text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Results on neutrino oscillations from Superkamiokande  and SNO  provide a compelling evidence for neutrino masses, constituting the first strong indication of Physics beyond the Standard Model. Much is still unknown, though, regarding fundamental issues such as the absolute neutrino mass scale, the possible Majorana character of neutrino fields, the ordering of their mass eigenstates with respect to charged lepton eigenstates, or the possible existence of leptonic CP violation and its tantalizing relationship to baryogenesis. In this situation one could argue that the subject of lepton flavor physics is at its exciting infancy, and to obtain rough answers to those questions could be a sufficient goal at present, postponing any aim at a precise determination of the involved parameters. Nevertheless, some of those questions prerequire precision: for instance the study of CP violation rests upon a precise knowledge of the angles in the neutrino mixing matrix.

In a more general way and much as for the quark sector, it is necessary to know accurately the values of the masses and mixing parameters in the lepton sector, as a first step to unravel the flavor puzzle. And what does precision means, quantitatively?. For instance, with which precision is it desirable to determine the values of the leptonic mixing angles in order to discriminate between models for neutrino masses? Clearly no definite answer can be given to such question, but as an indication it has been argued  that a $`10\%1\%`$ precision in the knowledge of, say, $`sin^22\theta _{atm}`$ would result in significant advance111$`\theta _{atm}`$ denotes the mixing angle dominantly responsible for the atmospheric oscillations, denoted by $`\theta _{23}`$ in the by now standard parameterization . It is not impossible to envisage such a precision. In resume, we are simultaneously entering a discovery and a precision era in neutrino physics. With the bonus that the extraction of physical conclusions will not be necessarily hindered by large theoretical errors, as it happens in the quark sector due to QCD long distance contributions.

A quest for precise physics answers evidently requires an effort in precision on the experimental conditions, and on the knowledge of the neutrino flux to start with. Several experiments using neutrino beams from particle accelerators such as K2K, MINOS and OPERA  will take data in the next few years. Their reach will be limited by the use of conventional neutrino beams produced from a charged pion source. The decay $`\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu (\pi ^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ produces a $`\nu _\mu `$ beam with a $`𝒪(1\%)`$ component of $`\nu _e`$ from kaon decays. The $`\nu _e`$ contamination limits the precision of the flux measurements, resulting in an error of $`7\%`$ for K2K, while MINOS reduces it to $`2\%`$ . A further step forward could be provided by the so-called superbeams which, although based on the same traditional beams, can achieve better precision thanks to the much higher statistics. It has been argued, for example, that by working at energies below the threshold of kaon production, the $`\nu _e`$ flavor contamination could be reduced, with the overall figure of merit for precision in the flux measurements limited to $`𝒪(1\%)`$ .

A major advance should come from a neutrino factory from muon decays, aiming at both fundamental discoveries and $`𝒪(1\%)`$ precision measurements. Present projects consider the production of very intense muon sources of about $`10^{20}`$ muons per year . Neutrino beams originate from the decay of high-momentum muons along the straight sections of a storage ring. The beam produced presents a precisely known neutrino content: $`50\%`$ muon neutrinos and $`50\%`$ electron antineutrinos if a $`\mu ^{}`$ beam is used, and $`50\%`$ muon antineutrinos and $`50\%`$ electron neutrinos if a $`\mu ^+`$ beam is used. The resulting $`\nu `$ fluxes are expected to be known with a precision better than $`1\%`$ . It is necessary to ensure that any possible corrections and sources of errors are controlled at that level. In this work, we study two effects: the contribution of QED one-loop corrections to muon decay and the divergence of the muon beam. For both cases, we give novel corrected formulae for neutrino differential distributions.

Radiative corrections to the electron differential distribution in $`\mu ^{}e^{}+\overline{\nu }_e+\nu _\mu `$ were calculated long ago resulting in a correction of $`𝒪(1\%)`$ , larger than the expected effect of $`𝒪(\frac{\alpha }{\pi })𝒪(0.1\%)`$. Such an effect is at the level of the expected precision at a neutrino factory. In this work we study whether QED corrections affect neutrino distributions at the same order.

The correction to the (massive) neutrino spectra from unpolarized muons has been first calculated in . In our work, we give new anlytic formulae with $`m_\nu =0`$ and $`m_e=0`$ including muon polarization, relevant for neutrino factory measurements. Different from the electron case, the analysis of the correction to the neutrino differential distributions entails non-trivial integrations. By using the correspondence between the QED corrections to the $`\mu `$-decay and those for the charge $`2/3`$ heavy quarks in QCD, we make use of the techniques developped in Refs.  for the calculation of the QCD corrections to the lepton spectrum in the decay $`tb+l^++\nu _l`$.

The second subject addressed in this paper is that of the muon beam divergence, one of the basic properties that can bias the predicted neutrino spectra . We explore the error induced in the neutrino distributions at the far site due to the systematic uncertainty on the angular divergence, and compare our results with previous ones in which this effect was not included .

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we recall the tree-level angular distributions. In section 3 the neutrino one-loop corrected formulae are given, with 3.1 specializing in the soft photon limit and cancellation of infrared divergences. Section 4 accounts for the corrections due to the beam divergence.

## 2 General definitions

In the muon rest-frame, the angular distributions of the neutrinos produced in the decay $`\mu ^{}e^{}+\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_e`$, Fig. 1a, are computed from the muon decay rate:

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\frac{1}{2m_\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}64}\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{F}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|M_0(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu })|^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_3(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu }),$$
(1)
where $`|M_0(p_\mu ,p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu })|^2`$ is the averaged squared amplitude obtained from the Feynmann diagram at tree level. For polarized muons:

$$|M_0(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu })|^2=\left[(p_\mu m_\mu s)p_{\overline{\nu }_e}\right](p_ep_{\nu _\mu }),$$
(2)
where $`s`$ is the four-spin. For unpolarized muons $`s=0`$.

$`d\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ is the three-body phase-space. In general, the n-body phase space is defined by :

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_n(P;p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)=(2\pi )^4\delta (Pp_1\mathrm{}p_n)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{d^3𝐩_𝐢}{2p_i^0}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(3)
Differential distributions of decay products are obtained integrating over the phase space of the remaining decay particles,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=F^{(0)}(x)+J^{(0)}(x)𝒫_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (4)
where $`x`$ denotes the scaled energy, $`x=2E_{e,\nu }/m_\mu `$ and $`𝒫_\mu `$ is the average over polarization of the initial state muon along the beam direction. $`\theta `$ is the angle between three-momentum of the emitted particle and the muon spin direction and $`m_\mu `$ is the muon mass. The normalized functions $`F^{(0)}`$ and $`J^{(0)}`$, in the limit $`m_e=0`$, read :

$`F_e^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2(32x),J_e^{(0)}(x)=x^2(12x),`$ (5)
$`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^2(32x),J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(x)=x^2(12x),`$ (6)
$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`6x^2(1x),J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)=6x^2(1x).`$ (7)
## 3 QED corrections

The QED radiative corrections to the formula (5) where calculated long ago in Ref.  through the integration over the neutrino phase-space of the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrected differential muon decay rate. The QED corrections to the Eq. (6) ( Eq. (7) ), are similarly obtained from the integration over the $`\overline{\nu }_ee^{}`$ ($`\nu _\mu e^{}`$) phase-space.

In the muon decay, the QED corrected differential rate is given by

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ describes the contribution of virtual photon diagrams in Figs. 1b-1d and $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ accounts for the effects of the real photon emission diagrams in Fig. 1e and Fig. 1f.

The virtual photon correction to the decay rate is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_V=\frac{1}{2m_\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}64}\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{F}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|M_V|^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_3(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu }),$$
(9)
where $`|M_V|^2`$ is the squared amplitude. For unpolarized muons it has the expression:

$`|M_V|^2=|M_0|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}`$ $`[`$ $`g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{S}|M_0|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu m_e}{4}}g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{S}(p_{\overline{\nu }_e}p_{\nu _\mu })`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`m_eg_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{V}(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_\mu p_{\nu _\mu })+m_\mu g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{V}(p_ep_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })].`$
where $`g_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}^{\mathrm{S},\mathrm{V}}`$ are ultraviolet (UV) and are listed in the appendix A. The function $`g_\mathrm{L}^S`$ is infrared (IR) divergent while the rest of the “$`g`$” functions are finite.

The IR singularity in $`g_\mathrm{L}^S`$ is canceled with the soft photon terms of the real emission diagrams, which correct the differential rate as

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=\frac{1}{2m_\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}64}\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{F}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|M_R|^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_4(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu },k).$$
(11)
The explicit expression of the amplitude $`|M_R|^2`$ can be found in the Appendix A.

QED corrections for polarized muons are calculated identically to those of unpolarized ones with the replacement $`p_\mu p_\mu sm_\mu `$ in the amplitudes , where $`s`$ is the muon four-spin .

### 3.1 Soft photon limit and IR cancellation

Before continuing with the discussion of the exact corrections, let us consider their soft photon limit, i.e. $`k0`$, as only IR singular terms of virtual and real photon diagrams remain in this limit. When soft virtual and soft real photon contributions are added up, all $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ IR singularities are canceled.

In this limit, the $`𝒪(k)`$ terms in the virtual photon diagrams are neglected and Eq. (10) is simplified to :

$$|M_V^{\mathrm{SP}}|^2=\left(1\frac{\alpha }{\pi }g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{S}\right)|M_0|^2,$$
(12)
where $`g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{S}`$ contains all IR divergent terms which are regularized introducing a finite photon mass $`\lambda `$.

