text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

If supersymmetry (SUSY) were an exact symmetry, the new SUSY particles would be degenerate in mass with their Standard Model (SM) partners. As no experimental evidence has been found to prove the existence of SUSY particles, supersymmetry must be a broken symmetry. In Gauge Mediated SUSY Breaking (GMSB) models, supersymmetry is broken at a high energy scale in a hidden or “secluded” sector and is then propagated down to the visible sector via the SM gauge interactions . The main motivation for GMSB models lies in the fact that they can easily cope with the experimental absence of flavour changing neutral currents (FCNC). Gauge interactions are flavour blind and the scale at which SUSY breaking is mediated is expected to be well below the scale at which flavour symmetry should be broken.

From the phenomenological point of view the main difference with respect to gravity mediated SUSY breaking models (SUGRA)  is that in GMSB the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the gravitino ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$) which couples very weakly to the other particles. Assuming R-parity conservation, SUSY particles are pair produced in e+e- collisions and subsequently decay to their SM partner plus gravitinos. Another important characteristic of these models is that the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) is, in general, either the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$ or the sleptons $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. In GMSB models a non-negligible mixing between $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}`$ states is expected for moderate and large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets) or large values of $`|\mu |`$ (the Higgs mixing mass term). If the stau mixing is large, the lightest stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ becomes lighter than the other sleptons, and also possibly lighter than the neutralino, being then the only NLSP.

The lifetime of the NLSP depends on the gravitino mass (or equivalently on the SUSY breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ which is proportional to it) :

$$c\tau _{\mathrm{NLSP}}\frac{0.01}{\kappa _\gamma }\left(\frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\mathrm{NLSP}}}\right)^5\left(\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}}{2.4\mathrm{eV}}\right)^2\mathrm{cm}$$
(1)
where $`\kappa _\gamma `$ is the bino component of the $`\chi `$, and $`\kappa _\gamma =1`$ for a $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ NLSP. When cosmological considerations are taken into account, an upper limit is placed on the gravitino mass : $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}1\text{ keV}/c^2`$ $`(\sqrt{F}2000`$ TeV). Thus the gravitino mass can range from $`𝒪(10^2)\text{ eV}/c^2`$ to 1 keV$`/c^2`$, which practically implies that any NLSP decay length is allowed. For this reason topological searches able to identify long-lived or even stable NLSP’s have been developed by the ALEPH collaboration .

A previous compilation of all GMSB searches carried out by ALEPH exists with data at $`\sqrt{s}=189`$ GeV . In this paper the results of the GMSB searches for all data collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$ up to 209 GeV are summarised. Other LEP and Tevatron experiments have reported their results in Refs. .

The organisation of this paper is the following. A brief description of the ALEPH detector is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, the experimental topologies are reviewed and limits on sparticle masses are reported. An update on four-lepton final states and the new selection for four-lepton final states when sleptons have lifetime are described in Section 3.3. In Section 4 the scan on a minimal set of GMSB parameters is presented. The sensitivity of these parameters to the different search exclusions is analysed and lower limits on the NLSP mass and the mass scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are derived.

## 2 The ALEPH detector and data samples

A detailed description of the ALEPH detector can be found in Ref. , and an account of its performance as well as a description of the standard analysis algorithms can be found in Ref. . Only a brief overview is given here.

Charged particle tracks are measured by a silicon vertex detector (VDET), a multiwire drift chamber (ITC) and a time projection chamber (TPC). The VDET has a length of approximately 40 cm with two concentric layers of silicon wafers at average radii of 6.5 and 11.3 cm. The ITC consists of eight drift chamber layers of 2 m length between an inner radius of 16 cm and an outer radius of 26 cm. The TPC measures up to 21 space points in the radial range from 30 cm to 180 cm and has an overall length of 4.4 m. These detectors are immersed in an axial magnetic field of 1.5 T and together achieve a transverse momentum resolution $`\sigma (p_\mathrm{T})/p_\mathrm{T}=0.0006p_\mathrm{T}0.005`$ ($`p_\mathrm{T}`$ in GeV/$`c`$). The TPC also provides up to 338 measurements of the ionisation energy loss. It is surrounded by the electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), which covers the angular range $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |<0.98`$. The ECAL is finely segmented in projective towers of approximately $`0.9^{}`$ by $`0.9^{}`$ which are read out in three segments of depth. The energy resolution is $`\sigma (E)/E=0.18/\sqrt{E}+0.009`$ ($`E`$ in GeV). The iron return yoke is instrumented with streamer tubes acting as a hadron calorimeter (HCAL) and covers polar angles down to 110 mrad. Surrounding the HCAL are two additional double layers of streamer tubes called muon chambers. The luminosity monitors (LCAL and SICAL) extend the calorimetric coverage down to polar angles of 34 mrad.

Using the energy flow algorithm described in Ref. , the measurements of the tracking detectors and the calorimeters are combined into “objects” classified as charged particles, photons, and neutral hadrons. A good track is defined as a charged particle track originating from the interaction region (with transverse impact parameter $`|d_0|<`$ 1 cm and longitudinal impact parameter $`|z_0|<`$ 5 cm), having at least four TPC hits, a transverse momentum greater than 200 MeV/$`c`$ and a minimum polar angle of $`18.2^{}`$. In order to get the correct charged multiplicity, photon conversions are reconstructed with a pair-finding algorithm . Electrons are identified by comparing the energy deposit in ECAL to the momentum measured in the tracking system, by using the shower profile in the electromagnetic calorimeter and by the measurement of the specific ionisation in the TPC. The tagging of muons makes use of the hit patterns in HCAL and the muon chambers.

The data samples used in this paper, collected by the ALEPH detector from 1998 to 2000, are given in Table 1.

All selections were developed using Monte Carlo techniques. Simulated samples corresponding to at least ten times the collected luminosity of all major background processes have been generated. A detailed list of the Monte Carlo generators used can be found in Refs. . Signal samples were simulated with SUSYGEN . The position of the most important cuts was determined using the $`\overline{N}_{95}`$ prescription , which corresponds to the minimisation of the expected 95$`\%`$ confidence level upper limit on the number of signal events, under the hypothesis that no signal is present in the data.

