format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

CP violation in supersymmetric theories via soft supersymmetry breaking parameters has received a considerable degree of attention since the beginning of the formulation of supersymmetric models. Recently, there has been enhanced interest in the investigation of their effects due to the realization that supersymmetric theories may allow for large CP violating phases consistent with the electric dipole moment of the electron and of the neutron. Such a situation can arise because of several possibilities, such as the SUSY spectrum being heavy, due to internal cancellations and due to the possibility that the CP phases may reside in the third generation and consequently their effects on the first two generation EMDs are suppressed. Of course it is possible that a more unified framework may determine the combination of phases that enter the EDMs to be small. However, we shall investigate here the possibility that the phases are large and the EDM constraints are satisfied by one of the methods discussed above so that the sparticle spectrum is consistent with the naturalness constraints (see, e.g., Ref.). In this case their effects on low energy physics can be quite significant and a number of low energy phenomena have been discussed including the effect of CP phases. These include the effect of CP phases on g-2, on dark matter, on the trileptonic signal, on baroyogenesis, and on other low energy phenomena. Another area where the effect of CP phases has been discussed is the Higgs sector. It is well known that loop corrections to the Higgs masses and mixings are important. In fact in the absence of the loop corrections the lightest Higgs boson mass must lie below $`M_Z`$ which is already exprimentally excluded and it is the presence of the loop corrections that raises its value above $`M_Z`$. An interesting phenomenon arises if the loop corrections have CP violating phases. In this case it has been pointed out that a significant mixing can occur between the CP even and the CP odd neutral Higgs sectors of the theory. In Refs. the effect of CP phases via the stop and sbottom exchanges was carried out. Further, in the work of Ref. it was pointed out that the effect of chargino loop corrections can be quite significant and in fact the CP effects from the chargino exchange may even dominate the CP effects from the stop-sbottom exchange for the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In this paper we give an analysis of the one loop correction to the Higgs boson mass including the neutralino-Z boson-neutral Higgs exchange including the CP violating phases. The inclusion of the CP dependent neutralino exchange corrections are more intricate relative to the stop-sbottom exchanges and the chargino exchanges. This is due to the fact that the stop-sbottom exchange and the chargino exchange involve diagonalization of only $`2\times 2`$ squark and chargino mass matrices and thus the evaluation of their contribution can be carried out analytically in a straightforward fashion. For the case of the neutralino exchange the neutralino mass matrix is a $`4\times 4`$ object and its diagonalization analytically is more intricate and a straightforward technique for the analysis is wieldy. In this paper we develop a calculus for the derivatives of the eigen values of the neutralino mass matrix to obtain an explicit analytic expression for the neutralino exchange contribution. The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Sec.2 we give the Higgs potential and discuss the minimization conditions in the presence of the CP violating phases. In Sec.3 we discuss the calculus for the computation of derivatives of the eigen values of the neutralino mass matrix. In Sec.4 we use the technique of Sec.3 and compute the one loop contributions to the Higgs boson mass matrix from the neutralino-Z-neutral Higgs boson exchange. Discussion of the numerical results is given in Sec.5. Conclusions are given in Sec.6. Some further details of the analysis are given in Appendices A and B.

## 2 CP Phases and Minimization of Higgs Potential

We begin by defining the soft SUSY breaking parameters for the mSUGRA case. Here the low energy physics for the CP conserving case is parametrized by $`m_0`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`A_0`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where $`m_0`$ is the universal scalar mass, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the universal gaugino mass, $`A_0`$ is the universal trilinear coupling, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\frac{v_2}{v_1}`$ is the ratio of the Higgs VEVs, where the VEV of $`H_2`$ gives mass to the up quarks and the VEV of $`H_1`$ gives mass to the down quarks and the leptons. In the presence of CP violation mSUGRA allows for only two CP violating phases which can be taken to be $`\theta _{\mu _0}`$, and $`\alpha _{A_0}`$ where $`\theta _{\mu _0}`$ is the phase of the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu _0`$ and $`\alpha _{A_0}`$ is the phase of $`A_0`$. The analysis of this paper, however, will be more general, valid for the MSSM parameter space. The Higgs sector in MSSM at the one loop level is described by the scalar potential $`V(H_1,H_2)=V_0+\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ where

$`V_0=m_1^2|H_1|^2+m_2^2|H_2|^2+(m_3^2H_1.H_2+H.C.)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(g_2^2+g_1^2)}{8}}|H_1|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{(g_2^2+g_1^2)}{8}}|H_2|^4{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{2}}|H_1.H_2|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(g_2^2g_1^2)}{4}}|H_1|^2|H_2|^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_i(2J_i+1)(1)^{2J_i}(M_i^4(H_1,H_2)(log{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2(H_1,H_2)}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}))`$ (1)
Here $`m_1^2=m_{H_1}^2+|\mu |^2,m_2^2=m_{H_2}^2+|\mu |^2,m_3^2=|\mu B|`$ and $`m_{H_{1,2}}`$ and $`B`$ are the soft SUSY breaking parameters, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ is the one loop correction to the effective potential and includes contributions from all the fields that enter MSSM consisting of the standard model fields and their superpartners, i.e., the sfermions, the gauginos and higgsinos. The sum over i in Eq.(1) runs over particles with spin $`J_i`$ and $`c_i(2J_i+1)`$ counts the degrees of the ith particle, and Q is the renormalization group running scale. It is well known that the one loop corrections to the effective potential can make significant contributions to the Higgs vacuum expectation values in the minimization of the effective potential.

