format: text

text:
# Exploring Flavor Structure of Supersymmetry Breaking at B factories

## I Introduction

Recent development in $`B`$ physics is remarkable. Both the Belle experiment at KEK and the BaBar experiment at SLAC observed large CP violation in $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ and related modes. These observations are the first discovery of CP violation out of the kaon systemAbashian:2001pa ; Aubert:2001sp . The results are consistent with the Kobayashi-Maskawa mechanismKobayashi:1973fv  of CP violation in the three-generation Standard Model (SM). In the coming years, we expect much improvements in measurements of CP violation and rare decay processes at the asymmetric $`B`$ factories. In addition, the magnitude of the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing will be determined at the Tevatron experimentsAnikeev:2001rk . It will be clear in a few years whether or not the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix is the main source of the flavor mixing and the CP violation in the quark sector.

In future, $`B`$ physics is expected to play an even more important role in precisely determining the flavor structure of the SM and searching for possible new physics effects beyond the SM. LHC-BLHC-B LOI  and BTeVKulyavtsev:2000  experiments are planned to provide very precise information on the angles of the unitarity triangle from $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ decays at hadron machines. As for $`e^+e^{}`$ asymmetric colliders, both KEK and SLAC are considering to increase luminosity by $`12`$ orders of magnitude by the time that these hadron experiments will be carried outAbe:2002aa ; Zhao:2002zk . With luminosity of $`10^{35}10^{36}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1`$, the super $`B`$ factories will provide us with $`10^910^{10}`$ $`B\overline{B}`$ pairs in a year. Then, we shall have good opportunities to explore new physics from observations of CP asymmetries and rare $`B`$ decay processes.

Among various candidates of new physics beyond the SM, supersymmetry (SUSY) is the most interesting one. Although the main motivation for introducing SUSY is to solve the hierarchy problem, namely to give a justification to the electroweak scale, which is much smaller than the Planck scale, flavor physics can provide important information on SUSY models. In SUSY models, mass matrices of SUSY partners of the quarks and the leptons are new sources of the flavor mixing. Since these mass matrices are determined from SUSY breaking terms in the Lagrangian, their flavor structures reflect the SUSY breaking mechanism and interactions present between the scale of the SUSY breaking and the electroweak scale. Future $`B`$ physics is therefore very important to discriminate various SUSY breaking scenarios. It can play a more important role if LHC experiments discover SUSY particles, in which case we can make more precise predictions for flavor signals based on a particular scenario.

In this paper, we investigate SUSY effects on $`B`$ physics based on three different SUSY models, namely (1) the minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA), (2) the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, and (3) the SUSY model with U(2) flavor symmetryPomarol:1996xc ; Barbieri:1997ww . We focus on the new physics search through the consistency test of the unitarity triangle. We address two questions. First, we ask whether these models can be distinguished from the SM in near future by measuring the CP asymmetry of $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ and the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing. Second, we consider impacts of other angle measurements of the unitarity triangle in the era of LHC-B/BTeV and an $`e^+e^{}`$ super $`B`$ factory when the above two observables are precisely determined. We analyze the three models in the same fashion, so that we can clearly show the potential of future $`B`$ physics. There are already many analyses in the literature for each of three modelsPomarol:1996xc ; Barbieri:1997ww ; Bertolini:1991if ; Baek:2001sj ; Moroi:2000 ; Baek:2001kh ; Masiero:2001cc , but here we make a systematic treatment to show that various measurements in $`B`$ physics are in fact useful to distinguish different SUSY models. We show that the allowed region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ is quite different from the SM prediction for the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos and the U(2) model, whereas the deviation is small for the mSUGRA. Furthermore, the GUT and the U(2) model can be distinguished when we measure CP asymmetries of decay modes such as $`B\pi \pi ,\rho \pi ,D^{()}K^{()},D^{()}\pi `$, and $`D^{}\rho `$.

This paper is organized as follows. The three models are introduced in Sec. II. The $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing, the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing, the CP violating parameter in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing ($`\epsilon _K`$), and CP violations in various $`B`$ decays are discussed in Sec. III. The numerical results of these observables are presented in Sec. IV. Our conclusion is given in Sec. V.

## II Models

### II.1 The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is an $`\text{SU(3)}_\text{C}\times \text{SU(2)}_\text{L}\times \text{U(1)}_\text{Y}`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with the SUSY being softly broken. The MSSM matter contents are the following chiral superfields:

$`Q_i(3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}),\overline{U}_i(\overline{3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}),\overline{D}_i(\overline{3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}),`$
$`L_i(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),\overline{E}_i(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}),`$
$`H_1(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),H_2(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (1)
where the gauge quantum numbers are shown in parentheses and $`i=1,2,3`$ is a generation index. Assuming R-parity invariance and renormalizability, we can write the MSSM superpotential as

$$𝒲_{\text{MSSM}}=f_D^{ij}\overline{D}_iQ_jH_1+f_U^{ij}\overline{U}_iQ_jH_2+f_E^{ij}\overline{E}_iL_jH_1+\mu H_1H_2.$$
(2)
The soft SUSY breaking is described by the following Lagrangian:

$`_{\text{soft}}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_Q^2)_j^i\stackrel{~}{q}_i\stackrel{~}{q}^j+(m_D^2)_i^j\stackrel{~}{d}^i\stackrel{~}{d}_j+(m_U^2)_i^j\stackrel{~}{u}^i\stackrel{~}{u}_j`$ (3)
$`+(m_E^2)_j^i\stackrel{~}{e}_i\stackrel{~}{e}^j+(m_L^2)_i^j\stackrel{~}{l}^i\stackrel{~}{l}_j`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2h_1^{}h_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2h_2^{}h_2\left(B\mu h_1h_2+\text{H.c.}\right)`$
$`+\left(A_D^{ij}\stackrel{~}{d}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_jh_1+A_U^{ij}\stackrel{~}{u}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_jh_2+A_L^{ij}\stackrel{~}{e}_i\stackrel{~}{l}_jh_1+\text{H.c.}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{B}}\stackrel{~}{B}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{W}}\stackrel{~}{W}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{g},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{l}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$, $`h_1`$, and $`h_2`$ are the corresponding scalar components of the chiral superfields, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ denote $`\text{U(1)}_\text{Y}`$, $`\text{SU(2)}_\text{L}`$, and $`\text{SU(3)}_\text{C}`$ gauge fermions, respectively.

### II.2 Flavor Structure of the Soft Breaking Terms

Although the Yukawa couplings are the only source of the flavor mixing in the SM, the mass terms and the trilinear scalar coupling terms ($`A`$-terms) of squarks and sleptons in Eq. (3) may induce additional flavor mixings in the MSSM.

The Yukawa couplings $`f`$’s in Eq. (2) are constrained to reproduce the known quark and lepton masses and the CKM matrix. On the other hand, the soft breaking terms, their flavor structures in particular, are rather unconstrained at first sight, apart from the naturalness condition that they should be within the TeV scale. As is well-known, however, unless some specific structure is assumed in the soft breaking terms, the sfermion-exchanging contributions to flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes such as the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing and the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay are too large to satisfy the experimental limits, if the squark and slepton masses are below a few TeV. There are several ways to avoid this problem.

One is to assume a SUSY breaking (and its mediation) mechanism in which the universality of the soft breaking terms are ensured. In other words, mass degeneracy for the sfermions with the same electric charge and chirality, and proportionality of the $`A`$-terms to the Yukawa coupling constants are required to suppress FCNC processes. Phenomenology of models with the universality further depends on the energy scale where the SUSY breaking is generated, because the universality in the sfermion sector is vitiated due to radiative corrections induced by the Yukawa couplings.

It is convenient to use renormalization group (RG) equations in order to trace these radiative corrections. The universality in the soft breaking terms is imposed on the boundary conditions of the RG equations at the energy scale of the SUSY breaking. If the energy scale of the SUSY breaking is close to the electroweak scale, the RG evolution is tiny and the universality is practically maintained. The gauge mediated SUSY breaking modelDine:1982gu  is of this kind, and its flavor phenomenology is quite similar to that of the SM.

If the energy scale of the SUSY breaking is far above the electroweak scale, the RG evolution is sizable and the universality is lost. Though not exactly universal, flavor physics is still under control in this kind of models in the sense that the origin of the flavor mixing only resides in the Yukawa couplings. The flavor mixing in the squark sector is determined by the quark masses and the CKM matrix. On the other hand, the flavor mixing in the slepton sector is ruled by the lepton couplings in the superpotential including Majorana mass terms of right-handed neutrinos if exist. The mSUGRA discussed in Sec. II.3 is a model in this class.

Embedded in a GUT, the above situation is modified if the energy scale of the SUSY breaking is higher than the GUT scale. Since the GUT interactions obscure the distinction between the quark flavors and the lepton flavors, the lepton flavor mixing in the Yukawa couplings affects the squark sector. We shall examine an SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos among models of this kind in Sec. II.4.

Another way to suppress the FCNC processes is to rely on a flavor (or horizontal) symmetry. It is obvious that the flavor symmetry, whatever it is, should be broken because the Yukawa couplings have no such symmetry. The symmetry breaking must be taken so that the observed quark and lepton masses and their mixings are reproduced. Even though this constraint is imposed, there are several choices for the flavor symmetry and its breaking pattern. The flavor phenomenology heavily depends on them. In Sec. II.5, we shall consider a model with U(2) flavor symmetry among the possibilities.

### II.3 The Minimal Supergravity Model

The mSUGRA consists of the observable sector, *i.e.* the MSSM, and a hidden sector. These two sectors are only interconnected by the gravitation. The SUSY is assumed to be spontaneously broken in the hidden sector, and the soft breaking terms in Eq. (3) are induced through the gravitational interaction in the following manner:

$`(m_Q^2)_j^i`$ $`=`$ $`(m_E^2)_j^i=m_0^2\delta _j^i,`$
$`(m_D^2)_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`(m_U^2)_i^j=(m_L^2)_i^j=m_0^2\delta _i^j,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2=m_0^2,`$
$`A_D^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0A_0f_D^{ij},A_U^{ij}=m_0A_0f_U^{ij},A_L^{ij}=m_0A_0f_L^{ij},`$
$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`M_2=M_3=M_{1/2},`$ (4)
where we assume the GUT relation among the gaugino masses. The above relations are applied at the energy scale where the soft breaking terms are induced by the gravitational interaction. We identify this scale with the GUT scale ($`M_X2\times 10^{16}\text{GeV}`$) for simplicity.

The soft breaking terms at the electroweak scale are determined by solving RG equations with the initial conditions defined in Eq. (4).

### II.4  The SU(5) SUSY GUT with Right-handed Neutrinos

The measurements of the three gauge coupling constants at LEP, SLC, and other experiments support the idea of the supersymmetric grand unification. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric Fukuda:1998mi  and the solarFukuda:2001nj  neutrino experiments. Guided by these experimental results, SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrino has been studied. In particular, the relationship between quark flavor signals and the neutrino oscillations has been investigated in Ref. Baek:2001sj ; Moroi:2000 ; Baek:2001kh . A large flavor mixing in the neutrino sector can include a squark mixing in the right-handed down-type squark sector. In Ref. Baek:2001sj , the quark flavor signals are studied for various neutrino oscillation scenarios. In Ref. Moroi:2000 , effects of CP violating phases in the GUT Yukawa coupling constants are taken into account. It is shown in these papers that large contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ and the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay can arise from the new source of flavor mixing in the neutrino sector. These analyses are extended to the case of a GUT model with realistic fermion mass matrices in Ref. Baek:2001kh . Here we follow the analysis of Ref. Baek:2001kh  and we give a brief description of the model.