In the diagrams containing real photon emission, only terms of order $`𝒪(k^2)`$ remain in the soft photon limit. They contain all IR divergent contributions from bremsstrahlung. The squared amplitude in Eq.(11) reduces to:

$$|M_R^{\mathrm{SP}}|^2=32\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\frac{p_\mu ^2}{(p_\mu k)^2}+\frac{p_e^2}{(p_ek)^2}\frac{2(p_\mu p_e)}{(p_\mu k)(p_ek)}\right]|M_0|^2.$$
(13)
The divergences in Eq. (12) cancel when added with the soft bremsstrahlung part. However, Eq. (13) must be previously integrated over the photon-electron phase space in order to reduce the real phton emission from a four-body problem to a three-body problem. The integral is performed introducing a finite photon mass $`\lambda `$, resulting in a expression which exactly cancels the IR terms in Eq. (12).

After the integration over the corresponding phase space, we obtain the soft-photon corrected for both $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ distributions, which are proportional to the tree level amplitude , in the limits $`x1`$ and $`m_e0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_\nu ^{SP}}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=F_\nu ^{(0)}(x)[1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}k(x)].`$ (14)
The resulting function $`k(x)`$ is $`\lambda `$-independent:

$$k(x)=2\mathrm{L}(x)+2\pi ^2/3+\mathrm{ln}^2(1x).$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{L}(x)`$ is the Spence function defined in the Appendix A.

Realize that $`k(x)`$ diverges for $`x1`$. This singularity is originated due to a failure the perturbative treatment: at the end point of the spectrum, the phase space for the emission of real photons shrinks to zero and does not compensate the IR infinities of the virtual photons.

The end-point singularity of the corrected electron distribution from muon decay has been largely discussed in the literature . For $`x1`$ and $`k0`$, the corrected electron differential distribution diverges as $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$. Since the IR divergences in the muon decay stem from soft-photons in the limit $`k0`$, the solution proposed to control the end-point divergence is to consider multiple soft-photon emission. The effect of considering soft photons at all orders in $`\alpha `$ is the exponentiation of the singular logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ which leads to a non-singular distribution .

Following as a guideline the solution found for the electron, we apply the same proccedure to the neutrino distributions. Consider the neutrino soft-photon correction in Eq. (14). At the end-point, for each soft virtual photon and each soft real photon we get a $`\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)`$ term, which multiplies the tree level amplitude. If there are $`n`$ soft virtual photons and $`n`$ soft real photons, there are $`n`$ double logarithms with an additional symmetry factor of $`1/n!`$. Therefore, the correction to the neutrino distribution at all orders in $`\alpha `$ is obtained summing over $`n`$:

$$\frac{d^2N_\nu }{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }=[F_\nu ^{(0)}(x)+J_\nu ^{(0)}𝒫_\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\theta ]e^{\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)}.$$
(16)
The evaluation of infrared divergences at all orders results in the exponentiation of the double logarithm, which ensures a non-divergent behavior of the neutrino distributions. The exponentiation is only valid for a small region $`x1`$. For lower $`x`$, we must include all the terms of the exact corrections, computed in the next subsection.

### 3.2 Results

Exactly corrected neutrino distributions are obtained considering all terms of the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrected decay rate, Eq. (8) and integrating over the phase space of the remaining particles. Different from the corrected electron distribution, in the neutrino case, the integrals over the electron-photon phase space in the real emission diagrams are nontrivial. We follow the method found in Ref.  to solve analytically these integrals in the calculation of the QCD corrections to the lepton spectrum from the decay $`tb+l^++\nu _l`$. We use the fact that there is a one to one correspondence between the Feynmann diagrams in Fig. 1 for the QED corrections to the $`\mu `$-decay and those for the top quarks. This correspondence can be seen by simply replacing

$`\alpha `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _S`$
$`(\mu ^{},e^{},\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _\mu )`$ $``$ $`(t,b,l^+,\nu _l).`$ (17)
Therefore, by following the techniques detailed Ref. , we perform the corresponding phase-space integrals to the differential rate of polarised muons. We find that the corrected neutrino angular and energy distributions, including all finite terms in the limit $`m_e=0`$, are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\nu _\mu }}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(x)+J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}𝒫_\mu (x)\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[F_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(x)+J_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(x)𝒫_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta \right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\nu }_e}}{dxd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}=F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)+J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)𝒫_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(x)+J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(x)𝒫_\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta \right]`$ (18)
where $`F_{\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _\mu }^{(0)}`$-$`J_{\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _\mu }^{(0)}`$ are given in Eq. (6), and the one-loop corrections are given by:

$`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(x)k(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(4136x+42x^216x^3)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}x(82153x+86x^2),`$
$`J_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(x)k(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1136x+14x^216x^34/x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(8+18x103x^2+78x^3),`$
$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)k(x)+(1x)[(5+8x+8x^2)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x(1019x)],`$
$`J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(x)k(x)+(1x)[(3+12x+8x^2+4/x)\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(82x15x^2)].`$
As expected, due to the above correspondence, the results in Eqs. (19)-(22) are identical to those for the QCD corrections of the lepton distributions from top decay.

Notice that the function $`k(x)`$ appears in Eqs. (19)-(22) multiplying the tree level functions $`F_\nu ^{(0)}`$-$`J_\nu ^{(0)}`$, which agrees with the discussion in the former subsection.

Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 compare the corrected and the tree level forward $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ distributions, respectively. In both cases, the relative correction is of $`𝒪(0.1\%)`$, well below the order of the expected precision in the knowledge of the beam parameters.

The correction found of $`𝒪(\frac{\alpha }{\pi })𝒪(0.1\%)`$ agrees of that expected from first order QED processes. This result differs with the correction of $`𝒪(1\%)`$ found for the electron distribution . The enhacement of the correction the $`e^{}`$ case is due to the “leading logs”: terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m_\mu }{m_e})`$ which stem from the emission of collinear photons in the electron leg . Since neutrinos are not sensitive to QED, no term in $`\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m_\mu }{m_\nu })`$ appears in the neutrino distributions and, neither, terms in $`\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{log}(\frac{m_\mu }{m_e})`$, which cancel when the variables affected by QED corrections, i.e. electron and the photon electron momenta, are integrated over. An identical cancellation it is found in the $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrections to the muon lifetime computed which result to be of $`𝒪(\frac{\alpha }{\pi })𝒪(0.1\%)`$ .

In the laboratory frame, neutrino fluxes are boosted along the muon momentum direction. The formulae of the corrected distributions in that frame are given in Appendix B.

## 4 Muon-beam divergence

We study below the systematic uncertainty in the neutrino distributions produced by the muon beam divergence. For the sake of illustration, the quantitative results will be given for a $`30`$ GeV unpolarized muon beam decaying in a long straight section pointing to a far detector located at $`2810`$ km.

The natural decay angle of the forward neutrino beam in the laboratory frame is deduced from the relation between the rest and laboratory frames. In the rest frame, half of the neutrinos are emitted within the cone $`\theta \pi /2`$. In the laboratory frame:

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta +\beta }{1+\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta }},`$ (23)
where $`\beta =\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}`$ is the muon velocity in the laboratory frame. Therefore, half of neutrinos are emitted within the cone subtended by the decay angle $`\theta ^{^{}}1/\gamma `$. For instance, for $`30`$ GeV muons $`1/\gamma =m_\mu /E_\mu =3`$ mrad.

For the beam and baseline illustrated here, a $`10`$ kt detector and one year of data taking , the statistical error on the neutrino flux is of the order of O($`0.4\%`$). It is then convenient to restrain the uncertainty induced by the muon beam divergence below that level. To achieve this, the direction of the beam must be carefully monitored within the decay straight section by placing beam position monitors at its ends. The angular divergence of the parent muon beam is then small compared to the natural decay angle of the neutrino beam $`\theta ^{^{}}1/\gamma `$, see Fig. 6, aiming at present to a divergence of $`𝒪(0.1/\gamma )`$. It implies that the neutrino beam will be collinear, within the limits set by the decay kinematics.

In our calculations we parameterize this beam focalization by a gaussian distribution with standard deviation $`\sigma 0.1/\gamma `$ (i.e. $`0.3`$ mrad for $`30`$ GeV muon beam) , which suppresses the flux of neutrinos as they separate from the straight direction. The divergence is introduced analytically by considering that the muon direction opens an angle $`\alpha `$ with respect to the z-axis, defined as the direction pointing towards the far detector at a distance $`L`$, see Fig. 6. The neutrino distributions in the rest frame, Eq. (4), are Lorentz boosted along the z-axis. The rest-frame basis $`(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is transformed to the lab-frame basis $`(z,\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})`$, where $`z=E_\nu /E_\mu `$ and $`\theta ^{^{}}`$ is the angle between the neutrino beam and the z-axis. Using the parameters $`\beta =\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}`$, the boosted distributions read:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _\mu }}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))`$
$`\times \{[3m_\mu ^24zE_\mu ^2(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))]`$
$`𝒫_\mu [m_\mu ^24z(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))]\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\nu _e,\overline{\nu }_e}}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))`$ (24)
$`\times \{[m_\mu ^22zE_\mu ^2(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))]`$
$`𝒫_\mu [m_\mu ^24z(1\beta (\mathrm{sin}\phi ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))]\}.`$
The above expressions are integrated on $`\alpha `$, weighted with the gaussian factor

$$\frac{e^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\sigma ^2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}.$$
(25)
For unpolarized muons ($`P_\mu =0`$) (for different muon polarizations we obtain similar results), it results:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _\mu }}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2\{3m_\mu ^2(1\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})`$
$`4zE_\mu ^2(12\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}`$
$`+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi ^{^{}}+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{^{}})\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e}}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2\{m_\mu ^2(1\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})`$ (26)
$`2zE_\mu ^2(12\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}`$
$`+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\phi ^{^{}}+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{^{}})\}.`$
Setting $`\theta ^{^{}}=0`$, the expression of forward neutrino fluxes reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _\mu }}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2\{3m_\mu ^2(1\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}})`$
$`4zE_\mu ^2(12\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right))\},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e}}{dzd\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24n_\mu }{\pi L^2m_\mu ^6}}E_\mu ^4z^2\{m_\mu ^2(1\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}})`$ (27)
$`2zE_\mu ^2(12\beta e^{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}+\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+e^{2\sigma ^2}}{2}}\right))\}.`$
Figs. 78 show the numerical results for the neutrino and antineutrino spectra in a medium baseline ($`2810`$ km). We compare the distribution where the muon beam is aligned with the detector direction (no beam divergence) with the distribution where the muon-beam divergence is included. In the former, neutrino beams are averaged over an angle $`\theta ^{^{}}`$ of $`0.1`$ mrad at the far detector .