In general the effective potential depends on the CP violating phases and its minimization will lead to induced CP violating effects on the Higgs vacuum expectation values. It is found convenient to parameterize the Higgs VEVs in the presence of CP violating effects in the following form

$`(H_1)=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1^0\\ H_1^{}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1+\varphi _1+i\psi _1\\ H_1^{}\end{array}\right),(H_2)=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_2^+\\ H_2^0\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\theta _H}}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}H_2^+\\ v_2+\varphi _2+i\psi _2\end{array}\right)`$ (2)
where $`\theta _H`$ is in general non-vanishing as a consequence of the minimization conditions. Thus the minimization of the potential with respect to the fields $`\varphi _1,\psi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _2`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\psi _1}})_0=m_3^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _H`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\varphi _1}})_0=m_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{8}}(v_1^2v_2^2)+m_3^2\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _H`$ (3)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_1}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\psi _2}})_0=m_3^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _H`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\varphi _2}})_0=m_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{8}}(v_1^2v_2^2)+m_3^2cot\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _H`$ (4)
In the above the subscript 0 stands for the fact that we are evaluating the relevant quantities at the point $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\psi _1=\psi _2=0`$. We note in passing that in Eqs.(3) and (4) only one of the two equations that involve the variation with respect to $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ is independent.

## 3 Calculus for Derivatives of Eigen Values of Neutralino Mass Matrix

As mentioned in Sec.1, in previous analyzes computations of the CP dependent loop corrections from the stop-sbottom and from the chargino- W- charged Higgs sectors have been carried out. In these analyzes one was able to analytically obtain the eigen values by diagonalizing the $`2\times 2`$ squark matrices and the $`2\times 2`$ charginio mass matrix and then differentiate them analytically to obtain the loop correction to the Higgs mass matrix. As also pointed out in Sec.1 for the neutralino exchange case the situation is more difficult since the neutralino mass matrix is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix and the analytic solutions for the eigen values of the neutralino $`(mass)^2`$ matrix are not easily obtained. Here we expand on a technique introduced in Ref. to derive a calculus for the derivatives of the eigen values for the neutralino mass matrix. This technique is valid for an arbitrary high order eigen value equation. We shall show that quite remarkably even though one cannot analytically solve for the eigen values one can analytically solve for the derivatives of the eigen values with respect to the background fields in terms of the eigen values and the parameters that appear in the eigenvalue equation. To illustrate the procedure we consider an nth order eigen value equation

$`F(\lambda )=Det(M^{}M\lambda I)=\lambda ^n+c^{(n1)}\lambda ^{n1}+c^{(n2)}\lambda ^{n2}+..+c^{(1)}\lambda +c^{(0)}=0`$ (5)
Here the co-efficients are explicit functions of the background fields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =\{\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _1,\psi _2\}$$
(6)
while the eigen values are implicit functions of the background fields through the satisfaction of the eigen value equation. Eq.(5) has n eigen values which we denote by $`\lambda _i`$ ($`i=1,2,..,n`$). From Eq.(5) it follows that

$$\frac{\lambda _i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }=(\frac{D_\alpha F}{D_\lambda F})_{\lambda =\lambda _i}$$
(7)
and

$$\frac{^2\lambda _i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }=[\frac{D_\alpha FD_\beta FD_\lambda ^2F}{(D_\lambda F)^3}+\frac{D_\alpha FD_\beta D_\lambda F+D_\beta FD_\alpha D_\lambda F}{(D_\lambda F)^2}\frac{D_\alpha D_\beta F}{D_\lambda F}]_{\lambda =\lambda _i}$$
(8)
where $`D_\lambda `$ differentiates the $`\lambda `$ dependence in $`F`$

$$D_\lambda F(\lambda )=\frac{dF}{d\lambda }$$
(9)
and $`D_\alpha `$ differentiates only the co-efficients in Eq.(5), i.e.,

$$D_\alpha F=c_\alpha ^{(n1)}\lambda ^{(n1)}+c_\alpha ^{(n2)}\lambda ^{(n2)}+..+c_\alpha ^{(1)}\lambda +c_\alpha ^{(0)}$$
(10)
$`D_\alpha D_\beta F`$ are similarly defined where $`c_\alpha ^{(k)}`$ etc are replaced with $`c_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}`$ where

$$c_\alpha ^{(k)}=\frac{c^{(k)}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha },c_{\alpha \beta }^{(k)}=\frac{^2c^{(k)}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }$$
(11)
and the derivatives $`D_\alpha D_\lambda `$ are defined in an obvious way. We note in passing that $`D_\alpha `$ and $`D_\lambda `$ commute

$$[D_\alpha ,D_\lambda ]=0$$
(12)
Eqs.(7) and (8) are the central equations of our analysis. It is easy to check that for the $`2\times 2`$ matrix case, e.g., for the stop and the chargino exhanges, they give exactly the results gotten by explicit differentiation of the eigen values. However, now these equations provide us with a technique of analyzing cases where the analytic solutions to the eigen values are not available.