The Yukawa couplings and Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrinos in the model are described by the following superpotential:

$`𝒲_{\text{SU(5)}\nu _R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ_{abcde}(\lambda _U)^{ij}(T_i)^{ab}(T_j)^{cd}H^e+(\lambda _D)^{ij}(\overline{F}_i)_a(T_j)^{ab}\overline{H}_b`$ (5)
$`+(\lambda _N)^{ij}\overline{N}_i(\overline{F}_j)_aH^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M_N)^{ij}\overline{N}_i\overline{N}_j,`$
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are generation indices, while $`a,b,c,d,`$ and $`e`$ are SU(5) indices. $`ϵ_{abcde}`$ denotes the totally antisymmetric tensor of the SU(5). $`T_i`$, $`\overline{F}_i`$, and $`\overline{N}_i`$ are $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ representations of the SU(5) gauge group, respectively. $`T_i`$ contains $`Q_i`$, $`\overline{U}_i`$, and $`\overline{E}_i`$ in Eq. (1), and $`\overline{F}_i`$ includes $`\overline{D}_i`$ and $`L_i`$. $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ are Higgs superfields in $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ representations, respectively. $`H`$ consists of $`H_C(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏},\frac{1}{3})`$ and $`H_2`$, and $`\overline{H}`$ does $`\overline{H}_C(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏},\frac{1}{3})`$ and $`H_1`$. $`(\lambda _U)^{ij}`$, $`(\lambda _D)^{ij}`$, and $`(\lambda _N)^{ij}`$ are the Yukawa coupling matrices, and $`(M_N)^{ij}`$ is the Majorana mass matrix. In addition to the above superpotential, we also need a superpotential for Higgs superfields, $`𝒲_H(H,\overline{H},\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^a`$ is a 24 representation of the SU(5) group. It is assumed to develop a vacuum expectation value (VEV) as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^a=\text{diag}(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})v_G`$ at the GUT scale and breaks the SU(5) symmetry to $`\text{SU(3)}_\text{C}\times \text{SU(2)}_\text{L}\times \text{U(1)}_\text{Y}`$.

The supermultiplets whose masses are of order of the GUT scale such as $`H_C`$ and $`\overline{H}_C`$ can be integrated out below the GUT scale. Then, the effective theory below the GUT scale is the MSSM with the right-handed neutrino supermultiplets, and its superpotential is given as

$$𝒲_{\text{MSSM}\nu _R}=𝒲_{\text{MSSM}}+(f_N)^{ij}\overline{N}_iL_jH_2+\frac{1}{2}(M_N)^{ij}\overline{N}_i\overline{N}_j,$$
(6)
where the Yukawa coupling matrices are related to those in Eq. (5) as $`(f_U)^{ij}=(\lambda _U)^{ij}`$, $`(f_D)^{ij}=(f_E^T)^{ij}=(\lambda _D)^{ij}`$, and $`(f_N)^{ij}=(\lambda _N)^{ij}`$ in the leading order approximation.

In the energy region lower than the Majorana mass scale ($`M_R`$), the singlet supermultiplets are integrated out, and the resulting superpotential is the sum of $`𝒲_{\text{MSSM}}`$ in Eq. (2) and the following higher dimensional term:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_\nu =\frac{1}{2}(K_\nu )^{ij}(L_iH_2)(L_jH_2),K_\nu =(f_N^T)^{ik}(\frac{1}{M_N})_{kl}(f_N)^{lj}.$$
(7)
This term yields the neutrino masses below the electroweak scale as

$$(m_\nu )^{ij}=(K_\nu )^{ij}h_2^2.$$
(8)
The above neutrino mass matrix is related to the observable neutrino mass eigenvalues and the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (MNS) mixing matrixMaki:1962mu  as

$$(m_\nu )^{ij}=(V_{\text{MNS}}^{})_k^im_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{k}(V_{\text{MNS}}^{})_k^j$$
(9)
in the basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal.

As is mentioned above, the superpotential in Eq. (5) predicts that

$$(f_E)^{ij}=(f_D)^{ji}$$
(10)
at the GUT scale. It is well-known that the mass ratios of the down-type quarks to the charged leptons in the first and the second generations can not be explained by this relation although it reasonably works for the third generation. This, however, is not a fatal flaw of SU(5) GUTs because there are several ways to overcome this shortcoming. For example, higher dimensional operators with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^a`$ may contribute differently to the Yukawa coupling matrices of the down-type quarks and the charged leptons.

In Ref. Baek:2001kh , quark FCNC processes, lepton flavor violation processes, and the muon anomalous magnetic moment were calculated in this model. To account for quark and lepton mass ratios, the following higher dimensional operator was introduced:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒲_{\text{SU(5)}\nu _R}=\frac{(\kappa _D)^{ij}}{M_P}(\overline{F}_i)_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^a(T_j)^{bc}\overline{H}_c,$$
(11)
where $`M_P`$ is the Planck mass ($`M_P2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV). Consequently, Eq. (10) is modified to

$$(f_E)^{ij}=(f_D)^{ji}\frac{5}{6}\xi (\kappa _D)^{ji},$$
(12)
where $`\xi =v_G/M_P0.01`$. Taking the Majorana mass matrix proportional to the unit matrix ($`(M_N)^{ij}=M_R\delta ^{ij}`$) for simplicity, Baek et al. Baek:2001kh  showed that the flavor mixings of the squark and slepton sectors were determined by the CKM matrix, the MNS matrix, and two additional mixing matrices related to the down-type quark and the charged lepton Yukawa coupling constants. As long as we take the large mixing MSW solution for the solar neutrino anomaly, the SUSY effect becomes large for $`\epsilon _K`$ and B($`\mu e\gamma `$). In this paper we follow Ref. Baek:2001kh  but consider the special case that the two additional mixing matrices are equal to the unit matrix, because the general features mentioned above do not change by this simplification.

In order to calculate the FCNC processes we need to specify the soft breaking terms. The SU(5) invariant soft breaking terms are written as

$`_{\text{soft}}^{\text{SU(5)}}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_T^2)_i^j(\stackrel{~}{T}^i)_{ab}(\stackrel{~}{T}_j)^{ab}+(m_{\overline{F}}^2)_i^j(\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}{}_{}{}^{i})^a(\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}_j)_a+(m_{\overline{N}}^2)_i^j\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}{}_{}{}^{i}\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}_{j}^{}`$ (13)
$`+(m_H^2)H_a^{}H^a+(m_{\overline{H}}^2)\overline{H}^a\overline{H}_a`$
$`+\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ_{abcde}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_U)^{ij}(\stackrel{~}{T}_i)^{ab}(\stackrel{~}{T}_j)^{cd}H^e+(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_D)^{ij}(\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}_i)_a(\stackrel{~}{T}_j)^{ab}\overline{H}_b`$
$`+(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_N)^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}_i(\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}_j)_aH^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{M}_N)^{ij}\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}_i\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}_j+\text{H.c.}\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_P}}\left[(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_d)^{ij}(\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}^i)_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^a(\stackrel{~}{T}^j)^{bc}\overline{H}_c+\text{H.c.}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_5\overline{\stackrel{~}{G}_5}\stackrel{~}{G}_5,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{T}^i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{F}}^i`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{N}}^i`$ are the scalar components of $`T^i`$, $`\overline{F}^i`$, and $`\overline{N}^i`$, respectively; $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ stand for the corresponding scalar components of the superfields denoted by the same symbols; and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_5`$ represents the SU(5) gaugino. We assume that the soft breaking terms are universally generated at the Planck scale, *i.e.*

$`(m_T^2)_i^j`$ $`=`$ $`(m_{\overline{F}}^2)_i^j=(m_{\overline{N}}^2)_i^j=m_0^2\delta _i^j,`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0A_0(\lambda )^{ij},(\lambda =\lambda _U,\lambda _D,\lambda _N),`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{\kappa }_D)^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0A_0(\kappa _D)^{ij},`$
$`M_5`$ $`=`$ $`M_{1/2}.`$ (14)
These equations serve as a set of boundary conditions of RG equations at the Planck scale.

We solve the RG equations of the SU(5) SUSY GUT from the Planck scale to the GUT scale, then those of MSSM with right-handed neutrinos between the GUT scale and $`M_R`$. Finally, the squark and slepton mass matrices are obtained by the RG equations of the MSSM below $`M_R`$.

### II.5 A Model with U(2) Flavor Symmetry

It is possible that the family structure of the quarks and the leptons is explained by some flavor symmetry. Although U(3) is a natural candidate of the flavor symmetry, it is badly broken by the top Yukawa coupling. It is therefore legitimate to choose a U(2) symmetric model in order to study the flavor problem in the MSSM.

In this framework, the quark and lepton supermultiplets in the first and the second generations transform as doublets under the U(2) flavor symmetry. Each of these doublets carries a positive unit charge of the U(1) subgroup. The quark and lepton supermultiplets in the third generation and the Higgs supermultiplets are totally singlet under the U(2). In addition to the ordinary matter fields, we introduce the following superfields: a doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i(1)`$, a symmetric tensor $`S^{ij}(2)`$, and an antisymmetric tensor $`A^{ij}(2)`$, where $`i`$ and $`j`$ run from 1 to 2, and the numbers in the parentheses represent the U(1) chargesBarbieri:1997ww .

The U(2) invariant superpotential relevant to the quark Yukawa couplings is given as follows:

$`𝒲_{\text{U(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`y_U(\overline{U}_3Q_3H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{b_U}{M_F}}\mathrm{\Phi }^i\overline{U}_iQ_3H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_U}{M_F}}\overline{U}_3\mathrm{\Phi }^iQ_iH_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d_U}{M_F}}S^{ij}\overline{U}_iQ_jH_2+{\displaystyle \frac{a_U}{M_F}}A^{ij}\overline{U}_iQ_jH_2)`$
$`+y_D(\overline{D}_3Q_3H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_D}{M_F}}\mathrm{\Phi }^i\overline{D}_iQ_3H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_D}{M_F}}\overline{D}_3\mathrm{\Phi }^iQ_iH_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d_D}{M_F}}S^{ij}\overline{D}_iQ_jH_1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_D}{M_F}}A^{ij}\overline{D}_iQ_jH_1),`$
where $`M_F`$ is the scale of the flavor symmetry, and $`y_Q`$, $`a_Q`$, $`b_Q`$, $`c_Q`$, and $`d_Q`$ ($`Q=U,D`$) are dimensionless coupling constants. In Eq. (II.5), we neglected dimension five and higher dimensional operators in the superpotential. Absolute values of the above dimensionless coupling constants except for $`y_D`$ are supposed to be of $`O(1)`$.

The successful breaking pattern of the U(2) symmetry is that

$$\text{U(2)}\text{U(1)}𝟙(\text{no symmetry}),$$
(16)
where the first breaking is induced by VEV’s of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`S^{ij}`$, and a VEV of $`A^{ij}`$ brings about the second one. The VEV’s are given as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^i}{M_F}=\delta ^{i2}ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi },\frac{S^{ij}}{M_F}=\delta ^{i2}\delta ^{j2}ϵ_S,\frac{A^{ij}}{M_F}=ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{},$$
(17)
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ are taken to be real without loss of generality. Note that $`S^{ij}`$ is chosen so that it leaves a U(1) unbroken. Hierarchical relations among the VEV’s that $`ϵ^{}ϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }|ϵ_S|1`$ are assumed in order to reproduce the quark masses and the quark mixing angles.

