format: text

text:
# Chandra and XMM-Newton Observations of the Highest Redshift Quasars: X-rays from the Dawn of the Modern Universe

## 1 Introduction

One of the main themes in astronomy over the coming decades will be the exploration of the dawn of the modern Universe, when the first massive black holes, galaxies, and stars formed.111See, for example, the National Research Council 2000 Decadal Report at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9839.html. X-ray astronomy missions such as Chandra, XMM-Newton, Constellation-X, XEUS, and Generation-X can play a crucial role in this investigation by allowing studies of warm and hot objects in the early Universe. They will thereby complement high-redshift studies with observatories such as ALMA, GSMT, Herschel, NGST, and SIRTF, which will generally focus on cooler objects. For example, X-ray observations will permit study of the first massive black holes to form in the Universe; such black holes can plausibly form at $`z\stackrel{>}{}10`$ (e.g., Haiman & Loeb 2001).

X-rays reveal the conditions in the immediate vicinity of the supermassive black hole. Measurements of the X-ray continuum’s shape, amplitude relative to longer wavelength radiation, and variability can provide information about the inner accretion disk and its corona and thus ultimately offer insight into how the black hole is fed. The X-ray continua of quasars could plausibly change at the highest redshifts. For example, the rapid growth of such quasars could occur if they are accreting matter near the Eddington limit where accretion-disk instabilities and “trapping-radius” effects (e.g., Begelman 1978) can arise.222Note that even models with relatively short quasar growth times suggest that accretion rates, relative to the Eddington rate, are likely to increase with redshift (e.g., see Fig. 10 of Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000). There have been some claims of X-ray continuum shape evolution with redshift that require further investigation (e.g., Vignali et al. 1999; Blair et al. 2000).

The penetrating nature of X-rays allows even highly obscured black holes to be studied, and X-ray absorption measurements can be used to probe the environments of high-redshift quasars. Changes in the amount of X-ray absorption with redshift have been discussed by many authors (e.g., Fiore et al. 1998; Elvis et al. 1998; Reeves & Turner 2000). The fraction of radio-loud quasars (RLQs) with heavy X-ray absorption appears to rise with redshift, with column densities of $`\stackrel{>}{}2\times 10^{22}`$ cm-2 being seen at $`z\stackrel{>}{}3`$. The absorbing gas may be circumnuclear, located in the host galaxy, or entrained by the radio jets. The situation for the more common radio-quiet quasars (RQQs) is less clear due to a general lack of RQQ X-ray spectra at $`z\stackrel{>}{}2.5`$. RQQs definitely show less of an absorption increase with redshift than do RLQs (e.g., Fiore et al. 1998), but the constraints on an absorption/redshift connection are quite loose and require improvement.

Our understanding of the X-ray emission from $`z>4`$ quasars has advanced rapidly over the past few years, enabled largely by the capabilities of Chandra and XMM-Newton. Furthermore, ground-based surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; York et al. 2000) have discovered many new $`z>4`$ quasars that are excellent X-ray targets. The number of published X-ray detections at $`z>4`$ has increased to almost 30 (see Fig. 1).333See http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/niel/papers/highz-xray-detected.dat for a regularly updated list of $`z>4`$ X-ray detections. The only $`z>4`$ non-AGN detected in the X-ray band is the $`z=4.50`$ gamma-ray burst GRB 000131 (Andersen et al. 2000). This increase has allowed the first reliable X-ray population studies of $`z>4`$ quasars. It has also been possible to achieve X-ray detections at redshifts above five. Prior to 2001 the highest redshift X-ray detection was GB 1428+4217 at $`z=4.72`$ (Fabian et al. 1997), while today there are nine published X-ray detections with $`z=`$ 4.77–6.28 (see Fig. 2; e.g., Vignali et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2002).

The rapid advances of late should continue for the next several years. By 2004 it is plausible that there will be $`\stackrel{>}{}100`$ X-ray detections and $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 10–15 XMM-Newton X-ray spectra of $`z>4`$ objects.

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

## 2 Current Status and Some Recent Results

### 2.1 First X-ray Population Studies at $`z>4`$ via Exploratory Observations

Prior to 2000 there were only six published $`z>4`$ X-ray detections (see Fig. 1), and these were for a heterogeneous mixture of objects not suitable for population studies. They included three radio-loud blazars (Mathur & Elvis 1995; Fabian et al. 1997; Zickgraf et al. 1997), two X-ray selected RQQs (Henry et al. 1994; Schneider et al. 1998), and only one optically selected RQQ (Bechtold et al. 1994). The blazars were notable for their large X-ray fluxes that allowed moderate-quality X-ray spectroscopy (see Fig. 3; Moran & Helfand 1997; Fabian et al. 1998; Boller et al. 2000; Yuan et al. 2000; Fabian et al. 2001a; also see Fabian et al. 2001b for the X-ray spectrum of a recently discovered $`z>4`$ blazar). All of the four $`z>4`$ blazars currently detected in the X-ray regime appear to have their emission dominated by jets. Three of the four show evidence for low-energy spectral flattening that may be due to intrinsic absorption, in line with the findings for lower redshift RLQs described in §1. While these blazars have been wonderful targets for study, they are not representative of the majority quasar population at $`z>4`$ (e.g., Stern et al. 2000). Furthermore, due to the strength of the X-ray emission from the jet, it is difficult to observe the accretion disk and the immediate vicinity of the black hole.

With the 2000–2002 studies, optically selected RQQs, the majority quasar population, now dominate the number of $`z>4`$ X-ray detections (see Fig. 1). There are 20 such detections published at present. Six of these were obtained in an archival study of ROSAT data by Kaspi, Brandt, & Schneider (2000), and an additional 12 were obtained via exploratory (2–10 ks) Chandra observations (e.g., Vignali et al. 2001; Brandt et al. 2002; Mathur, Wilkes, & Ghosh 2002; Schwartz 2002b).444The other two optically selected RQQs with published X-ray detections are Q0000–2619 (Bechtold et al. 1994; detected by ROSAT) and SDSS 1044–0125 (Brandt et al. 2001a; detected by XMM-Newton). We have ongoing Chandra programs designed to obtain additional detections; Chandra is extremely effective at this and, near the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS; G.P. Garmire et al., in preparation) aim point, can detect quasars with as few as 2–3 counts! As shown in Fig. 2, we are focusing on $`z>4.8`$ quasars from the SDSS and optically bright quasars from the Palomar Digital Sky Survey (PSS; e.g., Djorgovski et al. 1998).555See http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$``$george/z4.qsos for a listing of the PSS quasars. We have obtained a significant number of new detections, and these will be published shortly (C. Vignali et al., in preparation).

The exploratory observations have defined the typical X-ray fluxes and luminosities of $`z>4`$ quasars. As shown in Fig. 3, these quasars are typically faint X-ray sources, and even the brightest non-blazars generally have 0.5–2 keV fluxes $`\stackrel{<}{}3\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. The practical implication of this is that X-ray spectroscopy of $`z>4`$ quasars will generally be a challenging endeavor (see §2.2 for details). There is a clear correlation between X-ray flux and $`AB_{1450}`$ magnitude, although there is significant scatter around this correlation (see Fig. 3; Vignali et al. 2001 give the results of correlation tests). The scatter makes it risky to attempt long spectroscopic observations before an X-ray flux has been established via exploratory observations. The 2–10 keV rest-frame luminosities of the observed quasars range from $``$ $`2\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1 to $`4\times 10^{45}`$ erg s-1.

The exploratory observations have also allowed a basic assessment of the contribution of X-ray emission to the broad-band spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of $`z>4`$ quasars. Fig. 4, for example, shows the quantity $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ plotted versus redshift for optically selected RQQs; $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ is the slope of a nominal power law between 2500 Å and 2 keV in the rest frame \[$`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}=0.384\mathrm{log}(f_{2\mathrm{keV}}/f_{2500\text{Å}}`$) where $`f_{2\mathrm{keV}}`$ is the flux density at 2 keV and $`f_{2500\text{Å}}`$ is the flux density at 2500 Å\].666For the $`z>4`$ quasars in Fig. 4 we have generally calculated $`f_{2\mathrm{keV}}`$ from the observed-frame 0.5–2 keV flux (assuming an X-ray power-law photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$); this is required because ACIS has limited spectral response below 0.5 keV. Thus, the derived $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ values are actually based on the relative amount of X-ray flux in the 0.5$`(1+z)`$ keV to 2$`(1+z)`$ keV rest-frame band. There is no evidence for strong changes in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ with redshift, despite the large changes in quasar number density over the redshift range shown in Fig. 4 (see §5.3 of Fan et al. 2001 and references therein). Some quasars at $`z>4`$ may have slightly more negative $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ values, perhaps due to X-ray absorption by the large amounts of gas in their primeval host galaxies (see Vignali et al. 2001 for further discussion). However, the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ constraints at $`z>4`$ (and especially at $`z\stackrel{>}{}4.8`$) require improvement via further observations before small $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ changes can be considered significant. The lack of strong changes in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ with redshift is generally consistent with the lack of strong spectral evolution at other wavelengths. For example, the ultraviolet rest-frame spectra of $`z>4`$ quasars are only subtly different from those at lower redshifts (e.g., Schneider, Schmidt, & Gunn 1989; Constantin et al. 2002), and the fraction of RLQs does not appear to change significantly with redshift (e.g., Stern et al. 2000).

Fig. 4 has several important implications. First of all, it supports the idea that X-ray emission is a universal property of quasars at all redshifts; this result had already been established for low-redshift quasars ($`z\stackrel{<}{}0.5`$; e.g., Avni & Tananbaum 1986; Brandt, Laor, & Wills 2000). Most of the X-ray nondetections in Fig. 4 with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}<1.8`$ are Broad Absorption Line (BAL) QSOs or mini-BALQSOs; there is now evidence that these quasars indeed produce X-rays at a typical level but that this emission is absorbed (e.g., Gallagher et al. 2001; Green et al. 2001; Gallagher et al. 2002). Thus, Fig. 4 bodes well for attempts to detect the first massive black holes to form in the Universe ($`z`$ 8–20) with deep X-ray surveys; the current data suggest that these objects are likely to be luminous X-ray emitters. Secondly, the fact that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ does not change strongly with redshift helps to validate the bolometric correction factor usually adopted (e.g., Fan et al. 2001) when estimating the black hole masses of high-redshift quasars via the Eddington argument. The derived masses of $``$ (1–5)$`\times 10^9`$ M place constraints on theories of cosmic structure formation (e.g., Efstathiou & Rees 1988; Turner 1991). Thirdly, the X-ray emission of high-redshift quasars is expected to affect the heating and ionization of the intergalactic medium (e.g., Venkatesan, Giroux, & Shull 2001).777Due to its low metallicity and relatively low integrated column density, the intergalactic medium should not prevent the X-ray detection of quasars even to very high redshift (e.g., Aldcroft et al. 1994; Weinberg et al. 1997; Miralda-Escudé 2000). The data in Fig. 4 suggest that, at least to first order, the SEDs of local quasars may be adopted when trying to compute the effects of early quasars upon the intergalactic medium.

Some studies have found evidence that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ depends upon quasar optical luminosity, with more luminous quasars generally having more negative values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ (e.g., Avni, Worrall, & Morgan 1995; Green et al. 1995; but see Yuan, Siebert, & Brinkmann 1998 for an alternative point of view). We have searched for such a trend using the RQQs shown in Fig. 4; BALQSOs and mini-BALQSOs have been removed since their $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ values are affected by absorption. A weak trend is possible, but additional observations (of a well-defined RQQ sample) will be required to determine if one is present since there is significant scatter in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ ($`\pm 0.2`$) at all optical luminosities (see §4.2 of Vignali et al. 2001 for details). It is worth noting that $``$ 5–30% of $`z`$ 4–6 quasars are expected to suffer from strong flux amplification (by a factor of $`\stackrel{>}{}2`$) due to gravitational lensing (e.g., Wyithe & Loeb 2002). Such an effect will confuse studies of the dependence of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ upon luminosity; $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ will probably not be changed by gravitational lensing, but the true luminosity will differ from that assumed.

Finally, exploratory observations of $`z>4`$ quasars allow searches for extended X-ray emission associated with jets. Schwartz (2002a) has argued that X-ray jets can serve as cosmic beacons. If the X-ray emission from jets is produced via the Compton scattering of cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons by relativistic electrons, then it should be detectable to high redshift; the increase in the CMB energy density with redshift compensates for cosmological surface-brightness dimming. Schwartz (2002b) has recently identified a possible jet from the quasar SDSS 1306+0356; notably, this quasar is not a strong radio source. Further observations are required to check this possibility, and exploratory observations of a large number of $`z>4`$ quasars should allow a search for an overdensity of “companion” X-ray sources that could be radio jets.