## 3 Review of experimental topologies and results

The nature of the NLSP determines the final state topologies to be studied in GMSB models. All the relevant searches according to the NLSP type and lifetime are listed in Table 2.

A detailed description of the selections optimised at 189 GeV can be found in Ref. . The same selections are applied here with cut values suitably adjusted to take into account the beam energy and luminosity increases. Only the four-lepton selections, detailed in Section 3.3, and the acoplanar lepton selection, recently updated in Ref. , have been modified.

### 3.1 Neutralino NLSP

In the $`\chi `$ NLSP scenario, all supersymmetric decay chains will terminate in $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}\gamma `$. Searches for pair production of neutralinos decaying promptly and neutralinos with intermediate lifetime were described in Ref.  and updated in Ref. . For short neutralino lifetimes, the resulting experimental signature is a pair of energetic acoplanar photons. When the updated analysis is applied to the 189–209 GeV data sample, four candidate events are found with 4.9 events expected from background processes. For intermediate $`\chi `$ lifetimes, one neutralino may decay before reaching the electromagnetic calorimeter, while the other decays outside the detector. This scenario results in a topology where the only visible energy originates from a single photon which does not point to the interaction vertex. Two non-pointing photon events are found in the data sample and 1.0 are expected. Systematic errors have been evaluated and included in the results as in Ref. .

For long $`\chi `$ NLSP decay lengths ($`\lambda \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{detector}}`$) the neutralino becomes invisible and only indirect exclusions are possible. The relationship between the $`\chi `$ mass and the slepton and chargino masses can be exploited to put indirect limits on the $`\chi `$ mass using the ALEPH results on slepton  and chargino  searches performed within the SUGRA framework.

The combination of all these analyses allows the exclusion of neutralino masses as a function of the neutralino decay length. An example for a particular region in the GMSB parameter space is shown in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Slepton NLSP direct decay

In the case of a slepton NLSP, the pair-production process $`\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ is expected to be the main experimental signature. The signal final state topology depends strongly on the slepton lifetime. Four different analyses are performed, each corresponding to a specific range of mean decay length. These searches were described in Ref.  and updated in Ref. .

If the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ has a short decay length, of the order of a few mm or less, the final state topology will be a pair of acoplanar leptons and missing energy, carried away by the two gravitinos. This final state is studied in gravity mediated models , where a neutralino of almost zero mass plays the role of the gravitino in GMSB. Therefore, the results obtained for a massless neutralino are used.

Sleptons with intermediate lifetime, which decay inside the detector, may show two possible signatures: large impact parameter and kinked tracks. If the slepton decays before the TPC, between $``$1 cm and 40 cm, the slepton track will not be reconstructed and the final lepton track will have a large impact parameter. If the slepton decays within the TPC volume, the signature is then characterised by a kinked track. Two different selections are therefore applied to the intermediate slepton lifetime case. One event is found with 1.1 events expected from SM processes.

Finally, long-lived sleptons can be detected from their anomalous specific ionisation in the TPC. The search for heavy stable charged particles selected one candidate event, while 2.3 are expected from background processes.

The effect of systematic uncertainties on kinematic cuts has been studied as in Ref.  and limits are derived reducing the efficiency by a total systematic error of 5$`\%`$. When all four independent selections are combined, the 95$`\%`$ confidence level lower limits on the right-slepton masses, independent of lifetime, are set at 83, 88 and 77 GeV$`/c^2`$ for selectron, smuon and stau, respectively. The selectron mass limit is obtained neglecting the $`t`$-channel exchange contribution to the production cross section. The stau mass limit as a function of lifetime is plotted in Fig. 2.

### 3.3 Slepton NLSP cascade decays

In the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ NLSP scenario, if the neutralino pair production is kinematically accessible, the process $`\text{e}\text{+}\text{e}\text{-}\chi \chi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}`$ may provide a very distinctive discovery signal. This cascade decay can increase the sensitivity to GMSB signatures in some region of the parameter space. This process benefits from quite a large cross section (the $`\chi `$ is expected to be mainly bino and the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}`$ is expected to be light) and from a clear experimental signature. Four leptons are produced in the final state (two could be soft if the $`\chi `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ mass difference is small) and in half of the cases the two most energetic leptons have the same charge ($`\chi `$ are Majorana particles).

Depending on the flavour of the slepton in $`\chi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ decays, there are six possible topologies, labelled $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ in the case of slepton co-NLSP. In the case of stau NLSP only the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ topology is relevant.

#### 3.3.1 Prompt decays

Searches for the cascade topologies with negligible lifetime have already been performed by ALEPH at a centre-of-mass energy of 189 GeV . The selection cuts are revisited in this paper to improve the signal efficiencies and account for the increase in centre-of-mass energy and luminosity. The revised cuts described in Appendix A are also applied to the data collected at 189 GeV and improve the signal efficiency up to 10$`\%`$.

The main systematic uncertainties on the background and signal expectations come from the number of generated events in the simulated samples (up to $`4\%`$). A total systematic uncertainty of $`2\%`$ is evaluated for the variables involved in the selection. To derive the results, the selection efficiency has been reduced by 4$`\%`$.

The efficiency of the cuts on the signal samples was found to be in the range 65–85$`\%`$ for $`\chi `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ mass differences greater than 3 GeV$`/c^2`$ in the case of final states not involving tau leptons and in the range 40–65$`\%`$ for $`\chi `$-$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ mass differences greater than 5 GeV$`/c^2`$ in the case of final states with tau leptons. The selection efficiencies for the six topologies are shown in Fig. 3a.

The numbers of background events expected from Standard Model processes and of events observed in the data are given in Table 3. The largest background contributions are from WW and $`\tau \tau (\gamma )`$ events.

#### 3.3.2 Short and long decays

A new analysis has been developed for the case of observable slepton decay length, based on the experimental signatures of leptons with large impact parameter and track kinks. Searches were developed for each of the six channels, consisting of loose cuts on global event variables, which cause very little signal rejection, and of more stringent cuts on individual track properties. The latter are intended to select the tracks that come from the decay of the long-lived sleptons. For each topology, two independent selections were designed to ensure good sensitivity to the signal both for short ($``$1 cm) and long ($``$1 m) decay lengths. Further details are given in Appendix B.