With the above VEV’s, we obtain the following quark Yukawa couplings:

$$(f_Q^{ij})=y_Q\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a_Qϵ^{}& 0\\ a_Qϵ^{}& d_Qϵ& b_Qϵ\\ 0& c_Qϵ& 1\end{array}\right),Q=U,D,$$
(18)
where we use $`ϵϵ_\mathrm{\Phi }=ϵ_S`$, which is valid providing appropriate redefinitions of the coupling constants in Eq. (II.5). Eq. (18) is applied at the GUT scale where we assume that the symmetry breaking sequence in Eq. (16) occurs. The parameters in Eq. (18) are determined so that the known quark masses and mixing are reproduced taking the RG evolution into account.

The U(2) symmetry constrains the soft breaking terms as well as the supersymmetric terms. The U(2) invariant soft breaking terms relevant to squark masses are

$`_m={\displaystyle \underset{f=q,u,d}{}}m_0^{f2}`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{f}^i\stackrel{~}{f}_i+a_f^3\stackrel{~}{f}^3\stackrel{~}{f}_3+{\displaystyle \frac{a_f^\varphi }{M_F}}\stackrel{~}{f}^3\varphi ^i\stackrel{~}{f}_i+{\displaystyle \frac{a_f^\varphi }{M_F}}\varphi _i^{}\stackrel{~}{f}^i\stackrel{~}{f}_3`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_f^{\varphi \varphi }}{M_F}}\varphi _i^{}\stackrel{~}{f}^i\varphi ^j\stackrel{~}{f}_j+{\displaystyle \frac{a_f^{SS}}{M_F}}S_{ik}^{}\stackrel{~}{f}^kS^{ij}\stackrel{~}{f}_j],`$
where $`a_f`$’s are dimensionless coupling constants of $`O(1)`$, and shown are the terms that yield squark masses of $`O(ϵ^2)`$ or larger when the flavor symmetry breaking takes place. The squark mass matrices stemming from Eq. (19) are parameterized as:

$$m_X^2=m_0^{X2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1+r_{22}^Xϵ^2& r_{23}^Xϵ\\ 0& r_{23}^Xϵ& r_{33}^X\end{array}\right),X=Q,U,D,$$
(20)
where $`r^X`$’s are constant parameters of $`O(1)`$.

As for the $`A`$-terms, it turns out that they have the same hierarchical structure as the Yukawa couplings in Eq. (18):

$$(A_Q^{ij})=A_Q^0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \stackrel{~}{a}_Qϵ^{}& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{a}_Qϵ^{}& \stackrel{~}{d}_Qϵ& \stackrel{~}{b}_Qϵ\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{c}_Qϵ& 1\end{array}\right),Q=U,D.$$
(21)
In general, though being of $`O(1)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_Q`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}_Q`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_Q`$ take different values from the corresponding parameters in Eq. (18). Therefore, we expect no exact universality of the $`A`$-terms in this model.

The soft SUSY breaking terms at the electroweak scale are given by solving the RG equations of the MSSM with the boundary conditions in Eq. (20) and Eq. (21) at the GUT scale.

## III Observables

The observables considered in the following are the CP violation parameter $`\epsilon _K`$ in the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ and $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mass splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, respectively and CP asymmetries in various $`B`$ decay modes.

The $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$, $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$, and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixings are described by the effective Lagrangian of the following form:

$``$ $`=`$ $`C_{LL}(\overline{q}_L^\alpha \gamma ^\mu Q_{L\alpha })(\overline{q}_L^\beta \gamma _\mu Q_{L\beta })+C_{RR}(\overline{q}_R^\alpha \gamma ^\mu Q_{R\alpha })(\overline{q}_R^\beta \gamma _\mu Q_{R\beta })`$ (22)
$`+C_{LR}^{(1)}(\overline{q}_R^\alpha Q_{L\alpha })(\overline{q}_L^\beta Q_{R\beta })+C_{LR}^{(2)}(\overline{q}_R^\alpha Q_{L\beta })(\overline{q}_L^\beta Q_{R\alpha })`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{C}_{LL}^{(1)}(\overline{q}_R^\alpha Q_{L\alpha })(\overline{q}_R^\beta Q_{L\beta })+\stackrel{~}{C}_{LL}^{(2)}(\overline{q}_R^\alpha Q_{L\beta })(\overline{q}_R^\beta Q_{L\alpha })`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{C}_{RR}^{(1)}(\overline{q}_L^\alpha Q_{R\alpha })(\overline{q}_L^\beta Q_{R\beta })+\stackrel{~}{C}_{RR}^{(2)}(\overline{q}_L^\alpha Q_{R\beta })(\overline{q}_L^\beta Q_{R\alpha }),`$
where $`(q,Q)=(d,b)`$, $`(s,b)`$ and $`(d,s)`$ for the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$, $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$, and $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixings, respectively. The suffices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are color indices. The Wilson coefficients $`C`$’s are obtained by calculating box diagrams. See Ref. Baek:2001kh  for explicit formulas of the coefficients. The mixing matrix elements $`M_{12}(B_d)`$, $`M_{12}(B_s)`$, and $`M_{12}(K)`$ are given as

$$M_{12}(P)=\frac{1}{2m_P}P||\overline{P},$$
(23)
where $`P=B_d,B_s,K^0`$.

In the SM, the flavor changes only occur in the interaction with the left-handed quarks, so that $`M_{12}`$ is dominated by the $`C_{LL}`$ term for all the three mesons. The situation is the same in the mSUGRA, since the flavor mixing in the squark sector is induced by the running effect and hence takes place only in the left-handed squark sector. In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos and the U(2) model, on the other hand, there are sources of squark flavor mixing other than the CKM matrix. In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, flavor mixing in the right-handed down-type squark sector is induced due to the Yukawa coupling matrix of the neutrinos through the running between the GUT and the Planck scales. In the U(2) model, the squark mass matrices contain more free parameters. Consequently, flavor mixing is possible in both the left-handed and the right-handed squark sectors and the mixing matrices can be different from the CKM matrix. In the latter two models, all the Wilson coefficients in Eq. (22) are relevant.

We parameterize the matrix elements of the operators in Eq. (22) as

$`K^0|(\overline{d}_L^\alpha \gamma ^\mu s_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_L^\beta \gamma _\mu s_{L\beta })|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}m_K^2f_K^2B_K,`$ (24a)
$`K^0|(\overline{d}_R^\alpha s_{L\alpha })(\overline{d}_L^\beta s_{R\beta })|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}}\right)^2m_K^2f_K^2B_K^{LR(1)},`$ (24b)
$`K^0|(\overline{d}_R^\alpha s_{L\beta })(\overline{d}_L^\beta s_{R\alpha })|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}}\right)^2m_K^2f_K^2B_K^{LR(2)},`$ (24c)
$`K^0|(\overline{d}_L^\alpha s_{R\alpha })(\overline{d}_L^\beta s_{R\beta })|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}}\right)^2m_K^2f_K^2\stackrel{~}{B}_K^{RR(1)},`$ (24d)
$`K^0|(\overline{d}_L^\alpha s_{R\beta })(\overline{d}_L^\beta s_{R\alpha })|\overline{K}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_K}{m_s+m_d}}\right)^2m_K^2f_K^2\stackrel{~}{B}_K^{RR(2)},`$ (24e)
where $`B_K`$, $`B_K^{LR(1,2)}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_K^{RR(1,2)}`$ are bag parameters of $`O(1)`$, which have been calculated by the lattice QCD methodYamada:2000kt . It can be seen that the matrix elements of the scalar operators are enhanced by a factor $`(m_K/m_s)^2`$ for the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. For $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing cases, the corresponding factor is $`(m_B/m_b)^2`$ so that the enhancement is less significant. In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos and the U(2) model, the $`C_{LR}`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{RR}`$ terms can significantly contribute to $`M_{12}(K)`$ because of this enhancement in the matrix elements.

We can express $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ in terms of $`M_{12}`$ as

$`\epsilon _K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}\mathrm{Im}M_{12}(K)}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_K}},`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left|M_{12}(B_d)\right|,`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left|M_{12}(B_s)\right|.`$ (27)
The CP asymmetry in $`BJ/\psi K_S`$, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, is defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(t)J/\psi K_S)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d(t)J/\psi K_S)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_d(t)J/\psi K_S)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_d(t)J/\psi K_S)}}=A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}t.`$ (28)
This asymmetry is given by the phase of $`M_{12}(B_d)`$ as

$$A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)=\mathrm{sin}\varphi _M,$$
(29)
where $`\varphi _M`$ is defined as $`\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _M}=M_{12}(B_d)/|M_{12}(B_d)|`$. In the present analysis we assume that tree-level diagram dominates the $`B_d(\overline{B}_d)J/\psi K_S`$ decay so that no new phase appears in the decay amplitude<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 In the U(2) model, in particular, there might be sizable contributions to the decay amplitudes with new CP phases. In such a case a direct CP asymmetry may be observed.. Experimentally, $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi _M`$ can be determined by combining decay modes with the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ transition such as $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$, $`B_dJ/\psi K_L`$, and $`B_d\psi ^{}K_S`$.

In order to constrain new physics from the consistency check on the closure of the unitarity triangle, depicted in FIG. 1, it is important to measure the angles other than $`\varphi _M`$. There are several theoretically clean ways to determine these angles. In the SM, $`2\varphi _1`$ is given by $`\varphi _M`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2`$ is obtained from the isospin analysis of $`B\pi \pi `$Gronau:1990ka  and the time-dependent Dalitz analysis of $`B\rho \pi `$Lipkin:1991st . $`BD^{()}K^{()}`$ modes provide us with the angle $`\varphi _3`$Gronau:1991dp . $`BD^{()}\pi `$Dunietz:1988bv  and $`BD^{}\rho `$London:2000zi  with the angular analysis give us information on $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _1+\varphi _3)`$.

If we consider effects of new physics, these measurements can be interpreted as constraints on the phases of the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing and the decay amplitudes. When we neglect the new phases in the decay amplitudes, $`B\pi \pi ,\rho \pi `$, $`BD^{()}K^{()}`$, and $`BD^{()}\pi ,D^{}\rho `$ provide us with $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _M+2\varphi _3)`$, $`\varphi _3`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _M+\varphi _3)`$, respectively, where $`\varphi _3`$ is the weak phase of the $`bu`$ transition amplitude in the standard phase convention given in APPENDIX A<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 This approximation is valid for the three models under consideration, at least for $`BD^{()}K^{()},D^{()}\pi ,D^{}\rho `$. New phases could be important for the decay amplitudes of $`B\pi \pi ,\rho \pi `$. Even in such a case, we could obtain information about new phases by measuring CP asymmetries of the various modes listed above.. In the following analysis, we assumed that $`\varphi _M`$ is determined from the $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ mode and related modes, and we study impacts of the $`\varphi _3`$ measurement on new physics search.

## IV Numerical ANALYSIS

### IV.1  Parameters in the minimal supergravity model

In our calculation, the masses and the mixing matrices in the quark and lepton sectors are treated as input parameters which determine the Yukawa coupling matrices.

The CKM matrix elements $`V_{us}`$, $`V_{cb}`$, and $`|V_{ub}|`$ are determined in experiments independently of new physics contributions because these are extracted from tree-level processes. We fix $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ in the following calculations as $`V_{us}=0.2196`$ and $`V_{cb}=0.04`$, and vary $`|V_{ub}|`$ within a range $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.09\pm 0.01`$. Although the current error of $`|V_{ub}|`$ is estimated to be larger than this value, we expect theoretical and experimental improvements in near future. We vary the CP violating phase, $`\varphi _3`$, within $`\pm 180^{}`$ because it is not constrained by the tree-level processes independently of new physics contributions. For the quark masses, we take $`m_t^{\text{pole}}=175\text{GeV}`$, $`m_b^{\text{pole}}=4.8\text{GeV}`$, $`m_c^{\text{pole}}=1.4\text{GeV}`$, and $`m_s^{\overline{\text{MS}}}(2\text{GeV})=120\text{MeV}`$.