### 2.2 X-ray Spectral Analyses at $`z>4`$

Aside from the four blazars mentioned near the start of §2.1, detailed X-ray spectral analyses of $`z>4`$ quasars have not been performed at present. Such analyses are important to search for changes in the X-ray power-law photon index and X-ray absorption (neutral or ionized) with redshift. To our knowledge, the highest redshift RQQ with X-ray spectral constraints of reasonable quality is the $`z=3.87`$ gravitationally lensed BALQSO APM 08279+5255 (see Fig. 5; Gallagher et al. 2002). This object has a power-law photon index of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.86_{0.23}^{+0.26}`$ (for the rest-frame 5–25 keV band), consistent with those seen for lower-redshift RQQs (e.g., George et al. 2000; Reeves & Turner 2000).

The lack of quasar X-ray spectroscopy at $`z>4`$ is largely due to their low X-ray fluxes which limit the number of photons that can be gathered (see §2.1). Basic hardness ratios for several objects appear consistent with those of low-redshift quasars (e.g., Vignali et al. 2001), but even these have large errors. With 40–100 ks exposures, XMM-Newton can obtain moderate-quality ($``$ 1000–2000 count) $``$ 1–50 keV spectra of $`z>4`$ quasars with 0.5–2 keV fluxes of $`\stackrel{>}{}1.5\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (see Fig. 3).888These data can also be used to search for X-ray variability. At present, highly significant X-ray variability at $`z>4`$ has only been detected from the blazars PMN J0525–3343 (Fabian et al. 2001b), GB 1428+4217 (Fabian et al. 1999; Boller et al. 2000), and GB 1508+5714 (Moran & Helfand 1997). There are tentative claims that quasar X-ray variability increases with redshift (e.g., Manners, Almaini, & Lawrence 2002). Furthermore, stacking the counts from quasars observed by XMM-Newton (as well as those with exploratory Chandra observations) can provide tight average spectral constraints and allow searches for spectral features such as iron K$`\alpha `$ lines. Effective X-ray spectroscopy of quasars with 0.5–2 keV fluxes of $`\stackrel{<}{}1.5\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 will require future missions such as Constellation-X, XEUS, and Generation-X; populating Fig. 3 with further detections will allow optimum planning of these missions.

### 2.3 AGN at $`z>4`$ in X-ray Surveys

At present, there are four published $`z>4`$ quasars that were selected based upon their detection in X-ray surveys: RX J1759+6638 (Henry et al. 1994), RX J1028–0844 (Zickgraf et al. 1997), RX J1052+5719 (Schneider et al. 1998), and CXOMP J213945.0–234655 (Silverman et al. 2002). The Lockman Hole source RX J1052+5719 is notable due to its low luminosity (it is the point furthest to the left in Fig. 3), and CXOMP J213945.0–234655 is the highest redshift X-ray selected quasar published to date ($`z=4.93`$). Follow-up studies of sources from the Chandra Deep Field-North survey (Brandt et al. 2001c) have recently discovered a still higher redshift quasar at $`z=5.18`$ (A.J. Barger et al., in preparation).999See http://www.astro.wisc.edu/$``$barger/hizq.jpg for a plot of the spectrum. This object’s spectrum is notable for its relatively narrow Lyman $`\alpha `$ line.

The radio-selected AGN VLA J1236+6213 has also been detected in the Chandra Deep Field-North survey (Brandt et al. 2001b); this object has a likely redshift of $`z=4.424`$ (Waddington et al. 1999). VLA J1236+6213 is a very faint source in both the optical and X-ray bands with $`AB_{1450}25.2`$ and a 0.5–2 keV flux of $`9\times 10^{17}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (compare with Fig. 3). Its rest-frame 2–10 keV luminosity is $`2\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1, comparable to those of the local Seyfert galaxies NGC 3516, NGC 3783, and NGC 5548. This is by far the lowest luminosity X-ray source known at $`z>4`$, and its detection demonstrates that Chandra is achieving the sensitivity needed to study Seyfert-luminosity AGN at high redshift.

A large population of Seyfert-luminosity AGN at $`z`$ 4–10 has been postulated by Haiman & Loeb (1999). These “proto-quasars” would represent the first massive black holes to form in the Universe, and they would play an important role in galaxy formation. One of NASA’s long-term goals for X-ray astronomy is to understand such objects (e.g., White 2002), and ultradeep Chandra exposures are one of the few ways that they might be found at present. With a 5–10 Ms exposure, Chandra can achieve sensitivities comparable to those discussed for missions such as XEUS (see Fig. 6). A 5 Ms Chandra observation could detect a $`z=10`$ proto-quasar down to a rest-frame 5.5–22 keV luminosity of $`8\times 10^{42}`$ erg s-1 (after a plausible bolometric correction, this is the X-ray luminosity expected from an $`10^6`$ M black hole radiating near the Eddington limit). At $`z=10`$ Chandra provides rest-frame sensitivity up to $`90`$ keV, and such high-energy X-rays can penetrate a substantial amount of obscuration. Chandra positions are likely to be the best available for at least 15–20 years, and precise positions will be essential for reliable identification of proto-quasars.101010Generation-X is planned to have an angular resolution comparable to or better than that of Chandra (see Fig. 6). However, it is not expected to launch until $`2020`$, and its construction will require challenging improvements in lightweight precision X-ray optics. See the Generation-X white paper by Zhang et al. at http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/roadmap/submissions.html.

At $`z\stackrel{>}{}6.5`$ an AGN should appear optically blank; the Lyman $`\alpha `$ forest and Gunn-Peterson trough will absorb essentially all of the flux through the $`I`$ band. Thus, an upper limit on the space density of proto-quasars can be set simply by counting the number of X-ray sources that lack any optical counterpart.111111Of course, this method requires the assumption that proto-quasars be X-ray luminous. The best available data suggest that this should be the case (see §2.1). Effective application of this method, however, requires exceptionally deep optical imaging to prevent confusion between truly optically blank sources at extreme redshift and very optically faint sources at moderate redshift (e.g., objects like the $`I=25.8`$, $`z2.75`$ AGN CXOHDFN J123651.7+621221; Brandt et al. 2001b and references therein). At present, the Chandra Deep Field-North data suggest that there is $`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ AGN detected at $`z\stackrel{>}{}6.5`$ per $`12`$ arcmin2 (Alexander et al. 2001; down to a 3.75–15 keV luminosity limit at $`z=6.5`$ of $`2\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1). This limit should soon be tightened substantially via improved ground-based imaging and the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS).121212See http://www.stsci.edu/science/goods/ for a description of GOODS.

A 5–10 Ms Chandra exposure should also allow normal and starburst galaxies at $`z>4`$ to be studied via count stacking analyses. Such analyses using the 1 Ms data for the Chandra Deep Field-North have recently been used to determine the basic X-ray properties of $`z=`$ 2–4 Lyman break galaxies (Brandt et al. 2001d).

## 3 Some Future Prospects

Further Chandra and XMM-Newton observations can significantly improve our understanding of $`z>4`$ quasars, thereby laying the groundwork for future high-redshift X-ray efforts. Some important studies include the following:

1. Exploratory Chandra observations of additional $`z\stackrel{>}{}4.8`$ quasars will allow a better search for any dependence of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ upon redshift (see Fig. 4) or luminosity. The SDSS is expected to find $``$ 50–100 quasars with $`z>5`$ and $`10`$ quasars with $`z>6`$; it can find quasars up to $`z6.5`$ (e.g., Fan et al. 2001). Additional quasar surveys are being implemented to search for quasars up to $`z7.2`$ (e.g., Warren & Hewett 2002).
2. Exploratory Chandra observations of the optically brightest $`z>4`$ quasars known (see Fig. 2) can identify further targets appropriate for XMM-Newton spectroscopy.
3. The SDSS has identified some unusual quasars lacking emission lines (e.g., Fan et al. 1999; Anderson et al. 2001). The nature of these objects is mysterious, and defining their basic X-ray properties may provide insight. The one object observed thus far (SDSS 1532–0039) was not detected and appears to be fairly X-ray weak (Vignali et al. 2001).
4. The X-ray properties of $`z>4`$ BALQSOs are poorly understood. There has been speculation that the X-ray absorption in BALQSOs may increase with redshift (e.g., §4.3 of Vignali et al. 2001), but better $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ constraints and X-ray observations of more BALQSOs are required. A large negative value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ can help to identify a BALQSO when BALs cannot be identified due to limited rest-frame ultraviolet spectral coverage (e.g., Brandt et al. 2001a; Goodrich et al. 2001; Maiolino et al. 2001).
5. The X-ray properties of $`z>4`$ RLQs are poorly defined. There are few X-ray observations of $`z>4`$ quasars that are intermediate in radio loudness between RQQs and highly radio-loud blazars (see Fig. 3). Filling this radio-loudness gap is important, and some of these radio-loud objects may be bright enough for XMM-Newton spectroscopy.
6. XMM-Newton can obtain moderate-quality ($``$ 1000–2000 count) $``$ 1–50 keV spectra of $`z>4`$ quasars with 0.5–2 keV fluxes of $`\stackrel{>}{}1.5\times 10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1 (see Fig. 3). These observations will constrain changes in the X-ray power-law photon index and X-ray absorption (neutral or ionized) with redshift. Furthermore, stacking the counts from quasars observed by XMM-Newton (as well as those with exploratory Chandra observations) can provide tight average spectral constraints and allow searches for spectral features such as iron K$`\alpha `$ lines.
7. A 5–10 Ms Chandra survey can effectively search for the first massive black holes to form in the Universe (see Fig. 6).

In the more distant future, Constellation-X, XEUS, and Generation-X should allow detailed X-ray studies of the highest redshift quasars (see §5 of Vignali et al. 2001 for some simulations).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank all of our collaborators on the work reviewed here. We thank D.M. Alexander, F.E. Bauer, S.C. Gallagher, A.E. Hornschemeier, and M.A. Strauss for helpful discussions. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8107 (WNB, CV, SK), Chandra X-ray Center grant G01-2100X (WNB, CV, SK), NSF grant PHY00-70928 (XF), and NSF grant AST99-00703 (DPS).


text:
# hep-ph/0203182 TIFR-TH/02-01 Bi-maximal Mixing and Bilinear R Violation

## 1 Introduction

Experimental observations of deficits in the solar  and atmospheric  neutrino fluxes have provided concrete ground to believe in neutrino oscillations. These experimental results are consistent with a simple picture of three active neutrinos mixing with each other. Within this picture, two independent (mass)2 differences ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}`$) among three neutrinos govern the oscillations of the solar and atmospheric neutrinos respectively. One needs $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}/\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}10^2`$. Two of the mixing angles determining amplitudes of these oscillations are required to be large . The third mixing angle measured by the survival probability of the electron neutrinos in laboratory experiments such as CHOOZ is found to be much smaller $`0.1`$ .

Different theoretical possibilities have been suggested for obtaining the above neutrino spectrum with two large mixing angles . One potentially interesting possibility in this regard is supersymmetric standard model containing bilinear $`R`$ parity and lepton number violation . The following features of the model make it an ideal candidate for the description of neutrino masses. (1) The lepton number violations and hence neutrino masses and mixing are described in this model in terms of three parameters. Ratios of these parameters control neutrino mixing which can be naturally large. (2) The mechanism for suppression of neutrino masses compared to other fermion masses is automatically built-in for two of the most popular supersymmetry breaking scenario namely the minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA) and models with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). Extensive studies of these models have been carried out in the literature . Our aim in this paper is to discuss under what conditions the bilinear model can lead to two large mixing angle among neutrinos. We discuss this issue analytically and in the process show that the two scenarios mentioned above cannot lead to two large mixing angles although small angle mixing solution to the solar neutrino problem is possible222Feasibility of only small mixing angle solution was pointed out also in . Our analysis considerably differs from theirs..