## 4 Neutralino, Z and neutral Higgs loop contributions

As mentioned above the CP dependent contributions to the Higgs boson masses from stop and sbottom exchanges have been discussed at length in the literature. More recently the CP dependent chargino-W-charged Higgs contributions were also discussed. In this work we use the technique discussed in Sec.3 to compute the contribution from the neutralino -Z - neutral Higgs exchange. The loop correction in this sub sector is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }V(\chi _i^0,Z,h^0,H^0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(2)M_{\chi _i^0}^4(log{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _i^0}^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+3M_Z^4(log{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})`$
$`+M_{h^0}^4log({\displaystyle \frac{M_{h^0}^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})+M_{H^0}^4log({\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}))`$ (13)
The neutralino mass matrix is given by

$$M_{\chi ^0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{m}_1& 0& \frac{g_1}{\sqrt{2}}H_1^0& \frac{g_1}{\sqrt{2}}H_2^0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{m}_2& \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}H_1^0& \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}H_2^0\\ \frac{g_1}{\sqrt{2}}H_1^0& \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}H_1^0& 0& \mu \\ \frac{g_1}{\sqrt{2}}H_2^0& \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}H_2^0& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
where $`\mu =|\mu |e^{i\theta _\mu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|e^{i\xi _1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2=|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|e^{i\xi _2}`$. We note that in the supersymmetric limit $`M_{\chi _i^0}`$ $`=(0,0,M_Z,M_Z)`$ and $`(M_{h^0},M_{H^0})`$=$`(M_Z,0)`$ and consequently in this limit the loop corrections from this sub sector vanish. We return now to the full analysis and follow the method described in Ref. to minimize the potential and compute the loop corrections. First we give the determination of $`\theta _H`$ from the minimization constraints including the stop, the sbottom, the stau, the chargino and neutralino contributions. One finds that $`\theta _H`$ is given by the equation

$`m_3^2\mathrm{sin}\theta _H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_t}|\mu ||A_t|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _tf_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_b}|\mu ||A_b|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _bf_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_\tau }|\mu ||A_\tau |\mathrm{sin}\gamma _\tau f_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2){\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2f_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j^0}^2}{D_j}}(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j^0}^2}{Q^2}})1)(M_{\chi _j^0}^4(g_2^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2g_1^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1)`$
$`+M_{\chi _j^0}^2(g_2^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\mu |^2)|\stackrel{~}{m}_2||\mu |\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2+g_1^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\mu |^2)|\stackrel{~}{m}_1||\mu |\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1)`$
$`+(g_2^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2g_1^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1))`$ (15)
where

$`D_j(D_\lambda F)_{\lambda =\lambda _j}=4M_{\chi _j^0}^6+3aM_{\chi _j^0}^4+2bM_{\chi _j^0}^2+c`$
$`\beta _{h_t}={\displaystyle \frac{3h_t^2}{16\pi ^2}},\beta _{h_b}={\displaystyle \frac{3h_b^2}{16\pi ^2}},\beta _{h_\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{3h_\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2}}`$
$`\gamma _t=\alpha _{A_t}+\theta _\mu ,\gamma _b=\alpha _{A_b}+\theta _\mu ,\gamma _\tau =\alpha _{A_\tau }+\theta _\mu ,\gamma _1=\xi _1+\theta _\mu ,\gamma _2=\xi _2+\theta _\mu `$ (16)
and where a,b,c are defined in Appendix A and $`f_1(u,v)`$ is given by

$$f_1(u,v)=2+log\frac{uv}{Q^4}+\frac{v+u}{vu}log\frac{v}{u}$$
(17)
To construct the mass squared matrix of the Higgs scalars we need to compute the quantity

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^2=(\frac{^2V}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta })_0=M_{\alpha \beta }^{2(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^2$$
(18)
where $`M_{\alpha \beta }^{2(0)}`$ is the contribution from $`V_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ is the contribution from $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha (\alpha =14)`$ are defined by Eq.(6) and as already mentioned earlier the subscript 0 means that we set $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\psi _1=\psi _2=0`$ after evaluating the mass matrix. The loop contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^2`$ arising from the neutralino- Z-neutral Higgs sector is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\alpha \beta }^2=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}Str(\frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }\frac{M^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }log\frac{M^2}{Q^2}+M^2\frac{^2M^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }(log\frac{M^2}{Q^2}1))_0$$
(19)
Computation of the $`4\times 4`$ Higgs mass matrix in the basis of Eq.(6) gives

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_Z^2c_\beta ^2+M_A^2s_\beta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}& (M_Z^2+M_A^2)s_\beta c_\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}s_\beta & \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}c_\beta \\ (M_Z^2+M_A^2)s_\beta c_\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& M_Z^2s_\beta ^2+M_A^2c_\beta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}s_\beta & \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}c_\beta \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}s_\beta & \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}s_\beta & (M_A^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{33})s_\beta ^2& (M_A^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{33})s_\beta c_\beta \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}c_\beta & \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}c_\beta & (M_A^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{33})s_\beta c_\beta & (M_A^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{33})c_\beta ^2\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
where $`c_\beta (s_\beta )=\mathrm{cos}\beta (\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$ and $`m_A^2`$ is given by

$`m_A^2=(\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta )^1(m_3^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_t}|A_t||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _tf_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_b}|A_b||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _bf_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _{h_\tau }|A_\tau ||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _\tau f_1(m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_2}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{16\pi ^2}}|\stackrel{~}{m}_2||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2f_1(m_{\chi _1^+}^2,m_{\chi _2^+}^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{D_j}}(log({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1)[M_{\chi _j}^4(g_2^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2g_1^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1)`$
$`+M_{\chi _j}^2(g_2^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\mu |^2)|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2+g_1^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2+|\mu |^2)|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1)`$
$`g_2^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2g_1^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1])`$ (21)
The first term in the second brace on the right hand side of Eq.(21) is the tree term, while the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth terms come from the stop, sbottom, stau and chargino exchange contributions. The remaining contributions in Eq.(21) arise from the neutralino sector. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s appearing in Eq.(20) can be decomposed as follows