Our formulae predict a similar flux correction than previous numerical estimations . For instance, a $`10\%`$ uncertainty in the muon beam divergence would lead to a flux uncertainty of $`0.3\%`$. We obtain,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }dN_\nu }{dE}}{\frac{dN_\nu }{dE}}}0.03{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }}.`$ (28)
If the muon beam divergence is constrained by lattice design to be less than $`0.05/\gamma `$, the loss of flux will be negligible .

## 5 Conclusions

A neutrino factory from muon decay aims at a precision better than $`𝒪(1\%)`$ in the knowledge of the resulting intense neutrino fluxes.

We have presented here novel results about the effects of QED corrections and muon beam divergence on the neutrino differential distributions from muon decay. We have given the corresponding corrected formulae (for $`m_e=0`$ and $`m_\nu =0`$), including muon polarization effects. The induced uncertainties on the neutrino spectra turn out to be a safe $`𝒪(0.1\%)`$.

Neutrino one-loop corrected distributions diverge at the upper edge of the kinematical allowed region. This results from a failure in the cancellation of infrared divergences from virtual photons by real photons. Applying the soft photon limit to the exact calculations, we have isolated the end-point divergent term for the neutrino distributions which takes the form of $`\mathrm{ln}^2(1x)`$. In order to control this singularity, the double logarithmic-contribution is exponentiated, encompassing the contributions from all orders of perturbation theory. All in all, the exact neutrino distributions get corrections of $`𝒪(0.1)\%`$, safely below the expected precision in the flux measurements.

We have also studied carefully the influence of the muon beam divergence on the neutrino spectra at the far site. The challenge in designing the neutrino production section, where the muons decay, is to constrain the muon beam divergence to a value smaller than the natural cone of forward going neutrinos in the laboratory frame, ($`1/\gamma `$). At present, the long straight sections under discussion aim at an angular muon beam divergence of the order of $`0.1/\gamma `$, typically less than one mrad.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We thank M.B. Gavela, P. Hernández and A. De Rújula for their physics suggestions and useful discussions. We thank as well F.J Ynduráin for illuminating conversations. We are further indebted to A. Blondel, F. Dydak, J.J. Gómez-Cádenas. A.B acknowledges M.E.C.D for financial support by FPU grant AP2001-0521 and O.M acknowledges C.A.M for financial support by a FPI grant. The work has been partially supported by CICYT FPA2000-0980 project.

Appendix A: QED loop corrections

A.1 Virtual corrections

There three diagrams containing a photon loop: the exchange of the virtual photon between the muon and the electron legs, Fig. 1b, and lepton propagator corrections, Figs. 1c, 1d. They correct the invariant amplitude of the muon decay as follows:

$$iM=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\{\overline{u}(p_e)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma u(p_\mu )\}\{\overline{u}(p_{\nu _\mu })\gamma ^\sigma (1\gamma _5)v(p_{\overline{\nu }_e})\}.$$
(29)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ is the corrected $`\mu e`$ vertex:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =\gamma _\sigma (1\gamma _5)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^b+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{c,d},$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^b`$ results from the diagram in Fig. 1b and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{c,d}`$ from those in Figs. 1c, 1d.

After integration over the photon momentum, the correction from diagram 1b, has the expression

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^b={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}`$ $`[`$ $`(g_{\mathrm{IR}}^b+g_{\mathrm{UV}}^b)\gamma _\sigma (1\gamma _5)+g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{S}\gamma _\sigma (1+\gamma _5)`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{V}p_{1\sigma }(1\gamma _5)+g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{V}p_{2\sigma }(1+\gamma _5)],`$
whith

$`g_{\mathrm{IR}}^b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}\varphi [\mathrm{L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }{e^\omega e^\varphi }}\right)\mathrm{L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }{e^\varphi e^\omega }}\right)+(\omega \varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\omega \varphi }{2}\right)}{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\varphi +\omega }{2}\right)}}\right)`$
$`+\varphi (\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m_e^2}}\right))],`$
$`g_{\mathrm{UV}}^b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \omega \mathrm{sinh}\omega }{2(\mathrm{cosh}\omega \mathrm{cosh}\varphi )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_e^2}}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$
$`g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }},`$
$`g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{V}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_\mu \mathrm{sinh}\varphi }}\left[\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \varphi \mathrm{sinh}\omega }{\mathrm{cosh}\omega \mathrm{cosh}\varphi }}\right],`$
$`g_\mathrm{R}^\mathrm{V}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_e\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }}\left[\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \varphi \mathrm{sinh}\omega }{\mathrm{cosh}\omega \mathrm{cosh}\varphi }}\right],`$ (32)
where the IR term is regularized by a finite photon mass $`\lambda `$ and the variables

$$\mathrm{cosh}\varphi =\frac{(p_\mu p_e)}{m_\mu m_e}e^\omega =\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}.$$
(33)
are introduced following .

L(x) is the Spence function

$$L(x)_0^x𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{ln}|1t|}{t}.$$
(34)
The contribution of self-energy diagrams to the muon-electron vertex, after integration over the photon momentum, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{c,d}=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\frac{1}{2}(h_{\mathrm{UV}}^{c,d}+h_{\mathrm{IR}}^{c,d}),$$
(35)
where, now,

$`h_{\mathrm{UV}}^{c,d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_e^2}}\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$ (36)
$`h_{\mathrm{IR}}^{c,d}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m_e^2}}\right)\right)+2.`$ (37)
Adding Eq. (6) and Eq. (36) the UV divergences are exactly cancelled. The IR terms in Eq. (37), when combined with Eq. (31) gives rise to the term

$`g_\mathrm{L}^\mathrm{S}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{coth}\varphi \left[\varphi \mathrm{L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }{e^\omega e^\varphi }}\right)+\mathrm{L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\varphi }{e^\varphi e^\omega }}\right)(\omega \varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\omega \varphi }{2}\right)}{2\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\varphi +\omega }{2}\right)}}\right)\right],`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi \mathrm{sinh}\varphi \omega \mathrm{sinh}\omega }{2(\mathrm{cosh}\omega \mathrm{cosh}\varphi )}}+2(1\varphi \mathrm{coth}\varphi )\left(\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m_e^2}}\right)\right).`$
A.2 Bremstrahlung corrections

The contribution from real photon emission, Fig. 1e and Fig. 1f, is given by

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_r=\frac{1}{2m_\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}64}\mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{F}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|M_R|^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_4(p_\mu ;p_e,p_{\overline{\nu }_e},p_{\nu _\mu },k),$$
(39)
where the amplitude $`|M_R|^2`$ has the following expression:

$$|M_R|^2=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\left[\frac{A}{(p_\mu k)^2}+\frac{B}{(p_ek)^2}\frac{C}{(p_\mu k)(p_ek)}\right].$$
(40)
The numerators for unpolarized muons read:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu ^2[(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })(kp_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })(p_\mu k)(kp_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })]`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`p_e^2[(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })+(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(kp_{\nu _\mu })(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ek)(kp_{\nu _\mu })]`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`(p_\mu p_e)[2(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })+(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(kp_{\nu _\mu })(kp_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })]`$
$`+`$ $`(p_ek)[(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })+(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_\mu p_{\nu _\mu })(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(kp_{\nu _\mu })]`$
$``$ $`(p_\mu k)[(p_\mu p_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })+(p_ep_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })(kp_{\overline{\nu }_e})(p_ep_{\nu _\mu })].`$
Terms of order $`k^2`$ are not included in Eq. (6), since they vanish in the limit of massless photons.

