right),\psi ^L\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1^L\\ \psi _2^L\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}i\lambda ^+\\ \psi _{H_2}^1\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
with $`\lambda ^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\lambda ^1i\lambda ^2\right)`$, leads to the conventional form of the bilinear terms of the Lagrangian (1)–(3) for the charginos,

$`_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ $`=i\left[\psi _{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\psi }^R+\overline{\psi }_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi ^L\right]\left[\psi _{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}X\psi ^L+\overline{\psi }_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}X^{}\overline{\psi }^R\right].`$ (14)
The mass matrix

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ \sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & \mu \end{array}\right)`$ (17)
can be diagonalized by two unitary matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$, yielding the tree-level chargino mass eigenstates

$`\chi _j^R=U_{jk}\psi _k^R,\chi _j^L=V_{jk}\psi _k^L,U^{}XV^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}& 0\\ 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}\end{array}\right).`$ (20)
The tree-level definition of the corresponding chargino Dirac spinors $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ is then given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _i^L\\ \overline{\chi }_i^R\end{array}\right).`$ (23)
The squares of the tree-level masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$ arise as the eigenvalues of the hermitian matrix $`XX^{}`$,

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{M_2^2+|\mu |^2+2M_W^2[(M_2^2|\mu |^2)^2`$ (24)
$`+4M_W^4\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +4M_W^2(M_2^2+|\mu |^2+2\mathrm{Re}(\mu )M_2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )]^{\frac{1}{2}}\}.`$
### 3.2 Renormalization of the chargino sector

Starting from the chargino Lagrangian (14), we introduce renormalization constants for the mass matrix $`X`$ and for the fields $`\psi ^L`$, $`\psi ^R`$ by the transformation

$`X`$ $``$ $`X+\delta X`$
$`\psi ^L`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^L}{2}\right)\psi ^L`$
$`\psi ^R`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^R}{2}\right)\psi ^R.`$ (25)
The matrix $`\delta X`$ is made of the counterterms for the parameters in the mass matrix $`X`$ in (17),

$`\delta X`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta M_2& \sqrt{2}\delta \left(M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \right)\\ \sqrt{2}\delta \left(M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta \right)& \delta \mu \end{array}\right).`$ (28)
The matrix-valued field-renormalization constants $`\delta Z^L`$ and $`\delta Z^R`$ are chosen diagonal. This minimal set of renormalization constants is sufficient to render both $`S`$-matrix elements and Green functions for charginos finite .

For later convenience, we define in a next step the one-loop versions of the transformations (20) of the fields $`\psi ^{L,R}`$ by

$`\chi ^L`$ $`=`$ $`R_L\psi ^L`$
$`\chi ^R`$ $`=`$ $`R_R\psi ^R`$ (29)
with general complex, non-singular $`2\times 2`$-matrices $`R_L`$ and $`R_R`$, which are UV finite. In the one-loop expansion, these two matrices can be written as follows,

$`R_L`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^V}{2}\right)V,`$
$`R_R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^U}{2}\right)U,`$ (30)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are the unitary matrices from (20) and $`\delta Z^U`$, $`\delta Z^V`$ are general complex $`2\times 2`$-matrices of one-loop order. By combining the field transformations (25) and (29), (30) one finds

$`\psi ^L`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^L}{2}\right)V^{}\left(1\frac{\delta Z^V}{2}\right)\chi ^L=\left(V^{}+\frac{\delta Z^L}{2}V^{}V^{}\frac{\delta Z^V}{2}\right)\chi ^L,`$
$`\psi ^R`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^R}{2}\right)U^{}\left(1\frac{\delta Z^U}{2}\right)\chi ^R=\left(U^{}+\frac{\delta Z^R}{2}U^{}U^{}\frac{\delta Z^U}{2}\right)\chi ^R,`$ (31)
which shows that in the renormalized MSSM Lagrangian $`\delta Z^L`$ and $`\delta Z^V`$ can only occur in the combination $`\frac{\delta Z^L}{2}V^{}V^{}\frac{\delta Z^V}{2}`$, whilst $`\delta Z^R`$ and $`\delta Z^U`$ always combine to $`\frac{\delta Z^R}{2}U^{}U^{}\frac{\delta Z^U}{2}`$. Hence, actually only $`4`$ complex renormalization constants are available for each $`L`$ and $`R`$ part. In order to eliminate the redundant parameters we define new field-renormalization constants

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^L`$ $`=`$ $`V\left[\delta Z^LV^{}V^{}\delta Z^V\right]=V\delta Z^LV^{}\delta Z^V,`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^R`$ $`=`$ $`U\left[\delta Z^RU^{}U^{}\delta Z^U\right]=U\delta Z^RU^{}\delta Z^U,`$ (32)
which are now general complex $`2\times 2`$-matrices.

Applying the transformations (31) for the fields and (17) for the parameters to the Lagrangian (14) yields the Born and the counterterm parts. After a Fourier transformation they read, with 4-component spinors and the projectors $`\omega _{L,R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ :

$`_{\mathrm{Born}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\left[p/\delta _{ij}\omega _L(U^{}XV^{})_{ij}\omega _R(VX^{}U^{})_{ij}\right]\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+,`$ (33a)
$`_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}p/\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _R+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^L+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _L\right]\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+`$ (33b)
$`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}[[U^{}\delta XV^{}+\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}U^{}XV^{}+\frac{1}{2}U^{}XV^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^L]_{ij}\omega _L`$
$`+[V\delta X^{}U^{}+\frac{1}{2}VX^{}U^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}VX^{}U^{}]_{ij}\omega _R]\stackrel{~}{\chi }^+_j.`$
The renormalized self-energies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}(p)`$ for the chargino system are given by the unrenormalized self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(p)`$ plus the corresponding counterterms, obtained as derivatives of the counterterm Lagrangian (33b) with respect to the fields $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+`$,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}}}_{\mathrm{CT}}.`$ (34)
Thus, by using the decomposition into Lorentz covariants

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`p/\omega _L\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)+p/\omega _R\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2)+\omega _L\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)+\omega _R\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SR}(p^2),`$ (35)
one immediately obtains

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^R(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}`$ (36a)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^L+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}`$ (36b)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SR}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SR}(p^2)\left[V\delta X^{}U^{}+\frac{1}{2}VX^{}U^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{L}{}_{}{}^{}VX^{}U^{}\right]_{ij}`$ (36c)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)\left[U^{}\delta XV^{}+\frac{1}{2}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}U^{}XV^{}+\frac{1}{2}U^{}XV^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^L\right]_{ij}`$ (36d)
for the scalar coefficients.

## 4 Neutralinos

### 4.1 Lagrangian and mass eigenstates

The bilinear, non-interacting, part of the neutralino Lagrangian derived from (2) and (3) can be written in the conventional compact form

$`_\mathrm{n}`$ $`=\frac{i}{2}\left[\psi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\psi }^0+\overline{\psi }_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \psi ^0\right]\frac{1}{2}\left[\psi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}Y\psi ^0+\overline{\psi }_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}Y^{}\overline{\psi }^0\right],`$ (37)
where the Weyl spinors of the neutral field components are arranged as quadruples

$`\psi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}=(i\lambda ^{},i\lambda ^3,\psi _{H_1}^1,\psi _{H_2}^2),\overline{\psi }_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}=(i\overline{\lambda }^{},i\overline{\lambda }^3,\overline{\psi }_{H_1}^1,\overline{\psi }_{H_2}^2).`$ (38)
The symmetric mass matrix, with $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,c_W=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$ for the electroweak mixing angle,

$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& M_Zs_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Zs_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ 0& M_2& M_Zc_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Zc_W\mathrm{sin}\beta \\ M_Zs_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & M_Zc_W\mathrm{cos}\beta & 0& \mu \\ M_Zs_W\mathrm{sin}\beta & M_Zc_W\mathrm{sin}\beta & \mu & 0\end{array}\right),`$ (43)
can be diagonalized with the help of a unitary $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`N`$,

$`N^{}YN^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M^D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& m_4\end{array}\right),`$ (48)
yielding the neutralino mass eigenstates as linear combinations of the fields in (38):

$`\chi _i^0=N_{ij}\psi _j^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _i^0\\ \overline{\chi }_i^0\end{array}\right).`$ (51)
In the 4-component notation, the neutralino Majorana spinors are denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ (with $`i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$.