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{t}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{b}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{\tau }}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^+}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^0}$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is the contribution from the stop (and top) exchange in the loops, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{b}}`$ is the contribution from the sbottom (and bottom) exchange in the loops, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ is the contribution from the stau (and tau) exchange, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^+}`$ is the contribution from the chargino (and W and charged Higgs) exchange in the loops, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^0}`$ is the contribution arising from the neutralino (and Z and neutral Higgs exchange) in the loops. The computations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{t}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^+}`$ have been given before and would not be reproduced here. We compute here only the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^0}`$ arising from the ($`\chi _i^0Zh^0H^0`$) exchange. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^0}`$ are listed below.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1)`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)^2(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(3a_1M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_1M_{\chi _j}^2+c_1)}{D_j^2}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)^2}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\pi ^2}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_1^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{Q^2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_0^2}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)^2}}f_2(M_{H^0}^2,M_{h^0}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_1^2ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2}{Q^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_1^2+g_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{v_1A_0}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2}{M_{h^0}^2}})`$ (23)
where $`D_j`$ is defined in Eq.(16) and $`f_2`$ is defined by

$$f_2(u,v)=2+\frac{v+u}{vu}ln\frac{v}{u}$$
(24)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{22\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1)`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)^2(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)(3a_2M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_2M_{\chi _j}^2+c_2)}{D_j^2}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)^2}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\pi ^2}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_2^2ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{Q^2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_0^2}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)^2}}f_2(M_{H^0}^2,M_{h^0}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_2^2ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2}{Q^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_1^2+g_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{v_2B_0}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2}{M_{h^0}^2}})`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1)`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(3a_2M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_2M_{\chi _j}^2+c_2)}{D_j^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)(3a_1M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_1M_{\chi _j}^2+c_1)}{D_j^2}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{128\pi ^2}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_1v_2ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{Q^2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_0B_0}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)^2}}f_2(M_{H^0}^2,M_{h^0}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)^2v_1v_2ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2}{Q^4}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(g_1^2+g_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{v_1B_0+v_2A_0}{(M_{H^0}^2M_{h^0}^2)}}ln{\displaystyle \frac{M_{H^0}^2}{M_{h^0}^2}})`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}`$
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(a_3M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3)(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(3a_3M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_3M_{\chi _j}^2+c_3)}{D_j^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_3M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3)(3a_1M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_1M_{\chi _j}^2+c_1)}{D_j^2}}\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_1M_{\chi _j}^6+b_1M_{\chi _j}^4+c_1M_{\chi _j}^2+d_1)(a_3M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3)}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})(3a_2M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_2M_{\chi _j}^2+c_2)}{D_j^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)(3a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+c_3^{})}{D_j^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})(a_2M_{\chi _j}^6+b_2M_{\chi _j}^4+c_2M_{\chi _j}^2+d_2)}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33\chi ^0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_{\chi _j}^2(ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})1)`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})^2(12M_{\chi _j}^4+6aM_{\chi _j}^2+2b)}{D_j^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})(3a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+2b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+c_3^{})}{D_j^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^6+b_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^4+c_3^{}M_{\chi _j}^2+d_3^{})^2}{D_j^2}}ln({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\chi _j}^2}{Q^2}})`$ (29)
The parameters a,b,c and the derivatives $`a_i,b_i,c_i,d_i`$ (i=1,2, etc.) that appear in Eqs.(23-29) are defined in Appendices A and B. Eqs.(23-29) constitute the main new theoretical results of this paper. These results along with the computations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{t}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \chi ^+}`$ give a complete determination of the CP dependent one loop contributions to the Higgs boson masses and mixings. As has been noted before it is preferable to work with a $`3\times 3`$ matrix rather than the $`4\times 4`$ matrix of Eq.(20). The desired $`3\times 3`$ matrix can be gotten from Eq.(20) by going to the basis

$`\psi _{1D}=\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _2,\psi _{2D}=\mathrm{cos}\beta \psi _1+\mathrm{sin}\beta \psi _2`$ (30)
In this basis the field $`\psi _{2D}`$ is the zero mass Goldstone boson and decouples while the remaining $`(mass)^2`$ matrix in the basis $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\psi _{1D}`$ is given by

$$M_{Higgs}^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_Z^2c_\beta ^2+M_A^2s_\beta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}& (M_Z^2+M_A^2)s_\beta c_\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}\\ (M_Z^2+M_A^2)s_\beta c_\beta +\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}& M_Z^2s_\beta ^2+M_A^2c_\beta ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{13}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{23}& (M_A^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{33})\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
We label the eigen values for this case $`m_{H_1}^2`$, $`m_{H_2}^2`$, $`m_{H_3}^2`$ corresponding to the eigen states $`H_1,H_2,H_3`$. These eigen states are in general admixtures of the CP even and the CP odd states due to the mixing generated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$. Thus the CP even-odd mixings arise from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$ and these are nonvanishing only in the presence of CP violation and vanish when the phases go to zero and one recovers the usual result of two distinct (one CP even and the other CP odd) Higgs sectors. We note in passing that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{33}`$ also vanishes in the limit when the CP phases go to zero. This was also the behavior that was observed when the contributions from the stop, sbottom, stau and chargino exchanges were considered. Since the main point of this work is to study the phenomenon of CP even-odd mixing the main focus of our analysis is the computation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }ij`$ and specifically of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$ which are the basic sources of mixings between the CP even and the CP odd sectors. We order the eigen values of Eq.(31) in such a way that in the limit of no CP violation one has $`(m_{H_1},m_{H_2},m_{H_3})`$$``$ $`(m_H,m_h,m_A)`$ and $`(H_1,H_2,H_3)`$$``$ $`(H,h,A)`$ where (h, H) are (light, heavy) CP even Higgs and A is the CP odd Higgs in the absence of CP violation.