As for the SUSY parameters, we assume $`M_{1/2},A_0,`$ and $`\mu `$ are real parameters in order to avoid too large SUSY contributions to the electric dipole moments of the neutron and the electron. We vary these parameters within the ranges $`0<m_0<3\text{TeV}`$, $`0<M_{1/2}<1\text{TeV}`$, and $`5<A_0<+5`$ at the GUT scale. Both signs of $`\mu `$ are considered. We take the ratio of two VEV’s $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =h_2/h_1=20`$ for most of our analysis and comment on other cases.

### IV.2  Parameters in the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos

In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, we need to specify the parameters in the neutrino sector in addition to the quark Yukawa coupling constants given in Sec. IV.1. We take the neutrino masses as $`m_{\nu _3}^2m_{\nu _2}^2=2.4\times 10^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup>, $`m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^2=4.2\times 10^5`$ eV<sup>2</sup>, and $`m_{\nu _1}0`$, and the MNS matrix as

$`V_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{13}& s_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{13}& s_{13}\\ s_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{\mathrm{sol}}s_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{13}& c_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{\mathrm{sol}}s_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{13}& s_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{13}\\ s_{\mathrm{sol}}s_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{13}& c_{\mathrm{sol}}s_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{\mathrm{sol}}c_{\mathrm{atm}}s_{13}& c_{\mathrm{atm}}c_{13}\end{array}\right),`$ (33)
($`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$, $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$) with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.655`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.015`$. These mass differences and mixing angles are consistent with the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is constrained by reactor experiments neutrinoreactor , and the above value is take as an illustration.

In addition, we assume that the mass matrix of the right-handed neutrino in Eq. (8) is proportional to the unit matrix, and we take $`M_R=4\times 10^{13}`$ GeV. Complex phases in the MNS matrix and the right-handed neutrino mass matrix are neglected.

The soft SUSY breaking parameters in this model are assumed to be universal at the Planck scale, and the running effect between the Planck and the GUT scales is taken into account. We scan the same ranges for $`m_0`$, $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`A_0`$ as those in the mSUGRA case.

### IV.3  Parameters in the U(2) model

In the U(2) model, we take the symmetry breaking parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$ as $`ϵ=0.04`$ and $`ϵ^{}=0.008`$, and the other parameters in the quark Yukawa coupling matrices in Eq. (18) are determined so that the CKM matrix and the quark masses given in Sec. IV.1 are reproduced. Note that the texture of the Yukawa coupling matrices in Eq. (18) predicts the following relation among quark masses and CKM matrix elements:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\right|^2\left(1+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\right|^2\right),`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}\right|^2\left(1+\left|{\displaystyle \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}}\right|^2\right).`$ (35)
In the numerical calculation we adjust $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ to satisfy these relations.

There are many free parameters in the SUSY breaking sector as shown in Eq. (20) and Eq. (21). In order to reduce the number of free parameters for numerical calculations, we assume that

$`m_0^{Q2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0^{U2}=m_0^{D2}m_0^2,`$ (36)
$`r_{ij}^Q`$ $`=`$ $`r_{ij}^U=r_{ij}^Dr_{ij},(ij)=(22),(23),(33).`$ (37)
We vary these parameters within the ranges $`0<m_0<3`$ TeV, $`1<r_{22}<+1`$, $`0<r_{33}<4`$, $`|r_{23}|<4`$ and $`180^{}<\mathrm{arg}r_{23}<180^{}`$. The boundary conditions for the $`A`$ parameters and the slepton mass matrices are assumed to be the same as the mSUGRA case to simplify the numerical analysis. We think that the above assumptions on the soft breaking terms are sufficient for our purpose of comparing new physics effects related to the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ and the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixings in the three models.

### IV.4 Experimental constraints

In order to obtain allowed parameter regions, we impose the following experimental constraints:

* Lower limits on the masses of SUSY particles and the Higgs bosons given by the direct search in collider experimentssparticle:higgs .
* Branching ratio of the $`bs\gamma `$ decay: $`2\times 10^4<\mathrm{B}(bs\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4`$bsgamma .
* Branching ratio of the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay for the SUSY GUT case: $`\mathrm{B}(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$Brooks:1999pu .
* Measured values of $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$Groom:2000in , and the lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$dmbs .
* CP asymmetry in the $`BJ/\psi K_S`$ decay and related modes observed in the $`B`$ factory experimentsAbashian:2001pa ; Aubert:2001sp .

Although the values of $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ are precisely measured in experiments, there are theoretical uncertainties in the evaluation of the matrix elements for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S(B)=2`$ operators. In order to take these theoretical uncertainties into account, we calculate $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ with bag parameters and $`f_{B_{d,s}}`$ in Table 1 and allow parameter sets if the calculated values of $`\epsilon _K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ lie within the ranges

$`\epsilon _K`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{i\pi /4}(2.28\times 10^3)\times (1\pm 0.15),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ $`=`$ $`0.479\mathrm{ps}^1\times (1\pm 0.2)^2.`$ (39)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, we impose a constraint on the ratio to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}>27`$ since a large portion of the theoretical uncertainties is expected to cancel by taking the ratio. For the CP asymmetry, we use $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)>0.5`$.

### IV.5 Numerical results

At first we discuss qualitative features of the SUSY contributions to the $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$ mixing, the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing and $`\epsilon _K`$ for each model.

In the mSUGRA, it is well-known that the main SUSY contributions to $`M_{12}(B_d)`$, $`M_{12}(B_s)`$, and $`M_{12}(K)`$ come from the box diagrams with the charginos and the up-type squarks and that the flavor mixing in the chargino vertex is determined by the CKM matrix. Consequently, the SUSY contributions are approximately proportional to the CKM matrix elements $`(V_{td}^{}V_{tb})^2`$, $`(V_{ts}^{}V_{tb})^2`$, and $`(V_{td}^{}V_{ts})^2`$ for $`M_{12}(B_d)`$, $`M_{12}(B_s)`$, and $`M_{12}(K)`$, respectively, and the ratios to the corresponding SM contributions are common:

$$\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d})_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d})_{\mathrm{SM}}}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s})_{\mathrm{SM}}}\frac{(\epsilon _K)_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{(\epsilon _K)_{\mathrm{SM}}}.$$
(40)
For the other two models, this proportionality is violated due to the squark flavor mixing induced by sources other than the CKM matrix.

In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, the flavor mixing in the right-handed down-type squark sector is related to the flavor mixing in the left-handed slepton sector, and hence the constraints from the lepton flavor violating processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$ is important. As shown in Ref. Baek:2001kh , $`\mathrm{B}(\mu e\gamma )`$ exceeds the present experimental upper limit $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ in the parameter region where the SUSY contributions to the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixings become larger than $`10`$%<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3The constraint from $`\mathrm{B}(\mu e\gamma )`$ is somewhat model dependent. The above results depend on our choice of the structure of $`M_N`$ and/or $`V_{\text{MNS}}`$. If we change these assumptions and suppress $`\mathrm{B}(\mu e\gamma )`$, the SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ can be more significant. For example, if we take the small mixing MSW solution for the solar neutrino anomaly, a 50% enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ is possibleBaek:2001kh . . Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ are almost the same as the SM values for a given CKM matrix. On the other hand, $`\epsilon _K`$ can be quite different from the SM value even under the $`\mu e\gamma `$ constraint because of large enhancements of the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing matrix elements for the scalar operators in Eq. (24). This correction of $`\epsilon _K`$ leads to a change of the allowed region of the parameter $`\varphi _3`$ and eventually affects the possible region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$.

In the U(2) model, the SUSY contribution to $`\epsilon _K`$ can be large in a similar manner. In addition, there are $`O(1)`$ corrections to $`M_{12}(B_d)`$ and $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ so that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ can be different from the SM values with the same CKM matrix.

Deviations of $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, and $`\varphi _M`$ from the SM values are plotted as functions of the gluino mass for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ in FIG. 24. In these figures, we fix the parameters in the CKM matrix as $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.09`$ and $`\varphi _3=65^{}`$ and do not impose the experimental constraints from $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$. The above features can be seen quantitatively in these figures. We see that $`\epsilon _K`$ can be different from the SM prediction by a factor $`2.5`$ in the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, and the deviation is even larger in the U(2) model. In the mSUGRA, the deviation is smaller than $`10`$%. As for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, $`O(1)`$ deviations are possible in the U(2) model, while the deviations are small for the other cases. The value of $`\varphi _M`$ can also be different from the SM value ($`=2\varphi _1`$) significantly in the case of the U(2) model. For the mSUGRA and the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, $`\varphi _M=2\varphi _1`$ is a good approximation.

Next, let us vary $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ and impose all the experimental constraints explained above. In FIG. 5, we show possible values of $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, and $`\varphi _3`$ for the parameter sets satisfying the constraints. The corresponding allowed region for the SM is also given in each plot. Solid curves show the correlations among three quantities in the SM for $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.08`$, $`0.09`$, and $`0.10`$. We see that the allowed region in the SM is mainly determined by $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$.

In the mSUGRA, the deviation from the SM is not so significant since the SUSY contributions to all the $`M_{12}`$’s are small.

In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, we see that all the allowed points lie between the lines corresponding to the SM values with $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.08`$ and $`0.10`$. This pattern arises because only the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing receives SUSY corrections of $`O(1)`$ corrections from the SUSY loops, whereas the SUSY contributions to $`M_{12}(B_d)`$ and $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ are small. As a result, the allowed region of $`\varphi _3`$ can be shifted, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ can be different from the SM region. In other words, observables from $`B`$ physics namely $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, and $`\varphi _3`$ consistently determine a set of parameters in the CKM matrix in the SM analysis, though the experimental value $`\epsilon _K`$ may not be consistent with the SM value calculated by the CKM parameters from $`B`$ physics. The upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ in the plot is determined by the lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ given in Eq. (39).

In the U(2) model, we see that the allowed points exist outside of the region between $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=0.09\pm 0.01`$ lines. SUSY corrections to $`M_{12}(B_d)`$ and $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ in this model, unlike those in the SUSY GUT, are considerably large and not proportional to the corresponding combinations of CKM elements in the SM. Since all of $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ can be corrected, there might be a mismatch in the determination of the unitarity triangle by the SM analysis with these quantities and $`\varphi _3`$. In particular, we may be able to extract new physics contributions from observables in $`B`$ physics.

Finally, we discuss future prospects of new physics search in $`B`$ decays. We expect that $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ will be precisely measured in a few years at the $`B`$ factories and Tevatron experiments. If we assume the SM, CKM parameters, especially $`\varphi _3`$ can be determined from these observables with small hadronic uncertainties. By comparing this $`\varphi _3`$ value with that derived from CP asymmetries in various $`B`$ decays, we can carry out a consistency check of the SM and examine existence of SUSY effects. As an illustration, we pick up the calculated data points which satisfy the following values of $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{(a)}& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=35\times (1\pm 0.05),\hfill & A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)=0.75\pm 0.02,\hfill \\ \text{(b)}& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=55\times (1\pm 0.05),\hfill & A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)=0.60\pm 0.02,\hfill \\ \text{(c)}& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}=55\times (1\pm 0.05),\hfill & A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)=0.75\pm 0.02.\hfill \end{array}$$

(a) corresponds to the case in which $`\epsilon _K`$, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ are consistent with the SM. (b) and (c) are cases in which there are some inconsistencies among the three observables within the SM. The three regions are shown in FIG. 6.