Because the searches in all topologies focus primarily on selecting tracks with large $`d_0`$, there is a large overlap in their acceptances, and so candidate events tend to be selected more than once. The “efficiency” (the probability for a signal event to be selected at least once) reaches a maximum of $``$80$`\%`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ channel and $`>`$90$`\%`$ for other channels at a slepton decay length of around 10 cm. An efficiency $`>`$10$`\%`$ is maintained for slepton decay lengths from $``$1 mm to $``$10 m for all channels.

The numbers of background events expected to be selected in at least one topology and the corresponding numbers of observed events for each LEP energy and each selection are given in Table 4. The efficiency dependence on the slepton decay length is shown in Fig. 3b, for the prompt decay and the short and long decay length selections.

## 4 Interpretation of the results in the minimal GMSB model

A scan over the parameters of a minimal GMSB model has been performed to study the impact of the different searches. The aim of this scan is to understand which topologies contribute to exclude regions in the parameter space and to be able to set a lower limit on the mass of the NLSP and on the universal mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, independently of the NLSP lifetime (i.e., for all gravitino masses).

The parameters needed to specify a minimal GMSB model  are

* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the universal mass scale of SUSY particles;
* $`N_5`$, the number of messenger pairs;
* $`M_{\mathrm{mess}}`$, the common messenger mass scale;
* $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio between the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets;
* sign($`\mu `$), where $`\mu `$ is the higgsino mass parameter; and
* $`\sqrt{F}`$, the SUSY breaking scale in the messenger sector, related to the gravitino mass by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}=\frac{F}{\sqrt{3}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}}=2.4\left(\frac{\sqrt{F}}{100\mathrm{TeV}}\right)^2\mathrm{eV},$$
(2)
where $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}=2.4\times 10^{18}\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ is the reduced Planck mass.

The ranges of the scan are listed in Table 5. The six parameters listed determine the properties of supersymmetric particles characteristic of GMSB models. At each point in the scan, the ISAJET 7.51 program  was used to calculate SUSY masses, cross sections, branching ratios and lifetimes, then taken into account to evaluate whether a point is excluded by any of the searches. In total, over 2.3 million points in the minimal GMSB parameter space have been tested.

In addition to the analyses described in this paper, other searches were used to set exclusion areas in the scan: the SUGRA chargino  and slepton  searches to cover the case of $`\chi `$ NLSP with a long-lived neutralino and LEP1 results , used here to exclude very low NLSP masses. In addition, for each set of GMSB parameters the Higgs boson masses and couplings were computed. The results from Ref.  were used to extend the GMSB exclusion domain.

### 4.1 Lower limit on the NLSP mass

As reported in Section 3, no significant deviation from the SM expectation was observed. A lower limit on the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ mass of 77 GeV$`/c^2`$ is set, independently of its lifetime. This limit is valid in the stau NLSP case over the full scan range. It is reduced to 72 GeV$`/c^2`$ in the $`\chi `$ NLSP scenario.

The interplay of the different searches in the ($`m_\chi ,m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$) plane is shown in Fig. 4. For short NLSP lifetimes (Fig. 4a) the multi-lepton search is able to exclude $`m_\chi `$ up to 92 GeV$`/c^2`$ in the slepton NLSP case, extending the acoplanar lepton search. In Fig. 4b the case of long NLSP lifetimes is presented. Because they rely on results from indirect constraints, limits in the long neutralino lifetime case are less constraining than those obtained with short neutralino lifetime searches. The absolute lower limit on the NLSP mass of 54 GeV$`/c^2`$, determined by the chargino and slepton searches, is visible in Fig. 4b. This point is found at $`N_5=1`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=39\text{ TeV}/c^2`$, $`M_{\mathrm{mess}}=10^{10}\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}=10^5\text{ eV}/c^2`$, where the neutralino is the NLSP with the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ masses around 96 GeV$`/c^2`$ and all other supersymmetric particles above threshold.

The impact of the neutral Higgs boson searches on the neutralino and stau mass limits is shown in Fig. 5 as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The NLSP absolute mass limit is 77 GeV$`/c^2`$ obtained for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and in the stau NLSP scenario.

### 4.2 Lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$

The parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ represents the energy scale at which the messenger particles couple to the visible sector and hence fixes the universal mass scale of SUSY particles. At the $`M_{\mathrm{mess}}`$ energy, gaugino masses scale like $`N_5\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, while scalar masses squared scale like $`N_5\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The masses at the electroweak scale are calculated by means of the renormalization group equations. Once the limit for the NLSP mass has been found, the limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a function of $`N_5`$ can thus be derived.

The excluded values for the parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are shown in Fig. 6 for different values of $`N_5`$. The absolute limit for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set at around 10 TeV$`/c^2`$. This limit is set at $`N_5=5`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1.5`$, $`M_{\mathrm{mess}}=10^{12}\text{ GeV}/c^2`$ and a large gravitino mass (stable NLSP). The neutralino is the NLSP with a mass of 73 GeV$`/c^2`$, slepton masses are around 76 GeV$`/c^2`$ and all other sparticles are above threshold.

The impact of the neutral Higgs boson searches  is shown in the ($`\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) plane in Fig. 6d. These results strongly constrain the allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For example, for $`N_5=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ up to 67 TeV$`/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ up to 6 are excluded.

The lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ independent of lifetime and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is shown in Fig. 7a as a function of $`N_5`$. The absolute limit of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>10\text{ TeV}/c^2`$ can be seen here for $`N_5=5`$. When the Higgs boson search results are taken into account, the limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ increases to 16 TeV$`/c^2`$, for $`m_\mathrm{t}=175\text{ GeV}/c^2`$. With a top mass of 180 GeV$`/c^2`$, the absolute lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set at 15 TeV$`/c^2`$.