### 4.2 Renormalization of the neutralino sector

Starting from the neutralino Lagrangian (37), the mass-matrix $`Y`$ and the fields $`\psi ^0`$ are – in analogy to the chargino case – transformed by the following parameter and field renormalization,

$`Y`$ $``$ $`Y+\delta Y`$
$`\psi ^0`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^0}{2}\right)\psi ^0,`$ (52)
The counterterm matrix $`\delta Y`$ contains, besides those parameter counterterms already present in (28), the counterterms for the $`Z`$ mass and for the electroweak mixing angle, respectively. The matrix-valued renormalization constant $`\delta Z^0`$ is chosen diagonal. As in the chargino case, this is sufficient for UV finiteness. In the next step, for later convenience, we define the one-loop version of $`\chi ^0`$ as a linear transformation of the renormalized fields $`\psi ^0`$ via

$`\chi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`R\psi ^0`$ (53)
with a complex, non-singular and UV-finite $`4\times 4`$-matrix $`R`$. For the one-loop expansion we can write

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^N}{2}\right)N,`$ (54)
where $`N`$ is the unitary matrix from (48) whereas $`\delta Z^N`$ is a general complex $`4\times 4`$-matrix of one-loop order.

Performing the renormalization and redefinition of the neutralino fields according to (52), (53) and (54), one ends up with the following net substitution

$`\psi ^0`$ $``$ $`\left(1+\frac{\delta Z^0}{2}\right)N^{}\left(1\frac{\delta Z^N}{2}\right)\chi ^0=\left(N^{}+\frac{\delta Z^0}{2}N^{}N^{}\frac{\delta Z^N}{2}\right)\chi ^0.`$ (55)
This makes obvious that the renormalization constants $`\delta Z^0`$ and $`\delta Z^N`$ can only occur in the combination $`\frac{\delta Z^0}{2}N^{}N^{}\frac{\delta Z^N}{2}`$ throughout the MSSM Lagrangian. In order to avoid redundances we define new field-renormalization constants

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0`$ $`=`$ $`N\left[\delta Z^0N^{}N^{}\delta Z^N\right]=N\delta Z^0N^{}\delta Z^N,`$ (56)
in analogy to those of the chargino case. $`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0`$ is now a general complex $`4\times 4`$-matrix.

Expressing the Lagrangian (37) in terms of the new fields $`\chi ^0`$ and substituting the mass matrix according to (52) yield the Born and the counterterm Lagrangian for the neutralinos. Using the 4-component Majorana spinors $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ from (51) they read, after a Fourier transformation:

$`_{\mathrm{Born}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\left[p/\delta _{ij}\left(N^{}YN^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _L\left(NY^{}N^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _R\right]\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0,`$ (57a)
$`_{\mathrm{CT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}p/\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _R+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}\omega _L\right]\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0`$ (57b)
$`\frac{1}{2}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}[(N^{}\delta YN^{}+\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}N^{}YN^{}+N^{}YN^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0}{2})_{ij}\omega _L`$
$`+(N\delta Y^{}N^{}+\frac{NY^{}N^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}NY^{}N^{}}{2})_{ij}\omega _R]\stackrel{~}{\chi }^0_j.`$
The neutralino self-energies are decomposed into Lorentz covariants as given in (35). The renormalized self-energies are obtained by adding the appropriate counterterms following from (57b) with the help of (34), yielding

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^R(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(p^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}`$ (58a)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(p^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}\right)_{ij}`$ (58b)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SR}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SR}(p^2)\left(N\delta Y^{}N^{}+\frac{NY^{}N^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}+\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}NY^{}N^{}}{2}\right)_{ij}`$ (58c)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)\left(N^{}\delta YN^{}+\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}N^{}YN^{}+N^{}YN^{}\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0}{2}\right)_{ij}.`$ (58d)
Since neutralinos are Majorana fermions, the appropriate renormalized self-energies have to obey the relations

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(p^2)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ji}^R(p^2),\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SR}(p^2)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ji}^{SR}(p^2),\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ji}^{SL}(p^2),$$
(59)
which are in accordance with the structure of the counterterms in (58).

## 5 On-shell conditions

The propagators of the charginos and neutralinos explicitly depend on the mass parameters $`\mu `$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ of the MSSM Lagrangian. We now define the on-shell values of these parameters through the pole positions of the propagators, which correspond to the physical masses of the charginos and neutralinos.

In addition we require for both charginos and neutralinos that the matrix of the renormalized one-particle-irreducible two-point vertex functions $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^{(2)}`$ becomes diagonal for on-shell external momenta. This fixes the non-diagonal entries of the field-renormalization matrices; their diagonal entries are determined by normalizing the residues of the propagators.

The formulae of the previous sections are general enough to accommodate also complex MSSM parameters giving rise to intrinsic CP violation. In the following discussion we restrict ourselves to the simpler case of the CP-conserving MSSM with real parameters.

### 5.1 Charginos

In the case of CP conservation the on-shell renormalization conditions for the chargino sector correspond to the following relations between the renormalized self-energies (36), with $`i,j=1,2`$ \[the operation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}`$ replaces the momentum integral in the following term by its real part but does not change other complex coefficients\]:

$`U^{}XV^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+})`$ (60a)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SR}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (60b)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)+2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^{SL}{}_{}{}^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)`$
$`+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^L{}_{}{}^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^R{}_{}{}^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2))`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (60c)
The diagonal $`(i=j)`$ equations in (60b) ensure that the positions of the propagator poles are not shifted by the renormalized self-energies. This means that the relations between the chargino pole masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}`$ and the MSSM parameters have the same form as in lowest order, also at the one-loop level.

Inserting the renormalized chargino self-energies (36) into the ten equations above and solving for the renormalization constants one obtains the explicit expressions

$`\delta M_2`$ $`=`$ $`[U_{22}V_{22}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2)]+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2))`$ (61a)
$`U_{12}V_{12}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2)\right]+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2)\right)`$
$`+2\left(U_{12}U_{21}U_{11}U_{22}\right)V_{12}V_{22}\delta (\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$
$`+2U_{12}U_{22}(V_{12}V_{21}V_{11}V_{22})\delta (\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )]/\mathrm{\Delta },`$
$`\delta \mu `$ $`=`$ $`[U_{11}V_{11}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2)]+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^2))`$ (61b)
$`U_{21}V_{21}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2)\right]+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2)\right)`$
$`+2U_{11}U_{21}\left(V_{12}V_{21}V_{11}V_{22}\right)\delta (\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$
$`+2(U_{12}U_{21}U_{11}U_{22})V_{11}V_{21}\delta (\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )]/\mathrm{\Delta },`$
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2(U_{11}U_{22}V_{11}V_{22}U_{12}U_{21}V_{12}V_{21})`$;
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ii}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)\right]2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{SL^{}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2),`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ij}^L`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2}[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)`$
$`+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}(U\delta XV^{})_{ij}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}(U\delta XV^{})_{ji}],`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ii}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^R^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2)\right]2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{SL^{}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2),`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ij}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2}[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)`$
$`+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ji}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}^2)m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^+}(U\delta XV^{})_{ij}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+}(U\delta XV^{})_{ji}].`$
So far, the renormalization of two of our MSSM parameters ($`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$) has been fixed by the chargino mass renormalization.

### 5.2 Neutralinos

The left-over mass-parameter of the MSSM Lagrangian yet to be determined is the Bino mass $`M_1`$ of the neutralino sector. In the on-shell strategy, it can be fixed, together with its counterterm, by the on-shell mass renormalization of one of the four neutralino states, which we choose to be $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$.

Moreover, the additional matrix (53) in the field-renormalization constants allows one to impose the condition of having diagonal renormalized 2-point vertex functions for each of the neutralinos on-shell, i.e. $`(ij)`$

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^{(2)}(p)=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{either}p^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2\mathrm{or}p^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2.$$

This fixes the 12 non-diagonal entries of $`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}^0`$. The remaining four diagonal entries are determined by requiring unity for the residues of the neutralino propagators.

In the case of CP-conservation this leads to the following conditions:

$`\left(NYN^{}\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$
$`NYN^{}=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)`$ $``$ $`M^D`$ (62a)
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\text{for }(ij)(i=j=1)`$ (62b)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)+2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^L{}_{}{}^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)+2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^{SL}{}_{}{}^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (62c)
The value of $`M_1`$ is related to the mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ by means of (62a). The condition (62) for $`i=j=1`$ ensures that this is also the pole mass at the one-loop level. After this step, all eigenvalues $`m_j(j=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ of the matrix $`Y`$ are known. However, only $`m_1m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ is equal to the pole mass. The other eigenvalues $`m_{2,3,4}`$ are the Born approximations of the corresponding physical neutralino masses. They get corrections at the one-loop level, as discussed in the next section.