We present the possible region of $`\varphi _3`$ in each case for the three models in FIG. 7. For the case (a), $`\varphi _3`$ is 60–65 if we assume the SM. The possible value of $`\varphi _3`$ is the same as the SM in the mSUGRA and the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos. The parameter region with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}1.5`$ TeV in the SU(5) SUSY GUT is excluded due to the $`\mu e\gamma `$ constraint. On the other hand, in the U(2) model, $`\varphi _3`$ can be different from the SM value by $`30^{}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}1`$ TeV region.

For the cases (b) and (c), the mSUGRA (as well as the SM) is excluded because of the mismatch among $`\epsilon _K`$, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$. In the other two models, the experimental value of $`\epsilon _K`$ can be reproduced with SUSY contributions. In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, $`\varphi _3`$ is the same as that derived from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ by the SM analysis. In the U(2) model, $`\varphi _3`$ can be different from the value of the SM.

We have also studied the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and drawn the figures corresponding to FIG. 5 and 7. We have found that the allowed regions in these figures are almost same as those for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$.

## V Conclusions

In order to distinguish SUSY models by measurements at $`B`$ factories, we have studied SUSY contributions to the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, $`B_d\overline{B}_d`$, and $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixings in three SUSY models, namely the mSUGRA, the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, and the U(2) model.

First, we have considered the observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, and $`\epsilon _K`$. In the mSUGRA, the deviations from the SM values are at most 10 percents for these observables. In the SU(5) SUSY GUT with right-handed neutrinos, the SUSY contributions to $`\epsilon _K`$ can be large whereas those to $`M_{12}(B_d)`$ and $`M_{12}(B_s)`$ are less than 10%. In the U(2) model, the deviations from the SM values for all the above observables can be very large. In the latter two models, we may be able to see SUSY effects from the consistency check of the unitarity triangle among $`\epsilon _K`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$.

Second, we have considered cases in which the two observables $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$ are precisely determined at the $`B`$ factories and Tevatron experiments. We have studied how we can distinguish these different models if we determine $`\varphi _3`$ in addition to the above two observables. We can carry out the consistency check of the unitarity triangle among the observables in $`B`$ physics, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_s}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{B_d}`$, and $`A_{\mathrm{CP}}^{\mathrm{mix}}(BJ/\psi K_S)`$, and $`\varphi _3`$. For the U(2) model, in particular, a large deviation from the SM value is possible. It is therefore very important to determine $`\varphi _3`$ precisely in theoretically clean ways from the decay modes, such as $`B\pi \pi ,\rho \pi ,D^{()}K^{()},D^{()}\pi ,D^{}\rho `$. These measurements are possible in future $`e^+e^{}`$ super $`B`$ factories and hadron machines such as LHC-B and B-TeV.

In this paper, we have mainly considered the consistency test of the unitarity triangle through $`B_d`$ decays, but there are other possibilities of finding SUSY effects in $`B`$ physics. A new phase in the $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ mixing amplitude may affect CP asymmetries in $`B_s`$ decays such as the $`B_sJ/\psi \varphi `$ decay. These asymmetries can be measured in $`B`$ experiments at hadron machines. For the U(2) model, these CP asymmetries could be different from the SM predictionMasiero:2001cc . Another possibility is to measure branching ratios and CP asymmetries in rare decays such as $`bsl^+l^{}`$ and $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$.

In conclusion we have shown that SUSY models with different flavor structures can be distinguished in $`B`$ physics. As we have illustrated with three specific models, the patterns of the deviations from the SM in the $`B`$ physics depend on the SUSY breaking mechanism and interactions at a high energy scale. Present and future experiments in $`B`$ physics at $`e^+e^{}`$ $`B`$ factories and hadron machines are therefore very important to explore flavor structure of SUSY breakings.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Government of Japan(No. 12440073). The work of Y.O. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Government of Japan(No. 13640309), priority area “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles”(No. 707). The work of Y.S. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Government of Japan(No. 13001292).

## Note added

After submission of this paper, we received the paper by D. Chang, A. Masiero, and H. MurayamaChang:2002mq  in which possibility of the large $`b`$$`s`$ transition is pointed out in the context of the SO(10) SUSY GUT.

*

## Appendix A The CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle

In this paper, we use the “standard” parameterizationChau:1984fp  for the CKM matrix with three mixing angles $`\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$ and a complex phase $`\delta _{13}`$:

$$V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _{13}}& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$. The angles $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ in the unitarity triangle are defined as

$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}}\right),`$ (42a)
$`\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{td}}{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}}\right),`$ (42b)
$`\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}}}\right).`$ (42c)
In the convention (41), these angles are written in a good approximation as

$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arg}M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}(B_d),`$ (43)
$`\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{13}.`$ (44)


text:
# 1 Why Center Dominance?

## 1 Why Center Dominance?

The aim of most lattice studies of the confinement mechanism is to extract from lattice link variables the most relevant parts for the infrared dynamics. The concept of (some kind of) dominance seems a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for success. If we extract the (would-be) relevant parts of links and compute physical quantities related to confinement (e.g. the string tension) we expect to reproduce their behavior in the full theory. Were it not the case, one could hardly claim to have achieved the goal.

It was observed both in SU(2)  and (less convincingly) in SU(3) lattice gauge theory  that the string tension obtained from center-projected configurations in maximal center gauge (MCG) agrees remarkably well with the asymptotic string tension of the full theory. This phenomenon of center dominance has led to the recent revival of interest in the center-vortex picture of color confinement . One can easily formulate an argument why center dominance should occur if center vortices are correctly identified :

Vortices are created by discontinuous gauge transformations. Let a closed loop $`C`$, parametrized by $`x^\mu (\tau )`$, $`\tau [0,1]`$, encircle $`n`$ vortices. At the point of discontinuity (in SU(2)):

$$g(x(0))=(1)^ng(x(1)).$$
(1)
The corresponding vector potential in the neighborhood of $`C`$ can be decomposed as

$$A_\mu ^{(n)}(x)=g^1\delta A_\mu ^{(n)}(x)g+ig^1_\mu g.$$
(2)
The $`g^1_\mu g`$ term is dropped at the discontinuity. Then, the value of the Wilson loop is

$$W_n(C)=\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}[i𝑑x^\mu A_\mu ^{(n)}]=(1)^n\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}[i𝑑x^\mu \delta A_\mu ^{(n)}].$$
(3)
In the region of the loop $`C`$, the vortex background looks locally like a gauge transformation. If all other fluctuations $`\delta A_\mu ^{(n)}`$ are basically short-range, then they should be oblivious, in the neighborhood of the loop $`C`$, to the presence or absence of vortices in the middle of the loop. In that case:

$$\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}[idx^\mu \delta A_\mu ^{(n)}\text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}[idx^\mu \delta A_\mu ^{(0)}]$$
(4)
for sufficiently large loops, and therefore

$$W_n(C)/W_0(C)(1)^n\text{or}W(C)Z(C)\times \text{Tr}\mathrm{exp}[i𝑑x^\mu \delta A_\mu ^{(0)}].$$
(5)
Here $`W(C)`$ is the expectation value of the full Wilson loop, and $`Z(C)`$ the expectation value of the loop constructed from center elements alone.

It is clear from the above argument that one gets center dominance, i.e. the same string tension from $`W(C)`$ and $`Z(C)`$, under four intertwined assumptions:

1. Vortices are the confinement mechanism.
2. Vortices are correctly identified.
3. Short-range fluctuations with/without vortices look similar.
4. No area law arises from the last factor in Eq. (5).

Is there a necessity to fix any gauge? The original vortex idea was formulated without a reference to a particular gauge, and in fact a kind of center dominance exists even without gauge fixing, as was shown in . However, this holds for any distances, not only for large ones, vortices defined without gauge fixing do not fulfill simple expectations and do not scale according to the renormalization group, and thus the phenomenon hardly bears any information on the confinement mechanism. Gauge fixing appears of special importance for correct identification of vortices.

## 2 How to Identify Center Vortices?

The procedure, proposed in , consists of three steps:

1. Fix thermalized SU(2) lattice configurations to direct maximal center (or adjoint Landau) gauge by maximizing the expression:

$$\underset{x,\mu }{}\left|\text{Tr}[U_\mu (x)]\right|^2\text{or equivalently}\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}[U_\mu ^A(x)].$$
(6)
2. Make center projection by replacing:

$$U_\mu (x)Z_\mu (x)\text{sign Tr}[U_\mu (x)].$$
(7)
3. Finally, identify excitations (P-vortices) of the resulting $`Z_2`$ lattice configurations.

A whole series of results, obtained by our and other groups, indicates that center vortices defined in MCG play a crucial role in the confinement mechanism. This includes, besides center dominance, the following:

1. P-vortices locate center vortices in full lattice configurations .
2. P-vortices locate physical objects, their density scales according to the renormalization group .
3. Creutz ratios computed from center-projected Wilson loops are almost constant starting from shortest distances; the Coulomb contribution was effectively eliminated (precocious linearity.
4. Center vortices are correlated not only with confinement, but with chiral symmetry breaking and non-trivial topology as well .
5. Deconfinement can be understood as a center vortex percolation transition .

Other gauges work as well; general conditions a suitable gauge has to fulfill were formulated in . Here we would just like to briefly summarize an interesting insight into the meaning of MCG fixing and center projection, due to .

## 3 Best-fit Interpretation of MCG

Running a MC simulation, one can ask for the pure gauge configuration closest, in configuration space, to a given lattice gauge field:

$$U_\mu (x)g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^{(0)}(x).$$
(8)
It is easy to show that finding the optimal $`g(x)`$ is equivalent to the problem of fixing to the Landau gauge.

Let us now allow for $`Z_2`$ dislocations in the gauge transformation, i.e. fit the lattice configuration by a thin center vortex configuration:

$$U_\mu ^{vor}(x)g(x)Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu }),Z_\mu (x)=\pm 1$$
(9)
$`U_\mu ^{vor}(x)`$ becomes a continuous pure gauge in the adjoint representation, blind to the $`Z_\mu (x)`$ factor. One can make the fit in two steps:

1. Determine $`g(x)`$ up to a $`Z_2`$ transformation by minimizing the square distance $`d_A^2`$ between $`U_\mu `$ and $`U_\mu ^{vor}`$ in the adjoint representation, which is easily seen to be equivalent to fixing to direct MCG.

2. Find $`Z_\mu (x)`$ by minimizing:

$$\text{Tr}\left\{\left[U_\mu (x)g(x)Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right]\left[U_\mu ^{}(x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x)\right]\right\},$$
(10)
which requires the center projection prescription, Eq. (7).

Summarizing, the procedure of direct MCG fixing + center projection represents the best fit of a lattice configuration by a set of thin center vortices.

## 4 Why Does MCG Sometimes Fail to Find Vortices?

MCG fixing suffers from the Gribov copy problem. The iterative gauge-fixing procedure converges to a local maximum which will be slightly different for every gauge copy of a given lattice configuration.

At the first sight, the problem seemed quite innocuous: We observed in  that vortex locations in random copies of a given configuration were strongly correlated. However, the successes of the approach were seriously questioned. Bornyakov et al.  showed that using the method of simulated annealing instead of our usual (over-)relaxation, one could find better (local) MCG maxima, but the center-projected string tension was only about 2/3 of the full one.