The equation that relates the gravitino mass to the scale of SUSY breaking in the messenger sector, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}=F/\sqrt{3}M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$, can be exploited to put an indirect limit on the gravitino mass. The universal mass scale must obey $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{F}`$ under the simple assumption of positive messenger masses squared . The lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can then be converted into a constraint on $`\sqrt{F}`$ and therefore provides an indirect limit on the gravitino mass. The dependence of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}`$ on $`N_5`$ is illustrated in Fig. 7b. The lower limit on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of 10 TeV$`/c^2`$ implies a lower limit on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{G}}}`$ of 0.024 eV$`/c^2`$. When the results of Higgs searches are included these limits become 16 TeV$`/c^2`$ and 0.061 eV$`/c^2`$, respectively.

## 5 Conclusions

No evidence for new physics has been found in the search for GMSB topologies in the final ALEPH data sample collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$ up to 209 GeV. In order to test the impact of the searches reported here and in Refs. , a scan over a minimal set of GMSB parameters has been performed. The resulting NLSP mass limits can be read in Table 6.

The scan also provides a lower limit of 16 TeV$`/c^2`$ on the universal SUSY mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and an indirect lower limit on the gravitino mass of 0.061 eV$`/c^2`$.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to congratulate our colleagues from the accelerator divisions for the successful operation of LEP at high energy. We are indebted to the engineers and technicians in all our institutions for their contribution to the excellent performance of ALEPH. Those of us from non-member states wish to thank CERN for its hospitality and support.

## Appendix A: Four leptons with negligible lifetime selection

The experimental topology consists of two energetic (from the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ decay) and two soft (from the $`\chi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ decay) leptons plus missing energy and momentum. The charge of the two most energetic leptons is expected to be the same in 50$`\%`$ of the cases.

In the analysis the presence of at least two energetic leptons is required, where, in the case of tau decays, a lepton can also be a jet with small multiplicity and invariant mass. The same muon, electron and tau identification as described in  is applied.

All topologies have a common anti–$`\gamma \gamma `$ preselection, based on the rejection of events with low transverse momentum or with energy deposits at small polar angles, which indicate the presence of a scattered electron. The anti–$`\gamma \gamma `$ cuts include:

* $`p_{}/\sqrt{s}>0.075\text{or}(p_{}/\sqrt{s}>0.05\text{and}|\varphi _{\text{miss}}90^{}|>15^{}\text{and}|\varphi _{\text{miss}}270^{}|>15^{})`$;
* $`\theta _{\text{diff}}>5^{}\text{or}\theta _{\text{scatt}}>15^{}`$;
* $`E_{\text{nh}}/E_{\text{tot}}<0.45\text{and}(E_{\text{nh}}/E_{\text{tot}}<0.30\text{or}p_{\text{nnh}}/\sqrt{s}>0.03)`$;
* $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\text{miss}}<0.95`$

The cut variables are defined as follows: $`p_{}`$ is the transverse momentum of the event, $`\varphi _{\text{miss}}`$ and $`\theta _{\text{miss}}`$ are the azimuthal and polar angles of the missing momentum, $`\theta _{\text{diff}}`$ and $`\theta _{\text{scatt}}`$ are two angles associated with the $`\gamma \gamma `$ kinematic hypothesis described in Ref. , $`E_{\text{nh}}`$ is the reconstructed neutral–hadron energy, $`E_{\text{tot}}`$ is the total reconstructed energy of the event and $`p_{\text{nnh}}`$ is the transverse momentum of the event evaluated without the neutral hadrons.

### A.1 $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐞}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐞}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐞}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}`$ selections

Events with 2, 3 or 4 charged tracks are considered in the case of topologies that do not involve tau leptons in the final state. At least three identified electrons (muons) are required in the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$) selections. In the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ selection the number of identified leptons must again be at least three, but the two most energetic leptons must have different flavours and no more than two leptons of the same flavour are allowed. These requirements reject most hadronic background decays. After the preselection, the cuts listed in Table 7 are applied to reject planar events and improve the $`\gamma \gamma `$ suppression. If the two most energetic leptons have different charges, further selections are necessary to reduce the remaining WW and ZZ background, and in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$, the Bhabha background.

The cut variables are defined as follows: $`E_{\text{30}}`$ is the total energy reconstructed in a $`30^{}`$ cone around the beam line, AcopT  is the transverse acoplanarity of the two most energetic leptons, $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$. Acol is the angle between $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{}2`$ in space and $`E_\mathrm{}1`$ is the energy of the most energetic lepton in the event. In the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$ case, an event is accepted if either the cut on the energy of the second most energetic lepton, $`E_\mathrm{}2`$, or a veto on isolated photons, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{iso}}`$, is satisfied. $`E_{\text{lt}}`$ is the energy of the leading track in the event.

### A.2 $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐞}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝉}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝉}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝉}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝉}`$ selections

The selection procedures for the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ topologies are based on the acoplanar leptons analysis developed in Ref.  where a detailed definition of the tau reconstruction algorithm is also given. The selection cuts for mixed topologies are listed in Table 8.

The definition of the variables used is the following: $`N(\text{charged})`$ is the number of reconstructed charged tracks, $`N(\mathrm{})`$ is the number of identified leptons ($`\mathrm{}`$ = e, $`\mu `$), $`M_{\text{tot}}`$ is the invariant mass of the event, Acol is the acollinearity of the two tau jets, $`E_{\text{12}}`$ is the total energy reconstructed in a $`12^{}`$ cone around the beam line, $`M_{\text{miss}}`$ is the missing mass of the event, $`M(\text{Event}\tau 1)`$ is the invariant mass of the event once the most energetic tau jet, $`\tau 1`$, has been removed, $`E_{\tau 1}`$ and $`E_{\tau 2}`$ are the energies of the two tau jets, $`M_{\tau 1}`$ and $`M_{\tau 2}`$ are the corresponding masses. $`N_{\text{nh}}(\tau 1)`$ is the number of neutral hadrons reconstructed in the most energetic tau jet.

The cuts on $`M_{\text{tot}}`$ and $`E_{\text{12}}`$ allow further $`\gamma \gamma `$ suppression while the cuts on $`N(\text{charged})`$, $`N(\mathrm{})`$ and $`N_{\text{nh}}(\tau 1)`$ reject most of the $`q\overline{q}`$ background and hadronic decays. The kinematic cuts on the jet variables select events containing tau-like jets.