Inserting the renormalized neutralino self-energies (58) and solving the equations (62) for the renormalization constants one finds the explicit expressions

$`\delta M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_{11}^2}}[2N_{11}[N_{13}\delta (M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta )N_{14}\delta (M_Z\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta )]`$ (63a)
$`N_{12}\left[2N_{13}\delta (M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\beta )2N_{14}\delta (M_Z\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\mathrm{sin}\beta )+N_{12}\delta M_2\right]`$
$`+2N_{13}N_{14}\delta \mu +m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2)],`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ii}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L^{}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{SL^{}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2)\right],`$ (63b)
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{Z}_{ij}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^{SL}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}^2)(N\delta YN^{})_{ij}\right]}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^0}}}.`$ (63c)
Together with the renormalization constants from the gauge and Higgs sector, outlined in the following subsection, the renormalization of the 2-point functions of the chargino/neutralino sector of the MSSM is complete. Moreover, all renormalization constants are now available to determine all the counterterms required for one-loop calculations in the neutralino–chargino sector of the MSSM.

### 5.3 Renormalization constants from other sectors

The two sets of equations (61) and (63) for the renormalization constants contain explicitly the counterterms for the quantities $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$, $`\theta _W`$ of the gauge sector and for $`\beta `$, which is a parameter of the Higgs sector.

In the on-shell scheme, the renormalization of the electroweak weak mixing angle with $`c_W=M_W/M_Z`$ is deduced from the renormalization of the $`W`$\- and $`Z`$-boson masses, at the one-loop level via the relation

$$\delta s_W^2=c_W^2\left(\frac{\delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2}\right).$$

The on-shell counterterms for $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$ are given by the transverse parts of the respective vector-boson self-energies evaluated on their mass shell,

$`\delta M_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{WW}^{\mathrm{trans}}(M_W^2),`$
$`\delta M_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ZZ}^{\mathrm{trans}}(M_Z^2).`$ (64)
Following  we fix the renormalization constant for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta }}\mathrm{Im}\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{A^0Z}(M_A^2)\right].`$ (65)
Another option, which has been applied in the recent version of FeynHiggs , would be a $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

## 6 Neutralino masses

The renormalization procedure presented in the last section assures the neutralino fields not to mix with each other on their specific mass-shell. Thus the one-loop corrected masses of the remaining three neutralinos can simply be determined by finding those momenta $`p_i^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}^2`$ which obey the relation

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ii}^{(2)}(p_i)\right]u(p_i)=0,`$ (66)
where

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^{(2)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(p/m_i)\delta _{ij}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}(p),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`p/\omega _L\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^L(p^2)+p/\omega _R\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^R(p^2)+\omega _L\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SL}(p^2)+\omega _R\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}^{SR}(p^2),`$ (67)
are the renormalized neutralino two-point vertex-functions with the self-energies (58) and $`u(p_i)`$ the $`i`$-neutralino wave function in momentum space. At one-loop order, the condition (66) has the solution

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$ $`=`$ $`m_i\left[1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^L(m_i^2)\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ii}^{SL}(m_i^2)`$ (68)
for the neutralino pole masses. Inserting (58) for the renormalized self-energies finally yields the neutralino masses in terms of the unrenormalized neutralino self-energies and the renormalization constants,

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0}`$ $`=`$ $`m_i\left[1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^L(m_i^2)\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Re}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ii}^{SL}(m_i^2)+\left(N\delta YN^{}\right)_{ii}.`$ (69)
These masses are thus predictions arising from $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ and depend in addition on the residual MSSM parameters that enter the self-energies and the counterterms at the one-loop level.

## 7 Numerical evaluation

### 7.1 Specification of $`\mu `$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$

In our on-shell approach, the pole masses of the two charginos, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$, and of one neutralino, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$, are considered as input parameters, to specify the chargino/neutralino Lagrangian in terms of physical quantities. This is equivalent to the specification of the parameters $`\mu ,M_1,M_2`$, which are related to the input masses in the same way as in lowest order, as a consequence of the on-shell renormalization conditions.

For given pole masses of the charginos, the values of $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ can be determined using equation (24). Inverting those relations one gets four solutions corresponding to different physical scenarios,

$`M_2=a_\pm ,`$ $`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{a_\pm a_{}^2}{2M_W^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta +m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}}};`$
$`M_2=b_\pm ,`$ $`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{b_\pm b_{}^2}{2M_W^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}}};`$ (70)
with the abbreviations

$`a_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^22M_W^2\pm c_+}`$
$`b_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^22M_W^2\pm c_{}}`$
$`c_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}^22M_W^2\right)^24\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}\pm 2M_W^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta \right)^2}.`$ (71)
After selecting a specific $`M_2`$$`\mu `$ configuration all entries in $`Y`$ from (43) are determined, except for $`Y_{11}M_1`$. The value of $`M_1`$ is obtained by the condition that the eigenvalue $`m_1`$ of $`Y`$ coincides with the pole mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. For the case of real parameters the appropriate eigenvalue equation leads to the unique solution

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`[M_2\mu M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta +[\mu M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta M_2(\mu ^2+M_Z^2s_W^2)]m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$ (72)
$`+[\mu ^2+M_Z^2]m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2+M_2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^3m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^4]`$
$`\left[\mu M_Z^2c_W^2\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta M_2\mu ^2+\left[\mu ^2+M_Z^2c_W^2\right]m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}+M_2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}^3\right]^1.`$
After this specification of the mass parameters, the Born-level diagonalization matrices $`U`$, $`V`$ and $`N`$ can be calculated.

### 7.2 Results and discussion

The self-energies appearing in the counter terms $`\delta \mu `$, $`\delta M_2`$, $`\delta M_1`$, $`\delta M_W^2`$, $`\delta M_Z^2`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as well as the neutralino self-energies in equation (69) have been calculated with the help of the program packages FeynArts, FormCalc and LoopTools . For regularization we used the method of ’Constrained Differential Renormalization’ . At the one-loop level this prescription has been proven to be equivalent to ’Dimensional Reduction’ , which is compatible with supersymmetry.

In the numerical evaluation, mixing between the fermion families has been neglected. Moreover, we assume a common sfermion-mass scale $`m_{\{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{l},\stackrel{~}{e}\}}^2M_{\mathrm{susy}}^2`$ for simplification. The gaugino parameters $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are treated as independent.

All values for the masses in figures 1–3 have to be understood in units of GeV. The input values taken for the gauge-boson masses are $`M_W=80.419\mathrm{GeV},M_Z=91.1882\mathrm{GeV}`$. For the MSSM parameters, unless stated differently, the following values have been used for the examples in the numerical presentation. Thereby, the trilinear $`A_{u,d,e}`$ parameters are assumed universal for the three generations.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hfill M_A& =& 150\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & & \hfill M_{\mathrm{susy}}& =& 300\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & & \hfill \mathrm{tan}\beta & =& 10\hfill \\ \hfill A_u& =& 100\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & & \hfill A_d& =& 900\mathrm{GeV}\hfill & & \hfill A_e& =& 900\mathrm{GeV}\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & & & \end{array}$$

Before entering the presentation of our results we want to add a few comments regarding other treatments of on-shell renormalization. The scheme used in  for the calculation of sfermion decays into fermions is equivalent to the one specified here up to the treatment of field renormalization. In our case, the effective field-renormalization constants involve a finite one-loop redefinition of the diagonalization matrices $`U,V`$ and $`N`$ \[see (32) and (56)\] which allows a complete diagonalization of the self-energy matrices on-shell, whereas in  the $`U,V,N`$ are not modified. Differences for the predicted neutralino masses in terms of the input masses, however, are only of higher order and thus accordingly very small. This was confirmed also numerically by an explicit comparison .<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 We thank J. Guasch for the numerical comparison with the results based on the scheme of .

In  the field-renormalization constants are introduced also in combination with one-loop redefinitions of the matrices $`U,V,N`$. The $`Z`$ factors, however, have been fixed by an independent prescription adopted from . In order to make this compatible with the on-shell renormalization conditions, this requires a re-adjustment of the entries in the chargino and neutralino mass matrices by finite shifts; otherwise $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$ in (17) and (43) would not be the on-shell (pole) masses of $`W`$ and $`Z`$. As a consequence, the MSSM parameters in the mass matrices are in general different at tree level and one-loop order. In particular, the relations between $`M_2,\mu `$ and the chargino pole masses as well as between $`M_1`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ pole mass are not the tree-level relations but do contain additional terms of one-loop order. For comparisons one therefore has to keep in mind that the values of the formal parameters $`\mu ,M_1,M_2`$ in  are different from ours for the same physical situation, i.e. the physical masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}`$. The masses of the three other neutralinos, however, when calculated as observables from the same physical input, should be the same, up to small terms of formally higher orders. The evaluation in  was performed for the subclass of fermion/sfermion-loop contributions only; hence, for a numerical comparison, we had to turn off the non-(s)fermionic loop contributions of our approach and found indeed good agreement in the calculated neutralino masses for the examples given in .<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 We thank H. Eberl for providing us with the detailed numbers for the examples given in .