Appendix B: QED corrected distributions in the laboratory frame

In order to obtain the neutrino distributions in the laboratory frame, a Lorentz boost is performed in the direction of the muon velocity towards the detector at a distance $`L`$. The rest-frame basis $`(x,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is transformed to the lab-frame basis $`(z,\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})`$, where $`z=E_\nu /E_\mu `$ is the scaled energy at the laboratory frame and $`\theta ^{^{}}`$ is the angle between the neutrino beam and the direction of the muon beam . The muon beam divergence is set to zero. Using the parameters $`\gamma =E_\mu /m_\mu `$ and $`\beta =\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}`$, the boosted distributions read:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\nu _\mu }}{dzd\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})+𝒫_\mu J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[F_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})+𝒫_\mu J_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2N_{\overline{\nu }_e}}{dzd\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})+𝒫_\mu J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}`$ (43)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left[F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})+𝒫_\mu J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}\right],`$
where

$`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{E_\mu ^4}{m_\mu ^6}}z^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})(3m_\mu ^24E_\mu ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})),`$ (44)
$`J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`8{\displaystyle \frac{E_\mu ^4}{m_\mu ^6}}z^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})(m_\mu ^24E_\mu ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})),`$ (45)
$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`48{\displaystyle \frac{E_\mu ^4}{m_\mu ^6}}z^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})(m_\mu ^22E_\mu ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})),`$ (46)
$`J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`48{\displaystyle \frac{E_\mu ^4}{m_\mu ^6}}z^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})(m_\mu ^22E_\mu ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})),`$ (47)
$`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})k(z,\theta ^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})}}\{[4136\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$`+`$ $`42\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^216\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^3]`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)[82153\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$`+`$ $`86\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^2]\},`$
$`J_{\nu _\mu }^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\nu _\mu }^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})k(z,\theta ^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})}}\{[1136\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$`+`$ $`14\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^216\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^3`$
$`+`$ $`4\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^1]\times \mathrm{ln}(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[8+18\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$``$ $`103\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^2+78\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^3]\},`$
$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\nu _e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})k(z,\theta ^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{[5+8\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)`$
$`+`$ $`8\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^2\left]\mathrm{ln}\right(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)[1019\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)]\},`$
$`J_{\overline{\nu }_e}^{(1)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\nu _e}^{(0)}(z,\theta ^{^{}})k(z,\theta ^{^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\{[3+12\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)+8\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^2`$
$`+`$ $`4\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^1\left]\mathrm{ln}\right(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}}))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[82\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)15\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)^2]\},`$
$`k(z,\theta ^{^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}^2\left(12\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)+2\mathrm{L}\left(2\gamma ^2z(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta ^{^{}})\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}`$ (52)


format: text

text:
# Ferromagnetic ordering in graphs with arbitrary degree distribution

## I Introduction

The increasing evidence that many physical, biological and social networks exhibit a high degree of wiring entanglement has led to the investigation of graph models with complex topological properties. In particular, the possibility that some special nodes of the cluster (hubs) posses a larger probability to develop connections pointing to other nodes has been recently identified in scale-free networks . These networks exhibit a power law degree distribution $`p_kk^\gamma `$, where the exponent $`\gamma `$ is usually larger than $`2`$. This kind of degree distribution implies that each node has a statistically significant probability of having a large number of connections compared to the average degree of the network. Examples of such properties can be found in communication and social webs, along with many biological networks, and have led to the developing of several dynamical models aimed to the description and characterization of scale-free networks.

Power law degree distributions are the signature of degree fluctuations that may alter the phase diagram of physical processes as in the case of random percolation  and spreading processes  that do not exhibit a phase transition if the degree exponent is $`\gamma 3`$. In this perspective, it is interesting to study the ordering dynamics of the Ising model in scale-free networks. The Ising model is, indeed, the prototypical model for the study of phase transitions and complex phenomena and it is often the starting point for the developing of models aimed at the characterization of ordering phenomena. For this reason, the Ising model and its variations are used to mimic a wide range of phenomena not pertaining to physics, such as the forming and spreading of opinions in societies and companies or the evolution and competition of species. Since social and biological networks are often characterized by scale-free properties, the study of the ferromagnetic phase transition in graphs with arbitrary degree distribution can find useful application in the study of several complex interacting systems and it has been recently pursued in Ref. . The numerical simulations reported in Ref  show that in the case of a degree distribution with $`\gamma =3`$ the Ising model has a critical temperature $`T_c`$, characterizing the transition to an ordered phase, which scales logarithmically with the network size. Therefore, there is no ferromagnetic transition in the thermodynamic limit.

In the present paper we present a detailed analytical study of the Ising model in graphs with arbitrary degree distribution. By relaxing the degree homogeneity in the usual mean field (MF) approach to the Ising model, it is possible to show that the existence of a disordered phase is related to the ratio of the first two moments of the degree distribution. Motivated by this finding, we apply the replica calculation method, as developed for spin glasses and diluted ferromagnetic models on random graphs ,in order to find an exact characterization of the transition to the ordered state and its associated critical behavior. We find that a disordered phase is allowed only if the second moment of the degree distribution is finite. In the opposite case, the strong degree of the hubs present in the network prevails on the thermal fluctuations, imposing a long-range magnetic order for any finite value of the temperature. Corrections to this picture are found when the minimal allowed degree is $`m=1`$. The value of the critical temperature and exponents is found for any degree exponent $`\gamma >3`$ and a transition to the usual infinite dimensional MF behavior is recovered at $`\gamma =5`$. Moreover, in the range $`3<\gamma 5`$ non trivial scaling exponents are obtained.

During the completion of the present work we become aware that Dorogovtsev, Goltsev and Mendes  have obtained with a different approach results which partially overlap with those reported in the present paper.

## II Simple mean field approach

Let us consider a network with arbitrary degree distribution $`p_k`$. Then consider the Ising model with a ferromagnetic coupling constant on top of this network. The Hamiltonian of this system is given by

$$=M\underset{i>j=1}{\overset{N}{}}J_{ij}s_is_j+H_0\underset{i}{}\zeta _is_i,$$
(1)
where $`M=kN/2`$, $`J_{ij}=1(0)`$ if there is (there is not) a link connecting node $`i`$ and $`j`$, $`s_i=\pm 1`$ are the spin variables, and $`N`$ is the network size. $`H_0\zeta _i`$ is a general external random field with $`\zeta _i`$ following the a priori general probability distribution $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\zeta _i)`$.

Let us firstly put the external field $`H_0=0`$. In the usual MF approximation one is able to give a first estimate of the critical temperature and the magnetization that already takes into account the inhomogeneity of the graph. Neglecting the spin-spin correlations, $`s_is_js_is_j=s^2`$, it is then possible to use an effective field ansatz in which each spin feels the average magnetization on neighboring spins obtaining

$$_{MF}=Ms\underset{i}{}k_is_i,$$
(2)
where $`k_i=_jc_{ij}`$ is the node degree. In the case of a spin network with homogeneous degree $`k_i=<k>`$ and the average magnetization is found self-consistently obtaining $`s=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta <k>s\right)`$ where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature in units of $`k_B^1`$.

In the case of complex heterogeneous networks, we can relax the homogeneity assumption on the node’s degree by defining the average magnetization $`s_k`$ for the class of spins with degree $`k`$. Indeed, the node’s magnetization is strongly affected by the local degree and the homogeneity assumption results to be too drastic especially in singular degree distribution. The self-consistent equation for the average magnetization in each degree class reads simply as $`s_k=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta ku\right)`$, where $`u`$ is now the effective field magnetization seen by each node on the nearest neighbors. In the calculation of the effective field we have to take into account the system’s heterogeneity by noticing that each link points to more likely to nodes with higher degree. In particular the probability that a link points to a node $`j`$ with degree $`k_j`$ is $`k_j/_lk_l`$. Thus, the correct average magnetization seen on a nearest neighbor node is given by

$$u=\frac{_kkp_k\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta ku\right)}{<k>}.$$
(3)
Once obtained $`u`$ it is possible to compute the network average magnetization as the average over all the degree classes $`s=_kp_k\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta ku\right)`$. A non-zero magnetization solution is obtained when the tangent curves of the lhs as a function of $`u`$ is greater than one and when the tangent is strictly equal to one we obtain the critical point that defines

$$T_c=\beta _c^1=\frac{k^2}{k}.$$
(4)
Hence, when $`k^2/k`$ is finite there is a finite critical temperature as an evidence of the transition from the para-magnetic to a ferro-magnetic state. On the contrary, if $`k^2`$ is not finite the system is always in the ferromagnetic state.

## III The replica approach on general random graphs

In the present section we will refine the mean field picture via a replica calculation, in the framework of the method applied in the last years for general spin glasses and diluted ferromagnetic models on random graphs. We will show briefly how this method allows to calculate values of and conditions for the existence of a critical temperature of the model that we believe to be exact. Moreover, these results contain the classical mean field theory prediction in the limits where the latter is applicable.

For a random graph the interaction matrix elements in Eq. (1) follow the distribution $`P(J_{ij})=(1\frac{2}{N})\delta (J_{ij})+\frac{2}{N}\delta (J_{ij}1)`$ with constraints in order to impose the correct degree distribution that will have to be introduced along the computation of the logarithm of the partition function. Following the approach of Ref. , we compute the free energy of the model with the replica method, exploiting the identity $`\mathrm{log}<Z^n>=1+n<\mathrm{log}Z>+O(n^2)`$. A part from a normalization factor:

$$<Z^n>=e^{n\beta M}\underset{\stackrel{}{s_i}}{}<e^{\beta _{a=1}^n_{i<j}J_{ij}s_i^as_j^a}<e^{\beta H_0_{a=1}^n_i\zeta _is_i^a}>_{\zeta _i}>$$
(5)
where $`<\mathrm{}>_{\zeta _i}`$ is the average over the quenched field and $`<\mathrm{}>`$ that over the quenched disorder: $`<A>=_{i<j}dJ_{ij}P(J_{ij})_{i=1}^N\delta \left(_{<j>_i}J_{ij}k_i\right)A`$. The delta functions are there to enforce the satisfaction of the constraints on the connectivities distribution. Writing the constraints in integral form

$$\underset{i}{}\delta \left(\underset{<j>_i}{}J_{ij}k_i\right)=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{d\psi _i}{2\pi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{i}{}\psi _ik_i\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{i<j}{}(\psi _i+\psi _j)J_{ij}\right)$$
(6)
we can write