For the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ topology the events are clustered into four jets using the Durham algorithm  and each jet is checked for consistency with a tau hypothesis. Events satisfying the cuts listed in Table 9 are retained. Two alternative strategies are applied depending on wether the sum of the charges of the tracks in the two most–energetic tau jets is zero, $`\text{Charge(jet1 + jet2)}=0`$, or $`\text{Charge(jet1 + jet2)}=1\text{or}2`$.

The cut variables are defined as follows: $`y_{\text{23}}`$ ($`y_{\text{34}}`$, $`y_{\text{45}}`$) is the $`y`$ cut for which the event goes from 2 to 3 (3 to 4, 4 to 5) jets. $`N_{\text{good}}`$ is the number of good tracks, $`N_{\text{cj}}`$ is the number of jets containing at least one charged track, $`N(\tau )`$ is the number of identified tau jets, $`N_{\text{cnt}}`$ is the number of charged tracks not associated with any tau jet. $`E_{\tau _{\text{max}}}`$ is the energy of the most energetic tau jet in the event. $`p_{\mathrm{}_{\text{max}}}`$ is the momentum of the most energetic identified lepton (e or $`\mu `$) from the most energetic tau jet (including final state radiation).

The cuts have been optimised to select events with at least three tau-like jets not lying in the same plane. They reject most Standard Model processes leaving an irreducible contribution arising from WW and $`\tau \tau (\gamma )`$ events.

## Appendix B: Four leptons with lifetime selection

In analogy with the negligible lifetime analysis, described in Appendix A, six selections corresponding to the six different final states have been developed.

The main requirement for selection is that an event has at least one high-$`d_0`$ track. The main background to such an object is given by secondary interactions of particles originating from SM processes with the detector material (e.g. nuclear interactions, photon conversions, etc). The rejection of this background is achieved through detailed analysis of the TPC, ITC and VDET hits associated to the reconstructed high-$`d_0`$ tracks. Three variables are used to select a high-$`d_0`$ track: the momentum, the $`d_0`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{IP}}^2`$ (the $`\chi ^2`$ of the track fit to the interaction point, normalised to the number of degrees of freedom). The $`d_0`$ cut is not applied if the track $`|z_0|`$ is greater than 8 cm. For each topology two sets of cuts have been applied to cope with the two cases of short slepton decay length ($`d_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1`$ cm) and of long slepton decay length ($`d_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}1`$ m). These cuts are summarised in Table 10. For the $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}`$$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ channels the electron and/or muon identification is also applied to the high-$`d_0`$ track.

In addition to the request of having at least one high-$`d_0`$ track, an event is also required to pass at least one of six selections based on global event variables. The principal cuts are listed in Table 11.

Most analyses use only tracks with a $`d_0`$ less than 2 cm and a $`|z_0|`$ less than 10 cm, and ignore all others. Some of the variables, indicated as primed, are calculated using only tracks with these $`d_0`$ and $`|z_0|`$ conditions, while unprimed variables are calculated using all tracks. The definitions of the variables are as follows: $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ is the number of charged tracks, $`N_{\mathrm{TPC}}`$ is the number of charged tracks with at least one TPC hit, $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the total energy of the event, $`m_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the invariant mass of the event, $`\alpha `$ is the acollinearity of the event, $`c_{2ch}`$ is cosine of the angle between the two highest momentum tracks, $`S_{2\beta }^{}`$ is $`\sqrt{10.5(\beta _1^2+\beta _2^2)}`$ (where $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ are the boosts of the two event hemispheres) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{aco}}`$ is the acollinearity of the event.

The cuts marked with a $``$ are not applied if a parent slepton track has been identified (i.e. a mother-daughter relationship has been established between one of the high-$`d_0`$ tracks and a track from the primary interaction point). The cuts on $`c_{2ch}`$, $`S_{2\beta }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{aco}}^{}`$ are only applied in the case that there is just one good high-$`d_0`$ track, and that no track or hit has been tagged as belonging to its parent slepton. Only one of the cuts grouped with a brace need to be passed. In addition, cosmic-ray events are suppressed by requiring that the event be within 100 ns of the bunch crossing.


format: text

text:
# Neutrino Mass Matrix Running for Non-Degenerate See-Saw Scales

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of neutrino masses requires an extension of the Standard Model (SM) or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), which may involve right-handed neutrinos, or more generally gauge singlets. Since there are no protective symmetries, these singlets are usually expected to have huge explicit (Majorana) masses. This leads to the see-saw mechanism , which provides a convincing explanation for small neutrino masses. This scenario can be realized in many Grand Unified Theories (GUT’s) and their supersymmetric counterparts. For instance, left-right symmetric models and $`\text{SO}(10)`$ GUT’s include singlet neutrinos, which can get huge masses in several ways, e.g. by a Higgs in a suitable representation or radiatively. Furthermore, additional singlets may exist, which can also be involved in the see-saw mechanism.

It is often assumed that all heavy singlet mass eigenvalues are degenerate. However, in all the models a large hierarchy of the singlet masses is possible. Note that such a hierarchical spectrum may even show up if all elements of the singlet mass matrix are of the same order. Democratic mass matrices, where this is the case due to discrete symmetries, are an example. Another argument for a non-degenerate spectrum follows from assuming a neutrino Yukawa matrix $`Y_\nu `$ which is proportional to the diagonalized charged lepton Yukawa matrix $`Y_e`$, i.e. the relation $`Y_\nu =c_\nu Y_ec_\nu \mathrm{diag}(10^2,10^3,10^5)`$ holds with a constant real number $`c_\nu `$. If the neutrino masses are degenerate and of the order $`1\mathrm{eV}`$, the see-saw relation $`\kappa =\frac{4}{v_{\mathrm{EW}}^2}M_\nu =2Y_\nu ^TM^1Y_\nu `$ for the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ allows to determine the singlet mass matrix $`M`$. Mixings do not significantly alter this picture, since e.g. bimaximal mixing can be accomplished by small modifications of a degenerate $`M_\nu `$ of the order $`10^2\mathrm{eV}`$ or $`10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, respectively. Taking for example $`c_\nu =100`$, the mass eigenvalues of $`M`$ are of the order $`10^7\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`10^{11}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}`$ for the case at hand. It is therefore conceivable that there may be an even larger hierarchy in $`M`$ than in the charged lepton Yukawa matrices. Altogether, there are thus good reasons to study the effects of a non-degenerate or even hierarchical singlet mass spectrum.