#### 7.2.1 Dependence of the neutralino masses on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$

Fig. 1 shows the dependence of the neutralino masses on the input mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}`$ of the heavy chargino at three different values for the mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ of the light chargino. For definiteness we choose the $`a_+`$ solution of the first line in (70) as a representative example (the other solutions show similar behaviour). The input mass from the neutralino sector is assumed to be $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=110`$ GeV throughout all the subdiagrams of Fig. 1. Depicted are: the tree-level approximation of the calculated neutralino masses, their values after including the corrections from the (s)fermionic loops only, and finally the complete one-loop corrected masses with all MSSM particles in the virtual states. For the heaviest neutralino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_4^0}`$ the shift is small, not more than 175 MeV throughout the whole scanned parameter space, and nearly invisible in the graphical illustration. Accordingly, the relative corrections are less than $`0.05`$ % everywhere, and hence we do not give more than one graph in the figure.

The impression prima facie of a qualitatively different behaviour of the masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}`$ in the different mass regions of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ in Fig. 1 can be explained as follows. Starting from $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=170`$ GeV and going to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=135`$ GeV there is a point where the two neutralino-mass curves under consideration cross each other. At this specific value for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$, the two particles are renumbered reflecting the changed order of their masses. The different form of this two mass curves for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=135`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=100`$ GeV stems from the fact that there is a formal singularity of $`M_1`$ at a value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$ close to $`115`$ GeV in (72).

The one-loop corrections for the mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}`$ can reach $`20`$ % in the case that the mass splitting between the two charginos is large. For the second and third neutralino, the typical size of the loop corrections to the masses amount to about one per cent of the Born values.

A synopsis of all diagrams clearly shows that the one-loop contributions of the gauge and Higgs sector to the neutralino mass shifts are basically of the same order of magnitude as those resulting from the subclass of (s)fermionic loops.

#### 7.2.2 Dependence of the neutralino masses on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$

In Fig. 2 and 3 the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-dependence of the calculated neutralino masses is visualized for two different examples of the light-chargino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}`$. The values for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are varied from 2 to 60. For the mass of the heavy chargino we choose $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^+}=350`$ GeV, and the input neutralino mass is set to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}=160`$ GeV.

The left columns contain the predicted neutralino masses, again in Born approximation and at the one-loop level taking into account all MSSM particles in the loops. For comparison, the one-loop neutralino masses based on the approximation with (s)fermionic loops only are also shown. In the right columns the loop-induced mass shifts (in GeV) are displayed.

The variation of the one-loop shifts of the neutralino masses over the whole range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is highest for the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$. At low values for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the mass correction is about $`2`$ % of the Born value, decreasing steadily with raising $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to approximately $`0.7`$ %.

In the parameter space being considered here the mass correction for the next-heaviest neutralino ranges from $`1.5`$ % to $`2.5`$ % of the Born value in the case of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=100`$ GeV. It decreases for heavier charginos, as e.g. in the example of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+}=180`$ GeV where it varies between $`0.4`$ % and $`0.9`$ %.

The one-loop corrections of the mass of the heaviest neutralino are small, below $`0.1`$ % of the respective Born values throughout the entire range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ under investigation.

A final remark addresses the option of performing a $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where only the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ UV-singularity of the r.h.s. in (65) is defined as the counterterm. This option has been installed in the version FeynHiggs1.2 of the FeynHiggs code to calculate the neutral MSSM Higgs-boson masses and couplings . As a comparison of the respectively calculated neutralino masses with the neutralino-mass results based on (65) has shown , the differences are quite small, at most about 40 MeV, for the same input values in both schemes.<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3We thank A. Freitas for the numerical comparison.

## 8 Conclusions

We have presented an on-shell renormalization of the chargino and neutralino mass spectrum of the MSSM at the one-loop level, based on the entire set of one-loop diagrams. An on-shell renormalization scheme has been specified treating all particle masses as pole masses, with renormalization constants implemented in a way that allows one to formulate the renormalized self-energies of the charginos and neutralinos as UV-finite matrices which are diagonal for external momenta on-shell. With the masses of both charginos and of one neutralino as input, the MSSM parameters $`\mu ,M_2,M_1`$ formally obey the lowest-order relations to these masses. The masses of the residual three neutralinos are calculated from the input, yielding mass shifts up to several GeV as compared to the tree-level approximation. The numerical investigation shows that the virtual contributions beyond those from the subset of diagrams with fermion/sfermion loops are in general of similar size as the purely (s)fermionic contributions. A proper treatment will therefore become necessary for precision studies within the MSSM at future colliders.

## Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by the DFG Forschergruppe “Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo-Simulation” and by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 “Physics at Colliders”. The calculations have been performed using the QCM cluster of the DFG Forschergruppe. We want to thank H. Eberl, A. Freitas, J. Guasch, and W. Majerotto for useful discussions and for various numerical comparisons.


format: text

text:
# Wavepackets falling under a mirror

## 1 Introduction

In the past years we have described a new phenomenon called : Wavepacket diffraction in space and time.-. The phenomenon occurs in wavepacket potential scattering for the nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation and for the relativistic Dirac equation. The effect consists in the production of a multiple peak structure that travels in space and persists. This pattern was interpreted in terms of the interference between the incoming spreading wavepacket and the scattered wave. The patterns are produced by a time independent potential in the backward direction, in one dimension, and, at large angles, in three dimensions. The multiple-peak wave train exists for all packets, but, it does not decay only for packets that are initially thinner than $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{w}{q}}}`$, where w is a typical potential range or well width and q is the incoming average packet momentum. For packets that do not obey this condition the peak structure eventually merges into a single peak. The effect appears also in forward and backward scattering of wave packets from slits.

The experimental breakthrough of Bose-Einstein condensation in clusters of alkali atoms 111A comprehensive bibliography on Bose-Einstein condensation may be found at the JILA site http://bec01.phy.GaSoU.edu/bec.html/bibliography.html lead to the reinvestigation of the influence of the earth’s gravitational field on the development of a quantum system.

Gravity is currently being advocated as a mean to allow the extraction of atoms from the condensate for the realization of an atom laser continuous output coupler . Despite the weakness of the gravitational force on earth, it has a major influence on atoms that are cooled to microKelvin temperatures. It is then necessary to include the effects of gravity in theoretical calculations with condensates.

Many other gravitational effects with quantum systems are being considered nowadays, such as bound states of neutrons in a gravitational field above a mirror, , or the use of the coherence properties of condensates to serve as interferometers in the presence of gravity.

The Bose-Einstein condensate in a magnetic trap is in reality a wave packet. To the extent that decoherence effects are not dominant, it is expected to evolve in a gravitational field in the same manner as a Schrödinger wave packet. In the present work we investigate the effects of gravity on falling packets.

It will be shown numerically and analytically that packets falling under an obstacle but, free from below, display distinctive quantum features due to their wave nature.

The Schrödinger wavepackets not only fall, in accordance with the equivalence principle, but also spread. The thinner the initial extent of the packet the broader the spectrum of momenta it carries. Consequently, it will generate many more components able to reflect from the obstacle, be it a well or a barrier. These reflected waves will interact with the spreading and falling packet.

There is crossover length scale, at which the interfering pieces start to produce a diffractive coherent structure that travels in time, analogous to the effect of wave packet diffraction in space and time previously investigated.-

This length scale is the gravitational scale $`l_g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m^2g)^{1/3}}}`$. For Sodium atoms it is about 0.73 microns, while for Hydrogen it is 5.86 microns.222 We use $`\mathrm{}=1,c=1`$, and units of length in microns, of time in milliseconds, $`g=9.8{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{(msec)^2}}`$. For packets initially narrower than a proportion of this scale, the effect is extremely evident, and gets blurred the wider the initial packet. This effect may be observed with the same setup as the one used in Bose-Einstein condensation experiments, provided pencil-like, thin packets are produced and allowed to fall under a roof.

We will provide analytical approximations to the exact solution of the problem that reproduce quite satisfactorily the numerical results. In section 2 we present numerical results. Section 3 will deal with theoretical aspects. Section 4 summarizes the paper and provides concluding remarks regarding possible experiments.

## 2 Packets falling under a roof

Matter wave diffraction phenomena in time  induced by the sudden opening of a slit, or in space by fixed slits or gratings, are understood simply by resorting to plane wave monochromatic waves.

Atomic wave diffraction experiments , have confirmed the predictions of diffraction in time calculations. These patterns fade out as time progresses.

The phenomenon of diffraction of wavepackets in space and time was presented in -. It consists of a multiple peak traveling structure generated by the scattering of initially thin packets from a time independent potential, a well, a barrier, or a grating. The condition for the pattern to persist was found to be

$`\sigma <<\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{w}{q_0}}}`$ (1)
where $`\sigma `$ is the initial spread of the packet, $`w`$ is the width of the well or barrier and $`q_0`$ is the impinging packet average momentum. For packets broader than this scale the diffraction pattern mingles into a single broad peak.