$`<Z^n>`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta nM){\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{s}_i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}\left(\frac{d\psi _i}{2\pi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\psi _ik_i\right)}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{<k>}{2}}N+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta {\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}s_i^as_j^a+i(\psi _i+\psi _j)\right)\right]<e^{\beta H_0_{a=1}^n_i\zeta _is_i^a}>_{\zeta _i}`$
We now introduce a functional order parameter, following the well tested procedure of replica theory of diluted systems :

$$\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i}{}\delta (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{s}_i)e^{i\psi _i}$$
(9)
Tracing over the spins $`\stackrel{}{s}_i`$, integrating out the $`\psi _i`$ variables and introducing the correct normalization factor for the constrained probabilities $`P(J_{ij})`$ one is left with the following expression for the replica free energy:

$`n\beta F`$ $`=`$ $`<k>{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{}}\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })+{\displaystyle \frac{<k>}{2}}\left[1n\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2}{}}\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta {\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\sigma _1^a\sigma _2^a\right)\right]+`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\mathrm{log}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{}}(\widehat{\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })})^kH(\stackrel{}{\sigma })\right]`$
where $`\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ is the functional order parameter conjugate to $`\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and $`H(\stackrel{}{\sigma })=<e^{H_0\zeta _a\sigma ^a}>_\zeta =𝑑\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }(\zeta )e^{H_0\zeta _a\sigma ^a}`$. In the following we will concentrate on the fixed external field case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\zeta )=\delta (\zeta 1)`$, being the study of the model over a true random field beyond the scope of this work. We’ll treat the general case in a forthcoming article . The main contribution to the free energy in the thermodynamic limit is evaluated via the following functional saddle point equations:

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{<k>}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kp_k{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }))^{k1}H(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{_\stackrel{}{\sigma }(\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma }))^kH(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}`$ (12)
$`\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1}{}}\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\mathrm{exp}(\beta {\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\sigma ^a\sigma _1^a)`$ (13)
It is easy to show that the order parameters can be taken as normalized in the $`n0`$ limit. Further normalization factors cancel out in the expression for the free energy.

### A Solution of the saddle point equations

Being the system a diluted ferromagnet the replica symmetric ansatz is sufficient to find the correct solution of (12) and (13) at every temperature. In the general case we can write:

$`\rho (\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑hP(h)\frac{e^{\beta h_{a=1}^n\sigma _a}}{(2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta h))^n}}`$ (14)
$`\widehat{\rho }(\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑uQ(u)\frac{e^{\beta u_{a=1}^n\sigma _a}}{(2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta u))^n}}`$ (15)
that leads to

$`P(h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{<k>}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kp_k{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{k1}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\delta \left(h\underset{t}{}u_tH_0\right)}`$ (16)
$`Q(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑hP(h)\delta \left[u\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\mathrm{tanh}(\beta h))\right]}`$ (17)
where $`P(h)`$ is the average probability distribution of effective fields acting on the sites and $`Q(u)`$ is that of cavity fields. We would like to stress the importance of the fact that the strong inhomogeneities present in the graph are correctly taken into account and handled via the computation of the whole probability distributions. In the Ising case we can easily work only with the cavity fields, whose self consistent equation for the $`Q(u)`$ reads:

$$Q(u)=\frac{1}{<k>}\underset{k}{}kp_k\underset{t=1}{\overset{k1}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\delta \left[u\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{tanh}^1\left[\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \underset{t}{\overset{k1}{}}u_t+\beta H_0\right)\right]\right]$$
(18)
This is an integral equation that can be solved at every value of $`\beta `$ using a population dynamics algorithm such as the RS simple version of that proposed in . The equation for the physical magnetization probability distribution will be:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(s)=\underset{k}{}p_k\underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\delta \left[s\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \underset{t}{}u_t+\beta H_0\right)\right]$$
(19)
The equations for $`<u>`$ and $`<s>`$ follow:

$`<u>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle uQ(u)𝑑u}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{<k>}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kp_k{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{k1}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{tanh}^1\left[\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \underset{t}{\overset{k1}{}}u_t+\beta H_0\right)\right]}`$ (20)
$`<s>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle s\mathrm{\Pi }(s)𝑑s}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta \underset{t}{\overset{k}{}}u_t+\beta H_0\right)}`$ (21)
Plugging equations (14) and (15) into (11) one ends up with the following expression for the free energy:

$`\beta F`$ $`=`$ $`<k>{\displaystyle 𝑑h𝑑uP(h)Q(u)\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{tanh}(\beta h)\mathrm{tanh}(\beta u))}{\displaystyle \frac{<k>}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{2}{}}dh_tP(h_t)\mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\underset{t=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{tanh}(\beta h_t))}`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}du_tQ(u_t)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _{t=1}^ku_t+\beta H_0)}{_{t=1}^k2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta u_t)}\right)}<k>\mathrm{log}(2)+{\displaystyle \frac{<k>}{2}}(\beta \mathrm{log}(\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )))`$
At the saddle point the expression further simplifies. The internal energy and the specific heat at the saddle point can be calculated from Eq.(23) through relations $`<E>=\beta \frac{\beta F}{\beta }`$ and $`C=d<E>/dT`$ and further exploiting (12) and (13). The constant $`<k>/2`$ gauges the value of the energy to zero at $`T=0`$ and no external field.

### B Ferromagnetic phase transition

At $`T=0`$ and in the limit of non vanishing fields ($`u`$ and $`h`$ $`O(1)`$) it is straightforward to see that the cavity fields can take only 0 or 1 values. The equation (18) can be solved exactly with the ansatz $`Q(u)=q_0\delta (u)+(1q_0)\delta (u1)`$. Plugging this ansatz into Eqs. (18), (20), and (21) one obtains:

$$u=1q_0,$$
(24)
$$s=1G_0(q_0),$$
(25)
$$q_0=G_1\left(q_0\right),$$
(26)
where

$$G_0(x)=\underset{k}{}kp_kx^k,G_1(x)=\frac{1}{<k>}\underset{k}{}kp_kx^{k1},$$
(27)
are the generating functions of the degree distributions of a vertex chosen at random and a vertex arrived following an edge chosen at random , respectively. We point out that these equations correctly coincides with that obtained in the problem of percolation in a random graph with an arbitrary degree distribution , where the average magnetization $`s`$ is just the size of the giant component. Moreover, these expressions can be easily generalized to higher order hypergraphs as it has been done in . From Eq. (25) it follows that there is a finite magnetization whenever the solution $`q_0`$ of Eq. (26) is less than 1. This happens whenever

$$\frac{k^2}{k}2,$$
(28)
that is just the condition for percolation in a random graph . On the contrary, for $`k^2/k<2`$ the magnetization (the size of giant component) is 0, i.e. the system is in a paramagnetic state.

For random graphs satisfying the percolation condition in Eq. (28) we are now interested in finding the value of $`\beta _c`$ for the ferromagnetic transition. There are few equivalent ways to do so. In the general case we can derive both sides of Eq.(20) in $`u=0`$ self consistently, obtaining

$$\frac{1}{T_c}=\beta _c=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\left(12\frac{k}{k^2}\right).$$
(29)
In the limit $`k^22k`$ we can expand the logarithm getting the first order condition $`T_c=k^2/k`$ which is the value found in the naive mean field approximation (4). Hence, the MF approach in developed in the previous section is valid for $`k^22k`$ and, in this case, it gives the same results as those obtained using the replica approach.

### C Critical behavior around $`\beta _c`$

The critical behavior of the thermodynamical quantities $`<s>`$, $`\chi `$, $`\delta C`$, and $`<s>_{H_0}H_0^{1/\delta }`$ close to $`\beta _c`$ can be calculated without having to explicitly solve the self consistent equations for the whole probability distributions $`Q(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$. Sufficiently close to the critical point we can assume $`Q(u)\delta (u<u>)`$ being $`<u>`$ infinitesimal. In fact this ansatz is incorrect if $`\beta >\beta _c`$, because it correctly takes into account the connectivity distribution but disregards the non trivial structure of the $`Q(u)`$ , which does not merely translate from the critical form $`\delta (u)`$ at $`\beta _c`$, but immediately develops a continuum structure. In the zero temperature limit the continuum shape will again collapse in a distribution of delta peaks discussed above. Nevertheless, sufficiently close to the transition we can expect only the first momenta of the $`Q(u)`$ to be relevant. For distributions with $`<k^4>`$ finite one is left with a closed system of equations for the first three momenta all contributing to the same leading order. Defining $`\mu _n=<k(k1)\mathrm{}(kn)>`$ and $`A=((\mathrm{tanh}(\beta ))^2\mu _2)/(\beta ^2<k>(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta ))^2\mu _1)`$

$`<u>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )}{\mathrm{tanh}(\beta _c)}}<u>{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )[1(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )]^2}{3<k>}}\left[\mu _1<u^3>+3\mu _2<u><u^2>+\mu _3<u>^3\right]`$ (30)
$`<u^2>`$ $`=`$ $`A<u>^2`$ (31)
$`<u^3>`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta ))^3A\mu _2+\mu _3}{\beta ^3<k>(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta ))^3<\mu _1}}\right)<u>^3`$ (32)
Similar calculations can be done for the the free energy, the energy and the specific heat. Proportionality is found also for $`<k^4>=\mathrm{}`$, where the calculation is a bit more involved because the leading momenta are to be found via an analytic continuation in the values of their order. Correctly taking into consideration the values of the leading momenta is important in case one is interested not only on calculating critical exponents, but also the amplitudes, because in general more terms at the same leading order are present, as we see in Eq.(32). However, the exponents are determined by the lowest non trivial last analytic value of the momenta of the distribution $`p_k`$, and do not change in the general case because all relevant momenta of the $`Q(u)`$ give the same divergence in the momenta of the $`p_k`$. One example again is given in Eq.(32). Since we are not interested in the calculation of amplitudes we can therefore resort to the variational ansatz $`Q(u)\delta (u<u>)`$ in the proximity of the transition. However we would like to stress that calculations can be done also in the general case. Eqs.(20), (21) then become