In this paper, we calculate the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE’s) for the evolution of the neutrino mass matrix from the GUT scale to the electroweak or SUSY breaking scale. We consider the case where the SM and the MSSM are extended by an arbitrary number of heavy singlets which have explicit (Majorana) masses with a non-degenerate spectrum. Hence, to study the RG evolution of neutrino masses several Effective Field Theories (EFT’s), with the singlets partly integrated out, have to be taken into account. Below the lowest mass threshold, the neutrino mass matrix is given by the effective dimension 5 neutrino mass operator in the SM or MSSM, respectively. The corresponding RGE’s were derived in .

## 2 Effective Theories from Integrating Out Singlet Neutrinos

Consider the SM or the MSSM with $`n_G`$ additional sterile neutrinos. The eigenvalues of the mass matrix $`M`$, i.e. the masses of the mass eigenstates $`\{N_\mathrm{R}^1,\mathrm{},N_\mathrm{R}^{n_G}\}`$, have a certain spectrum, $`M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_{n_G}`$. We will consider the general case that this spectrum is non-degenerate. Successively integrating out the heavy sterile neutrinos at the thresholds $`M_i`$ results in effective theories, valid in certain energy ranges as depicted in figure 1.

Before we calculate the RGE’s in the various theories, let us specify the modifications in the Lagrangians due to the appearance of the heavy neutrinos. In the SM above the highest mass threshold (“Full Theory” in figure 1), the kinetic and mass term as well as the Yukawa interaction for the singlet neutrinos $`N_\mathrm{R}^i`$, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n_G\}`$, are added:

$`_\mathrm{N}=\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i}(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu )N_\mathrm{R}^i+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i}M_{ij}N_\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{C}j}(Y_\nu )_{if}\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}^f+\text{h.c.}\right),`$ (1)
where $`N_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{C}:=(N_\mathrm{R})^\mathrm{C}`$ is the charge conjugate of $`N_\mathrm{R}`$. $`f\{1,\mathrm{},n_F\}`$ are flavour indices, $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}^f`$ are the SU(2)L-doublets of leptons, $`\varphi `$ is the Higgs doublet, and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:=i\sigma ^2\varphi ^{}`$. Summation over repeated indices is implied throughout the paper. For the calculation of the RGE’s, we will work in a basis in which the Majorana mass matrix $`M`$ is diagonal.

In the MSSM, the additional gauge singlet Weyl spinors $`\nu ^{\mathrm{C}i}`$, which correspond to the right-handed Dirac spinors $`N_\mathrm{R}^i`$, and their superpartners are components of the chiral superfields Ci. The terms of the superpotential containing these superfields are

$`𝒲_{(\mathrm{N})}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}i}M_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}j}+(Y_\nu )_{if}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}i}h_{a}^{(2)}(\epsilon ^T)^{ab}l_b^f+\text{h.c.},`$ (2)
where $`l^f`$ and $`h^{(2)}`$ are the chiral superfields that contain the leptonic SU(2)L-doublets and the Higgs doublet with weak hypercharge $`+\frac{1}{2}`$. $`\epsilon `$ is the totally antisymmetric tensor in 2 dimensions, and $`a,b,c,d\{1,2\}`$ are SU(2) indices.

The Higgs doublet superfield $`h^{(1)}`$ with weak hypercharge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is involved in the Yukawa couplings of the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$-singlet superfields $`e^\mathrm{C}`$ and $`d^\mathrm{C}`$ containing the charged leptons and down-type quarks, whereas $`h^{(2)}`$ couples to C and the superfield $`u^\mathrm{C}`$ containing the up-type quarks. The part of the superpotential describing the remaining Yukawa interactions is given by

$`𝒲_{\mathrm{Yuk}}^{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_e)_{gf}e^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(1)}\epsilon ^{ab}l_b^f`$ (3)
$`+(Y_d)_{gf}d^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(1)}\epsilon ^{ab}q_b^f+(Y_u)_{gf}u^{\mathrm{C}g}h_a^{(2)}(\epsilon ^T)^{ab}q_b^f,`$
where $`q`$ is the quark doublet superfield. The field content of the superfields is

$`l^f`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^f+\sqrt{2}\theta \mathrm{}^f+\theta \theta F_{\mathrm{}}^f,`$ (4a)
$`e^{\mathrm{C}g}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}^{\mathrm{C}g}+\sqrt{2}\theta e^{\mathrm{C}g}+\theta \theta F_e^g,`$ (4b)
Cj $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{\mathrm{C}j}+\sqrt{2}\theta \nu ^{\mathrm{C}j}+\theta \theta F_\nu ^j,`$ (4c)
$`q^f`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{q}^f+\sqrt{2}\theta q^f+\theta \theta F_q^f,`$ (4d)
$`u^{\mathrm{C}g}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{u}^{\mathrm{C}g}+\sqrt{2}\theta u^{\mathrm{C}g}+\theta \theta F_u^g,`$ (4e)
$`d^{\mathrm{C}g}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{d}^{\mathrm{C}g}+\sqrt{2}\theta d^{\mathrm{C}g}+\theta \theta F_d^g,`$ (4f)
$`h^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(1)}+\sqrt{2}\theta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(1)}+\theta \theta F_{h^{(1)}},`$ (4g)
$`h^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{(2)}+\sqrt{2}\theta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(2)}+\theta \theta F_{h^{(2)}}.`$ (4h)
By integrating out all singlet neutrinos of the extended SM, one obtains the dimension 5 operator that gives Majorana masses to the light neutrinos,

$$_\kappa ^{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{1}{4}\kappa _{gf}\overline{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{C}}_c^g\epsilon ^{cd}\varphi _d\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{L}b}^f\epsilon ^{ba}\varphi _a+\text{h.c.}.$$
(5)
The corresponding expression in the MSSM is the $`F`$-term of