The best-fit interpretation of the previous section provides us with a clue to the origin of this problem. It is clear that $`U_\mu ^{vor}(x)`$ is a bad fit to $`U_\mu (x)`$ at links belonging to thin vortices (i.e. to the P-plaquettes formed from $`Z_\mu (x)`$). We recall that a plaquette $`p`$ is a P-plaquette iff $`Z(p)=1`$ (where $`Z(C)`$ denotes the product of $`Z_\mu (x)`$ around the contour $`C`$) and that P-plaquettes belong to P-vortices. Let us write the gauge transformed configuration as

$${}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)=Z_\mu (x)e^{iA_\mu (x)},\text{Tr}e^{iA_\mu (x)}0.$$
(11)
At large $`\beta `$ values $`\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}[U_P]=1O(1/\beta )`$, and equals to

$$\left(Z_P\right)\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\underset{P}{}e^{iA_\mu (x)}={}_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\text{on P-plaquettes }}}{}^{}(1)\times \frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\underset{P}{}e^{iA_\mu (x)}.$$
(12)
The last equation implies that at least at one link belonging to the P-plaquette $`A_\mu (x)`$ cannot be small, therefore $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ must strongly deviate from the center element.

The above argument shows that the quest for the global maximum may not always be the best strategy; one should rather try to exclude contributions from P-plaquettes where the fit is inevitably bad , or modify the gauge fixing procedure to soften the fit at vortex cores.

## 5 A Cure for the Disease: Direct Laplacian Center Gauge

We have recently proposed to overcome the Gribov problem using the direct Laplacian center gauge . The proposal was to a large extent inspired by the Laplacian Landau , Laplacian abelian , and Laplacian center  gauges. The idea is the following:

To find the “best fit” to a lattice configuration by a thin center vortex configuration one looks for a matrix $`M(x)`$ maximizing the expression:

$$_M=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}\left[M^T(x)U_{A\mu }(x)M(x+\widehat{\mu })\right],$$
(13)
with a constraint that $`M(x)`$ should be an SO(3) matrix at any site $`x`$:

$$M^T(x)M(x)=\mathrm{𝟏},detM(x)=1.$$
(14)
We soften the orthogonality constraint by demanding it only “on average”:

$$M^TM\frac{1}{𝒱}\underset{x}{}M^T(x)M(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(15)
It is convenient to write the columns of $`M(x)`$ as a set of 3-vectors: $`f_a^b(x)=M_{ab}(x)`$. The optimal $`M(x)`$, maximizing $`_M`$ with the constraint, is determined by the three lowest eigenvectors $`f_a^b(x)`$:

$$𝒟_{ij}(x,y)f_j^a(y)=\lambda _af_i^a(x)$$
(16)
of the covariant adjoint Laplacian operator $`𝒟_{ij}(x,y)`$:

$$𝒟_{ij}(x,y)=\underset{\mu }{}\left(2\delta _{xy}\delta _{ij}\left[U_{A\mu }(x)\right]_{ij}\delta _{y,x+\widehat{\mu }}\left[U_{A\mu }(x\widehat{\mu })\right]_{ji}\delta _{y,x\widehat{\mu }}\right).$$
(17)
The resulting real matrix field $`M(x)`$ has further to be mapped onto an SO(3)-valued field $`g_A(x)`$. A naive map (which could also be called Laplacian adjoint Landau gauge) amounts to choosing $`g_A(x)`$ closest to $`M(x)`$. Such a map is well known in matrix theory and is called polar decomposition.

A better procedure, in our opinion, is the Laplacian map, that leads to direct Laplacian center gauge. We try to locate $`g_A(x)`$ as close to $`M(x)`$ local maximum of the MCG (constrained) maximization problem. To achieve this, we first make the naive map (polar decomposition), then use the usual quenched maximization (overrelaxation) to relax to the nearest (or at least nearby) maximum of the MCG fixing condition. This procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1.

To test the new procedure, we have recalculated the vortex observables introduced in our previous work (cf. Refs. ), with P-vortices located via center projection after fixing the lattice to the new direct Laplacian center gauge. The results are summarized on the following page.

The quantities of the most immediate interest are the center-projected Creutz ratios. Our data for the range of couplings $`\beta =2.22.5`$ is displayed on a logarithmic plot in Fig. 2a. In general $`\chi _{cp}(R,R)`$ deviates from the full asymptotic string tension by less than 10%.

As another way of displaying both center dominance and precocious linearity, we show, in Fig. 2b, the ratio

$$\chi _{phys}(R,R)/\sigma _{phys}=\chi _{cp}(R,R)/\sigma _{Lat}(\beta )$$
(18)
as a function of the distance in physical units $`R_{phys}=Ra(\beta )`$ for all $`\chi _{cp}(R,R)`$ data points taken in the range of couplings $`\beta =2.32.5`$. Again we see that the center-projected Creutz ratios and asymptotic string tension are in good agreement (deviation $`<10\%`$), and there is very little variation in the Creutz ratios with distance. We should probably stress in this context the significance of precocious linearity: it implies that center-projected degrees of freedom have isolated the long-range physics, and are not mixed up with ultraviolet fluctuations.

Other encouraging results from MCG are recovered in the new gauge as well. Figure 2c shows the P-vortex density vs. $`\beta `$ in a logarithmic plot. The density scales according to the asymptotic freedom formula with the slope corresponding to a quantity that behaves like a surface density. The slope for pointlike objects (like instantons), or linelike objects (like monopoles) would be quite different.

Figure 2d presents the data on vortex-limited Wilson loops. One can clearly see the expected trend, see Eq. (5), for large enough loops. Figure 2e shows that removal of center vortices causes the asymptotic string tension to vanish.

## 6 How Does DLCG Differ from Laplacian Center Gauge?

The first step of direct Laplacian center gauge fixing is similar to the Laplacian center gauge proposed by de Forcrand and collaborators . Instead of using the three lowest eigenvectors of the covariant adjoint Laplacian operator and the naive map (or polar decomposition, see above), de Forcrand et al. build on the two lowest eigenvectors only. The gauge is fixed by $`g(x)`$ that

1. makes the lowest lying eigenvector to point in the third color direction (U(1) invariance still remains), and
2. rotates the second lowest eigenvector into (say) the first color direction.

There is an ambiguity in the procedure when the first and second vectors are collinear, and such ambiguities should define positions of center vortices.

LCG has its virtues and vices. It is unique (apart from eventual true Gribov copies) and shows center dominance after center projection. On the other hand, center dominance is seen only for very large distances, and there is not a good separation between confinement and short-range physics: there is no precocious linearity, there are too many vortices, vortex density does not scale. Moreover, identification of vortices via gauge fixing ambiguities fails for simplest configurations (like a pair of thin vortices put on the lattice by hand ), and is practically impossible in Monte-Carlo generated configurations. Center projection is necessary.

To improve on these problems, Langfeld et al.  proposed to follow the LCG procedure of de Forcrand et al. by (over-)relaxation to MCG. This, in analogy with DLCG, could be called indirect Laplacian center gauge.111LCG involves first fixing to Laplacian abelian gauge, then further reducing the residual symmetry from U(1) to $`Z_2`$, in which it is reminiscent of indirect maximal center gauge of Ref. .

The question is whether results from DLCG and ILCG differ considerably, and whether there is any correlation between vortex locations in those two gauges. Figure 3a shows the projected Creutz ratios at $`\beta =2.4`$ in ILCG; for comparison we also display the corresponding data from DLCG. It seems that the center dominance properties are somewhat better in DLCG than in ILCG, though the difference is not great. The reason for this is quite easy to explain: both procedures seem to locate the same physical vortices.

The simplest way to test the last statement is the following: For a given lattice $`\{U_\mu (x)\}`$ let $`\{Z_\mu ^{}(x)\}`$ be the lattice obtained by center projection in DLCG, while $`\{Z_\mu ^{\prime \prime }(x)\}`$ be the corresponding lattice in ILCG. Denoting by $`Z^{}(C)`$ and $`Z^{\prime \prime }(C)`$ the Wilson loops in these two projected lattices, we construct the “product” loops

$$Z_{prod}(C)=Z^{}(C)Z^{\prime \prime }(C)$$
(19)
and from their expectation values the corresponding Creutz ratios $`\chi _{prod}(I,J)`$. The expectation is that if the two projected lattices were perfectly correlated

$$\chi _{prod}(R,R)=0\text{(perfect correlation),}$$
(20)
whereas in case of zero correlation

$$\chi _{prod}(R,R)=\chi _{cp}^{}(R,R)+\chi _{cp}^{\prime \prime }(R,R)\text{(no correlation).}$$
(21)
It is evident from Fig. 3b that center-projected loops in both gauges are not well correlated at short distances, but become correlated at large distances. The interpretation, we believe, is straightforward: The P-vortices in each projected lattice do not coincide, but in most cases are located within the same (thick) center vortices on an unprojected lattice. This accounts for the strong correlation on large distance scales, larger than the typical size of vortex cores. Similar correlations exist also with projected lattices in MCG (with gauge fixing via overrelaxation).

## 7 Summary

1. Center dominance exists in various gauges. The maximal center gauge has an appealing “best-fit” interpretation, but the successes of the approach have been overshadowed by the problem of Gribov copies.
2. We have proposed a new gauge, direct Laplacian center gauge, that combines fixing to adjoint Laplacian Landau gauge with the usual overrelaxation. The first step of the procedure is unique, in the second step no strong gauge-copy dependence appears. This procedure can be interpreted as a “best fit” softened at vortex cores.
3. All features known from MCG are reproduced in direct LCG: center dominance, precocious linearity, scaling of the vortex density, etc.
4. Similar results follow from center projection in Laplacian center gauge after overrelaxation (indirect LCG). The reason is that vortex locations in projected lattices in direct and indirect LCG are quite strongly correlated.


text:
# Saturation of nuclear matter and radii of unstable nuclei

## 1 Introduction

Saturation of density and binding energy, one of the fundamental properties of atomic nuclei, underlies a liquid-drop approach described by a Weizsäcker-Bethe mass formula

$$E_B=E_{\mathrm{vol}}+E_{\mathrm{sym}}+E_{\mathrm{surf}}+E_{\mathrm{Coul}},$$
(1)
where $`E_B`$ is the nuclear binding energy, $`E_{\mathrm{vol}}`$ is the volume energy, $`E_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ is the symmetry energy, $`E_{\mathrm{surf}}`$ is the surface energy, and $`E_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ is the Coulomb energy. The sum $`E_{\mathrm{vol}}+E_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ corresponds to the saturation energy of uniform nuclear matter. Since matter in nuclei is a strongly interacting system, it remains a challenging theoretical problem to understand the nuclear matter equation of state (EOS) through microscopic calculations that utilize a model of the nuclear force duly incorporating low-energy two-nucleon scattering data and properties of light nuclei . Furthermore, it is not straightforward to empirically clarify the EOS, although constraints on the EOS from nuclear masses and radii (e.g., Refs. ), observables in heavy-ion collision experiments performed at intermediate and relativistic energies (e.g., Refs. ), the isoscalar giant monopole resonance in nuclei (e.g., Ref. ) and even X-ray observations of isolated neutron stars  are available. In this work we will consider such constraints from nuclear masses and radii.