The original motivation for the present work, was the addition of gravity to the potential affecting the packet propagation. As described above, the effects of gravity become increasingly relevant to the dynamics of packets in traps and elsewhere.

The educational literature abounds in works dealing with the dynamics of packets falling on a mirror. The so-called quantum bouncer  is a clean example of the use of the Airy packet in the treatment of the problem. The use of the Airy packet is straightforward above the mirror with the boundary condition of a vanishing wave function at the location of the mirror, and, becomes a nice laboratory for the investigation of the quantum classical correspondence, revivals, the Talbot effect, etc. Falling packets were not studied, perhaps in light of the preconception that nothing interesting will be found besides the expected spread and free fall of the packet.

However, there is a surprise awaiting us here. This is not totally unexpected due to the wave nature of the packet that consists of modes propagating in both the downwards and the upwards direction. Analogous effects are apparent also when a packet propagates in parallel to a mirror without ever getting close to it. Again the spreading and interference between the incoming and reflected waves produce a wealth of phenomena.

In this section, we present the numerical results for the falling of packets under a barrier or well using Gaussian wave packets. The use of Gaussian packets permits a straightforward connection to theoretical predictions.

The scattering event starts at t =0 with a minimal uncertainty wavepacket

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{ı\alpha }`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`q(zz_0){\displaystyle \frac{(zz_0)^2}{4\sigma ^2}}`$ (2)
centered at a location $`z_0`$ large enough for the packet to be almost entirely outside the range of the potential. $`\sigma `$ denotes the width parameter of the packet. $`q=mv`$ is the average momentum of the packet. The potential affecting the packet is a square well, the gravitational interaction, and eventually the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) interaction, that subsums the effects of forces between the atoms in the condensate in the mean field approximation.

$`V=mgz+U\mathrm{\Theta }(w/2|zw/2|)+g|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ (3)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the atom taken here to be Sodium, w is the width of the well or barrier, of depth or height U, and g is the strength of the GP interaction, which using the scattering length of Sodium and a typical number of atoms in a trap of the order of 250 atoms/$`\mu ^3`$ yields $`g25`$ for a wavefunction normalized to one.

Figure 1 depits the setup of the problem. A thin wave packet is initially located around a point $`z_0=7\mu `$ under a thick barrier, the mirror. The mirror could be any flat surface. We have represented the strength of the barrier by means of a square located above $`z=0`$. The simplification of the present investigation assumes a the mirror to be a finite width plate of thickness $`t=10\mu `$ in the figure extending to a much larger distance along the x,y plane. For the one dimensional calculation we took a thin packet along the z axis of width $`4\sigma 0.4\mu `$. It is supposed to be a pencil-like packet whose extension along the x,y plane is larger than the width , such that the quantum dispersion affects primordially the behavior of the packet along the vertical direction. In this direction, the facket falls freely. The interference between the packet components reflected from the barrrier, upwards moving waves, and those that fall freely without reflection, the downward moving ones, will induce a diffraction pattern. We will find that the contrast of the pattern depends crucially on the initial location of the packet and its width.

An ideal implementation of this setup would be to use a Bose-Einstein condensate optically trapped in a region below a plate. Suddenly stop the confining potential and let it fall freely under the plate.

The condition for the observation of the effect would be to produce a thin enough condensate. For repulsive Gross-Pitaevskii interactions as in Sodium, Rubidium, or Hydrogen, the width limitation is less stringent, as will be shown below. The extra repulsion of the interaction, on top of the quantum dispersion, effectively pushes the waves inside the condensate against the wall. It acts as if the packet was initially thinner than it actually is. In particular, for Hydrogen the initial width of the packet may be as large a few microns. In section 4 we make some further comments concerning the relevance of the effect for atom lasers.

The algorithm for the numerical integration of the Schrödinger equation of the present work is described in previous works.. Flux conservation for initially normalized packets and energy conservation require that

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2𝑑z`$
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(z,t)}{z}}+(mgz+V(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2)|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2\right]𝑑z`$ (4)
with E a constant independent of time.

The numerical runs presented below achieved an accuracy in the flux conservation of around 0.2%, while the accuracy in the energy conservation was around 2%. The wave function was also found to obey the Schrödinger equation to an accuracy better than the 1% level even at points near the edges of the integration range.

The only length scale appearing in the problem is easily derived from the Schrödinger equation to be $`l_g`$. For Sodium this is $`l_g=0.73\mu `$

We consider the free fall of packets with initial widths $`\sigma `$ smaller and larger than a fraction of $`l_g`$ with or without the GP interaction. We take the barrier to have the fixed strength of $`U=10^6sec^1`$ obtained from $`U={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi a}{m}}N`$, with a, the scattering length of the Sodium-solid scattering and N the density of a typical solid. For the well we use a value taken from a van der Waals type of strength  at a distance of 1 nm, namely $`U10^2sec^1`$. We used a very high value for the attractive well strength, beyond the limit of applicability of the Lennard-Jones formula, to see whether even a large and unrealistic value for the attractive potentials influences the results as compared to the repulsive case.

Figure 2 shows the time evolution of a thin packet falling under a mirror. This is essentially what is expected to be observed in an actual imaging of a Bose-Einstein condensate falling freely under a mirror as a function of time. The figure shows the results for Sodium, however, as mentioned above the same will occur with a Hydrogen condensate, with much wider packets initially.

Figure 3 shows wide and thin packets profiles after 4 msec fall under a repulsive barrier.

The behavior of a thin packet is qualitatively different. A wide packet falls undistorted except for the natural spreading. A thin packet whose width is smaller than $`\sqrt{\frac{l_g^3}{z_0}}`$ (see below for the appearance of $`z_0`$ in the expression), possesses a distinctive diffractive structure. The rightmost (upper) edge of the structure resembles the Airy packet absolute value, however, the packet drops exponentially at large $`|z|`$ values, whereas the Airy packet diminishes as $`|z|^{1/4}`$. In the next section we will address a theoretical approach to the problem. Approximate analytical solutions will be provided that reproduce the basic features of both the thin and wide packets.

In figure 4 we present an analogous picture for the case including the GP interaction. As expected, the distinctive feature of the inclusion of this interaction is an extra repulsive force, due to the positive scattering length, that enhances the broadening of the packet, and consequently the diffraction effect. As seen from the figure, for the same values of initial packet widths, the nonlinear repulsive interaction produces a much cleaner interference pattern than the case lacking it in figure 3.

Figure 5 depicts the influence of the GP interaction on the packets profiles for initially thin packets.

The GP force produces a diffractive structure that has a much starker contrast. Large momenta are excited by the repulsive interaction, producing a more effective superposition between incoming and reflected waves.

We argued that the appearance of a diffractive structure is determined by the ratio $`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\sqrt{\frac{l_g^3}{z_0}}}}`$. Figure 6 shows the results when this ratio is around 1. While the pattern has almost disappeared from the falling packet devoid of GP interaction, it has lost contrast, but not disappeared completely from the packet subjected to the GP force. $`ϵ`$ is then the relevant ratio for the appearance of the diffractive structure.

Replacing the barrier by a well has no effect whatsoever for packets without initial momentum. The higher the initial momentum of the packet (if positive), the easyer the transmission through the well. The differences arise then for packets thrown against the obstacle only at large momenta as compared to $`l_g^1`$. This point will be dealt with in the future.

## 3 Theoretical approach to falling packets

The Airy function  is the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the propagation in a uniform field. Despite being named Airy packet, it is not normalizable and belongs to the set of wave functions in the continuum. It is the analog of a plane wave in free space.

The educational literature abounds in references to uses of this packet, both in the context of the quantum bouncer and in the treatment of generalized Galilean transformations.

For the solution of a packet falling on a mirror, the quantum bouncer, the Airy functions shifted to positions that have a zero at $`z=0`$, serve as a basis to find the time development of an arbitrary initial packet. The non-normalizability of the Airy packet is of no hindrance here, because only the upper decaying part of the packet is used. Note however that an aspect that is ignored in the literature is the absence of orthogonality between the different shifted packets when integrated only over the positive z axis. This is perhaps not a severe problem, but was not taken into account in the works using the Airy packet for the quantum bouncer problem.

The lower piece of the Airy packet is oscillatory and does not decay fast enough to serve as a basis for packets initially located under the mirror. Only when a continuum of energies (both positive and negative) is used, it is possible to expand an initial wavepacket located at z $`<`$ 0 in terms of Airy functions.

Before analyzing the problem by means of Airy functions, we will develop a very simple approximation that allows the identification of the relevant length scale for the effect to occur.