$$𝒲_\kappa ^{\mathrm{MSSM}}=\frac{1}{4}\kappa _{gf}l_c^g\epsilon ^{cd}h_d^{(2)}l_b^f\epsilon ^{ba}h_a^{(2)}+\text{h.c.}.$$
(6)
In the intermediate region between the $`(n1)`$th and the $`n`$th threshold, the singlets $`\{N_\mathrm{R}^n,\mathrm{},N_\mathrm{R}^{n_G}\}`$ or singlet superfields $`\{{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}n},\mathrm{},{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}n_G}\}`$ are integrated out, leading to an effective operator of the type (5) or (6) with coupling constant $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}`$, where $`\stackrel{\left(1\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}`$ is identical to $`\kappa _{gf}`$. In this region, the Yukawa matrix for the remaining singlet neutrinos is a $`(n1)\times n_F`$ matrix and will be referred to as $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu `$,

$$Y_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}(Y_\nu )_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& (Y_\nu )_{1,n_F}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ (Y_\nu )_{n1,1}& \mathrm{}& (Y_\nu )_{n1,n_F}\\ \hfill & & \\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\begin{array}{cc}\}& =:\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ,\hfill \\ \}& \begin{array}{c}n_Gn+1\text{heavy, sterile}\hfill \\ \text{neutrinos integrated out}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
The tree-level matching condition for the effective coupling constant at the threshold corresponding to the largest eigenvalue $`M_n`$ of $`\stackrel{\left(n+1\right)}{M}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}|_{M_n}:=\stackrel{\left(n+1\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}|_{M_n}+2(\stackrel{\left(n+1\right)}{Y}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{T})_{gn}M_n^1(\stackrel{\left(n+1\right)}{Y}_\nu )_{nf}|_{M_n}\text{(no sum over }n\text{).}$$
(8)
To determine the RGE’s, we first calculate the relevant counterterms for the effective theories. We use dimensional regularization (with $`d:=4ϵ`$ dimensions) and the MS renormalization scheme. The renormalization constants below the $`n`$th threshold are denoted by $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}`$, $`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$, etc., analogous to our notation for the coupling constants.

## 3 Calculation of the Counterterms

For the one-loop wavefunction renormalization constants $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}:=\mathrm{𝟙}+\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}`$ between the thresholds in the extended SM, we find in $`R_\xi `$ gauge for $`\text{U}(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$ and $`\text{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$

$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu +Y_e^{}Y_e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi _Bg_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi _Wg_2^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (9a)
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[2\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )+2\mathrm{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)`$ (9b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi _B3)g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi _W3)g_2^2]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}.`$ (9c)
For the vertex renormalization constants we obtain

$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }(Y_e^{}Y_e)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi _Bg_1^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\xi _Wg_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (10a)
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[2(Y_e^{}Y_e)^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }(Y_e^{}Y_e)\lambda \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$ (10b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\xi _B3)g_1^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(2\xi _W1)g_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10c)
where $`\lambda `$ is the scalar quartic coupling appearing in the interaction term $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda (\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2`$. The above quantities are defined by the counterterms for the mass and the Yukawa vertex of the sterile neutrinos as well as the one for the effective vertex,

$`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{𝒞}_{\mathrm{mass}(\mathrm{N})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i}\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}_{ij}N_\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{C}j}+\text{h.c.},`$ (11a)
$`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{𝒞}_{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu })_{if}\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}^f+\text{h.c.},`$ (11b)
$`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{𝒞}_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}\overline{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{C}}_c^g\epsilon ^{cd}\varphi _d\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{L}b}^f\epsilon ^{ba}\varphi _a+\text{h.c.},`$ (11c)
where the sums over $`i`$ and $`j`$ run from $`1`$ to $`n1`$.

In the extended MSSM, only wavefunction renormalization is required except for the contributions from the gauge boson - matter interactions. Fixing the $`R_\xi `$ gauges and using Wess Zumino (WZ) gauge breaks supersymmetry explicitly, and thus the non-renormalization theorem is not manifest. Hence, the counterterms for the vertices do not vanish in general. We use the same notation for them as in the SM. The relevant diagrams for the renormalization of the the $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$-vertex are the gauge contributions similar to those of the SM, the gaugino contributions (figure 2 (a)–(d)) and the diagrams from the $`D`$-terms (figure 2 (e)–(f)). The resulting wavefunction renormalization constants are given by

$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_\mathrm{}_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu +2Y_e^{}Y_e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi _B1)g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi _W1)g_2^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (12a)
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_{\varphi ^{(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[2\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)`$ (12b)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi _B+1)g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi _W+1)g_2^2]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Z}_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[4\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (12c)
and the vertex renormalization constants are

$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\xi _B+2)g_1^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\xi _W+2)g_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y_\nu }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (13a)
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[(\xi _B+2)g_1^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+3(\xi _W+2)g_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}},`$ (13b)
$`\delta \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (13c)
## 4 Beta-Functions in the Effective Theories

### 4.1 Standard Model with Additional Majorana Neutrinos

Using the counterterms calculated in the previous section, we find in the SM the following $`\beta `$-functions $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_\kappa =\mu \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\mu }\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }_{gf}`$ for the effective vertex below the $`n`$th threshold:

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(Y_e^{}Y_e)^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }(Y_e^{}Y_e)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )`$ (14)
$`+2\mathrm{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+2\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }`$
$`+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d)\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }3g_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+\lambda \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }.`$
The method used to calculate $`\beta `$-functions from counterterms in MS-like renormalization schemes for tensorial quantities is described in . For the Yukawa matrix, the $`\beta `$-function $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_{Y_\nu }`$ $`(n>1)`$ is given by

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu [{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(Y_e^{}Y_e)+\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )+\mathrm{Tr}(Y_e^{}Y_e)`$ (15)
$`+3\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)+3\mathrm{Tr}(Y_d^{}Y_d){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}g_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}g_2^2].`$
Calculating the $`\beta `$-function for the Majorana mass matrix of the singlets yields

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_M`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{})\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}+\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{})^T.`$ (16)
### 4.2 MSSM with Additional Singlets

In the MSSM with additional chiral superfields including sterile neutrinos, the $`\beta `$-function for the effective vertex below the $`n`$th threshold is given by

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_\kappa `$ $`=`$ $`(Y_e^{}Y_e)^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }(Y_e^{}Y_e)+(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )`$ (17)
$`+2\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+6\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }2g_1^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }6g_2^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }.`$
For $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_{Y_\nu }`$ we obtain

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_{Y_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \left[3\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu +Y_e^{}Y_e+\mathrm{Tr}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{}\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu )+3\mathrm{Tr}(Y_u^{}Y_u)g_1^23g_2^2\right]`$ (18)
and the $`\beta `$-function for the Majorana mass matrix of the singlets is

$`16\pi ^2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\beta }_M`$ $`=`$ $`2(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{})\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}+2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}(\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^{})^T.`$ (19)
The $`\beta `$-functions for the gauge couplings and for the Yukawa couplings of the quarks and charged leptons are not listed here. We found them to be the same as in the extended SM or MSSM , if one substitutes $`Y_\nu \stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu `$.