The EOS of bulk nuclear matter is a function of nucleon density $`n`$ and proton fraction $`x`$, which are related to the neutron and proton number densities $`n_n`$ and $`n_p`$ as $`n_n=n(1x)`$ and $`n_p=nx`$. We may generally express the energy per nucleon near the saturation point of symmetric nuclear matter as

$$w=w_0+\frac{K_0}{18n_0^2}(nn_0)^2+\left[S_0+\frac{L}{3n_0}(nn_0)\right]\alpha ^2.$$
(2)
Here $`w_0`$, $`n_0`$ and $`K_0`$ are the saturation energy, the saturation density and the incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter, $`S_0`$ is the symmetry energy $`S(n)`$ at $`n=n_0`$, $`L=3n_0(dS/dn)_{n=n_0}`$ is the density symmetry coefficient, and $`\alpha =12x`$ is the neutron excess. As the neutron excess increases from zero, the saturation point moves in the density versus energy plane. This movement is determined mainly by the parameters $`L`$ and $`S_0`$ associated with the density-dependent symmetry energy $`S(n)`$ . Up to second order in $`\alpha `$, the saturation energy $`w_s`$ and density $`n_s`$ are given by

$$w_s=w_0+S_0\alpha ^2$$
(3)
and

$$n_s=n_0\frac{3n_0L}{K_0}\alpha ^2.$$
(4)
The slope, $`y`$, of the saturation line near $`\alpha =0`$ $`(x=1/2)`$ is thus expressed as

$$y=\frac{K_0S_0}{3n_0L}.$$
(5)
Derivation of $`L`$ and $`S_0`$ from nuclear observables is generally obscured by the interfacial and electrostatic properties. Among the observables, the masses and root-mean-square radii of nuclei, which are controlled mainly by the bulk properties, are expected to be good tracers of $`L`$ and $`S_0`$. This expectation was stressed by an earlier investigation  based on two macroscopic nuclear models. Such macroscopic models are reliable in a range of neutron excess, $`\alpha 0.3`$, and mass number, $`A50`$. In this range the neutron separation energy that can be evaluated from a Weizsäcker-Bethe mass formula is greater than 2 MeV, allowing us to preclude the possibility of neutron halo formation expected at large neutron excess (or small separation energy). In constraining the EOS from masses and radii of nuclei of neutron excess $`\alpha 0.3`$ and mass number $`A50`$ within the framework of the macroscopic models, systematic study allowing for uncertainties in the EOS parameters is indispensable.

In this paper we thus explore a systematic way of extracting $`L`$ and $`S_0`$ from empirical masses and radii of nuclei, together with the parameters, $`n_0`$, $`w_0`$ and $`K_0`$, characterizing the saturation of symmetric nuclear matter. We first set an expression for the energy of uniform nuclear matter, which reduces to the phenomenological form (2) in the limits of $`nn_0`$ and $`\alpha 0`$ $`(x1/2)`$. Using this energy expression within a simplified version of the extended Thomas-Fermi approximation, which permits us to determine the macroscopic features of the nuclear ground state, we calculate charges, charge radii and masses of $`\beta `$-stable nuclei. Comparing these calculations with empirical values allows us to derive the optimal parameter set for various values of the slope $`y`$ and the incompressibility $`K_0`$. We thus find a strong correlation between $`L`$ and $`S_0`$. The next step is to calculate root-mean-square charge and matter radii of more neutron-rich nuclei that are expected to be produced in future radioactive ion beam facilities. The results suggest that the density symmetry coefficient $`L`$ may be constrained from possible systematic data on the matter radii in a way nearly independent of the poorly known $`K_0`$, while the slope $`y`$ being deducible as a function of $`K_0`$. We finally discuss an empirically allowed region in the space of the parameters characterizing the EOS (2).

In Section 2 we construct a macroscopic model of nuclei. Optimization associated with fitting to empirical data for nuclei on the smoothed $`\beta `$-stability line is illustrated in Section 3. In Section 4 we calculate matter and charge radii of unstable nuclei. Our conclusions are presented in Section 5. Numerical tables are given in the Appendix.

## 2 Macroscopic description of nuclei

In constructing a macroscopic nuclear model, we begin with the expression for the bulk energy per nucleon ,

$$w=\frac{3\mathrm{}^2(3\pi ^2)^{2/3}}{10m_nn}(n_n^{5/3}+n_p^{5/3})+(1\alpha ^2)v_s(n)/n+\alpha ^2v_n(n)/n,$$
(6)
where

$$v_s=a_1n^2+\frac{a_2n^3}{1+a_3n}$$
(7)
and

$$v_n=b_1n^2+\frac{b_2n^3}{1+b_3n}$$
(8)
are the potential energy densities for symmetric nuclear matter and pure neutron matter, and $`m_n`$ is the neutron mass. (Replacement of the proton mass $`m_p`$ by $`m_n`$ in the proton kinetic energy makes only a negligible difference.) For the later purpose of roughly describing the nucleon distribution in a nucleus, we incorporate into the potential energy densities (7) and (8) a low density behaviour $`n^2`$ as expected from a contact two-nucleon interaction. Note, however, that we will focus on the EOS of nearly symmetric nuclear matter near the saturation density. We will thus determine the parameters included in Eqs. (7) and (8) in such a way that they reproduce data on radii and masses of stable nuclei.

In the limit of $`nn_0`$ and $`\alpha 0`$ $`(x1/2)`$, expression (6) reduces to the usual form (2) according to

$$S_0=\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_n}n_0^{2/3}+(b_1a_1)n_0+\left(\frac{b_2}{1+b_3n_0}\frac{a_2}{1+a_3n_0}\right)n_0^2,$$
(9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}n_0L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{2}}\right)^{2/3}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_n}}n_0^{5/3}+(b_1a_1)n_0^2+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{b_2}{1+b_3n_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{1+a_3n_0}}\right)n_0^3`$ (10)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{b_2b_3}{(1+b_3n_0)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_2a_3}{(1+a_3n_0)^2}}\right]n_0^4,`$
$$w_0=\frac{3}{10}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_n}n_0^{2/3}+a_1n_0+\frac{a_2n_0^2}{1+a_3n_0},$$
(11)
$$K_0=\frac{3}{5}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_n}n_0^{2/3}+\frac{18a_2n_0^2}{(1+a_3n_0)^3},$$
(12)
$$0=\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{3\pi ^2}{2}\right)^{2/3}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m_n}n_0^{1/3}+a_1+\frac{2a_2n_0}{1+a_3n_0}\frac{a_2a_3n_0^2}{(1+a_3n_0)^2}.$$
(13)
Equation (13) comes from the fact that the density derivative of the energy per nucleon at $`n=n_0`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ $`(x=1/2)`$ vanishes due to the saturation. Note that the five relations (9)–(13) are not sufficient to determine the six parameters $`a_1,\mathrm{},b_3`$, and that the parameter $`b_3`$, which controls the EOS of matter at large neutron excess and high density, has little effect on the saturation properties of nearly symmetric nuclear matter. We will thus set $`b_3`$ as a typical value 1.58632 fm3, which was obtained by one of the authors , and determine the other parameters from the empirical radii and masses of stable nuclei.

We now proceed to describe a spherical nucleus of proton number $`Z`$ and mass number $`A`$ within the framework of a simplified version of the extended Thomas-Fermi theory . We first write the total energy of a nucleus as a function of the density distributions $`n_n(𝐫)`$ and $`n_p(𝐫)`$ according to

$$E=E_b+E_g+E_C+Nm_n+Zm_p,$$
(14)
where

$$E_b=d^3rn(𝐫)w(n_n(𝐫),n_p(𝐫))$$
(15)
is the bulk energy,

$$E_g=F_0d^3r|n(𝐫)|^2$$
(16)
is the gradient energy with an adjustable constant $`F_0`$,

$$E_C=\frac{e^2}{2}d^3rd^3r^{}\frac{n_p(𝐫)n_p(𝐫^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}$$
(17)
is the Coulomb energy, and $`N=AZ`$ is the neutron number. Here we ignore shell and pairing effects. We also neglect the contribution to $`E_g`$ from the gradient of the proton fraction $`x`$ \[see Eq. (16)\]; this contribution makes only a little difference even in the description of extremely neutron-rich nuclei, as clarified in the context of neutron star matter .

The energy (14), once optimized, can be mapped onto a Weizsäcker-Bethe mass formula of the form (1) via

$$E_{\mathrm{surf}}=E_g+(E_bE_{\mathrm{vol}})+(E_CE_{\mathrm{Coul}}),$$
(18)
where $`E_bE_{\mathrm{vol}}`$ denotes the inhomogeneity contribution to the bulk energy $`E_b`$, and $`E_CE_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$ ($`E_{\mathrm{Coul}}=3Z^2e^2/5R`$ with the liquid-drop radius $`R`$) denotes that to the Coulomb energy $`E_C`$. These inhomogeneity contributions arise from the fact that matter in a nucleus is compressible. We remark that in equilibrium with respect to nuclear size, $`E_g=E_C`$ holds . Combining this relation with the well-known equilibrium condition for the liquid-drop size, $`E_{\mathrm{surf}}=2E_{\mathrm{Coul}}`$, and with $`E_{\mathrm{Coul}}E_C`$, we find a simple relation, $`E_gE_{\mathrm{surf}}/2`$, for an equilibrium nuclide.

For the present purpose of examining the macroscopic properties of nuclei such as masses and radii, it is sufficient to characterize the neutron and proton distributions for each nucleus by the central densities, radii and surface diffuseness different between neutrons and protons, as in Ref. . We thus assume the nucleon distributions $`n_i(r)`$ $`(i=n,p)`$, where $`r`$ is the distance from the center of the nucleus, as

$$n_i(r)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}n_i^{\mathrm{in}}\left[1\left(\frac{r}{R_i}\right)^{t_i}\right]^3,\hfill & r<R_i,\hfill & \\ & & \\ 0,\hfill & rR_i.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(19)
Here $`R_i`$ roughly represents the nucleon radius, $`t_i`$ the relative surface diffuseness, and $`n_i^{\mathrm{in}}`$ the central number density. The proton distribution of the form (19) can fairly well reproduce the experimental data for stable nuclei such as 90Zr and 208Pb, as we shall see in the next section.

## 3 Optimization

For fixed mass number $`A`$, we then optimize the energy (14) with respect to the parameters $`R_i`$, $`t_i`$ and $`n_i^{\mathrm{in}}`$. (In a general Thomas-Fermi approach, such optimization is carried out without assuming a particular form of the distributions.) The resultant optimal values of charge number, nuclear mass and root-mean-square charge radius

$$R_c=\left[Z^1d^3rr^2\rho _c(𝐫)\right]^{1/2},$$
(20)
where

$$\rho _c(𝐫)=(\pi ^{1/2}a_p)^3d^3r^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2/a_p^2\right)n_p(𝐫^{})$$
(21)
with $`a_p=0.65`$ fm is the charge distribution folded with the proton form factor , are functions of $`a_1`$$`b_3`$ and $`F_0`$. These optimal values are in turn compared with the empirical values for nuclei on the smoothed $`\beta `$-stability line ranging $`25A245`$ (see Table A.1 in Ref. , which is based on Refs. ). For fixed slope $`y`$ and incompressibility $`K_0`$, such a comparison can be made by a usual least squares fitting, which gives rise to an optimal set of the parameters $`a_1`$$`b_3`$ and $`F_0`$. Here, we set $`y`$ and $`K_0`$ as $`1800`$ MeV fm$`{}_{}{}^{3}y200`$ MeV fm3 and 180 MeV $`K_0360`$ MeV; the numerical results for $`n_0`$, $`w_0`$, $`S_0`$, $`L`$ and $`F_0`$ are tabulated in the Appendix. When the slope is very gentle ($`0>y200`$ MeV fm3), the optimal set is unavailable for large $`K_0`$; when the slope is very steep, the optimal parameters converge on the values close to those obtained for $`y=1800`$ MeV fm3. Nuclear masses that can be calculated from the optimal parameter sets agree well with the experimental data of 1962 nuclides $`(A2)`$ ; for all the combinations of $`y`$ and $`K_0`$, the root-mean-square deviations of the masses are $`3`$–5 MeV, which are roughly as large as those obtained from a Weizsäcker-Bethe type formula. We likewise evaluated the root-mean-square charge radii of various stable nuclei; the root-mean-square deviations from the experimental data of 92 nuclides $`(A50)`$  are about 0.06 fm.