The suppression in neutrino masses in mSUGRA and GMSB arises due to equality at a high scale($`M_X`$) of soft parameters of one of the Higgs fields ($`H_1^{}`$) with the corresponding parameters of the leptonic doublets having the same quantum numbers as $`H_1^{}`$. Small differences arise in these equal parameters at the weak scale due to RG scaling. For example, one finds in case of mSUGRA

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2m_{H_1^{}}^2)\frac{3h_b^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_X}{M_Z}m_{susy}^2210^3m_{susy}^2$$
(1)
where $`m_{\nu _i^{}}^2(i=1,2,3),m_{H_1^{}}^2`$ respectively denote the weak scale values of the soft SUSY breaking masses of the sneutrino and $`H_1^{}`$ respectively and $`m_{SUSY}`$ is the typical SUSY breaking scale $`𝒪`$(100 GeV) . The $`h_b`$ in the above equation refers to the $`b`$-quark Yukawa coupling. The neutrino masses in this model involve the above and similar differences among $`B`$ parameters. The suppression in these differences leads to suppression in neutrino masses. Thus the smallness of neutrino masses is linked to near universality of the Higgs ($`H_1^{}`$) and sneutrino soft parameters. As we will discuss in this paper, the solar neutrino mixing angle is directly linked to flavour universality violation, i.e, to differences in sneutrino mass parameters themselves. More specifically, the solar neutrino mixing angle involves the parameter

$$\delta =\frac{m_{\nu _2^{}}^2m_{\nu _1^{}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_2^2},$$
(2)
which is required to be $`𝒪(1)`$ implying that the weak scale universality violation among different flavours are required to be as strong as the corresponding Higgs-slepton universality violations. This is in sharp contrast with the expectations based on mSUGRA and GMSB where the former violations are mainly controlled by the muon Yukawa coupling while the latter by the $`b`$ or $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings. Thus $`\delta `$ in eq.(2) is of $`𝒪(10^4)`$ instead of being one.

Link between universality violation and large mixing was brought out in the numerical study of . In contrast to their work, our analytical study allows us to determine specific pattern of universality violation and also allows us to quantify the amount of violation needed to obtain the LMA solution for the solar neutrino problem.

We present our results in the following manner. The next section outlines general formalism we adopt and our assumptions. It also contains analytic discussion of neutrino mixing and masses in this scheme. The close link between large angle solar neutrino solution and flavour violation is emphasised in section (3) which also contains results based on numerical analysis. The last section contains a summary. Some of the technical aspects relevant to discussions in the text are elaborated in the appendices.

## 2 Sources of neutrino masses

In this section, we derive analytical conditions on the low energy susy parameters in order to have a phenomenologically consistent neutrino spectrum. To this extent we do not assume any specific structure of the soft masses. Further assumptions regarding various contributions to neutrino mass spectrum within mSUGRA inspired scenarios are discussed as and where required. The superpotential takes the following form in our case:

$$W=h_{ij}^uQ_iu_j^cH_2+h_i^dQ_id_i^cH_1^{}+h_i^eL_i^{}e_i^cH_1^{}+\mu ^{}H_1^{}H_2+ϵ_iL_i^{}H_2.$$
(3)
Without loss of generality, we have chosen above the basis in which the down quarks and charged lepton masses are diagonal. The $`ϵ_i`$ characterise lepton number violation in this basis.

We have the following soft supersymmetry breaking terms at the weak scale:

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1^0}^2|H_1^{}_{}{}^{}0|^2+m_{H_2^0}^2|H_2^0|^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}|^2`$ (4)
$``$ $`(B_\mu \mu ^{}H_1^{}_{}{}^{}0H_2^0+c.c)B_iϵ_i(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_2^0+c.c.)+\mathrm{}`$
Note that the above equation refers to soft terms at the weak scale. For simplicity we have displayed only the terms involving neutral fields in the above equation. The following comments are needed in connection with eq.(4):
(i) Although we have allowed for arbitrary diagonal sneutrino masses, we have not included off-diagonal sneutrino masses in this primed basis since such off-diagonal masses are severely constrained by flavour violating processes, e.g. $`\mu e\gamma `$ .
(ii) $`V_{soft}`$ does not contain sneutrino-Higgs mixing terms of the form $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_iH_1^{}}^2\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_1^{}`$ although they are allowed by the gauge symmetry. Such terms are not present in the minimal supergravity theory at high scale. The renormalization group (RG) equations for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_1^{}}^2`$ given in the appendix, eq.(41) show that these terms cannot get generated even at the weak scale if they are not present at high scale. Thus it is meaningful to omit these terms. We should emphasise that this statement is very specific to the particular basis in which bilinear terms are not rotated away from the superpotential until the weak scale and neglect of such terms would not be justified in any other basis. In our case, the $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_1`$ term would make its appearance when we go to the basis with no bilinear $`R`$ violating terms in the superpotential at the weak scale.

The neutrino masses arise from several sources in this model. Discussion of these sources becomes transparent if we re-express eq.(3) in the new basis in which bilinear terms are rotated away from $`W`$333Note that this definition of a new basis is same as that of Ref.. However in the present work, this rotation is done only at the weak scale in contrast to  where it is scale-dependent.:

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}H_1^{}+\underset{i}{}ϵ_iL_i^{}}{\mu ^{}}},`$
$`L_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{}L_i^{}ϵ_iH_1^{}}{\mu ^{}}}.`$ (5)
This basis are simple but are orthonormal only up to $`𝒪(\frac{ϵ^2}{\mu ^2})`$. This approximation is sufficient for most of our discussions since $`ϵ_i`$ are required to be much smaller than the typical SUSY scale $`\mu ^{}`$ in order to reproduce the scale of neutrino masses correctly. Generalisation of eq.(5) valid to higher order in $`ϵ_i`$ and its consequences are discussed in the appendix B. Eq.(3) takes the following form in the unprimed basis:

$$W=h_{ij}^uQ_iu_j^cH_2+h_i^dQ_id_i^cH_1+h_i^eL_ie_i^cH_1\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_jd_k^c\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_je_k^c+\mu H_1H_2.$$
(6)
where

$`\mu ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2+ϵ_1^2+ϵ_2^2+ϵ_3^2\mu ^2,`$
$`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu ^{}}}h_j^d\delta _{jk},`$
$`\lambda _{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{ik}h_i^e{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_j}{\mu ^{}}}\delta _{jk}h_j^e{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu ^{}}}).`$ (7)
Similarly, after rotating primed terms in eq.(4) and adding the contribution of the supersymmetric part, we get the following expression for the full scalar potential in the unprimed basis:

$`V_{scalar}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{H_1^0}^2+\mu ^2)|H_1^0|^2+(m_{H_2^0}^2+\mu ^2)|H_2^0|^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{\mu }}(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_1^0+c.c)`$
$``$ $`(B_\mu \mu H_1^0H_2^0+c.c)\mathrm{\Delta }B_iϵ_i(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}H_2^0+c.c)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g^2+g^2)\left(|H_1^0|^2+|\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}|^2|H_2^0|^2\right)^2,`$
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2m_{H_1^0}^2& \mathrm{\Delta }B_iB_iB_\mu .\end{array}$$
(9)
Two major sources of neutrino masses arise from eqs.(7,8). Minimization of eq.(8) generates sneutrino vev:

$$<\nu _i>ϵ_ik_i$$
(10)
where

$$k_i\frac{v_1}{\mu }\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2+\mathrm{tan}\beta \mu \mathrm{\Delta }B_i)}{(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}}^2+1/2M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta )}$$
(11)
$`v_1=<H_1^0>`$ and $`M_Z`$ represents the $`Z`$ boson mass. Sneutrino vevs lead to neutrino masses through their mixing with neutral-gauginos:

$$_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞}}A_0<\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}><\stackrel{~}{\nu _j}>=A_0ϵ_iϵ_jk_ik_j.$$
(12)
$`A_0`$ is obtained by diagonalizing the $`7\times 7`$ neutrino-neutralino mass matrix in the standard way :

$$A_0=\frac{\mu \left(g^2+g^2\right)}{2\left(c\mu M_2+M_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta \left(c+\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\right)\right)},$$
(13)
where $`\theta _W`$ represents the Weinberg angle and $`M_W`$ represents the W-boson mass. $`c`$ is given by $`5g^2/3g^{}_{}{}^{}20.5`$ with $`M_2`$ representing the standard gaugino mass parameter.

The trilinear terms in eq.(7) lead to the second contribution to neutrino masses at 1-loop level. Since these couplings are proportional to the Yukawa couplings, the dominant contributions arise due to exchanges of the $`b`$-quark-squark and $`\tau `$-lepton-slepton in the loops. The loop induced mass matrix is of the form :

$$(_{loop})_{ij}=ϵ_iϵ_j\left(A_b+A_\tau \left(1\delta _{i3}\right)\left(1\delta _{j3}\right)\right)$$
(14)
where

$`A_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{\mu ^2}}h_b^3\mathrm{sin}\varphi _b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _bln\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{2b}^2}{M_{1b}^2}}\right),`$ (15)
$`A_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1}{\mu ^2}}h_\tau ^3\mathrm{sin}\varphi _\tau \mathrm{cos}\varphi _\tau ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{2\tau }^2}{M_{1\tau }^2}}\right).`$ (16)
Here $`\varphi _{b,(\tau )}`$ denotes mixing between the left and the right handed squark (sneutrino) fields. These mixing angles are proportional to the $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings. Approximating them by $`\frac{m_{b,\tau }}{m_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐲}}}`$ we get the following numerical values

$`A_0`$ $``$ $`510^3\mathrm{GeV}^1,`$
$`A_b`$ $``$ $`310^{10}\mathrm{GeV}^1,`$
$`A_\tau `$ $``$ $`410^{12}\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ (17)
for $`m_{susy}100\mathrm{GeV}.`$ There are other loop contributions to neutrino masses and a complete discussion is given in . We have retained here only those contributions which are known  to be dominant in case of mSUGRA and GMSB. The additional contributions not included in the text come from, (a) $`R`$ parity violating mixing of the charged sleptons with Higgs fields (b) sneutrino exchange diagrams through R-parity violating sneutrino-Higgs mixing and (c) loop contribution to the tree level neutrino neutralino mixing. These contributions are sub-dominant as long as the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2,\mathrm{\Delta }B_i`$ are suppressed . Such suppression is required purely from the phenomenological point as we argue below. It is then consistent to omit these sub-dominant terms for the analytical discussion that follows. We however discuss these additional contributions in the appendix B.

The total neutrino mass matrix is given by

$$\left(_{tot}\right)_{ij}=A_0ϵ_iϵ_jk_ik_j+ϵ_iϵ_j\left(A_b+A_\tau \left(1\delta _{i3}\right)\left(1\delta _{j3}\right)\right).$$
(18)
The desired hierarchy among neutrino masses is automatically built in the above equations in view of typical numerical values of the parameters $`A_{0,b,\tau }`$. The tree contribution dominates over the rest (unless $`k_i`$ are enormously suppressed) but it leads to only one massive neutrino. Switching on the b-quark contribution gives mass to the other neutrino, one neutrino still remaining massless at this stage. The latter obtains its mass from somewhat less dominant contribution due to $`A_\tau `$. Note that hierarchy among the first two neutrino masses need not be very strong due to similar magnitudes of $`A_{b,\tau }`$. The above statements are made explicit below which also contains discussion on neutrino mixing.