## 5 Discussion of the Neutralino Exchange Contribution to CP even CP odd Higgs Mixing

The analytical results given above are quite general as they apply to the MSSM parameter space. However, the MSSM parameter space is quite large. Thus for a numerical study of the CP effects including those from the neutralino sector we will work with a constrained set of parameters consisting of the parameter space $`m_0,m_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, $`m_A`$, $`|A_0|`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\theta _\mu `$, $`\alpha _{A_0}`$, $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$ and $`\xi _3`$. Starting with these all other low energy parameters are obtained by a renormalization group evolution by running the parameters from the GUT scale down to the electro-weak scale. Of course one is free to utilize the formulae derived above for the more general MSSM parameter space. As discussed in Sec.1 one can satisfy the EDM constraints in the presence of large phases. This can come about in a variety of ways. As pointed out in Sec.1 one possibility is that the internal cancellations can occur which allow for large phases consistent with the EDM constraints. The other possibility is that that CP phases appear only in the third generation which suppresses their contributions to the EDMs of the quarks and the leptons in the first two generations to achieve consistency with the experimental constraints. There also exist scenarios which are linear combinations of these two. For the purpose of this analysis we do not revisit the problem of the satisfaction of the EDM constraints. Rather we shall assume that regions of the parameter space exist where such constraints are satisfied and examine the effect of the phases on the Higgs masses and mixing. Specifically we are interested in the effects of the neutralino exchange contributions on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$, and thus, on the mixings of the CP even and the CP sectors.

It was pointed out in Sec.4 that the neutralino, the Z and the neutral Higgs exchanges together form a sub sector so that in the supersymmetric limit one finds that the one loop correction to the effective potential from this sub sector vanishes. This phenomenon is similar to what was also seen in the exchange of the chargino, the W and the charged Higgs where the contribution from that sector to the effective potential vanishes in the supersymmetric limit. It was also seen in the analysis of the chargino-W-charged Higgs exchange that the CP even-odd mixing arising from this sector was roughly Q independent because of the sum of the three separate contributions within this sector. A very similar situation is also realized in the neutralino sector. Here again because of the contributions from the neutralino, the Z and the neutral Higgs exchanges their sum contribution to the CP even-odd mixing is roughly scale independent. However, unlike the chargino-W- charged Higgs exchange where one could demonstrate the above phenomenon analytically, here one has to demonstrate it numerically due to the more analytically complex nature of the results.This is exhibited in Fig.1 where a plot the percentage of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ as a function of Q is given. The analysis shows an approximate independence in Q of the CP even-odd mixing. We turn now to a discussion of other aspects of the analysis below.

In Fig.2 we plot the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ as a function of the CP phase of the U(1) gaugino mass $`\xi _1`$. The plots exhibited in Fig.2 contain the stop, the sbottom, the stau the chargino and the neutralino exchange contributions. Among the above exchanges the neutralino exchange contribution is the only one that depends on $`\xi _1`$, and thus the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ with $`\xi _1`$ arises only from this exchange. From Fig.2 the size of the neutralino exchange contribution can be seen to be fairly substantial. Specifically, the analysis of Fig.2 shows that the neutralino exchange contribution is comparable to the effects from the stop and chargino exchanges. A plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$ vs $`\xi _1`$ is given Fig.3. As in Fig.2 one finds that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$ is quite sensitive to the CP violating phase $`\xi _1`$. As in Fig.2 here again the neutralino exchange contribution is comparable to the stop and the chargino exchange contribution. An analysis of the percentage of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and of the percentage of the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) arising from the exchange of the stop, the sbottom, the stau, the chargino and the neutralino sector contributions as a function of $`\xi _1`$ is given in Figs.4. As expected from the analysis of Fig.2 and Fig.3 one finds that there is a significant mixing between the CP even and the CP odd components of $`H_1`$. Further, as also expected from the analysis of Figs 2 and 3, the CP even and CP odd components of $`H_1`$ show a reasonably strong dependence on $`\xi _1`$.

An analysis of the CP even and CP odd mixing in $`H_1`$ as a function of the SU(2) gaugino phase is given in Fig.5. Unlike Figs.2-4, where the entire $`\xi _1`$ dependence arose from the neutralino exchange contribution here the $`\xi _2`$ dependence of the CP even and CP odd components of $`H_1`$ arises from two sources, i.e., from the chargino and the neutralino exchange contributions. Because of this the dependence of the CP even and CP odd components on $`\xi _2`$ is much stronger than on $`\xi _1`$ as may be seen by comparing the plots of Figs. 2-4 with the plots of Fig.5. In Fig.6 a plot of the percentage of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper sets) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower sets) arising from the exchange of the stop, the sbottom, the stau, the chargino and the neutralino sector contributions is given as a function of $`\theta _\mu `$. In this case we find that the dependence of the CP even and the CP odd components on $`\theta _\mu `$ is also very strong. Indeed in this case the mixings between the CP even and the CP odd states can be maximal depending on the value of $`\theta _\mu `$. The strong dependence on $`\theta _\mu `$ can be understood as due to the fact that all contributions, i.e., the stop, the sbottom, the stau, the chargino, and the neutralino contributions, depend on $`\theta _\mu `$. This in contrast to the dependence on $`\xi _1`$ which arises only from the neutralino exchange.