$`<u>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{<k>}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}kp_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\mathrm{tanh}(\beta (k1)<u>+\beta H_0))`$ (33)
$`<s>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k\mathrm{tanh}(\beta k<u>+\beta H_0)`$ (34)
The corresponding expressions for the free energy, the energy and the specific heat can be retrieved in the same way and will not be written here for the sake of space. If $`<k^4>`$ is finite the first non trivial term of the power series expansion of Eq.(33) that still gives an analytic contribution is simply $`<u>^3`$. One finds

$`<u>`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3<k>}{\beta _c^2(\mathrm{tanh}\beta _c)<k(k1)^3>}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (35)
$`<s>`$ $``$ $`<u>,\chi \tau ^1,<s>H_0^{1/3}`$ (36)
where $`\tau =1T/T_c`$ as usually defined. All exponents are the usual mean field ones. However, one finds a finite jump in the specific heat. The transition is therefore first order in the traditional sense. If we keep all the relevant momenta in our calculation, we find the expected correction to the amplitudes. For example we find $`<u>\sqrt{3}((\beta _c\mathrm{tanh}(\beta _c)<k>)((\mu _1+3\mu _2)A+\mu _3>))^{\frac{1}{2}}\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. This equation reduces to (35) if we disregard higher momenta.

## IV Power law distributed graphs

In the following we are mostly interested in the case of a power law distribution of the type

$$p_k=ck^\gamma ,mk<\mathrm{},$$
(37)
where $`c`$ is a normalization constant and $`m`$ is the lowest degree. Note that in the case of a power law distribution

$$<k^2>=c\underset{k=m}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}k^{2\gamma }>cm\underset{k=m}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}k^{1\gamma }=m<k>.$$
(38)
Hence, we have that for $`m2`$ the graph is always percolating for all $`\gamma `$ independently on the cutoff $`k_{max}`$. Then for $`m2`$ the critical temperature is always given by Eq. (29). In particular for $`m>2`$ and $`\gamma 1`$ the critical temperature approaches the limit $`T_c^{lim}=2/\mathrm{log}(12/m)`$ while for $`m=2`$ the critical temperature tends to zero in the large $`\gamma `$ limit. However, for $`m=1`$ there is a critical value $`\gamma ^{}`$ beyond which the graph is no longer percolating . $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the value of $`\gamma `$ at which $`k^2=2k`$, resulting $`\frac{\zeta (\gamma ^{}2)}{\zeta (\gamma ^{}1)}=2`$ that have the solution $`\gamma ^{}=3.47875\mathrm{}`$. If $`\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ the system is always paramagnetic while for $`\gamma <\gamma ^{}`$ there is a transition to a ferromagnetic state at a temperature given by Eq. (29). In Fig. 1 we show the phase diagram together with the critical lines for $`m=1`$, 2 and 3.

### A $`2<\gamma 3`$

For $`2<\gamma 3`$ the second moment of the degree distribution diverges and, therefore, as discussed in previous sections, the system is always in a ferromagnetic state. In this case it is important to investigate the behavior of $`u`$ and $`s`$ when $`\beta 0`$. This computation can be done using either the mean-field or the replica approach obtaining the same results. In fact, in this case we have $`lim_{\beta 0}Q(u)=\delta (u)`$ and putting this limit distribution into the self consistent equation for $`<u>`$ and $`<s>`$ we recover the mean field asymptotic behavior. For $`2<\gamma 3`$ the sums in Eq.(3) are dominated by the large $`k`$ region. In this case these sums can be approximated by integrals resulting

$$u(\gamma 2)(m\beta u)^{\gamma 2}_{m\beta u}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{1\gamma }\mathrm{tanh}x,$$
(39)
while the magnetization, $`s=_kp_k\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta ku\right)`$, is simply given by

$$s\frac{\gamma 1}{\gamma 2}m\beta u.$$
(40)
The above integral cannot be analytically calculated but its asymptotic behaviors for $`\beta 0`$ can be obtained. For $`\gamma =3`$ the integral in the rhs of Eq. (39) is dominated by the small $`x`$ behavior. Thus, approximating the $`\mathrm{tanh}x`$ by $`x`$ and computing $`u`$ we obtain

$$u\frac{\mathrm{exp}(1/m\beta )}{m\beta },\gamma =3.$$
(41)
On the other hand, for $`\gamma <3`$ the integral in the rhs of Eq. (39) is finite for any value of $`m\beta u`$ and, therefore, for $`m\beta u1`$ it follows that

$$u[(\gamma 2)I]^{\frac{1}{3\gamma }}(m\beta )^{\frac{\gamma 2}{3\gamma }},\gamma <3,$$
(42)
where $`I=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{1\gamma }\mathrm{tanh}x`$. Finally, substituting eqs. (41) and (42) on Eq. (40) we get

$$s\mathrm{exp}(1/m\beta ),\gamma =3,$$
(43)
$$s(m\beta )^{\frac{1}{3\gamma }},2<\gamma <3.$$
(44)
With the same technique one can study the behavior of the other physically relevant quantities. Extracting the leading asymptotic terms from the expressions for the energy and the specific heat $`T=\mathrm{}`$, we find an infinite order phase transition with

$`\delta C`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2/m\beta }}{\beta ^2}},\gamma =3,`$ (45)
$`\delta C`$ $``$ $`\beta ^{(\gamma 1)(3\gamma )},2<\gamma <3.`$ (46)
Extracting from Eq.(20) the leading behavior of $`\chi _u<u>/H_0`$ at $`H_0=0`$ and plugging the result together with eqs.(41), (42), (43) and (44) into $`\chi <m>/H_0`$ one obtains:

$$\chi \frac{1}{m^2\beta }$$
(47)
The limiting case $`\gamma =3`$ corresponds with the Barabasi-Albert model studied in  by means of numerical simulations. The magnetization exhibits an exponential decay in agreement with our calculation in Eq. (43). Moreover, the critical temperature was observed to increase logarithmically with the network size $`N`$. Computing $`T_c`$ in Eq. (4) for $`\gamma =3`$ we obtain $`T_c(m/2)\mathrm{ln}N`$, which is in very good agreement with their numerical results. It is worth remarking that similar exponential and logarithmic dependencies have been observed for the order and control parameter in some non-equilibrium transitions .

### B $`3<\gamma 5`$

In this case $`k^2`$ is finite and, therefore, there is a ferromagnetic transition temperature given by Eq. (29). However, $`k^4`$ is not finite and the derivation of the MF critical exponents performed in Sec. III C is not valid. In order to find the critical exponents we can write the functions inside the connectivities sums as power series in $`<u>`$. The coefficients of the two series will however depend on the higher momenta of the connectivities distribution and will be infinite beyond a certain power of $`<u>`$. This is direct consequence of the fact that the power expansion of the $`\mathrm{tanh}(y)`$ around 0 is convergent as long as the $`y<\pi /2`$, while for any $`<u>`$ in our cases there will exist an $`k^{}`$ such that $`<u>`$ lays outside the convergence radius. Nevertheless, the function is well approximated by the expansion when one truncates it up to the maximum analytical value of the exponent such that all momenta of the power law distribution taken into consideration are finite.

For $`3<\gamma <5`$ the highest analytical exponent of the expansion of Eq.(33) in powers of $`<u>`$ is $`n_{max}=\gamma 2`$, where the integer value has been analytically continued and so should be done with the corresponding series coefficient. In this range of values of s $`n_{max}`$ is lower than 3 so is to be taken as the correct value instead of $`n=3`$ that leads to non analicities. With analogous calculations we are able to find all other critical exponents:

$`<u>`$ $``$ $`<s>\tau ^{\frac{1}{\gamma 3}}`$ (48)
$`\delta C`$ $``$ $`\tau ^{(5\gamma )/(\gamma 3)}`$ (49)
$`\chi `$ $``$ $`\tau ^1,<s>H_0^{\beta /(1+\beta )}H_0^{1/(\gamma 2)}`$ (50)
On the other hand, for $`\gamma =5`$ one can find a logarithmic correction to the previous values expanding the inverse hyperbolic tangent in Eq.(33) to the third order in the tails of the connectivities distribution. The results are:

$`<u>`$ $``$ $`<s>\tau ^{1/2}/(\mathrm{log}(\tau ))^{1/2}`$ (51)
$`\delta C`$ $``$ $`1/(\mathrm{log}(\tau ))`$ (52)
$`\chi `$ $``$ $`\tau ^1,<s>H_0^{1/3}/(\mathrm{log}(H_0))^{1/3}`$ (53)
The specific heat is continuous at $`\beta _c`$ for $`\gamma (3,5]`$, indicating a phase transition of order $`>`$ 1. A part from the logarithmic corrections in the $`\gamma =5`$ case, the universality relations between the exponents are satisfied.