We will resort to a set of solutions that connects directly to plane waves. This solutions are not stationary in the rigorous sense of the word, because they have a time dependent phase that is not linear in time. The solutions are derived by transforming a plane wave to an accelerating frame , namely

$`\chi _k(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi }`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`mgzt+k(z+{\displaystyle \frac{gt^2}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{2m}}t{\displaystyle \frac{mg^2t^3}{6}}`$ (5)
Direct substitution in the Schrödinger equation proves that this family of solutions solves the equation for a potential $`V=mgz`$.

Given that the initial wavepacket of eq.(2) may be expanded readily in plane waves that coincide with eq.(3) at t=0, the Schrödinger equation then insures that the subsequent propagation of the packet will be obtained by replacing the plane waves by the solutions in the gravitational potential of eq.(3).

We find the expression at all times for a freely falling normalized gaussian packet

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(zz_0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi \chi _q(zz_0,t)\sqrt{\sigma }}{\sqrt{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma ^2(t)}}}`$
$`\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(zz_0+gt^2/2q/mt)^2}{4\sigma ^2(t)}}`$
$`\sigma ^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{it}{2m}}+\sigma ^2`$ (6)
Figure 7 depicts the comparison between the expression of eq.(3) and a numerical calculation. The agreement is satisfactory without any rescaling. It lends confidence in both the numerical scheme and the theoretical formulae.

At t=0 we can readily build a packet that solves the problem with the boundary condition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0`$, corresponding to an impenetrable mirror at z = 0. Just an image packet located at $`z_0`$ in the inaccessible region above the mirror will serve. The solution at t=0 then becomes $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,t=0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(zz_0,0)\mathrm{\Psi }(z+z_0,0)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in eq.(3). $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ obeys the equation of motion and the boundary condition. It also coincides with the initial packet of eq.(2) in the allowed region of z $`<`$ 0. Propagating $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ forward in time we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(zz_0,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(z+z_0,t)`$ (7)
We write the approximate sign, because the cancellation at z = 0 is only effective at short times. As soon as t increases, the wave function of eq.(7) does not vanish any more. Presumably, an infinite set of image packets is needed.

We could not find a closed analytical solution at all times. The solution of eq.(7) reproduces reasonably well the falling packets and distinguishes clearly between a packet narrower than $`l_g`$ and one wider than $`l_g`$ for $`z_0`$ of the order of a few packet widths. In order to see this we write the absolute value of eq.(7) for a packet with initial momentum $`q=0`$ for $`t>>2m\sigma ^2`$

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|`$ $`=`$ $`Ae^{\theta _1}\sqrt{sin^2(\theta _2)+sinh^2(\theta _3)}`$
$`\theta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^2\left((z+gt^2/2)^2+z_0^2\right)}{4t^2}}`$
$`\theta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mz_0(z+gt^2/2)}{t}}`$
$`\theta _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^2z_0(z+gt^2/2)}{2t^2}}`$ (8)
$`\theta _3`$ is responsible for the blurring and loss of contrast of the diffraction pattern determined by the sin function. The larger $`\theta _3`$ the less visible are the oscillations. The criterion for the visibility of the pattern may then be written as $`max(\theta _3)<<1`$. The maximum value of \- z is given by the descent of the packet and its spreading. Both are of the order of $`{\displaystyle \frac{gt^2}{2}}`$. We can then write the condition for the visibility of the interference fringes to be

$`max(\theta _3){\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^2z_0g}{2}}<<1`$ (9)
However, typically $`z_0`$ amounts to a few times the width of the packet, otherwise the oscillations will have a very large wavenumber, and will blur the pattern anyway.

Hence we can write eq.(9) as

$`max(\theta _3)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\sigma ^3g}{2}}<<1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^3}{4l_g^3}}<<1`$
$`or`$
$`\sigma <<l_g`$ (10)
If we keep $`z_0`$, eq.(3) becomes

$`\sigma <<2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{l_g^3}{z_0}}}`$ (11)
Eq.(11) demonstrates that the relevant borderline between a visible and blurred packet is $`\sigma =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{l_g^3}{z_0}}}`$. A packet initially narrower that $`l_g`$ located at a distance of a few times its width under a mirror will definitely display interference fringes. Eq.(3) also tells us that this pattern travels with the packet unscathed.

For long enough times we can improve upon the solution of eq.(7) in order to compensate for the inaccuracy in the cancellation at $`z=0`$. The correction is achieved by multiplying the subtracted wave by a space independent, but time dependent admixture factor,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z,t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(zz_0,t)\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }(z+z_0,t)`$
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(z_0,t)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(z_0,t)}}`$ (12)
By adding this factor we spoil the solution. Eq.(3) does not solve exactly the Schrödinger equation, whereas eq.(7) does. However, this inaccuracy decreases as a function of time, because $`\lambda 1`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. For times not so long it improves a little the agreement with the numerical results. It apparently compensates for the need of an infinite set of packets that insure the boundary condition at all times.

Figures 8 and 9 show the comparison between the formula of eq.(3) and the numerical results both for a thin packet and wider one.

The agreement is reasonable quite good for the wide packet and qualitatively reasonable for the thin packet. The formula captures the gross features, such a as the absence of a diffractive structure for a wide packet and the wavenumber of the oscillations for a thin packet. It has one evident limitation: Lack of a sharp cutoff of the packet at small distances -z for a thin packet. Nevertheless, the simple picture of single image packet is essentially correct.

We now proceed to find a solution in terms of Airy functions.333The author wishes to express his gratitude for the extremely helpful remarks of one of the anonymous referees concerning the use of Airy functions

A solution of the mirror problem for $`z<0`$ can be determined by means of a set of functions that solve the freely falling packet, namely linear combinations of the independent Airy functions Ai and Bi. A set that implements the boundary condition of a vanishing wave function at the origin reads

$`\chi _a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(Bi(a)Ai(x+a)Ai(a)Bi(x+a))/\sqrt{Ai^2(a)+Bi^2(a)}`$ (13)
where $`x={\displaystyle \frac{z}{l_g}},a={\displaystyle \frac{E}{mgl_g}}`$, with E, the energy of a stationary solution $`\mathrm{}<a<\mathrm{}`$.

The functions obey

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}\chi _a(x)\chi _b(x)𝑑x=\delta (ab)`$ (14)
with $`\delta `$, the Dirac $`\delta `$ function. The set is orthonormal and complete.

The initial wave packet of eq.(2) is expanded in terms of the set above as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t=0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}C(a)\chi _a(x)𝑑a`$
$`C(a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}\chi _a(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t=0)𝑑x`$ (15)
The wave function at all times then becomes

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}C(a)\chi _a(x)e^{iEt}𝑑a`$
For thin enough wave packets $`C(a)`$ may be obtained analytically by extending the integration to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and neglecting corrections of order $`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{l_g}}`$, with $`\sigma `$, the initial width of the packet. Under these approximations C(a) becomes

$`C(a)=\left(2^3\pi \gamma ^2\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}l_gexp((a+x_0)\gamma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^6}{3}})\chi (a+x_0+\gamma ^2)`$ (17)
where $`x_0={\displaystyle \frac{z_0}{l_g}}`$

Inserting this formula into eq.(3) we find the wave function at all times.

Figures 10 and 11 present the comparison of the numerical calculation for a thin packet and a wider packet to the analytical formula of eq.(3) with the approximation of eq.(17). The thin packet fit is quite good, while for the wider packet there is a discrepancy in the height of the peak. This discrepancy is due to the fact that $`\gamma `$ for a wider packet is not negligible and the formula of eq.(17) needs to be ammended. However in both cases the basic feature of the existence and absence of a diffractive train is evident. It is worth mentioning that there is no rescaling of neither analytical nor numerical data points.

The long time behavior of the thin packet as compared to a wide packet remains unchanged for as far as we could integrate the time dependent Schrödinger equation numerically and still agrees with the analytical solution of eq.(3). We reached a time of 30 msec and the profiles just spread, but do not change in shape. At that time the center of the packet is around 4.5 mm below the mirror.

The integration of the equation becomes prohibitive beyond this time due to the strong oscillations in the wave function that require an increasingly smaller time step. The results however look quite firm. The diffractive structure persist to infinite times, as it was found for the wavepacket diffraction in space and time effect.-

In the next section we will provide some closing statements on the relevance of the falling packet effect for Bose-Einstein condensates and atom lasers.

## 4 Summary

We have found that a falling packet that is blocked by an obstacle from above, behaves differently depending on its initial spread. A packet wider than the gravitational mass dependent length scale $`l_g`$ falls almost as a free packet except for a lag due to an effective attraction to the barrier or well, while a thin packet has a distinctive diffraction pattern that propagates with it analogous to the ’Wavepacket diffraction in space and time effect’-.