### 2.1 Neutrino masses and mixing

The tree-level neutrino mass matrix can be easily diagonalized:

$$U_0_{tree}U_0^T=diag\{0,0,m_{\nu _3}\},$$
(19)
where

$$U_0^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_2& s_2c_3& s_2s_3\\ s_2& c_2c_3& c_2s_3\\ 0& s_3& c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(20)
with $`s_{2,3}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{2,3}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{tan}\theta _2=ϵ_1\kappa _1/ϵ_2k_2;& \mathrm{tan}\theta _3=\sqrt{ϵ_1^2k_1^2+ϵ_2^2k_2^2}/ϵ_3k_3\end{array}.$$
(21)
The total mass matrix eq.(18), assumes the following form in basis with diagonal tree mass matrix:

$$U_0_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}U_0^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_1^2(A_b+A_\tau )& a_1(A_ba_2+A_\tau b_2)& a_1(A_ba_3+A_\tau b_3)\\ a_1(A_ba_2+A_\tau b_2)& A_ba_2^2+A_\tau b_2^2& A_ba_2a_3+A_\tau b_2b_3\\ a_1(A_ba_3+A_\tau b_3)& A_ba_2a_3+A_\tau b_2b_3& A_0\omega ^2+A_ba_3^2+A_\tau b_3^2\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
where

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\omega _{}}}(k_1k_2),`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_3}{\omega _{}\omega }}(ϵ_1^2k_1(k_1k_3)+ϵ_2^2k_2(k_2k_3)),`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}(ϵ_1^2k_1+ϵ_2^2k_2+ϵ_3^2k_3),`$
$`b_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_3k_3}{\omega _{}}}b_3,`$
$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}(ϵ_1^2k_1+ϵ_2^2k_2),`$ (23)
with

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ_1^2k_1^2+ϵ_2^2k_2^2+ϵ_3^2k_3^2)^{1/2},`$
$`\omega _{}`$ $`=`$ $`(ϵ_1^2k_1^2+ϵ_2^2k_2^2)^{1/2}.`$ (24)
The subsequent diagonalization can be approximately done if we neglect terms of $`𝒪(\frac{A_{b,\tau }}{A_0})`$. Let

$$U_1^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1& 0\\ s_1& c_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _1=\frac{2a_1\left(A_ba_2+A_\tau b_2\right)}{A_b\left(a_2^2a_1^2\right)+A_\tau \left(b_2^2a_1^2\right)}.$$
(26)
We then have

$$U_1U_0_{tot}U_0^TU_1^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{\nu _1}& 0& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _2}& 0\\ 0& 0& m_{\nu _3}\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\frac{A_{b,\tau }}{A_0}).$$
(27)
The eigenvalues are approximately given by

$`m_{\nu _1}`$ $``$ $`A_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2(a_2b_2)^2}{(a_1^2+a_2^2)}},`$
$`m_{\nu _2}`$ $``$ $`A_b(a_1^2+a_2^2),`$
$`m_{\nu _3}`$ $``$ $`A_0\omega ^2.`$ (28)
The mixing among neutrinos is described by

$$UU_0^TU_1^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_2c_1s_1s_2c_3& c_2s_1+c_1s_2c_3& s_2s_3\\ s_2c_1s_1c_2c_3& s_2s_1+c_1c_2c_3& c_2s_3\\ s_1s_3& c_1s_3& c_3\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
Let us now discuss consequences of the above algebraic results.

(1) It follows from eqs.(17,28) that the neutrino masses obey the desired hierarchy:

$$m_{\nu _1}\stackrel{<}{}m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _3}.$$

(2) The neutrino masses relevant for the solar and atmospheric scales are respectively given by $`A_0ϵ^2k^2`$ and $`A_bϵ^2`$ leading to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}}\left(\frac{A_b}{A_0}\right)^2\frac{1}{k^4},$$

where $`ϵ,k`$ represent typical values of $`ϵ_i,k_i`$. It follows that the ratio of the solar to atmospheric scales is independent of the $`R`$ violating parameters $`ϵ_i`$ and depends upon the values of the soft parameters represented by $`k`$. One typically needs

$$ϵ10^1\mathrm{GeV};k10^310^4$$
(30)
in order to reproduce the scales correctly. This shows in particular that irrespective of details of the SUSY breaking the Higgs-slepton universality (corresponding to very small values of $`k`$ ) is unavoidable in this model if neutrino masses are to be correctly reproduced.

(3) A particularly interesting limit would be the case where $`k𝒪(1)`$. This is what one expects in a truly non-universal regime of soft masses . From the above, we see that in this limit, one can infact choose $`ϵ_i𝒪`$(MeV) and generate neutrino masses of $`𝒪`$(eV). However only one neutrino would be massive in this scenario, with the the other neutrinos being with extremely negligible masses and without any relevance for phenomenology.

(4) If exact flavour universality were to hold between the first two generations then $`k_1=k_2`$ (see eq.(11)). In this case $`a_1`$ as defined in eq.(23) would be zero leading to $`s_1=0`$ in eq.(25) . The $`s_1`$ is required to be large in order to obtain the large mixing angle solution and obtaining this solution would need very sizable departures from the flavour universality among the first two generations. We quantify these remarks in the next section.

## 3 Neutrino mixing and departure from flavour universality

We derived approximate expressions for the neutrino masses and mixing without any specific assumption on the soft symmetry breaking sector. The entire neutrino spectrum can be parameterized in terms of three $`ϵ_i`$ and three $`k_i`$ of which $`k_i`$ depend upon the soft SUSY breaking parameters. We now quantify the amount of flavour universality violations needed for obtaining the most preferred large angle solution to the solar neutrino problem. The following two parameters are introduced as a measure of universality violation:

$$\begin{array}{cc}x=(k_1k_3)/(k_1+k_3)& ;y=(k_1k_2)/(k_1+k_2)\end{array}$$
(31)
We regard $`x`$ and $`y`$ as independent parameters but restrict their variation to values between (-1,1) in the numerical analysis that follows.

The neutrino mixing is determined by the matrix $`U`$ in eq.(29). Due to hierarchical mass spectrum, the survival probabilities for the solar and atmospheric neutrinos approximately assume two generation form. The corresponding mixing angles $`\theta _{}`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐭𝐦}}`$ are given in terms of elements of the mixing matrix $`U`$ as follows:

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ $``$ $`4U_{\mu 3}^2(1U_{\mu 3})^20.81.0`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ $``$ $`4U_{e2}^2U_{e1}^20.751.0`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{CHOOZ}`$ $``$ $`U_{e3}^20.01,`$ (32)
where numbers on the RHS correspond to the required values for these parameters based on two generation analysis of the experimental data .

We can convert the above restrictions on $`\theta _{},\theta _{\mathrm{𝐚𝐭𝐦}}`$ to restrictions on the mixing angles $`s_{1,2,3}`$ entering the definition of $`U`$. The CHOOZ result requires $`|s_2s_3|0.1`$ and the nearly maximal atmospheric mixing is obtained with $`|c_2s_3|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. This requires small $`s_2`$ and large $`s_3`$. The solar neutrino mixing angle defined in eq.(32) coincides with $`s_1`$ in this limit. We thus need $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _10.751.`$ Large value of $`s_1`$ in turn needs sizable departure from flavour universality as will be argued in the last subsection.

The expressions for mixing angles and masses obtained in the last section can be used to approximately determine the allowed ranges of parameters $`k_i,ϵ_i`$ which explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies. We approximately need $`|s_2|\sqrt{2}U_{e3}`$ and $`|s_3|\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$. This implies:

$`ϵ_2^2k_2^2ϵ_3^3k_3^2,`$
$`|ϵ_1k_1|\sqrt{2}|U_{e3}ϵ_2k_2|.`$ (33)
The magnitude of $`ϵ_3k_3`$ is then approximately fixed by the atmospheric mass scale:

$$ϵ_3^2k_3^2\frac{m_{\nu _3}}{2A_0}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}}}{2A_0},$$
(34)
while the solar scale and mixing angle determines $`ϵ_3^2`$:

$$ϵ_3^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}{2A_b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{}}\right)\frac{(1+x)^2(1y)^2}{(xy)^2}.$$
(35)
Eqs.(33,34,35) allow us to express magnitudes of all $`ϵ_i,k_i`$ in terms of $`x,y`$ , approximately known $`A_{0,b}`$ and the experimentally measurable quantities.

The solar neutrino mixing angle following from eq.(26) is given in the limit $`A_\tau A_b`$ by

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1\frac{4U_{e3}^2y^2(1x)^2}{(xy)^2}.$$
(36)
We have used eq.(33) in deriving the above relation. It is clear that large $`\theta _1`$ require sizable departure from flavour universality, i.e. sizable $`y`$. Moreover, one typically needs $`|xy|2|U_{e3}y(1x)|`$ in order to obtain a sizable solar neutrino mixing angle.

We now numerically determine the region in the $`x,y`$ plane needed to reproduce the required ranges in mixing angle and masses. We make use of eqs.(33-35) to determine the approximate input values of $`ϵ_i,k_i`$ in terms of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}`$ and $`x,y`$. We allow input values to vary by varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{atm}`$ over the experimentally allowed ranges. We also randomly choose $`x,y`$ between -1 and 1. Through this procedure, we choose a set of $`1.5\times 10^5`$ different values for the input parameters $`ϵ_i,k_i`$. Then we numerically diagonalize the total neutrino mass matrix, eq.(18) for each of these values of $`ϵ_i,k_i`$ and determine a set of $`x,y`$ values which correctly reproduces the allowed ranges of the solar and atmospheric neutrino parameters and lead to $`|U_{e3}|0.1`$. We obtain about 2024 $`x,y`$ values leading to the correct description of neutrino anomalies. These points in the $`x,y`$ plane are displayed in Fig.(1). This figure, based on complete diagonalization clearly shows the features obtained through approximate formulas. All the allowed values of $`x`$ and $`y`$ are in the range $`0.90.6`$ and sizable departure from universality is clearly seen. Also most points satisfy approximate equality $`|xy|2U_{e3}y`$ needed to obtain large solar neutrino mixing angle. As an illustration, we give below a typical set of $`ϵ_i,k_i`$ which correctly reproduces all the parameters:

$$\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_30.1\mathrm{GeV}& ;k_31.110^3\\ ϵ_20.031\mathrm{GeV}& ;k_23.510^3\\ ϵ_10.087\mathrm{GeV}& ;k_19.110^4\end{array}$$
(37)
Typically, one needs $`ϵ_i𝒪(10^1GeV)`$ and $`k_i10^3`$ as argued before.

Let us now compare above phenomenological restrictions with expectations based on specific framework like mSUGRA. In order to obtain correct neutrino masses one needs parameters $`k_i`$ (11) to be suppressed, typically $`k10^310^4`$ as in eq.(30). The other constraint is that $`y`$ should be $`𝒪`$(1). The $`k_i`$ provide a measure of the Higgs-slepton universality violation. Typical value of $`k_i`$ obtained in mSUGRA follows from eq.(1) and is in the range required from phenomenology. Thus mSUGRA provides a very good framework to understand neutrino mass hierarchy as has been demonstrated in number of papers through detailed numerical calculations . However mSUGRA would not be able to provide the required value of $`y`$. This can be seen as follows. Theoretically, $`y`$ can be approximately written using eq.(11) as follows:

$$y\frac{\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta (B_1B_2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_2}^2)}{\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta (\mathrm{\Delta }B_1+\mathrm{\Delta }B_2)(\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_2^2)},$$
(38)
where we have neglected terms of order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2)^2,(\mathrm{\Delta }B_i)^2`$ etc. Within mSUGRA, $`y`$ is identically zero at the high scale as $`B_1=B_2`$ and $`m_{\nu _1}^2=m_{\nu _2}^2`$ due to the universal boundary conditions. At the weak scale, this universality condition is broken solely by RG evolution. In the limit of neglecting first two generation Yukawa couplings, $`y`$ is identically zero even at the weak scale. A rough estimate of parameters appearing in $`y`$ can be obtained by approximately integrating the RG equations, eqs.(42,43) given in appendix A. We see that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_2}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_b}}\right)^210^4,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(B_1B_2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }B_1+\mathrm{\Delta }B_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_b}}\right)^210^4.`$ (39)
Together they would imply very small value for $`y0`$ instead of the required value of $`𝒪`$(1). Thus universal boundary conditions of mSUGRA cannot lead to a large mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem.

One need not consider a generic non-universal scenario to introduce universality violations. It is clear from the forgoing discussion that one only needs small Higgs-slepton universality violation as well as flavour violation of similar magnitude to obtain a large solar neutrino mixing angle. These violations can come from either non-universal slepton mass terms or from non-universal B-terms or both. It is possible that such a scenario can arise from a higher theory of flavour either based on string theory  or through abelian  or non-abelian  flavour symmetries. However, for a phenomenological understanding it is clear that the existence of Higgs-slepton and flavour universality violations at the high scale would lead to correct neutrino mass spectrum at the weak scale. Knowing the value of $`x`$ and $`y`$ required for a correct neutrino spectrum at the weak scale, it is possible to estimate the amount of non-universality required at the high scale. For example, using $`y`$, we have in the limit of neglecting contributions from $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ terms, the required slepton flavour universality violations to be of order:

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2^{}}^2(0)m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1^{}}^2(0)y(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_2}^2(0)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_1}^2(0))+2y\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_2}^2(0)m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu ^{}}_1}^2(0)}{m_{H_1^0}^2(0)+\delta m_{H_1^0}^2}$$
(40)
where $`\delta m_{H_1^0}^2`$ represents the correction to the high scale Higgs mass due to RG scaling. From the above we see that for a large negative $`y`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1}^2(0)`$ should be at least a factor of 3 times larger than $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}^2(0)`$. Introducing such a non-universality at the high scale would lead to the correct neutrino spectrum at the weak scale.