The optimal results for $`S_0`$, $`L`$, $`n_0`$ and $`w_0`$ are plotted in Fig. 1. From Fig. 1a, we obtain a relation nearly independent of $`K_0`$:

$$S_0B+CL,$$
(22)
where $`B28`$ MeV and $`C0.075`$. We find from Figs. 1b and 1d that the saturation energy and density of symmetric nuclear matter always take on a value of $`16.0\pm 0.5`$ MeV and $`0.155\pm 0.015`$ fm-3. Several data in Fig. 1d having $`n_0`$ smaller than the standard values correspond to the case of $`y=200`$ MeV fm3, where the fitting is no longer effective. In Fig. 1c, we see a band on which the optimal values of $`L`$ and $`K_0`$ are scattered; in this band $`L`$ increases with increasing $`y`$ for fixed $`K_0`$. For comparison we also plot the predictions from various Skyrme-Hartree-Fock schemes (references in Ref. ; Refs. ) and a relativistic mean field model (TM1 in Ref. ); the values for $`n_0`$, $`w_0`$, $`K_0`$, $`S_0`$, $`L`$ and $`y`$ are tabulated in Table 1. These predictions are distributed over the band, among which only two (TM1 and SIII) were considered in the previous analysis . We remark in passing that the optimal values of $`F_0`$ are confined to $`66\pm 6`$ MeV fm5, consistent with the result of Ref. .

In Fig. 2 we display the EOS (6) for various sets of $`y`$ and $`K_0`$. Whereas $`y`$ affects the slope of the saturation line, $`K_0`$ controls $`n_0`$ as well as the curvature of the line of constant $`\alpha `$. The neutron and proton distributions in 208Pb and 90Zr modelled via Eq. (19) are plotted in Fig. 3. The question we consider in the next section is how such differences in the saturation properties as shown in Fig. 2 affect matter and charge radii of unstable nuclei that can be evaluated from the distributions of the form illustrated in Fig. 3.

## 4 Matter and charge radii

For neutron-rich nuclides we now obtain the root-mean-square charge radii $`R_c`$ and matter radii $`R_m`$, defined as

$$R_m=\left[A^1d^3rr^2\rho _m(𝐫)\right]^{1/2},$$
(23)
where

$$\rho _m(𝐫)=(\pi ^{1/2}a_p)^3d^3r^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(|𝐫𝐫^{}|^2/a_p^2\right)n(𝐫^{})$$
(24)
is the matter distribution folded with the proton charge form factor equally for neutrons and protons. We evaluated the radii $`R_c`$ and $`R_m`$ of Ni and Sn isotopes for combinations of $`y=220,350,1800`$ MeV fm3 and $`K_0=180,230,360`$ MeV. The results are shown at neutron excess of up to $`\alpha 0.4`$ in Fig. 4. We find from the upper panels of Fig. 4 (see also the upper panels of Fig. 5 for further clarity) that at $`\alpha 0.3`$ $`(x0.35)`$ a difference of order 0.05–0.1 fm occurs in the matter radii due to variation in the slope $`y`$. This is because as the slope becomes gentler, the saturation density difference $`n_0n_s`$ becomes larger \[see Eq. (4)\]. We also find that the charge radii depend only weakly on $`y`$, a feature consistent with the prediction made in Ref. . We can thus expect that forthcoming empirical data on matter radii of unstable neutron-rich nuclei with accuracy down to order $`\pm 0.01`$ fm will at least answer the question of whether the slope $`y`$ is steep or gentle.

Several remarks, however, are needed here. First, it is to be noted that the experimental matter radii that can be derived from measurements of interaction cross sections  and elastic scattering of protons and alpha particles  depend strongly on treatment of the optical potential, in contrast to the charge radii that can be determined from elastic electron scattering , muonic X-ray experiments  and isotope-shift measurements . This dependence contributes to intrinsic uncertainties in the derived matter radii, which are typically of order or greater than $`\pm 0.05`$ fm . Second, we recall that the present calculations of the radii $`R_m`$ and $`R_c`$ ignore the tails of the nucleon distributions arising from quantum-mechanical effects; the absence of such tails tends to reduce the radii. Third, there are uncertainties in the calculated radii due to the absence of shell and pairing effects in the present macroscopic models. These models, which are fitted to the charge radii of nuclei on the smoothed $`\beta `$ stability line, provide the proton-closed-shell nuclei, Ni and Sn, with larger charge radii than the empirical values, as shown in Fig. 4. Fourth, we can see from the lower panels of Fig. 4 that with $`K_0`$ increased and $`y`$ fixed, the matter radii $`R_m`$ increase, a feature that prevents a clear derivation of $`y`$ from $`R_m`$.

Such $`K_0`$ dependence of the matter radii $`R_m`$ is due mainly to the $`K_0`$ dependence of the saturation density, $`n_s`$, given by Eq. (4). For fixed $`y`$, the $`K_0`$ dependence of $`n_s`$ is dominated by $`n_0`$, which increases with decreasing $`K_0`$ as in Fig. 1d. Generally, this increase in $`n_0`$ tends to increase the inner nucleon densities (see the lower panels of Fig. 3) and hence reduce the radii $`R_m`$. Note, however, that there is an opposite effect of $`K_0`$ on $`R_m`$. This effect comes from the fact that a significant part of the nucleons are present in the deepest region of the nuclear surface where $`r^2n_n(r)`$ and $`r^2n_p(r)`$ are peaked. In this region, the nucleon densities begin to drop in such a way that with decreasing $`K_0`$, the surface diffuses further away. This diffuseness, which can also be seen from the lower panels of Fig. 3, is consistent with the results from microscopic nuclear models .

A cancellation between those counteracting effects is favoured for the purpose of deriving information about the saturation properties in a way independent of $`K_0`$. It turns out that better cancellation can be achieved if we calculate, as in the lower panels of Fig. 6, the matter radii of Ni and Sn isotopes for the EOS parameters optimized under fixed $`L`$ rather than $`y`$. The charge radii likewise calculated are also nearly independent of $`K_0`$. On the other hand, under fixed $`K_0`$, the dependence of the matter and charge radii on $`L`$, as depicted in the upper panels of Fig. 6, is the same as that on $`y`$. These results from Fig. 6 may open an opportunity to empirically determine the density symmetry coefficient $`L`$ from the isotopic dependence of matter radii.

For the purpose of parametrizing the matter and charge radii as functions of $`A`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`L`$, it is useful to first obtain fitting formulas for the root-mean-square neutron and proton radii, defined as

$$R_n=\left[N^1d^3rr^2n_n(r)\right]^{1/2},R_p=\left[Z^1d^3rr^2n_p(r)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(25)
To be fitted to are the radii $`R_n`$ and $`R_p`$ of Ni, Sn and Pb isotopes ranging $`0\alpha 0.3`$ $`(0.35x0.5)`$ as calculated from the present macroscopic model for the EOS parameter sets tabulated in Table A.1. In Fig. 7 the results for 56Ni, 80Ni, 116Sn and 142Ni are plotted as functions of $`L`$. We observe from this figure that no uncertainties in $`R_p`$ more than $`\pm 0.03`$ fm arise from the various values of $`K_0`$ and $`L`$, while the $`K_0`$ dependence of $`R_n`$ can be ignored as compared with the $`L`$ dependence, which is stronger at larger neutron excess. These features, consistent with the dependence of $`R_m`$ and $`R_c`$ on $`L`$ and $`K_0`$ as mentioned above, lead us to the formulas,

$$R_p=c_1A^{1/3}+c_2+c_3(\alpha \alpha _0)^2,$$
(26)
with $`c_1=0.914961`$ fm, $`c_2=0.102372`$ fm, $`c_3=0.388905`$ fm and $`\alpha _0=0.879704`$, and

$$R_n=c_4A^{1/3}(1+c_5L\alpha ^2+c_6L^2\alpha ^4)+c_7+c_8\alpha ,$$
(27)
with $`c_4=0.880489`$ fm, $`c_5=0.00635080`$ MeV-1, $`c_6=0.000172275`$ MeV-2, $`c_7=0.301616`$ fm and $`c_8=0.193326`$ fm. Expressions (26) and (27) reproduce the original values with the root-mean-square deviations of 0.010 fm and 0.013 fm, respectively, and roughly obey a usual $`A^{1/3}`$ law for fixed $`L`$ and $`\alpha `$. Finally, the parametrization of the matter and charge radii can be constructed from Eqs. (26) and (27) via the relations $`R_m^2=(Z/A)R_p^2+(N/A)R_n^2+3a_p^2/2`$ and $`R_c^2=R_p^2+3a_p^2/2`$ that can be derived from Eqs. (20), (23) and (25).

The lower panels of Fig. 5 depict the matter radii of Ni and Sn isotopes calculated for various combinations of $`L`$ and $`K_0`$ relative to those calculated for $`L=50`$ MeV and $`K_0=230`$ MeV. As can be seen from these panels, $`K_0`$-induced uncertainties in the matter radii at constant $`L`$ are limited to the order of $`\pm 0.015`$ fm in the neutron-rich side, small enough for the $`L`$ dependence of the matter radii to be seen clearly. This may play a role in determining $`L`$ from measurements of the matter radii. Note, however, that possible data on matter radii for isotopes of a specific element would be insufficient to determine the density symmetry coefficient $`L`$, as inferred from the differences between the empirical and calculated charge radii shown for Ni and Sn in Fig. 6. In view of such differences as well as intrinsic uncertainties in the matter radii that can be deduced from proton and alpha-particle elastic scattering data, systematics of the isotopic dependence of matter radii would be required.

It is interesting to note that the difference between the neutron and proton radii increases with increasing $`L`$ in a way dependent on neutron excess but almost independent of $`K_0`$ (see Fig. 7). This leads us to study the isotopic dependence of neutron skin thickness in order to derive the density symmetry coefficient $`L`$. The previous investigation  has already suggested the possibility that the EOS of asymmetric nuclear matter will be probed by future detection of neutron skin thickness in unstable neutron-enriched nuclei. However, the neutron skin structure depends strongly on the EOS of nuclear matter at large neutron excess and low density , which is empirically hard to determine. Moreover, the fact  that the neutron skin thickness is thermodynamically relevant to the dependence of the surface tension on neutron excess complicates an extraction of the bulk properties of asymmetric nuclear matter; the connection between the surface and bulk properties remains to be clarified. We will elsewhere reinvestigate how the neutron skin thickness is phenomenologically related to the EOS of nearly symmetric nuclear matter .

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have derived the relations between the parameters characterizing the EOS of nearly symmetric nuclear matter from experimental data on radii and masses of stable nuclei. We have found the linear relation (22) between the parameters $`L`$ and $`S_0`$ associated with the symmetry energy. It is interesting to regard the band structure on the $`K_0`$ versus $`L`$ plane (see Fig. 1c) as an empirically allowed region of $`K_0`$ and $`L`$. Future systematic measurements of the root-mean-square matter radii of unstable neutron-rich nuclei may narrow the allowed region in such a way as to fix $`L`$ almost independently of $`K_0`$. Once $`L`$ is determined, the slope $`y`$ would be given as a function of $`K_0`$. It is instructive to note that the incompressibility was estimated to be $`K_0=231\pm 5`$ MeV from the observations of the giant monopole resonances . This estimate can stringently limit the allowed region, although it is model-dependent in the sense that it involves microscopic calculations of the resonance energies from a specific model of the effective nucleon-nucleon interactions .

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to I. Tanihata, T. Suda, A. Ozawa, A. Kohama, H. Nakada, Y. Mochizuki and H. Koura for helpful discussions. Author KO would like to thank Y. Mochizuki for hospitality during the course of this research at RIKEN. This work was supported in part by RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers Grant No. 011-52040.

## Appendix: Evaluation of the parameters in Eq. (2)

In this appendix we tabulate (Table A.1) the optimal values of various EOS parameters in Eq. (2).