We consider now a possible scenario to implement the findings of this work, and also take advantage of them for the purposes of creating an atom laser. Although there seems to be some controversy as to what an atom laser is, at a pedestrian level it would consist in a three stage machine: A feeding stage that pumps in atoms in an incoherent phase; a condensation cavity and a continuous output coupler. The investigation of these stages is as of today very advanced both theoretically and experimentally.

We would like to point out that the results of this paper suggest an alternative avenue for the continuous output coupling of a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Basically, it consists of an orifice, a physical one or one drilled in the mesh of laser radiation that confines the condensate. Through the orifice the condensate can exit in a pencil-like thin jet of atoms.

Position now a mirror above the atoms and let them fall freely while the feeding continues. It appears then that the outcome will be a coherent train of atoms having the characteristic oscillations found here, provided the width of the pencil is smaller than $`\sqrt{l_g^3/z_0}`$.

In order to see if this design works and check whether it fits the criteria of an atom laser set in ref., we need to perform at least a two-dimensional calculation with a source term. This endeavor is currently underway.

## 5 Acknowledgment

I would like to thank the anonymous referees for very valuable remarks.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

High-$`p_T`$ jet production and other hard processes are considered as the promising tools for studying properties of hot matter created in heavy ion collisions at RHIC and LHC. The challenging problem is the behaviour of colour charge in quark-gluon environment associated with the coherence pattern of the medium-induced radiation. It results in interesting non-linear phenomena, in particular, the dependence of radiative energy loss per unit distance $`dE/dx`$ along the total distance traversed (see review  and references therein). In a number of papers  authors analysed the azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ hadron spectra in semi-central nuclear collisions at RHIC due to partonic energy loss in azimuthally non-symmetric volume of quark-gluon plasma. At LHC energy, when the inclusive cross section for hard jet production on $`E_T100`$ GeV scale is large enough to study the impact parameter dependence of such processes , one can hope to observe the similar effect for hadronic jet itself . In particular, CMS experiment at LHC  will be able to provide jet reconstruction and adequate measurement of impact parameter of nuclear collision using calorimetric information .

It is important to notice that the coherent Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal radiation induces a strong dependence of the radiative energy loss of a jet (but not a leading parton) on the jet angular cone size . It means that the medium-induced radiation will, in the first place, soften particle energy distributions inside the jet, increase the multiplicity of secondary particles, and to a lesser degree affect the total jet energy. On the other hand, collisional energy loss turns out to be practically independent of jet cone size, because the bulk of ”thermal” particles knocked out of the dense matter by elastic scatterings fly away in almost transverse direction relative to the jet axis .

The methodical advantage of azimuthal jet observables is obvious: one needs to reconstruct only azimuthal position of jet, but not the total jet energy. It can be done more easily and with high accuracy, while the reconstruction of the jet energy is more ambiguous task . However the performance of inclusive analysis of jet production as a function of azimuthal angle requires event-by-event measurement of the reaction plane angle. The summarized in papers  present methods for determination of the reaction plane angle are applicable for studying anisotropic flow of soft and semi-hard particles in current heavy ion dedicated experiments at SPS  and RHIC , and, in principle, might be also used at LHC .

In this work we suggest a method to calculate the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy without reconstruction of nuclear reaction plane. In some sense, it represents the development and generalization of the well-known method for measuring azimuthal anisotropy of particle flow considered originally in a number of works (see  for instance).

## 2 Event-by-event analysis of azimuthal correlations

Let us remind the essence of techniques  for measuring azimuthal elliptic anisotropy of particle distribution, which can be written in the form

$$\frac{dN}{d\phi }=\frac{N_0}{2\pi }[1+2v_2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)],N_0=\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \frac{dN}{d\phi }.$$
(1)
Knowing the nuclear reaction plane angle $`\psi _R`$ allows one to determine the coefficient $`v_2`$ of azimuthal anisotropy of particle flow as an average (over particles) cosine of $`2\phi `$:

$$\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)=\frac{1}{N_0}\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)\frac{dN}{d\phi }=v_2.$$
(2)
However in the case when there are no other correlations of particles except those due to flow (or such other correlations can be neglected), the coefficient of azimuthal anisotropy can be determined using two-particle azimuthal correlator without the event plane angle $`\psi _R`$:

$`\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2){\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{d\phi _1d\phi _2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2){\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi _2}}=v_2^2.`$
Here one should to note that it is safe to neglect non-flow correlations only if the coefficient of azimuthal anisotropy $`v_2`$ is much larger than $`1/\sqrt{N_0}`$. In reality, this condition is not always satisfied. A new method, based on a cumulant expansion of multi-particle azimuthal correlations, which allows measurements of much smaller values of azimuthal anisotropies, down to $`1/N_0`$, has been worked out recently in paper . This method automatically eliminates the major systematic errors, which are due to azimuthal asymmetries in the detector acceptance, and in principle could be used in further improvements of our approach.

Let us consider now the event with high-pT jet (dijet) production, the distribution of jets over azimuthal angle relatively to the reaction plane being described well by the elliptic form ,

$$\frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi }=\frac{N_0^{jet}}{2\pi }[1+2v_2^{jet}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)],N_0^{jet}=\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi },$$
(4)
where the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy $`v_2^{jet}`$ is determined as an average over all events cosine of $`2\phi `$,

$$\mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)_{event}=\frac{1}{N_0^{jet}}\underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi \psi _R)\frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi }=v_2^{jet}.$$
(5)
One can calculate the correlator between the azimuthal position of jet axis $`\phi _{jet}`$ 111The other possibility is to fix the azimuthal position of a leading particle in the jet. In this case calculating azimuthal correlations can provide the information about azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ particle spectrum. and the angles of particles, which are not incorporated in the jet(s). The value of this correlator is related to the elliptic coefficients $`v_2`$ and $`v_2^{jet}`$ as

$`\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )_{event}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^{jet}N_0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _{jet}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi _{jet}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{d\phi }}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_0^{jet}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{\overset{\pi }{}}}𝑑\phi _{jet}\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R){\displaystyle \frac{dN^{jet}}{d\phi _{jet}}}v_2=v_2^{jet}v_2.`$
Using Eq. (2) and intermediate result in Eq. (2) (after averaging over particles $`\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )`$ reduces to $`v_2\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\psi _R)`$) we derive the formula for computing absolute value of the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy (without reconstruction of sign of $`v_2^{jet}`$):

$$v_2^{jet}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)}}_{event}.$$
(7)
This formula does not require the direct determination of reaction plane angle $`\psi _R`$. The brackets $``$ represent the averaging over particles (not incorporated in the jet) in a given event, while the brackets $`_{event}`$ the averaging over events.

The formula (7) can be generalized by introducing as weights the particle momenta,

$$v_{2(p)}^{jet}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )p_T(\phi )}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)p_{T1}(\phi _1)p_{T2}(\phi _2)}}_{event}.$$
(8)
In this case the brackets $``$ denote the averaging over angles and transverse momenta of particles. The other modification of (8),

$$v_{2(E)}^{jet}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _{jet}\phi )E(\phi )}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}2(\phi _1\phi _2)E_1(\phi _1)E_2(\phi _2)}}_{event}$$
(9)
($`E_i(\phi _i)`$ being energy deposition in calorimetric ring $`i`$ of position $`\phi _i`$) allows one using calorimetric measurements (9) for the determination of jet azimuthal anisotropy, in particular, under condition of CMS experiment at LHC.

## 3 Numerical simulation and discussion

In order to illustrate the applicability of method presented for real physical situation, we consider the following model.

### Jets.

The initial jet distributions in nucleon-nucleon sub-collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=5.5`$ TeV have been generated using PYTHA$`\mathrm{\_}5.7`$ generator . We simulated the rescattering and energy loss of jets in gluon-dominated plasma, created initially in nuclear overlap zone in Pb$``$Pb collisions at different impact parameters. For details of this model one can refer to our previous papers . Essentially for our consideration here is that in non-central collisions the azimuthal distribution of jets is approximated well by the elliptic form (4). In the model the coefficient of jet azimuthal anisotropy increases almost linearly with the growth of impact parameter $`b`$ and becomes maximum at $`b1.2R_A`$, where $`R_A`$ is the nucleus radius. After that $`v_2^{jet}`$ drops rapidly with increasing $`b`$: this is the domain of impact parameter values, where the effect of decreasing energy loss due to reducing effective transverse size of the dense zone and initial energy density of the medium is crucial and not compensated more by stronger non-symmetry of the volume). Other important feature is that the jet azimuthal anisotropy decreases with increasing jet energy, because the energy dependence of medium-induced loss is rather weak. Finally, the kinematical cuts on jet transverse energy and rapidity has been applied: $`E_T^{jet}>100`$ GeV and $`|y^{jet}|<1.5`$. After this dijet event is superimposed on Pb$``$Pb event containing anisotropic flow.