A similar analysis can also be considered for the B-terms . Moreover, such a pattern can be incorporated naturally in non-minimal models of GMSB . In these models, identical gauge quantum numbers of all sneutrinos assure almost universal sneutrino masses at the weak scale as in the case of mSUGRA. In contrast, there is no natural reason within these models for the flavour universal $`B`$ parameters. In fact, the $`B`$ parameters are assumed to vanish in the minimal version of the scheme . Thus the universality of B parameters at supersymmetry breaking scale holds by default. It is possible to choose non-universal and non-zero $`B_{1,2}`$ terms to start with in this model. This does not significantly influence the conventional phenomenology of the minimal version as long as the parameters $`ϵ_i`$ are much smaller than the $`\mu `$-parameter in the superpotential. But it allows the LMA solution as has been demonstrated through a detailed numerical work .

From the above discussion we see that the phenomenological requirement of $`k𝒪(10^3)`$ and $`x,y𝒪`$(1) leads to a specific class of non-universality at the high scale. A generic non-universal soft spectrum might lead to much larger class of solutions. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of present work.

## 4 Comments

Supersymmetric model with bilinear $`R`$ parity violations provides a potentially interesting framework to study neutrino masses and mixing. The dominant sources of neutrino masses can be parameterized in this scenario in terms of three dimensionful parameters $`ϵ_i`$ and three dimensional parameters $`k_i`$. The $`k_i`$ depend on the structure of soft supersymmetry breaking terms at the weak scale. We have tried to obtain phenomenological restrictions on $`ϵ_i`$ and $`k_i`$ without making specific assumptions on the values of the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters. While neutrino masses can be suppressed by lowering the overall scale $`ϵ_i`$ of $`R`$ parity violation, phenomenologically preferred hierarchy in neutrino masses require that both $`ϵ_i`$ and $`k_i`$ are suppressed, see eq.(30). $`k_i`$ provide a measure of the Higgs-slepton universality and suppression in their values indicate very small amount of this violation. Such violation of universality is already built in the mSUGRA and GMSB scenario.

A large solar neutrino mixing angle can be obtained consistently within these scenarios only if flavour universality violations in the soft parameters of the first two generations are almost as large as the violation of Higgs-slepton universality. This feature does not emerge in models where these universality violations are generated solely by RG scaling as in the case of mSUGRA. Thus mSUGRA seems more suitable to describe the less preferred small mixing angle solution to the solar neutrino problem.

We concentrated throughout on the most dominant sources of neutrino masses in this theory. This is a good assumption in case of small universality violation. The other sources of neutrino masses would become important in case of large universality violation. It is not unlikely that these contributions could also lead to a large solar neutrino mixing angle in such scenarios.

Another way to achieve the Large Mixing Angle solution is to consider some  or all  of the dimensionless lepton number violating couplings ($`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ ) to be present in the superpotential. Several features of the neutrino mass spectrum like hierarchy and large mixing are still preserved within these models making them phenomenologically viable. However, unlike the bilinear model considered in this work, these models are less constrained simply due to the large number of additional couplings present in the model. This can lead to the large solar neutrino mixing angle even without relaxing the universality constraints on the soft spectrum .

## 5 Appendix A

The renormalization group equations for various parameters appearing in the soft scalar potential are basis dependent. We have chosen a specific basis in which bilinear terms in the potential are kept in the superpotential till the weak scale. These terms are rotated only after evolving to weak scale. We collect here RG equations for relevant parameters with this specific choice. They differ for example from the ones derived in  where relevant rotation is performed at each scale. The following equations follow in a straightforward manner from the formalism given by Falck:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}m_{\nu _i^{}H_1^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\nu _i^{}H_1^{}}^2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_i^E{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}Y_b),`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2)`$ $`=`$ $`3Y_b(m_{Q_3}^2+m_{D_3}^2+m_{H_1^{}}^2+\stackrel{~}{A}_b^2)`$ (42)
$``$ $`Y_i^E(m_{L_i}^2+m_{E_i}^2+m_{H_1^{}}^2+\stackrel{~}{A}_i^{E2}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(\mathrm{\Delta }B_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\tau Y_\tau +3Y_b\stackrel{~}{A}_b3Y_i^E\stackrel{~}{A}_i^E.`$ (43)
In the above, we have used standard notation for all the soft parameters appearing in the equations with the exception of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ which represents the soft trilinear couplings.

## 6 Appendix B

In this appendix we justify the neglect of additional contributions to neutrino masses not included in the main text. We also discuss flavour violating processes $`\mu e\gamma `$ and show that the corresponding branching ratio is very small in the present context.

Detailed analysis of the additional 1-loop diagrams contributing to neutrino mass matrix has been done in . While Refs.  calculate all the 1-loop self-energy diagrams to the $`7\times 7`$ neutrino-neutralino mass matrix and re-diagonalise it, Ref. follows the effective mixing matrix approach. In addition to the contributions considered in the text, large contributions are also expected from diagrams which are not Yukawa suppressed, thus involving only gauge vertices. These can be visualized as diagrams with two R-parity violating mass insertions proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2,\mathrm{\Delta }B_i`$ as given in eq.(8), with neutralino (chargino), sneutrino (charged slepton) and neutral Higgs (charged Higgs) in the loops . Typical magnitude of these diagrams is given by

$$_{ij}^\lambda \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}ϵ_iϵ_jk_i^{}k_j^{}m_{susy}^1$$
(44)
with

$$k_i^{}\frac{c_1\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2+c_2\mathrm{\Delta }B_i^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}}^2}.$$

$`m_{susy}`$ is a typical supersymmetry breaking scale and $`c_{1,2}`$ are coefficients of order one following from the scalar mass matrices of the model. $`k_i^{}`$ are similar to parameters $`k_i`$ defined in eq.(11). It is natural then to choose $`k_i^{}\frac{\mu }{v_1}k_i`$ for order of magnitude estimates. Comparing the 1-loop gaugino contribution with the $`b`$-quark contribution (eq.(14)) $`^b`$ we obtain

$$\frac{_{ij}^\lambda }{_{ij}^b}\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2A_b}\left(\frac{\mu }{v_1}\right)^2\frac{k_ik_j}{m_{susy}}$$
(45)
The numerical value of $`A_b`$ is given in eq.(15). As argued above, we typically need $`k_i10^310^4`$. It is seen that the $`bquark`$ contribution retained in the main text dominates over the gaugino contribution in this case and it is consistent to neglect the latter. The other contributions to neutrino masses are even less dominant than the gaugino contribution444For a detailed discussion of the various diagrams in mass insertion approximation, see .. They come from 1-loop diagrams with two Yukawa vertices. These can be seen as a) diagrams with $`\lambda `$ and $`h_\tau `$ vertices with a R-parity violating mass insertion in the internal line connecting charged slepton and charged Higgs, and b) diagrams with $`h_\tau `$ couplings at both the vertices with two R-parity violating mass insertions proportional to the sneutrino vev. Both these sets of diagrams are suppressed by the $`\tau `$-Yukawa coupling. They have been analyzed in detail in Ref. where it has been shown that they can become comparable in magnitude to $`A_\tau `$ in large tan $`\beta `$ regions. However as we have seen earlier this contribution is always sub-dominant compared to the contribution from bottom Yukawa couplings, $`A_b`$. Thus it is justified to neglect these contributions within the present analysis.

Effects of Basis Rotation up to higher order in $`ϵ`$ : We now generalize the basis (5) to higher order in $`ϵ`$ and discuss its consequences. Such generalization becomes necessary for discussion of flavour violating transitions such as $`\mu e\gamma `$. Eq.(5) can be re-rewritten as follows:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1\\ L_1\\ L_2\\ L_3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}^2& \widehat{ϵ}_1& \widehat{ϵ}_2& \widehat{ϵ}_3\\ \widehat{ϵ}_1& 1\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1^2& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_3\\ \widehat{ϵ}_2& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2& 1\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_2^2& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_2\widehat{ϵ}_3\\ \widehat{ϵ}_3& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_3& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_2\widehat{ϵ}_3& 1\frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_3^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1^{}\\ L_1^{}\\ L_2^{}\\ L_3^{}\end{array}\right),+𝒪(\widehat{ϵ}^3)$$
(46)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}_i=(ϵ_i)/\mu ,\widehat{ϵ}^2=\widehat{ϵ}_1^2+\widehat{ϵ}_2^2+\widehat{ϵ}_3^2`$. The $`V_{soft}`$ in eq.(4) assumes the form

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1}^2|H_1^0|^2+m_{H_2}^2|H_2^0|^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2\widehat{ϵ}_i(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}H_1^0+c.c)+(\mu BH_1^0H_2^0+c.c)`$ (47)
$``$ $`ϵ_i\mathrm{\Delta }B_i(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}H_2^0+c.c){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\widehat{ϵ}_i\widehat{ϵ}_j(\mathrm{\Delta }m_i^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_j^2)(\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_j+c.c.),`$
where

$`m_{H_1}^2=m_{H_1^{}}^2(1\widehat{ϵ}^2)+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2\widehat{ϵ}_i^2,`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}}^2=m_{H_1^{}}^2\widehat{ϵ}_i^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu _i}^{}}^2(1\widehat{ϵ}_i^2),`$
$`B=B_\mu (1\widehat{ϵ}^2)+B_i\widehat{ϵ}_i^2.`$ (48)
The rotation has generated off-diagonal flavour violating sneutrino mixing terms at $`𝒪(ϵ^2)`$. Since these terms conserve lepton number, they do not directly contribute to the neutrino masses but lead to flavour violating transitions such as $`\mu e\gamma `$.

The rotation in eq.(46) induces mixing among the charged leptons which were diagonal to start with. Define the charged lepton mass matrix as

$$Ł_iM_le^c,$$

then

$$M_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}h_1d_1& \widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2h_2f_2& \widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_3h_3f_3\\ \widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2h_1f_1& h_2d_2& \widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_3h_3f_3\\ \widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_3h_1f_1& \widehat{ϵ}_2\widehat{ϵ}_3h_2f_2& h_3d_3\end{array}\right),$$
(49)
where

$$d_iv_1(1+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{ϵ}_i^2|\widehat{ϵ}|^2)+\widehat{ϵ}_i^2k_i\widehat{ϵ}_l^2k_l,$$

$$f_i\frac{1}{2}v_1+k_i.$$

The $`k_i`$ appearing in above are defined in eq.(11) and they signify sneutrino vev contribution to the charged lepton mass matrix. As argued in the text, $`k_i`$ are required to be small $`(10^310^4)`$ in order to account for the correct neutrino masses. It then follows that sneutrino vev contribution to each element in $`M_l`$ is suppressed compared to the corresponding contribution of $`v_1`$. Thus this contribution can be neglected while diagonalizing $`M_l`$ in any realistic theory. Even after neglecting it, the $`𝒪(\widehat{ϵ}^2)`$ contribution does produce additional mixing among charged leptons that is not Yukawa suppressed. This is easily seen in the simplified case of two generation. The $`2\times 2`$ version of the charged lepton mass matrix is obtained from eq.(49) by setting $`ϵ_3=0`$. The following rotation on the basis $`(e_1,e_2)`$ is needed to diagonalize the charged letpon masses:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2\\ \frac{1}{2}\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}e_1\\ e_2\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
$`(e,\mu )`$ here refers to the flavour basis. This additional rotation affects the neutrino mixing terms in eq.(47) which can be re-written in the flavour basis as

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1}^2|H_1^0|^2+m_{H_2}^2|H_2^0|^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e|^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}^2|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu |^2`$ (51)
$`+`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2\widehat{ϵ}_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e^{}H_1^0+\mathrm{\Delta }m_2^2\widehat{ϵ}_2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu ^{}H_1^0+c.c\right)`$
$``$ $`(\mu BH_1^0H_2^0+c.c)(ϵ_1\mathrm{\Delta }B_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_eH_2^0+ϵ_2\mathrm{\Delta }B_2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu H_2^0+c.c)`$
$``$ $`\widehat{ϵ}_1\widehat{ϵ}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_2^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1}^2)(\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu +c.c.).`$
One sees that there are no additional lepton number violating mass terms other than present at $`𝒪(\widehat{ϵ})`$. Thus discussion on additional contribution to neutrino masses just given remains unchanged. However, eq.(51) contains lepton conserving but flavour violating contribution proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_e^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu `$. This can lead to process such as $`\mu e\gamma `$. The branching ratio for this process is given by

$$BR(\mu e\gamma )=\frac{12\pi ^2}{G_F^2m_\mu ^2}|B|^2.$$
(52)
In the present case, the amplitude $`B`$ arises due to insertion of the flavour violating sneutrino mass term given in the last term in eq.(51). This is approximately given by

$$|B|\frac{e^3}{16\pi ^2}\frac{m_\mu }{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\mu ^2}k,$$
(53)
where $`k`$ is a typical magnitude of $`k_i`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2`$ is sneutrino (mass)2. As already argued, we need $`ϵ_i0.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`k10^3`$. Given this, last equation is seen to give very small contribution to $`BR(\mu e\gamma )𝒪(10^{13}|ϵ|^4|k|^2)`$ which makes it unobservable in both present  and future  experiments.

Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with E. J. Chun which helped in clarifying several issues connected with this work.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We follow the geometric formulation of classical field theory where fields are represented by sections of a fibre bundle $`YX`$, coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i)`$ (see  for a survey). Then gauge transformations are defined as automorphisms of $`YX`$. A gauge transformation is called internal if it is a vertical automorphism of $`YX`$, i.e., is projected onto the identity morphism of the base $`X`$. To study the invariance conditions and conservation laws, it suffices to consider one-parameter groups of gauge transformations. Their infinitesimal generators are projectable vector fields

$$u=u^\lambda (x^\mu )_\lambda +u^i(x^\mu ,y^j)_i$$
(1.1)
on a fibre bundle $`YX`$. In particular, generators of internal gauge transformations are vertical vector fields

$$u=u^i(x^\mu ,y^j)_i.$$
(1.2)
We are concerned with a first order Lagrangian field theory. Its configuration space is the first order jet manifold $`J^1Y`$ of $`YX`$, coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\lambda ^i)`$. A first order Lagrangian is defined as a density

$$L=(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\lambda ^i)\omega ,\omega =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n,n=dimX,$$
(1.3)
on $`J^1Y`$. A Lagrangian $`L`$ is invariant under a one-parameter group of gauge transformations generated by a vector field $`u`$ (1.1) iff its Lie derivative

$$𝐋_{J^1u}L=J^1udL+d(J^1uL)$$
(1.4)
along the jet prolongation $`J^1u`$ of $`u`$ vanishes. In this case, the first variational formula of the calculus of variations leads on-shell to the weak conservation law

$$d_\lambda 𝔗_u^\lambda 0$$
(1.5)
of the current

$`𝔗_u=𝔗_u^\lambda \omega _\lambda ,\omega _\lambda =_\lambda \omega ,`$
$`𝔗_u^\lambda =(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i)_i^\lambda u^\lambda ,`$ (1.6)
along $`u`$. In particular, the current $`𝔗_u`$ (1.6) along a vertical vector field $`u`$ (1.2) reads

$$𝔗_u^\lambda =u^i_i^\lambda .$$
(1.7)
It is called the Noether current.

It is readily observed that

$$𝔗_{u+u^{}}=𝔗_u+𝔗_u^{}.$$
(1.8)
Note that any projectable vector field $`u`$ (1.1), projected onto the vector field $`\tau =u^\lambda _\lambda `$ on $`X`$, can be written as the sum

$$u=\stackrel{~}{\tau }+(u\stackrel{~}{\tau })$$
(1.9)
of some lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=u^\lambda _\lambda +\stackrel{~}{\tau }^i_i`$ of $`\tau `$ onto $`Y`$ and the vertical vector field $`u\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ on $`Y`$. The current $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ (1.6) along a lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ onto $`Y`$ of a vector field $`\tau =\tau ^\lambda _\lambda `$ on $`X`$ is said to be the energy-momentum current . It is linear in components of a vector field $`\tau `$ and their partial derivatives. Therefore, one can think of $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ as being a linear differential operator on vector fields on $`X`$. Then the decompositions (1.8) and (1.9) show that any current $`𝔗_u`$ (1.6) along a projectable vector field $`u`$ on a fibre bundle $`YX`$ can be represented by a sum of an energy-momentum current and a Noether one.

Different lifts $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}`$ onto $`Y`$ of a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ lead to distinct energy-momentum currents $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}}`$, whose difference $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}}`$ is the Noether current along the vertical vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }^{}`$ on $`Y`$. The problem is that, in general, there is no canonical lift onto $`Y`$ of vector fields on $`X`$, and one can not take the Noether part away from an energy-momentum current. Therefore, if a Lagrangian is not invariant under vertical gauge transformations, there is an obstruction for energy-momentum currents to be conserved .

Note that there exists the category of so called natural fibre bundles $`TX`$ which admit the canonical lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ of any vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ . This lift is the infinitesimal generator of a one-parameter group of general covariant transformations of $`T`$. For instance, any tensor bundle

$$T=(\stackrel{m}{}TX)(\stackrel{k}{}T^{}X)$$
(1.10)
over $`X`$ is of this type. The canonical lift onto $`T`$ (1.10) of a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau ^\mu _\mu +[_\nu \tau ^{\alpha _1}\dot{x}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _k}^{\nu \alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _m}+\mathrm{}_{\beta _1}\tau ^\nu \dot{x}_{\nu \beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _k}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\mathrm{}]\frac{}{\dot{x}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _k}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}}.$$
(1.11)
For instance, gravitation theory is a gauge field theory on natural bundles. Its Lagrangians are invariant under general covariant transformations. The corresponding conserved energy-momentum current on-shell takes the form

$$𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^\lambda d_\mu U^{\mu \lambda },$$
(1.12)
where $`U^{\mu \lambda }=U^{\lambda \mu }`$ is the generalized Komar superpotential . Other energy-momentum currents differ from $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ (1.12) in Noether currents, but they fail to be conserved because almost all gravitation Lagrangians are not invariant under vertical (non-holonomic) gauge transformations.

Here, we focus on energy-momentum conservation laws in gauge theory of principal connections on a principal bundle $`PX`$ with a structure Lie group $`G`$. These connections are sections of the fibre bundle

$$C=J^1P/GX,$$
(1.13)
and are identified to gauge potentials . The well-known result claims that, if $`L`$ is a gauge-invariant Lagrangian on $`J^1C`$ in the presence of a background metric $`g`$, we have the familiar covariant conservation law

$$_\lambda (t_\mu ^\lambda \sqrt{g})0$$
(1.14)
of the metric energy-momentum tensor

$$t_\beta ^\mu \sqrt{g}=2g^{\mu \alpha }_{\alpha \beta },$$
(1.15)
where $``$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the Levi–Civita connection of the background metric $`g`$ . Moreover, other energy-momentum conservation laws differ from (1.14) in superpotentials terms $`d_\mu d_\lambda U^{\mu \lambda }`$. Here, we show that the conservation law (1.14) locally holds without fail. However, no energy-momentum current is conserved if a principal bundle $`P`$ is not trivial and a Lagrangian of gauge theory on $`P`$ is not gauge-invariant.

Two examples of non-invariant Lagrangians are examined. The first one is the Chern–Simons Lagrangian whose Euler–Lagrange operator is gauge-invariant. In this case, we have a conserved quantity, but it differs from an energy-momentum current. Another example is the Yang–Mills Lagrangian in the presence of a background field, e.g., a Higgs field.

## 2 Lagrangian conservation laws

The first variational formula provides the following universal procedure for the study of Lagrangian conservation laws in classical field theory.

Remark 2.1. Let $`J^2Y`$ be the second order jet manifold coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i,y_\lambda ^i,y_{\lambda \mu }^i)`$. Recall the following standard notation: of the contact form $`\theta ^i=dy^iy_\lambda ^idx^\lambda `$, the horizontal projection

$`h_0\left(dx^\lambda \right)=dx^\lambda ,h_0\left(dy^i\right)=y_\lambda ^idx^\lambda h_0\left(dy_\mu ^i\right)=y_{\lambda \mu }^idx^\lambda ,`$
the total derivative

$`d_\lambda =_\lambda +y_\lambda ^i_i+y_{\lambda \mu }^i_i^\mu ,`$
and the horizontal differential $`d_H=dx^\lambda d_\lambda `$ such that $`d_Hh_0=h_0d`$. $``$

Let $`u`$ be a projectable vector field on a fibre bundle $`YX`$ and

$$J^1u=u+(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda $$
(2.16)
its jet prolongation onto $`J^1Y`$. The Lie derivative (1.4) of a Lagrangian $`L`$ along $`J^1u`$ reads

$$𝐋_{J^1u}L=[_\lambda u^\lambda +(u^\lambda _\lambda +u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda )]\omega .$$
(2.17)
The first variational formula states its canonical decomposition over $`J^2Y`$:

$`𝐋_{J^1u}L=u_V_L+d_Hh_0(uH_L)=`$ (2.18)
$`(u^iy_\mu ^iu^\mu )(_id_\lambda _i^\lambda )\omega d_\lambda [(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i)_i^\lambda u^\lambda ]\omega ,`$
where $`u_V=(u\theta ^i)_i`$,

$$_L=(_id_\lambda _i^\lambda )\theta ^i\omega ,$$
(2.19)
is the Euler–Lagrange operator, and

$$H_L=L+_i^\lambda \theta ^i\omega _\lambda =_i^\lambda dy^i\omega _\lambda +(y_\lambda ^i_i^\lambda )\omega $$
(2.20)
is the Poincaré–Cartan form.

The kernel of the Euler-Lagrange operator $`_L`$ (2.19) is given by the coordinate relations

$$\delta _i=(_id_\lambda _i^\lambda )=0,$$
(2.21)
and defines the Euler–Lagrange equations. Their classical solution is a section $`s`$ of the fibre bundle $`XY`$ whose second order jet prolongation $`J^2s`$ lives in (2.21).

Remark 2.2. Note that different Lagrangians $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ lead to the same Euler–Lagrange operator if their difference $`L_0=LL^{}`$ is a variationally trivial Lagrangian whose Euler–Lagrange operator vanishes. Such a Lagrangian takes the form

$$L_0=h_0\left(ϵ\right)$$
(2.22)
where $`ϵ`$ is a closed $`n`$-form on $`Y`$ . We have locally $`ϵ=d\sigma `$ and

$`L_0=h_0\left(d\sigma \right)=d_H\left(h_0\left(\sigma \right)\right).`$
$``$

On the shell (2.21), the first variational formula (2.18) leads to the weak identity

$$_\lambda u^\lambda +[u^\lambda _\lambda +u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda ]d_\lambda [\text{}u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i)_i^\lambda u^\lambda ].$$
(2.23)
If the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^1u}L`$ (2.17) vanishes, we obtain the weak conservation law $`0d_H𝔗_u`$ (1.5) of the current $`𝔗_u`$ (1.6). It takes the coordinate form

$$0d_\lambda [(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i)_i^\lambda u^\lambda ].$$
(2.24)
Remark 2.3. It should be emphasized that, from the first variational formula, the symmetry current (1.6) is defined modulo the terms $`d_\mu (c_i^{\mu \lambda }(y_\nu ^iu^\nu u^i))`$, where $`c_i^{\mu \lambda }`$ are arbitrary skew-symmetric functions on $`Y`$. Here we leave aside these boundary terms which are independent of a Lagrangian. $``$

The weak conservation law (2.24) leads to the differential conservation law

$`_\lambda (𝔗^\lambda s)=0`$
on a solution $`s`$ of the Euler–Lagrange equations. This differential conservation law implies the integral law

$$\underset{N}{}s^{}𝔗=0,$$
(2.25)
where $`N`$ is a compact $`n`$-dimensional submanifold of $`X`$ and $`N`$ denotes its boundary.