Finally, in Fig.7 we give an analysis of the percentage of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper sets) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower sets) arising from the exchange of the stop, the sbottom, the stau, the chargino and the neutralino sector contributions as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We find that the CP even and the CP odd mixings show a strong dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. A similar strong dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ was seen also in previous analyses. We note that the inclusion of the neutralino contribution further sharpens the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence and one finds that the CP even (odd) component can vary from 100% (0%) to less than 60% (more than 40%) as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is varied. This sharper behavior of the amplitudes with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ arises from the additional contributions from the neutralino, the neutral Higgs and the $`Z`$ boson exchanges. An analysis similar to the above can be carried out for the case of the $`H_2`$ and $`H_3`$ fields. In the analysis of chargino exchange contributions it was found that the CP odd component of $`H_2`$ is rather small while the analysis of $`H_3`$ parallels the analysis of $`H_1`$ with the only difference that the roles of the CP even and the CP odd components is reversed. Much the same situations occurs in this case and thus we omit the detailed discussion of these states.

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have developed a calculus for the derivatives of the eigen values of the neutralino mass matrix with respect to the background fields which are in general dependent on CP violating phases. The calculus allows one to deduce the derivatives of the eigen values of the neutralino mass matrix analytically even though the eigen values themselves cannot be gotten analytically in a compact form. We use this calculus to obtain analytical results for the neutralino-Z-neutral Higgs exchange contribution to the masses and mixings in the CP even-CP odd neutral Higgs sector. The above computation along with the stop-top, the sbottom-bottom, the tau-stau and the chargino-W- charged Higgs exchange contribution computed previously provide us with a complete one loop contribution to the Higgs mass matrix with the inclusion of CP phases. This full one loop result was then used to discuss the phenomenon of CP violation in the neutral Higgs sector. The numerical analysis shows that the mixings between the CP even and the CP odd sectors are significantly affected by the neutralino exchange contribution. The mixing of the CP even and the CP odd Higgs sector have many important consequences. Thus one consequence is that CP even-odd mixing affects the couplings of the Higgs bosons with quarks and leptons and this effect can be discerned in Higgs searches in collider experiments. Another important implication is that the CP even-odd mixing will affect the relic density analysis and thus modify the parameter space allowed by the relic density constraints. Further, since the couplings of the quark and leptons with the Higgs are affected due to the CP even-odd mixing there will also be an effect of these mixings on detection rates in the direct searches for dark matter. It would be interesting to carry out an analysis of these phenomena.

Acknowledgments
This work was initiated during the period when one of the authors (PN) was at the Physics Institute at the University of Bonn, the Max-Planck Institute fuer Kernphysik, Heidelberg and CERN. The author acknowledges hospitality during the period of his stay and support from an Alexander von Humboldt award. This research was also supported in part by NSF grant PHY-9901057

## 7 Appendix A: Neutralino eigen values and derivatives

The characteristic equation for the square of the neutralino mass is $`F(\lambda )`$= $`Det(M_{\chi ^0}^{}`$ $`M_{\chi ^0}`$$`\lambda I)=0`$ where $`\lambda `$ represents the square of the neutralino mass eigen values. It can be expanded as

$$F(\lambda )=\lambda ^4+a\lambda ^3+b\lambda ^2+c\lambda +d=0$$
(32)
In the above a,b,c and d are computed using Eq.(14). The computation of the co-efficients is done to leading and to next to the leading order in an expansion in $`M_Z^2/M_S^2`$ where $`M_S`$ stands for the soft SUSY parameters. Thus, e.g., a is expanded to $`O(M_S^2)`$ and $`O(M_Z^2)`$ orders (it is actually exact when expanded to this order), b is expanded to $`O(M_S^4)`$ and $`O(M_S^2M_Z^2)`$ orders etc. The analysis for a, b and c (d does not enter in Eqs.(23-29) and is not exhibited) gives

$`a=[|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2+2|\mu |^2+2M_Z^2]`$ (33)
$`b=|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2+|\mu |^4+2|\mu |^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2)`$
$`+M_Z^2[|m_1|^2+|m_2|^2+2|\mu |^2+(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _W`$
$`4\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta C_W^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _24\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\beta S_W^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1||\mu |\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1]`$ (34)
where $`C_W^2=\frac{g_2^2}{g_1^2+g_2^2}`$ and $`S_W^2=\frac{g_1^2}{g_1^2+g_2^2}`$

$`c=2|\mu |^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2|\mu |^4(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2)`$
$`+4M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta |\mu |[(|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2+|\mu |^2)S_W^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1+(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\mu |^2)C_W^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2]`$
The derivatives $`\lambda _i/\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ can be gotten explicitly as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{a_\alpha \lambda ^3+b_\alpha \lambda ^2+c_\alpha \lambda +d_\alpha }{4\lambda ^3+3a\lambda ^2+2b\lambda +c}}|_{\lambda =\lambda _i}`$ (36)
The second derivatives are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\lambda _i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }}=[{\displaystyle \frac{(a_\alpha \lambda ^3+b_\alpha \lambda ^2+c_\alpha \lambda +d_\alpha )}{(4\lambda ^3+3a\lambda ^2+2b\lambda +c)^3}}(a_\beta \lambda ^3+b_\beta \lambda ^2+c_\beta \lambda +d_\beta )(12\lambda ^2+6a\lambda +2b)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_\alpha \lambda ^3+b_\alpha \lambda ^2+c_\alpha \lambda +d_\alpha )}{(4\lambda ^3+3a\lambda ^2+2b\lambda +c)^2}}(3a_\beta \lambda ^2+2b_\beta \lambda +c_\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{(a_\beta \lambda ^3+b_\beta \lambda ^2+c_\beta \lambda +d_\beta )}{(4\lambda ^3+3a\lambda ^2+2b\lambda +c)^2}}`$
$`\times (3a_\alpha \lambda ^2+2b_\alpha \lambda +c_\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{(a_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^3+b_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^2+c_{\alpha \beta }\lambda +d_{\alpha \beta })}{(4\lambda ^3+3a\lambda ^2+2b\lambda +c)}}]_{\lambda =\lambda _i}`$ (37)
where