### Particle flow.

Anisotropic flow data at RHIC  can be described well by hydrodynamical models for semi-central collisions and $`p_T`$ up to $`2`$ GeV/c , while the majority of microscopical Monte-Carlo models underestimate flow effects (however, see ). One can expect that the hydrodynamical model can be applied to estimation of particle flow effects at LHC, may be extending this approach to even higher pT values. On the other hand, at collider energies one more reason for anisotropic flow in relatively high-pT domain can arise: the sensitivity of semi-hard particles to the azimuthal asymmetry of reaction volume under the condition that the major part of them are the products of in-medium radiated gluons or parent hard partons . Of course, for more detailed simulation, one has to take into account the interplay between hydro flow and semi-hard particle flow. However here we restrict our consideration to using the simple hydrodynamical Monte-Carlo code  giving hadron (charged and neutral pion, kaon and proton) spectrum as a superposition of the thermal distribution and collective flow. For the fixed in the model ”freeze-out” parameters — temperature $`T_f=140`$ MeV, collective longitudinal rapidity $`Y_L^{max}=5`$ and collective transverse rapidity $`Y_T^{max}=1`$ — we get average hadron transverse momentum $`<p_T^h>=0.55`$ GeV/c. We set the Poisson multiplicity distribution and take into account the impact parameter dependence of multiplicity in a simple way, just suggesting that the mean multiplicity of particles is proportional to the nuclear overlap function 222In fact, the influence of initial nuclear effects like shadowing or saturation can result in a weaker impact parameter dependence of $`dN/dy`$ (see for example ). Thus, if the particle density in central collisions is fixed as a parameter, we are getting here the most ”pessimistic”, minimal estimation of mean multiplicity of non-central events. Since the accuracy of the method used improves with the increasing multiplicity, for weaker $`b`$-dependences one can obtain even better resolution for $`v_2^{jet}`$., $`dN/dy(b)T_{AA}(b)`$. In the framework of this model, anisotropic flow can be introduced on the assumption that the spatial ellipticity of ”freeze-out” region,

$$ϵ=\frac{y^2x^2}{y^2+x^2},$$
(10)
is directly related to the initial spatial ellipticity of nuclear overlap zone, $`ϵ_0=b/2R_A`$. Such ”scaling” allows one to avoid using additional parameters and, at the same time, results in introducing elliptic anisotropy of particle and energy flow due to dependence of effective transverse size of ”freeze-out” region $`R_f(b)`$ on azimuthal angle of ”hadronic liquid” element $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$R_f(b)=R_f(b=0)min\{\sqrt{1ϵ_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }}+ϵ_0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi },\sqrt{1ϵ_0^2\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }}ϵ_0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }\}.$$
(11)
Obtained in such a way azimuthal distribution of particles is described well by the elliptic form (1) for the domain of reasonable impact parameter values. Note that in the framework of present paper we do not aim at detailed description of azimuthal hadronic spectra and its comparison with experimental data (in principle, fit of the data could be performed using, for example, $`ϵ_0`$ in (11) as a parameter). In order to investigate the reliability of the method, we just need here to introduce the elliptic anisotropy of energy flow in Monte-Carlo event generator.

### Energy flow.

To be specified, we consider the example of CMS detector at LHC collider . The central (”barrel”) part of the CMS calorimetric system will cover the pseudo-rapidity region $`|\eta |<1.5`$, the segmentation of electromagnetic and hadron calorimeters being $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.0174\times 0.0174`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \times \mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0.0872\times 0.0872`$ respectively . In order roughly to reproduce the real experimental situation (not including real detector effects, but just assuming calorimeter hermeticity), we apply formula (9) to integrated over rapidity energy deposition $`E_i(\phi _i)`$ of generated particles in $`72`$ rings (according to the number of rings in the hadron calorimeter) covering full azimuth.

###

Figure 1 shows the $`b`$-dependence of ”theoretical” value of $`v_2^{jet}`$ (calculated including collisional and radiative energy loss), and $`v_2^{jet}`$ determined by the method (9) for the two estimated values of the input parameter, number of charged particles per unit rapidity at $`y=0`$ in central Pb$``$Pb collisions, $`dN^\pm /dy=3000`$ and $`6000`$. One can see that the accuracy of $`v_2^{jet}`$ determination is close to $`100\%`$ for semi-central collisions and becomes significantly worse in very peripheral collisions ($`b2R_A`$), when decreasing multiplicity and azimuthal anisotropy of the event results in large relative fluctuations of energy deposition in a ring 333Note that the applicability of hydrodynamical model to very peripheral collisions is unclear. Moreover, the edge effects near the surface of the nucleus, impact parameter dependence of nuclear parton structure functions, early transverse expansion of the system and other potentially important phenomena for such collisions are beyond our consideration here..

To conclude this section, let us discuss the influence of different factors on results for $`v_2^{jet}`$ determined with the present method. First of all, note that the theoretical absolute value of $`v_2^{jet}`$ and its $`b`$-distribution are, of course, very model-dependent. For example, the effect of jet energy loss and corresponding azimuthal anisotropy are sensitive to the defined jet cone size . Since we obtained here the energy loss only on the partonic level, for the finite jet cone size $`\theta _00`$ the effect should be less pronounced. Another reason for reducing jet azimuthal anisotropy can be sharp transverse collective expansion in events with large impact parameter values 444As it has been shown in recent work , in the extreme scenario assuming instant transverse expansion of the medium, the geometrical anisotropy is strongly reduced, and the anisotropy of particles (at $`p_T\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}210`$ GeV/c under RHIC conditions) may drop below the observable level. In principle, this effect can have influence also on jet anisotropy at LHC conditions. Let us just mention that the possibility for realization of such scenario for transverse expansion is not obvious. Within original Bjorken approach  the rarefaction wave front moves with the sound velocity $`c_s=\sqrt{dp/d\epsilon }`$ and the whole volume of the fluid appears to be involved in three-dimensional expansion in the time of order $`\tau \tau _0+R_A/c_s`$.  . However, the relative accuracy of $`v_2^{jet}`$ determination does not show any significant dependence on its absolute value. The reason for this is the following. The relative error for the method (7) using particle flow can be roughly estimated as a sum of two terms, which are proportional to $`(v_2^{jet}N_{event})^1`$ and $`(v_2^{part}N_{part})^1`$ respectively ($`v_2^{part}`$ is the coefficient of particle azimuthal anisotropy and $`N_{part}`$ is the mean multiplicity in the event). If the number of events is large enough, $`N_{event}1`$, the main influence would be expected due to the second term, which does not depend on $`v_2^{jet}`$. This is also the reason why the relative error becomes significant at low values of both the coefficient of particle azimuthal anisotropy and the particle multiplicity. The same conclusion will be valid for the method (9) using energy flow, if the condition $`N_{part}N_{ring}1`$ is fulfilled.

Let us also note that in a real experimental situation, the pattern of azimuthal anisotropy can be more complicated due to non-flow correlations, finite accuracy of impact parameter determination, detector resolution effects, etc. On the other hand, one can try to improve accuracy of this technique considering, for example, the correlation between two equal multiplicity sub-events , or using results of work .

## 4 Conclusions

The strong interest is springing up to the azimuthal correlation measurements in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. One of the main reasons is that the rescattering and energy loss of hard partons in azimuthally non-symmetric volume of dense quark-gluon matter can result in visible azimuthal anisotropy of high-$`p_T`$ hadrons at RHIC and high-$`E_T`$ jets at LHC.

In jet case, the methodical advantage of azimuthal observables is that one needs to reconstruct only azimuthal position of jet without measuring total jet energy. One of the ways to perform the inclusive analysis of jet production as a function of azimuthal angle is event-by-event determination of the nuclear reaction plane angle. In the present paper we suggest the method for measurement of jet azimuthal anisotropy coefficients without reconstruction of the event plane. This technique is based on the calculation of correlations between the azimuthal position of jet axis and the angles of particles (not incorporated in the jet), azimuthal distribution of jets being described by the elliptic form. The method is generalized by introducing as weights the particle momenta or energy deposition in the calorimetric rings. In the latter case, we have illustrated the reliability of the present method in real physical situation under LHC conditions. The accuracy of the method improves with increasing multiplicity and particle (energy) flow azimuthal anisotropy, and is practically independent of the absolute values of azimuthal anisotropy of the jet itself.

To summarize, we believe that the present techniques may be useful for future data analysis in heavy ion collider experiments.

Acknowledgements Discussions with M. Bedjidian, A.I. Demianov, D. Denegri, P. Filip, S.V. Petrushanko, V.V. Uzhinskii, U. Wiedemann and G.M. Zinovjev are gratefully acknowledged.