### 4.3 Calculation of the Low-Energy Effective Neutrino Mass Matrix

From the above $`\beta `$-functions, the low-energy effective neutrino mass matrix can now be calculated as follows: At the GUT scale, we start with the Yukawa matrices $`Y_\nu `$ and the Majorana mass matrix $`M`$ for the sterile neutrinos. Using the relevant RGE’s (15), (16) or (18), (19) (with the superscripts $`(n)`$ omitted) together with those of the gauge and the other Yukawa couplings, we calculate the renormalization group running of $`Y_\nu `$, $`M`$ and the remaining parameters of the theory.

At the first mass threshold, i.e. the largest eigenvalue $`M_{n_G}`$ of $`M`$, we integrate out the heaviest sterile neutrino and perform tree-level matching according to equation (8). Note that this procedure is only possible in the mass eigenstate basis at the threshold, which is different from the original one at the GUT scale, since the RG evolution produces non-zero off-diagonal entries in $`M`$. Therefore, the mass matrix has to be diagonalized by a unitary transformation, $`MU^TMU`$, which leads to the redefinitions $`N_\mathrm{R}U^TN_\mathrm{R}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{C}}U^T^\mathrm{C}`$ and $`Y_\nu U^TY_\nu `$ of the singlet neutrino fields and their Yukawa matrix.111One could worry that the running, which spoils the diagonal structure of $`M`$, might require a constant re-diagonalization while solving the RGE’s, since their derivations assume a diagonal mass matrix. However, this is not necessary because the RGE’s are invariant under the transformations that diagonalize $`M`$.

Integrating out the heaviest neutrino state yields an effective theory valid at mass scales below $`M_{n_G}`$. The effective dimension 5 operator $`\stackrel{\left(n_G\right)}{\kappa }`$ that gives Majorana masses to the left-handed SM neutrinos appears in this effective theory. Next, $`\stackrel{\left(n_G\right)}{Y_\nu }`$, $`\stackrel{\left(n_G\right)}{\kappa }`$, $`\stackrel{\left(n_G\right)}{M}`$, $`Y_e`$ etc. are evolved down to the next threshold, the largest eigenvalue of the remaining mass matrix $`\stackrel{\left(n_G\right)}{M}`$. The RGE’s that determine the running of the dimension 5 effective operator between the thresholds are given by equation (14) or (17), respectively.

Again, changing to the mass eigenstate basis, integrating out the singlet neutrino corresponding to this threshold and performing tree-level matching gives another contribution to the effective dimension 5 operator. The quantities in this effective theory are now evolved down to the next threshold and so on. This procedure finally yields the low-energy effective neutrino mass matrix.

### 4.4 Running of the Mixing Angle in an Example with Two Generations

Numerical results for the RG evolution of the mixing angle $`\theta `$ in a generic example with two generations of lepton doublets and two singlets are shown as solid lines in figure 3 for the SM and in figure 4 for the MSSM. Here, $`\theta `$ is defined as the angle that appears in the leptonic mixing matrix $`V=U_e^{}U_\nu `$, where $`U_e`$ diagonalizes $`Y_e^{}Y_e`$ and $`U_\nu `$ diagonalizes the effective mass matrix of the active (non-sterile) neutrinos. Below the lowest threshold, the latter is proportional to the coupling $`\kappa `$. In the energy region where heavy neutrinos are present, the effective Majorana mass matrix of the non-sterile neutrinos is given by $`\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{\kappa }+2\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu ^T\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{M}^1\stackrel{\left(n\right)}{Y}_\nu `$.

The transitions to the various effective theories at the mass thresholds lead to pronounced kinks in the evolution. For comparison, the dotted and dashed lines in figures 3 and 4 show the results when both heavy neutrinos are integrated out at the higher or the lower threshold, respectively. Obviously, this produces large deviations from the true evolution, and the correct result need not even lie between the two extreme cases. Although this is only shown for the SM in our example, the same happens in the MSSM, if suitable initial values for the Yukawa couplings are chosen. Consequently, the correct running of the mixing angle cannot be reproduced by integrating out all heavy neutrinos at some intermediate mass scale $`M_{\mathrm{int}}[M_1,M_2]`$ in general.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

We have calculated the RGE’s for the evolution of a see-saw neutrino mass matrix from the GUT scale to the electroweak scale in an extension of the SM and the MSSM by an arbitrary number of gauge singlets with Majorana masses. These masses need not be degenerate and can even have a large hierarchy, as pointed out in the introduction. At each mass threshold, the corresponding sterile fermion is integrated out, which leads to an effective intermediate theory and affects the RG evolution of the neutrino masses, mixing angles and CP phases. To obtain the low-energy neutrino mass matrix from the Yukawa and Majorana mass matrices given at the GUT scale, the RGE’s for the various effective theories have to be solved. In a numerical analysis for two flavours and two singlets, we have found that the renormalization group evolution of the mixing angle in the case where the heavy degrees of freedom are integrated out appropriately differs substantially from that in the case where all of them are integrated out at a common scale. The correct running can in general not even be reproduced by integrating out all heavy neutrinos at some intermediate mass scale. Obviously, similar effects exist for the RG evolution of all parameters of a given theory, such as mass eigenvalues, mixings and CP phases.

We would like to thank M. Drees for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the “Sonderforschungsbereich 375 für Astro-Teilchenphysik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft” and by the “Promotionsstipendium des Freistaats Bayern”.