$`a_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha }},a_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{^2a}{\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta }}`$ (38)
## 8 Appendix B: List of parameters

The explicit evaluation of the co-efficients $`a_1,b_1,c_1,d_1`$ is given below

$`a_1=(g_1^2+g_2^2)v_1`$
$`b_1=g_2^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2g_1^2|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_1|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1`$
$`+v_1[|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2g_2^2+|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2g_1^2+(g_1^2+g_2^2)|\mu |^2]`$ (39)
$`c_1=g_2^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2+|\mu |^2)|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_2|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2`$
$`+g_1^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2+|\mu |^2)|\mu ||\stackrel{~}{m}_1|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1`$
$`g_2^2|\mu |^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2v_1g_1^2|\mu |^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2v_1`$ (40)
$`d_1=g_2^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _2`$
$`g_1^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|v_2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _1`$ (41)
The co-efficients $`a_2,b_2,c_2,d_2`$ can be gotten from $`a_1,b_1,c_1,d_1`$ with the following interchanges

$`a_2=a_1(v_1v_2),b_2=b_1(v_1v_2),c_2=c_1(v_1v_2),d_2=d_1(v_1v_2)`$ (42)
The co-efficients $`a_3,b_3,c_3,d_3`$ are given as follows

$`a_3=0`$
$`b_3=g_2^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2||\mu |v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2g_1^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1||\mu |v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1`$ (43)
$`c_3=g_2^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2|^2+|\mu |^2)|\stackrel{~}{m}_2||\mu |v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2+g_1^2(|\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2|^2+|\mu |^2)|\stackrel{~}{m}_1||\mu |v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1`$ (44)
$`d_3=g_2^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _2g_1^2|\stackrel{~}{m}_2|^2|\mu |^3|\stackrel{~}{m}_1|v_2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _1`$ (45)
The co-efficients $`a_3^{},b_3^{},c_3^{},d_3^{}`$ can be gotten from $`a_3,b_3,c_3,d_3`$ with the following interchanges

$`a_3^{}=a_3(v_1v_2),b_3^{}=b_3(v_1v_2),c_3^{}=c_3(v_1v_2),d_3^{}=d_3(v_1v_2)`$ (46)
$`A_0`$ and $`B_0`$ are given by

$`A_0=2(g_1^2+g_2^2)v_1(M_Z^2M_{A^0}^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta +(g_1^2+g_2^2)v_2(M_Z^2+M_{A^0}^2)\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ (47)
$`B_0=2(g_1^2+g_2^2)v_2(M_Z^2M_{A^0}^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta +(g_1^2+g_2^2)v_1(M_Z^2+M_{A^0}^2)\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ (48)
Figure Captions
Fig.1: Plot of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions as a function of the scale $`Q`$. The common parameters are $`m_A=300`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$, $`m_0=100`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=500`$, $`\xi _1=.4`$, $`\xi _2=.5`$, $`\alpha _0=.3`$, $`|A_0|=1`$. The curves with circles are for $`\theta _\mu =0.1`$ and with squares for $`\theta _\mu =0.2`$ where all masses are in GeV and all angles are in radians.

Fig.2: Plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}`$ including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions vs the U(1) gaugino phase $`\xi _1`$. The common input for all the curves are $`m_0=100`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=500`$, $`M_A=300`$, $`|A_0|=1`$, $`\alpha _0=0.3`$, $`\xi _2=0.5`$ and $`Q=320`$. The five curves correspond to the pairs of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\theta _\mu `$ values as follows. The curve with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=301`$ at $`\xi _1=0`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$, $`\theta _\mu =.4`$. Similarly the curves with values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=406`$ at $`\xi _1=0`$ correspond to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$, $`\theta _\mu =.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=416`$ at $`\xi _1=0`$ correspond to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\theta _\mu =.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=501`$ at $`\xi _1=0`$ correspond to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, $`\theta _\mu =.8`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}=579`$ at $`\xi _1=0`$ correspond to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$, $`\theta _\mu =.3`$ where all masses are in GeV and all angles are in radians.

Fig.3: Plot of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}`$ including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions vs the U(1) gaugino phase $`\xi _1`$ for the same input parameters as in Fig.2. The curves with the same symbols as in Fig.2 have the same common inputs.

Fig.4: Plot of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions as a function of the U(1) gaugino phase $`\xi _1`$ for the same inputs as in Fig.2. The curves with the same symbols as in Fig.2 have the same common inputs.

Fig.5: Plot of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions as a function of the $`\xi _2`$. The common parameters are: $`m_A=300`$, $`Q=320`$, $`m_0=100`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=500`$, $`\alpha _0=.3`$, $`|A_0|=1`$, $`\theta _\mu =.4`$. For the curves with diamonds $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$, $`\xi _1=1.5`$, for squares $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, $`\xi _1=1.5`$, for triangles $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, $`\xi _1=0.5`$, and for circles $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, $`\xi _1=1.5`$ where all masses are in GeV and all angles are in radians.

Fig.6: Plot of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions as a function of $`\theta _\mu `$. The common parameters are $`m_A=300`$, $`Q=320`$, $`m_0=100`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=500`$, $`\xi _2=.5`$, $`\alpha _0=.3`$, $`|A_0|=1`$. For curves with diamonds $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =15`$, $`\xi _1=1.5`$, for squares $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, $`\xi _1=1.5`$, and for triangles $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, $`\xi _1=0.5`$ where all masses are in GeV and all angles are in radians.