Remark 2.4. It may happen that a current $`𝔗`$ (1.6) takes the form

$$𝔗=W+d_HU=\left(W^\lambda +d_\mu U^{\mu \lambda }\right)\omega _\lambda ,$$
(2.26)
where the term $`W`$ vanishes on-shell ($`W0`$) and

$$U=U^{\mu \lambda }\omega _{\mu \lambda },\omega _{\mu \lambda }=_\mu \omega _\lambda ,$$
(2.27)
is a horizontal $`(n2)`$-form on $`J^1Y`$. Then one says that $`𝔗`$ reduces to a superpotential $`U`$ (2.27) . In this case, the integral conservation law (2.25) becomes tautological. At the same time, the superpotential form (2.26) of $`𝔗`$ implies the following integral relation

$$\underset{N^{n1}}{}s^{}𝔗=\underset{N^{n1}}{}s^{}U,$$
(2.28)
where $`N^{n1}`$ is a compact oriented $`(n1)`$-dimensional submanifold of $`X`$ with the boundary $`N^{n1}`$. One can think of this relation as being a part of the Euler–Lagrange equations written in an integral form. $``$

Remark 2.5. Let us consider conservation laws in the case of gauge transformations preserving the Euler-Lagrange operator $`_L`$, but not necessarily a Lagrangian $`L`$. Let $`u`$ be a generator of these transformations. Then we have

$`𝐋_{J^2u}_L=0,`$
where $`J^2u`$ is the second order jet prolongation of the vector field $`u`$. There is the relation

$`𝐋_{J^2u}_L=_{𝐋_{J^1u}L}`$
, and we obtain $`_{𝐋_{J^1u}L}=0`$. It follows that the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^1u}L`$ is a variationally trivial Lagrangian. Hence, it takes the form $`h_0(ϵ)`$ (2.22). Then the weak identity (2.23) comes to the weak equality

$$h_0\left(ϵ\right)d_H𝔗_u.$$
(2.29)
A glance at this expression shows that

$$h_0\left(e\right)=W+d_H\varphi ,$$
(2.30)
where $`W0`$. Then the equality (2.29) leads to the weak conservation law

$$0d_H\left(\varphi +𝔗_u\right),$$
(2.31)
but the conserved quantity $`\varphi +𝔗_u`$ is not globally defined, unless $`ϵ`$ is an exact form. For instance, let $`YX`$ be an affine bundle. In this case, $`ϵ=\epsilon +d\sigma `$ where $`\epsilon `$ is an $`n`$-form on $`X`$ . Since the weak equality $`\epsilon 0`$ implies the strong one $`\epsilon =0`$, we obtain from the expression (2.30) that $`\epsilon `$ is also an exact form. Thus, the conserved quantity in the conservation law (2.31) is well defined. $``$

Remark 2.6. Background fields do not live in the dynamic shell (2.21) and, therefore, break Lagrangian conservation laws as follows. Let us consider the product

$$Y_{\mathrm{tot}}=Y\underset{X}{\times }Y^{}$$
(2.32)
of a fibre bundle $`Y`$, coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^i)`$, whose sections are dynamic fields and a fibre bundle $`Y^{}`$, coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,y^A)`$, whose sections are background fields which take the background values

$$y^B=\varphi ^B\left(x\right),y_\lambda ^B=_\lambda \varphi ^B\left(x\right).$$
(2.33)
A Lagrangian $`L`$ is defined on the total configuration space $`J^1Y_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. Let $`u`$ be a projectable vector field on $`Y_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ which also projects onto $`Y^{}`$ because gauge transformations of background fields do not depend on the dynamic ones. This vector field takes the coordinate form

$$u=u^\lambda \left(x\right)_\lambda +u^A(x^\mu ,y^B)_A+u^i(x^\mu ,y^B,y^j)_i.$$
(2.34)
Substitution of (2.34) in (2.18) leads to the first variational formula in the presence of background fields

$`_\lambda u^\lambda +[u^\lambda _\lambda +u^A_A+u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^Ay_\mu ^A_\lambda u^\mu )_A^\lambda +`$ (2.35)
$`(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda ]=(u^Ay_\lambda ^Au^\lambda )_A+^\lambda _Ad_\lambda (u^Ay_\mu ^Au^\mu )+`$
$`\left(u^iy_\lambda ^iu^\lambda \right)\delta _id_\lambda \left[\left(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i\right)_i^\lambda u^\lambda \right].`$
Then the following identity

$`_\lambda u^\lambda +[u^\lambda _\lambda +u^A_A+u^i_i+(d_\lambda u^Ay_\mu ^A_\lambda u^\mu )_A^\lambda +`$
$`(d_\lambda u^iy_\mu ^i_\lambda u^\mu )_i^\lambda ](u^Ay_\lambda ^Au^\lambda )_A+^\lambda _Ad_\lambda (u^Ay_\mu ^Au^\mu )`$
$`d_\lambda \left[\left(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i\right)_i^\lambda u^\lambda \right]`$
holds on the shell (2.21). A total Lagrangian $`L`$ usually is constructed to be invariant under gauge transformations of the product (2.32). In this case, we obtain the weak identity

$$\left(u^Ay_\mu ^Au^\mu \right)_A+_A^\lambda d_\lambda \left(u^Ay_\mu ^Au^\mu \right)d_\lambda \left[\left(u^\mu y_\mu ^iu^i\right)_i^\lambda u^\lambda \right].$$
(2.36)
in the presence of background fields on the shell (2.33). Given a background field $`\varphi `$ (2.33), there always exists a vector field on a fibre bundle $`YX`$ such that the left-hand side of the equality (2.36) vanishes. This is the horizontal lift

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau ^\lambda \left(_\lambda +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^A_A\right)`$
onto $`Y^{}`$ of a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ by means of a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`Y^{}X`$ whose integral section is $`\varphi `$, i.e., $`_\lambda \varphi ^A=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^A\varphi `$. However, the Lie derivative of a Lagrangian $`L`$ along this vector field need not vanish. $``$

## 3 Noether conservation laws in gauge theory

Let $`\pi _P:PX`$ be a principal bundle with a structure Lie group $`G`$ which acts on $`P`$ on the right

$$R_g:ppg,pP,gG.$$
(3.37)
A principal bundle $`P`$ is equipped with a bundle atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }_P=\{(U_\alpha ,\psi _\alpha ^P\}`$ whose trivialization morphisms $`\psi _\alpha ^P`$ obey the equivariance condition

$$\psi _\alpha ^P(pg)=\psi _\alpha ^P(p)g,gG,p\pi _P^1(U_\alpha ).$$
(3.38)
A gauge transformation in gauge theory on a principal bundle $`PX`$ is defined as an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_P`$ of $`PX`$ which is equivariant under the canonical action (3.37), i.e., $`R_g\mathrm{\Phi }_P=\mathrm{\Phi }_PR_g`$ for all $`gG`$. The infinitesimal generator of a one-parameter group of these gauge transformations is a $`G`$-invariant vector field $`\xi `$ on $`P`$. It is naturally identified to a section of the quotient $`T_GP=TP/G`$ of the tangent bundle $`TPP`$ by the canonical action $`R_G`$ (3.37). Due to the equivariance condition (3.38), any bundle atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }_P`$ of $`P`$ yields the associated bundle atlase $`\{U_\alpha ,T\psi _\alpha ^P/G)\}`$ of $`T_GP`$. Given a basis $`\{e_p\}`$ for the right Lie algebra $`𝔤_r`$ of the group $`G`$, let $`\{_\lambda ,e_p\}`$ be the corresponding local fibre bases for the vector bundles $`T_GP`$. Then a section $`\xi `$ of $`T_GPX`$ reads

$$\xi =\xi ^\lambda _\lambda +\xi ^pe_p.$$
(3.39)
The infinitesimal generator of a one-parameter group of vertical gauge transformations is a $`G`$-invariant vertical vector field on $`P`$ identified to a section $`\xi =\xi ^pe_p`$ of the quotient

$$V_GP=VP/GT_GP$$
(3.40)
of the vertical tangent bundle $`VP`$ of $`P`$ by the canonical action $`R_G`$ (3.37).

The Lie bracket of two sections $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ of the vector bundle $`T_GPX`$ reads

$$[\xi ,\eta ]=(\xi ^\mu _\mu \eta ^\lambda \eta ^\mu _\mu \xi ^\lambda )_\lambda +(\xi ^\lambda _\lambda \eta ^r\eta ^\lambda _\lambda \xi ^r+c_{pq}^r\xi ^p\eta ^q)e_r,$$
(3.41)
where $`c_{pq}^r`$ are the structure constants of the Lie algebra $`𝔤_r`$. Putting $`\xi ^\lambda =0`$ and $`\eta ^\mu =0`$, we obtain the Lie bracket

$$[\xi ,\eta ]=c_{pq}^r\xi ^p\eta ^qe_r$$
(3.42)
of sections of the vector bundle $`V_GPX`$. A glance at the expression (3.42) shows that the typical fibre of $`V_GPX`$ is the Lie algebra $`𝔤_r`$. The structure group $`G`$ acts on $`𝔤_r`$ by the adjoint representation.

A principal connection on a principal bundle $`PX`$ is defined as a global section $`A`$ of the affine jet bundle $`J^1PP`$ which is equivariant under the right action (3.37), i.e.,

$$J^1R_gA=AR_g,gG.$$
(3.43)
Due to this equivariance condition, there is one-to-one correspondence between the principal connections on a principal bundle $`PX`$ and the global sections $`A`$ of the quotient $`C`$ (1.13) of the first order jet manifold $`J^1P`$ of a principal bundle $`PX`$ by the jet prolongation of the canonical action $`R_G`$ (3.37). The quotient $`C`$ (1.13) is an affine bundle over $`X`$. Given a bundle atlas $`\mathrm{\Psi }_P`$ of $`P`$, it is provided with bundle coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,a_\lambda ^q)`$ such that $`A_\lambda ^q=a_\lambda ^qA`$ are coefficients of the familiar local connection form $`A_\lambda ^qdx^\lambda e_q`$ on $`X`$, i.e., $`a_\lambda ^q`$ are coordinates of gauge potentials. Therefore $`C`$ (1.13) is called the connection bundle. Gauge transformations of $`P`$ generated by the vector field (3.39) induce gauge transformations of $`C`$ whose generator is

$$\xi _C=\xi ^\lambda _\lambda +(_\mu \xi ^r+c_{pq}^ra_\mu ^p\xi ^qa_\lambda ^r_\mu \xi ^\lambda )_r^\mu .$$
(3.44)
The configuration space of gauge theory is the first order jet manifold $`J^1C`$ of $`C`$ coordinated by $`(x^\lambda ,a_\lambda ^q,a_{\lambda \mu }^q)`$. It admits the canonical splitting over $`C`$ which takes the coordinate form

$$a_{\lambda \mu }^r=\frac{1}{2}(_{\lambda \mu }^r+𝒮_{\lambda \mu }^r)=\frac{1}{2}(a_{\lambda \mu }^r+a_{\mu \lambda }^rc_{pq}^ra_\lambda ^pa_\mu ^q)+\frac{1}{2}(a_{\lambda \mu }^ra_{\mu \lambda }^r+c_{pq}^ra_\lambda ^pa_\mu ^q).$$
(3.45)
Let $`L`$ be a Lagrangian on $`J^1C`$. One usually requires of $`L`$ to be invariant under vertical gauge transformations. It means that the Lie derivative $`𝐋_{J^1\xi _{CY}}L`$ of $`L`$ along the jet prolongation (2.16) of any vertical vector field

$$\xi _C=(_\lambda \xi ^r+c_{qp}^ra_\lambda ^q\xi ^p)_r^\lambda $$
(3.46)
on $`C`$ vanishes. Coefficients $`\xi ^q`$ of this vector field play the role of gauge parameters. Then we come to the well-known Noether conservation law. The key point is that, since the vector fields (3.46) depends on derivatives of gauge parameters, the Noether current in gauge theory reduces to a superpotential as follows.

The first variational formula (2.18) leads to the strong equality

$$0=(_\mu \xi ^r+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q\xi ^p)\delta _r^\mu +d_\lambda [(_\mu \xi ^r+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q\xi ^p)_r^{\lambda \mu }].$$
(3.47)
Due to the arbitrariness of gauge parameters $`\xi ^p`$, this equality falls into the system of equalities

$`c_{pq}^r(a_\mu ^p_r^\mu +a_{\lambda \mu }^p_r^{\lambda \mu })=0,`$ (3.48a)
$`_q^\mu +c_{pq}^ra_\lambda ^p_r^{\mu \lambda }=0,`$ (3.48b)
$`_p^{\mu \lambda }+_p^{\lambda \mu }=0.`$ (3.48c)
One can think of them as being the equations for a gauge-invariant Lagrangian. As is well known, there is a unique solution of these equations in the class of quadratic Lagrangians. It is the conventional Yang-Mills Lagrangian $`L_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ of gauge potentials on the configuration space $`J^1C`$. In the presence of a background metric $`g`$ on the base $`X`$, it reads

$$L_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4\epsilon ^2}a_{pq}^Gg^{\lambda \mu }g^{\beta \nu }_{\lambda \beta }^p_{\mu \nu }^q\sqrt{g}\omega ,g=det(g_{\mu \nu }),$$
(3.49)
where $`_{\lambda \mu }^r`$ are components of the canonical splitting (3.45) and $`a^G`$ is a $`G`$-invariant bilinear form on the Lie algebra $`𝔤_r`$.