This treatment parallels the $`T=0`$ calculations done in  for the case of percolation critical exponents in a power law graph in presence of further dilution. If we introduce a cutoff into the connectivities distribution the critical exponent very close to the transition point is always the mean field one, due to the fact that the sum over the connectivities is always finite and there is no non analyticity in $`<u>=0`$ for any $`\gamma `$. However the influence of non trivial terms is very strong (decreasing if we increase $`\gamma `$). Eq.(35) is always valid but only in a very narrow region around $`\beta _c`$. The numerical values of $`T_c`$ and of the amplitudes in the critical behavior of the magnetization are also strongly affected being a function of the moments of the connectivities distribution. In the infinite cutoff limit the mean field window shrinks to zero and one recovers the non trivial behavior. Indeed, if we work with large enough a cutoff at $`\gamma (3,5)`$ and calculate the average magnetization in regions where $`\beta (k1)<u>(\beta )\pi /2`$, limit of the radius of convergence of the series expansions of $`\mathrm{tanh}^1(\mathrm{tanh}(\beta )\mathrm{tanh}(\beta (k1)<u>))`$, we see a contribution in the magnetization curves that goes as $`(\beta \beta _c)^{1/(\gamma 3)}`$. This region becomes dominant for large values of the cutoff.

## V Summary and conclusions

In summary, we have obtained the phase diagram of the Ising model on a random graph with an arbitrary degree distribution. Three different regimes are observed depending on the moments $`k^2`$ and $`k^4`$ of the distribution. For $`k^4`$ finite the critical exponents of the ferromagnetic phase transition coincides with those obtained from the simple MF theory. On the contrary, for $`k^4`$ not finite but $`k^2`$ finite we found non-trivial exponents that depend on the power law exponent of the degree distribution $`\gamma `$. On the other hand, for $`k^2`$ not finite the system is always in a ferromagnetic state. Moreover, at $`T=0`$ we recover the results obtained by the generating function formalism for the percolation problem on random graphs with an arbitrary degree distribution.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry is perhaps the most attractive solution to the hierarchy problem. However, the supertrace theorem implies that SUSY breaking cannot be communicated at tree level through renormalizable interactions. Indeed, tree level breaking would predict superpartners lighter than observed Standard Model particles. Consequently, a viable supersymmetric solution to the hierarchy problem typically includes a “hidden” sector where supersymmetry is spontaneously broken and from where it is radiatively communicated to the MSSM. The spectrum of superparticle masses depends crucially on the mechanism through which supersymmetry breaking is mediated to the MSSM fields. It thus becomes important to investigate various forms of mediation of SUSY breaking between the MSSM and the hidden sector. If the hidden sector and the visible sector are localized on different branes in a higher dimensional space  then direct contact operators between the hidden and visible sectors are forbidden by locality. If the extra dimension is an order of magnitude or so larger in size than the cutoff of the higher dimensional theory, then the form of the four dimensional effective theory depends on the light fields in the bulk and on their couplings to physics on the brane. The various possibilities for the light fields in the bulk give rise to different patterns of supersymmetry breaking (for example , , , ).

An interesting model, called Yukawa deflected gauge mediation, was proposed in . Here SUSY breaking was communicated to the MSSM (or visible sector) through gauge mediation , as well as through mixing between the Higgs and messenger fields. As a result, besides the universal gauge mediation soft scalar masses, there are additional contributions because of direct couplings between messengers and MSSM fields. These new contributions, which are parametrically of the same order as gauge mediation, are linked to the Yukawa couplings, and thus lead to a mass spectrum with squark-quark alignment. Hence, the Higgs-messenger mixing of  still preserves one of the crucial features of gauge mediation – namely, lack of dangerous flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC’s). On the other hand, the model does not suffer from the $`\mu `$ problem which plagues gauge mediation. In the context of the NMSSM, one finds that due to Higgs-messenger mixing, the singlet field couples more strongly to SUSY breaking and it is straightforward to obtain the right pattern of electroweak breaking.

The setup of  crucially relied on an extra-dimensional mechanism to restrict interactions between the MSSM and the messengers. There it was assumed that the MSSM and the messengers live on seperate branes, while gauge and Higgs fields propogate in the bulk. In this paper, inspired by recent ideas of deconstruction (or latticization) , of higher dimensional dynamics, we propose a entirely four dimensional setup which realizes the same physics as the higher dimensional setup of .

As opposed to genuine extra-dimensional theories, theories with deconstructed extra dimensions do not have any dimensional coupling, and therefore do not require an UV cutoff. Deconstructed extra-dimensions have been used earlier to obtain four dimensional realizations of gaugino mediation , . They have also appeared in connection with, among other things, new attempts to address the hierarchy problem (  ), models of GUT symmetry breaking (, ), low scale unification (, , ) and fermion localization (). Other interesting, more formal results involving deconstruction may be found in, for example ,,,,,, .

In the next section we present a three link model which is a four dimensional realization of . Here, the link vevs will be much larger than the messenger scale, and one obtains gauge mediation with the appropriate Higgs-messenger mixing. Section 3 will address the $`\mu `$ problem within the context of this model. We conclude in section 4 and speculate on two possible $`\mu `$ problem solutions in the context of deconstructed gaugino mediation.

## 2 A gauge-mediation model with Higgs-messenger mixing

The model consists of three sites. Each site indicates a gauge group, with $`G_1=SM`$, $`G_2=SU(5)\times U(1)`$, and $`G_3=SU(5)\times U(1)`$. The field content associated with each site is shown in the figure 1, and corresponds to a straightforward theory space embedding of the model of . The product of $`SM\times SU(5)\times SU(5)`$ is broken down to the diagonal standard model by the VEVs of the link fields $`L`$ and $`\overline{L}`$. The additional U(1) factors (which are also broken by the link fields) and the adjoints $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ serve only to lift fields which would otherwise remain massless after symmetry breaking. As we will see, having three sites is the minimum required to obtain a light Higgs field below the link vev scale without fine tuning.

The bifundamental link fields transform as $`L_{12}(\overline{5},5,1)`$, $`L_{23}(1,\overline{5},5)`$, under the three non-abelian gauge factors, with $`\overline{L}_{12}`$, $`\overline{L}_{23}`$ in the conjugate representations, respectively. Here, for notational simplicity, we have labeled the transformation of $`L_{12}`$ under the SM in terms of the transformation of the $`\overline{5}`$ representation under the SM subgroup of $`SU(5)`$. The first lattice point hosts the quark and lepton superfields of the MSSM with the usual standard model charge assignments, along with the Higgs fields $`H_u^{}`$ and $`H_d^{}`$. The second site hosts Higgs type field $`H_2`$ in fundamental representation of $`SU(5)`$ together with an antifundamental $`\overline{H_2}`$, and an adjoint $`A_2`$. The third site hosts an Higgs type fundamental $`H_3`$ and antifundamental $`\overline{H_3}`$, an adjoint $`A_3`$, plus the messengers, namely two other fundamentals of $`SU(5)`$, $`Q_m`$ ($`m=1,2`$), with their conjugates $`\overline{Q}_m`$.

The charge assignments of the above fields under the additional $`U(1)`$ factors are summarized below.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \hfill U(1)_1& \hfill U(1)_2\\ & & \\ L_{12}& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \overline{L}_{12}& \hfill +1& \hfill 0\\ L_{23}& \hfill +1& \hfill 1\\ \overline{L}_{23}& \hfill 1& \hfill +1\\ H_2& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \overline{H}_2& \hfill +1& \hfill 0\\ H_3& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \overline{H}_3& \hfill 0& \hfill +1\\ Q_i& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \overline{Q}_i& \hfill 0& \hfill +1\end{array}$$

The SU(2) doublets in the $`H_i`$’s together with $`H_u^{}`$ correspond to the bulk up type Higgs of  while the doublets in the $`\overline{H_i}`$ together with $`H_d^{}`$ correspond to the bulk down type Higgs. The quark and lepton superfields localized on the first link correspond to having the chiral matter of the MSSM on the brane in . The $`Q_i`$’s and $`\overline{Q}_i`$’s correspond to the messengers localized on the hidden brane in the higher dimensional model.

The messengers couple to $`H_3`$ and $`\overline{H}_3`$ through the superpotential interaction.

$$W_{\mathrm{mix}}=X(\lambda _mQ_m\overline{Q}_m+\lambda _dQ_1\overline{H}_3+\lambda _uH_3\overline{Q}_2).$$
(1)
Here $`X`$ is the spurion with the SUSY violating vev. This is the most general renormalizable coupling between these fields subject to a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry under which $`X,Q_1`$ and $`\overline{Q_2}`$ are odd while everything else is even, and a discrete $`R`$ symmetry under which all fields are odd. When $`X`$ picks up a VEV, this interaction will lead to messenger-Higgs mixing as in the higher dimensional model.

The five dimensional physics of a bulk Higgs field is captured via a site hopping interaction and link Higgsing potentials:

$`W_{\mathrm{link}}=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }_1H_d^{}\overline{L}_{12}H_2+\gamma _2\overline{H_2}\overline{L}_{23}H_3+\gamma _1H_u^{}L_{12}\overline{H}_2+\overline{\gamma }_2H_2L_{23}\overline{H}_3`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2,3}{}}S_i(L_{i1,i}\overline{L}_{i1,i}\alpha _i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+tr(\overline{L}_{i1,i}A_iL_{i1,i}).`$
Here, we assume that both singlets $`S_i`$ couple to a sector which experiences strong dynamics and generates a term $`S_i\alpha _i^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. For example, this could be SQCD with an equal number, $`N=2`$, of flavors and colors and the couplings

$$\frac{S_i}{M_{Pl}^2}ϵ_{mjkl}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}Q^{\alpha ,m}Q^{\beta ,j}Q^{\alpha ^{},k}Q^{\beta ^{},l}.$$
(4)
Here $`Q`$ represents the quarks of the SU(2) theory, $`m,j,k,l`$ are flavor indices and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are color indices.