On-shell, the strong equality (3.47) becomes the weak Noether conservation law

$$0d_\lambda [(_\mu \xi ^r+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q\xi ^p)_r^{\lambda \mu }]$$
(3.50)
of the Noether current

$$𝔗_\xi ^\lambda =(_\mu \xi ^r+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q\xi ^p)_r^{\lambda \mu }.$$
(3.51)
In accordance with the strong equalities (3.48b) and (3.48c), the Noether current (3.51) is brought into the superpotential form

$`𝔗_\xi ^\lambda =\xi ^r\delta _r^\lambda +d_\mu U^{\mu \lambda },U^{\mu \lambda }=\xi ^p_p^{\lambda \mu }.`$
The corresponding integral relation (2.28) reads

$$\underset{N^{n1}}{}s^{}𝔗^\lambda \omega _\lambda =\underset{N^{n1}}{}s^{}(\xi ^p_p^{\mu \lambda })\omega _{\mu \lambda },$$
(3.52)
where $`N^{n1}`$ is a compact oriented $`(n1)`$-dimensional submanifold of $`X`$ with the boundary $`N^{n1}`$. One can think of (3.52) as being the integral relation between the Noether current (3.51) and the gauge field, generated by this current. In electromagnetic theory seen as a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, the similar relation between an electric current and the electromagnetic field generated by this current is well known. However, it is free from gauge parameters due to the peculiarity of Abelian gauge models.

## 4 Energy-momentum conservation laws in gauge theory

Let us turn now to energy-momentum conservation laws in gauge theory.

Let $`B`$ be a principal connection on a principal bundle $`PX`$. Given a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$, there exists its lift

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }_B=\tau ^\lambda _\lambda +[_\mu (\tau ^\lambda B_\lambda ^r)+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q(\tau ^\lambda B_\lambda ^p)a_\lambda ^r_\mu \tau ^\lambda ]_r^\mu .$$
(4.53)
onto the connection bundle $`CX`$ (1.13) . Comparing the expressions (3.44) and (4.53), one easily observes that the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_B`$ is a generator of gauge transformations of $`C`$ with gauge parameters $`\xi ^\lambda =\tau ^\lambda `$, $`\xi ^r=\tau ^\lambda B_\lambda ^r`$.

Let us discover the energy-momentum current along the lift (4.53). We assume that a Lagrangian $`L`$ of gauge theory also depends on a background metric on $`X`$. This metric is described by a section of the tensor bundle $`\stackrel{2}{}TX`$ provided with the holonomic coordinates $`(x^\lambda ,\sigma ^{\mu \nu })`$. Following Remark 2, we define $`L`$ on the total configuration space

$$J^1Y=J^1(C\underset{X}{\times }\stackrel{2}{}TX).$$
(4.54)
Given a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$, there exists its canonical lift

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau ^\lambda _\lambda +(_\nu \tau ^\alpha \sigma ^{\nu \beta }+_\nu \tau ^\beta \sigma ^{\nu \alpha })_{\alpha \beta }$$
(4.55)
(1.11) onto the tensor bundle $`\stackrel{2}{}TX`$. It is a generator of general covariant transformations of $`\stackrel{2}{}TX`$. Combining (4.53) and (4.55), we obtain the lift

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_Y=\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1+\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2=[\tau ^\lambda _\lambda +(_\nu \tau ^\alpha \sigma ^{\nu \beta }+_\nu \tau ^\beta \sigma ^{\nu \alpha })_{\alpha \beta }a_\lambda ^r_\mu \tau ^\lambda _r^\mu ]+`$ (4.56)
$`[_\mu (\tau ^\lambda B_\lambda ^r)+c_{qp}^ra_\mu ^q(\tau ^\lambda B_\lambda ^p)]_r^\mu `$
of a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ onto the product $`Y`$. Note that the decomposition (4.56) of the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_Y`$ is local. One can think of the summands $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$ as being local generators of general covariant transformations (cf. (1.11)) and vertical gauge transformations (cf. (3.46)) of the product $`Y`$, respectively.

Let a Lagrangian $`L`$ on the total configuration space (4.54) be invariant under general covariant transformations and vertical gauge transformations. Hence, its Lie derivative along the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_Y`$ (4.56) equals zero. Then using the formula (2.36) on the shell

$`\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }(x),\delta _r^\mu =0,`$
we obtain the weak identity

$$0(_\nu \tau ^\alpha g^{\nu \beta }+_\nu \tau ^\beta g^{\nu \alpha }_\lambda g^{\alpha \beta }\tau ^\lambda )_{\alpha \beta }d_\lambda 𝔗_B^\lambda ,$$
(4.57)
where

$$𝔗_B^\lambda =[_r^{\lambda \nu }(\tau ^\mu a_{\mu \nu }^r+_\nu \tau ^\mu a_\mu ^r)\tau ^\lambda ]+[_r^{\lambda \nu }(_\nu (\tau ^\mu B_\mu ^r)+c_{qp}^ra_\nu ^q(\tau ^\mu B_\mu ^p)]$$
(4.58)
is the energy-momentum current along the vector field (4.53). The weak identity (4.57) takes the form

$$0_\lambda \tau ^\mu t_\mu ^\lambda \sqrt{g}\tau ^\mu \{_\mu {}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\}t_\beta ^\lambda \sqrt{g}d_\lambda 𝔗_B^\lambda ,$$
(4.59)
where $`t_\mu ^\lambda `$ is the metric energy-momentum tensor (1.15) and $`\{_\mu {}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\}`$ are the Christoffel symbols of $`g`$. Accordingly, the current $`𝔗_B^\lambda `$ (4.58) is brought into the form

$$𝔗_B^\lambda =\tau ^\mu t_\mu ^\lambda \sqrt{g}+\tau ^\alpha (B_\alpha ^ra_\alpha ^r)\delta _r^\lambda +d_\mu (\tau ^\alpha (B_\alpha ^ra_\alpha ^r)_r^{\lambda \mu }).$$
(4.60)
Substituting $`𝔗_B^\lambda `$ (4.60) into the weak identity (4.59), we obtain the covariant conservation law (1.14) independent of the choice of the connection $`B`$ in the lift (4.53).

## 5 The case of broken gauge invariance

On a local coordinate chart, the conservation law (1.14) issues directly from the local decomposition (4.56). Namely, the current $`𝔗_B`$ is decomposed locally into the sum $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}+𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}`$ of the energy-momentum current $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ along the the projectible vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ and the Noether current $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}`$ along the vertical vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2`$. Since the Noether current $`𝔗_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}`$ is reduced to a superpotential, it does not contribute to the energy-momentum conservation law (1.14) if a Lagrangian $`L`$ is invariant under vertical gauge transformations. However, if $`L`$ is not gauge-invariant, the conservation law (1.14) takes the local form

$$𝐋_{J^1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}L=\tau ^\mu _\lambda (t_\mu ^\lambda \sqrt{g})$$
(5.61)
on each coordinate chart. Of course, one can choose $`B=0`$ and restart the conservation law (1.14) on a given coordinate chart without fail. However, if $`P`$ is a non-trivial principal bundle, no principal connection on $`P`$ vanishes everywhere. In this case, no energy-momentum of gauge fields is conserved.

Turn now to the above mentioned example of the Chern–Simons Lagrangian .

Let $`PX^3`$ be a principal bundle over a 3-dimensional manifold $`X`$ whose structure group $`G`$ is a semisimple Lie group. The Chern–Simons Lagrangian on the configuration space $`J^1C`$ of principal connections on $`P`$ reads

$$L_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{1}{2k}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }a_\alpha ^m(_{\lambda \mu }^n\frac{1}{3}c_{pq}^na_\lambda ^pa_\mu ^q)\omega ,$$
(5.62)
where $`\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }`$ is the skew-symmetric Levi–Civita tensor and $`k`$ is a coupling constant. In comparison with the Yang–Mills Lagrangian (3.49), the Chern–Simons Lagrangian (5.62) is independent of any metric on $`X`$ and is not gauge-invariant. At the same time, the Euler–Lagrange operator

$$_{L_{\mathrm{CS}}}=\frac{1}{k}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }_{\lambda \mu }^n\theta _\alpha ^m\omega .$$
(5.63)
is gauge-invariant. Therefore, let us follow Remark 2 in order to study Lagrangian conservation laws in the Chern–Simons model.

Given a generator $`\xi _C`$ (3.46) of vertical gauge transformations, we obtain

$$𝐋_{J^1\xi _C}L_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{1}{k}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }_\alpha \xi ^ma_{\lambda \mu }^n\omega .$$
(5.64)
Since $`CX`$ is an affine bundle, the Lie derivative (5.64) is brought into the form

$`𝐋_{J^1\xi _C}L_{\mathrm{CS}}=d_H\varphi ,`$
where

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }_\alpha \xi ^ma_\mu ^n\omega _\lambda `$
is a horizontal 2-form on $`CX`$. Then we obtain the weak conservation law (2.31) where

$`𝔗^\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }\xi _C{}_{\mu }{}^{n}a_{\alpha }^{m}`$
is the Nöther current. Moreover, this conservation law takes the superpotential form

$`0d_\lambda (\xi ^\lambda _{\mathrm{CS}}+d_\mu U^{\mu \lambda }),U^{\mu \lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \mu \lambda }\xi ^na_\alpha ^m.`$
Turn now to the energy-momentum conservation law in the Chern–Simons model. Let $`\tau `$ be a vector field on the base $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_B`$ (4.53) its lift onto the connection bundle $`C`$ by means of a principal connection $`B`$. We obtain

$`𝐋_{J^1\stackrel{~}{\tau }_B}L_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }_\alpha (\tau ^\nu B_\nu ^m)a_{\lambda \mu }^n\omega .`$
Then the corresponding conservation law (2.31) takes the form

$`0d_\lambda [𝔗_B^\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}a_{mn}^G\epsilon ^{\alpha \lambda \mu }_\alpha (\tau ^\nu B_\nu ^m)a_\mu ^n],`$
where $`𝔗_B`$ is the energy-momentum current (4.58) along the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_B`$. It follows that the energy-momentum current of the Chern–Simons model is not conserved because the Lagrangian (5.62) is not gauge-invariant, but there exists another conserved quantity.

Another example of non-invariant Lagrangians is a Lagrangian of gauge fields in the presence of a background field (see Remark 2). Let us focus on the physically relevant case of gauge theory with spontaneous symmetry breaking. It is gauge theory on a principal bundle $`PX`$ whose structure group $`G`$ is reduced to its closed subgroup $`H`$, i.e., there exists a principal subbundle $`P^\sigma `$ of $`P`$ with the structure group $`H`$. Moreover, by the well-known theorem , there is one-to-one correspondence between the $`H`$-principal subbundles $`P^\sigma `$ of $`P`$ and the global sections $`\sigma `$ of the quotient bundle $`P/HX`$. These sections are called Higgs fields. The total Lagrangian $`L`$ of gauge potentials and Higgs fields on the configuration space $`J^1(C\times P/H)`$ is gauge invariant. Therefore, we can appeal to Remark 2 in order to obtain the energy-momentum conservation law of gauge potentials in the presence of a background Higgs field $`\sigma `$. The key point is that, due to the equivariance condition (3.43), any principal connection on the reduced bundle $`P^\sigma X`$ gives rise to a principal connection $`A_\sigma `$ on $`PX`$ whose integral section is the Higgs field $`\sigma `$. Let us consider the lift

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau +u_1+u_2$$
(5.65)
onto $`C\times P/H`$ of a vector field $`\tau `$ on $`X`$ such that: $`\tau +u_1`$ is the lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{A_\sigma }`$ (4.53) of $`\tau `$ onto $`C`$, and $`\tau +u_2`$ is the horizontal lift of $`\tau `$ onto $`P/H`$ by means of the connection $`A_\sigma `$. Since the Lagrangian $`L`$ is gauge-invariant, its Lie derivative along the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ (5.65) vanishes. Therefore, we come to the weak identity (2.36) whose left-hand side also vanishes, and we obtain again the energy-momentum conservation law (1.14).


text:
# Non-linear electrical response in a non-charge-ordered manganite : Pr_0.8Ca0.2MnO3

## I Figures Captions

: $`1.5K`$ neutron diffraction patterns : continuous line for calculated plot, stars for experimental data, the upper Bragg strikes correspond to the $`Pnma`$ crystallographic structure and the lower one are for the magnetic phase. The main indexations are also given. Inset : 020 FM peak intensity versus temperature.

: Temperature dependence of resistance for a $`\mathrm{Pr}_{0.8}`$Ca0.2MnO3crystal with various bias currents.

: $`VI`$ characteristics under zero field for temperatures below $`T_c`$ ($`80K,`$ $`90K`$ and $`100K).`$

: $`VI`$ characteristics under zero field for temperatures above $`T_c`$ ($`170K`$ and $`300K).`$

: $`VI`$ characteristics for $`T=90K`$ under 0 and 8 Tesla.