It is straightforward to verify that the fields $`A_i`$ in the adjoint representation of $`G_i`$ ensure that there will not be unwanted massless fields, corresponding to additional flat directions upon Higgsing.

We impose an additional global $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry and a discrete global $`Z_{2R}`$ symmetry in order to restrict the possible couplings in the superpotential.

We summarize in Table 2 the global symmetry transformations of the various fields.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \hfill Z_2& \hfill Z_{2R}& \hfill U(1)_R\\ & & & \\ X& \hfill & \hfill & \hfill 2\\ S_1& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ S_2& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ A_2& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ A_3& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ L_{12}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ \overline{L}_{12}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ L_{23}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ \overline{L}_{23}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ H_u^{}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ H_d^{}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ H_2& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ \overline{H}_2& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ H_3& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ \overline{H}_3& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ Q_1& \hfill & \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ \overline{Q}_1& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\\ Q_2& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2\\ \overline{Q}_2& \hfill & \hfill & \hfill 2\\ \mathrm{MSSM}& \hfill +& \hfill & \hfill 2/3\end{array}$$

In the above Table “MSSM” refers to all the usual MSSM fields other than the Higgses.

The MSSM part of the superpotential consists of the Yukawa couplings of $`H_u^{}`$ and $`H_d^{}`$ to the the MSSM quarks and leptons.

$$W_{\mathrm{MSSM}}=\stackrel{~}{y}_{U,ij}H_{}^{}{}_{u}{}^{}q_iu_{}^{c}{}_{j}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{y}_{D,ij}H_{}^{}{}_{d}{}^{}q_id_{}^{c}{}_{j}{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{y}_{L,ij}H_{}^{}{}_{d}{}^{}l_ie_{}^{c}{}_{j}{}^{}$$
(5)
The complete superpotential is $`W=W_{\mathrm{mix}}+W_{\mathrm{link}}+W_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$. 111The symmetries we have imposed also allow the terms $`S_2L_{23}\overline{L}_{23}`$ and $`tr(L_{23}A_2\overline{L}_{23})`$. Addition of these terms does not affect our conclusions in any way. With the addition of these terms the superpotential $`W`$ is the most general allowed by the symmetries we have imposed at the renormalizable level.

The dynamics of this model is as follows. We will first assume that the link vevs are much larger than the messenger scale. Thus, at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the gauge group $`G_1\times G_2\times G_3`$ is broken to the diagonal SM gauge group. The interaction of the link variables with the adjoint fields, and the D-terms (which follow from the extra $`U(1)`$ factors) are enough to insure that there are no massless moduli fields left. The low energy theory contains only one linear combination of the doublets in $`H_u^{}`$ and $`H_3`$, which we denote by $`H_u`$ and one linear combination of the doublets in $`H_d^{}`$ and $`\overline{H}_3`$, which we denote by $`H_d`$. All the triplets decouple. The relevant part of the superpotential is

$$W=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\gamma }_1\alpha _1H_2H_d^{}+\gamma _2\alpha _2H_3\overline{H}_2+\gamma _1\alpha _1\overline{H}_2H_u^{}+\overline{\gamma }_2\alpha _2\overline{H}_3H_2)$$
(6)
This leads to the following expressions for massless doublets:

$`H_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\alpha _2H_u^{}\gamma _1\alpha _1H_3}{\sqrt{\gamma _1^2\alpha _1^2+\gamma _2^2\alpha _2^2}}}`$ (7)
$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\gamma }_2\alpha _2H_d^{}\overline{\gamma }_1\alpha _1\overline{H}_3}{\sqrt{\overline{\gamma }_1^2\alpha _1^2+\overline{\gamma }_2^2\alpha _2^2}}}.`$
These fields are the analogs of the zero modes of the Higgs fields in the five dimensional setup of . When the supersymmetry breaking field $`X`$ acquires an expectation value (at a scale much below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) the interaction eqn. (1) mixes $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ with the doublets in the messengers so that the physical Higgs doublets and physical mesengers are linear combinations of $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ with the doublets in $`\overline{Q}_1`$ and $`Q_2`$. The standard model quarks and leptons then have direct Yukawa couplings to the physical messengers that are proportional to their Yukawa couplings to the physical Higgs. This is because both sets of Yukawa couplings arise only through the couplings of the fields $`H_u^{}`$ and $`H_d^{}`$ to quarks and leptons. Upon integrating out the messengers, the soft parameters generated have the Yukawa deflected gauge mediated form of . In particular the new contributions to the soft squark masses respect the flavor structure of the quarks, and do not lead to large FCNCs.

## 3 An NMSSM solution to the $`\mu `$ problem

Generating comparable $`\mu `$ and $`\mu B`$ terms of weak scale size is an important challenge for a SUSY breaking model. In the context of gauge mediation, a possible solution is to add an additional singlet to the MSSM with couplings

$$W=\lambda SH_uH_d\frac{\kappa }{3}S^3.$$
(8)
The singlet $`S`$ is even and odd, respectively, under the $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_{2R}`$ symmetries discussed in the previous section, and has charge $`2/3`$ under the $`U(1)_R`$ global symmetry.

The hope is then that upon SUSY breaking, the singlet will acquire a soft negative mass squared, and thus a vev on the order of the weak scale. The $`B\mu `$ term then arrises from a SUSY breaking A-term

$$V=A_\lambda SH_uH_d.$$
(9)
However, in gauge mediation this scenario is difficult to arrange, because $`S`$ does not couple directly to fields with tree-level SUSY breaking splittings, and so obtains only a very small soft mass at three loops. The gauge mediated A-term is also not large enough to produce a $`B\mu `$ of the right size. This makes it difficult to achieve the right pattern of electroweak symmetry breaking ,,. In the limit in which the A-terms are zero, the NMSSM part of the superpotential has an R symmetry under which all fields have charge $`2/3`$. Since in gauge mediation the A terms are small, one typically finds that the pseudo-goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breaking of the approximate R symmetry is too light.

In the higher dimensional theory a way out is offered by Higgs-messenger mixing. Here, the singlet has direct Yukawa couplings to the messenger fields and so naturally gets a soft mass squared at two loops, and A-terms are generated at the one loop level. This then leads to a viable electroweak breaking scenario, without very light goldstone fields . It is interesting to see if the same ideas go through in the four dimensional case.

In our model, including an NMSSM singlet will generically lead to couplings of the form

$$W=S(\lambda H_u^{}H_d^{}+\lambda _3H_3\overline{H}_3++\lambda _1H_3\overline{Q}_1+\lambda _2Q_2\overline{H}_3+\lambda _Q\overline{Q}_1Q_2)\frac{\kappa }{3}S^3.$$
(10)
These couplings mean that below the link vev scale, the singlet will couple to $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$. Further, since $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are linear combinations of the physical higgs and physical messengers, and also because of the direct couplings to the $`Q`$’s and $`\overline{Q}`$’s the singlet gets a soft mass at two loops which is comparable to the gauge mediated soft masses. A-terms are also generated at one loop from these direct messenger matter couplings. It is then possible to generate the right pattern of symmetry breaking exactly as in the higher dimensional model.

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that it is posssible to realize Yukawa deflected gauge mediation as a four dimensional theory, using the methods of deconstruction. Three sites are sufficient to reproduce the physics of the higher dimensional model. All the consequences of Yukawa deflection in higher dimensions - alignment of squarks and quarks without squark degeneracy, a natural $`\mu `$ term mechanism in the context of the NMSSM, and new decay channels for for the messengers of gauge mediation - carry over to the four dimensional case.

We end the discussion with a few comments. In our model we have been considering the case where the link VEVs are larger than the messenger scale. It is worth asking the question of what happens if the two scales are interchanged so that the messenger scale $`<X>`$ is larger than the link scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this limit the model becomes a variant of the deconstructed gaugino mediation model of ,  with the Higgs fields in the bulk. This limit is particularly interesting in the context of the NMSSM model of section 3. Even in the absence of mixing between messengers and Higgs, the coupling of the singlet to the Higgs triplets on the third link can generate a negative mass squared for the singlet radiatively from running between the messenger scale and the link scale (where the Higgs triplets are integrated out). It is possible to use this to generate a VEV for the singlet which can then serve as a $`\mu `$ term. It may then be possible to achieve a viable pattern of electroweak symmetry breaking for the deconstructed gaugino mediation model without sizable fine tuning. The light pseudo-Goldstone associated with the approximate R symmetry is however a potential problem. 222This approach is similar in spirit to that of  in the context of the NMSSM with gauge mediation. They obtain a negative mass for the singlet by coupling it to additional vector like matter.

If the messenger number symmetry is relaxed to allow messenger-Higgs mixing interactions the singlet gets a soft mass at two loops at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Trilinear soft A-terms between the singlet and the Higgs are also generated at one loop. The renormalization group evolution to the scale of the link VEVs where the Higgs triplets are integrated out will result in an additional negative contribution to the soft mass of the singlet. The theory below the link scale is just the NMSSM with a gaugino mediated spectrum for the MSSM squarks, sleptons and gauginos but not for the Higgs fields or the singlet. It is plausible that in large regions of parameter space the singlet has a negative mass squared, resulting in a sizable VEV for the singlet. Because the R symmetry is broken at one loop by the singlet-Higgs trilinear A term, there is no pseudo-Goldstone. This seems a promising approach for a solution to the $`\mu `$ problem of deconstructed gaugino mediation.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Kaustubh Agashe, Hsin Chia Cheng, Ann Nelson, Raman Sundrum and Neal Weiner for discussions at various stages of this work.