Fig.7: Plot of the CP even component $`\varphi _1`$ of $`H_1`$ (upper curves) and the CP odd component $`\psi _{1D}`$ of $`H_1`$ (lower curves) including the stop, sbottom, stau, chargino and neutralino sector contributions as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The common input parameters for the curves are $`m_A=300`$, $`Q=320`$, $`m_0=100`$, $`m_{\frac{1}{2}}=500`$, $`\xi _1=.5`$, $`\xi _2=.5`$, $`\alpha _0=.3`$, and $`|A_0|=1`$. For the curves with diamonds, $`\theta _\mu =.4`$, for squares $`\theta _\mu =.6`$, and for triangles $`\theta _\mu =.8`$ where all masses are in GeV and all angles are in radians.


text:
# Trading Agents for Roaming Users

## 1 Trading Agents

Unresolved questions related to law, ethics, security, and policy \[egzi00\] do not in general prevent stock markets from applying open policies to program trading \[nasd99\]. A *trading agent* is a piece of encapsulated autonomous software that codes the preferences of its owner. In theoretical research, trading agents have been used in idealized games \[RuMiPa94\], artificial markets (see, e.g., http://ArtStkMkt.sourceforge.net/), and competitions (such as the Trading Agent Competition, see http://www.sics.se/tac/).

Human owners of trading agents have different levels of involvement in the coding itself. An expert agent owner writes her own code. A less experienced agent owner might employ a broker, which will write and carry responsibility for the code. An unexperienced agent owner can, on some markets, select an agent from a set of templates, such as a greedy agent, a value investor agent, a trend investor agent, etc. Once the agent has been written, it must be checked with respect to the rules of the marketplace. If the agent is to run on a server, i.e. if the marketplace supports an *agent trade server*, the agent code must comply with the API and with traffic regulations, such as the use of proxies. The agent trade server will usually complement an electronic exchange system, in such a way that the core services are unaffected, and should \[lybo01b\]:

* open up for proper best-effort transport connectivity, fully in line with Internet design foundations and contemporary trends in the industry
* prepare for the introduction of many new order details and tactical trading instructions
* provide a new level of containment to better defend the complex system from fatal software error propagation when new services are introduced

Once the agents are up and running on the server, the owner will require straightforward means to modifying, maintaining, and even manipulating her agents. She can use various authenticated ways of reporting an update of her preferences, such as encrypted mail, https-server commands, telephone calls with PIN-code login procedures, etc. Such maintenance commands can be directed to the marketplace owner or to a broker, but regardless there will be rules and perhaps costs for the changes made. In the other direction, the owner will require reports on how her agent is doing. It is pivotal that this data is disseminated with as little delay as possible, as this data carries the information that might prompt changes to the agent, or changes to the preferences of the owner.

We seek to complicate the picture further by focussing on roaming agent owners. In section 2, we describe the problem and background to trading on-the-fly. In section 3, we describe the sView architecture that to some extent provides the solution. Since this is work in progress, we close with directions for future research.

## 2 Roaming Trading Agent Owners

Agent trading in theory relaxes the agent owner from monitoring market data, but in practice there will be long periods of intense trading, radical market changes, preference changes, and other factors that will contribute to the need for full control. Hence, the agent owners cannot afford to be stationary, or even what is normally referred to as mobile users. Instead they will be carrying with them the trading services, and will expect at all times at least one channel of swift interaction means. In practice, this could mean that the owner is carrying with her a portable computer with a wireless LAN-card, together with all the necessary subscriptions and payphone cards for use of hot spots. On that computer, a service in the form of a running computer program will be activated.

A benefit of having trading agents is the possibility to express higher-level intentions, rather than explicit low-level orders. For stocks or commodities, this includes repositioning a portfolio with respect to sectors, shifting from stocks to bonds or vice versa, or acting on macro-economic information or news flashes. To find the best venue for a trade, several market places must be monitored in advance to find the optimal combination of order book and liquidity, and optimizing only one of the parameters will not suffice (cf. \[OEO96\]). This is no trivial task, since varying trading rules might have hard-to-foresee complications for the deal execution \[MaOh97\]. For large deals, you would want the company’s most experienced trader to assist the agent, regardless of her physical location at the time of the deal.

In the future, a work group collectively in charge of some important asset class will need to dispatch responsibility for actions based on availability. The availability should be ranked based on bandwidth available now and a forecast for the coming period, as a complement to workforce capacity. Traditional work flow models seem not to account for this aspect of roaming. For instance, bi-directional roaming access over several media may be required and as long as access networks are heterogeneous and bandwidth constrained, an availability map must be maintained. The best candidates for support of roaming agent owners are currently found among personal service provision systems, where personal and group states and information is preserved and maintained.

## 3 The sView System

The sView System \[ByEs00\] is among other things an environment for personal services \[By01\], some of which may be agents. Detailed descriptions can be found at the system home page http://sview.sics.se. The system assumes a client/server model, with server access being channeled through a virtual service briefcase. The briefcase in turn supports access from many different types of devices and user interfaces. It is also private to an individual user, and it can store service components containing both service logic and data from service providers. This allows the service provider to split the services in two parts. One part provides commonly used functionality and user-specific data that executes and is stored within the virtual briefcase. The other part provides network-based functionality and data that is common to all users. Finally, the service briefcase is mobile and it can follow its user from host to host. This allows local and partially network-independent access to the service components in the briefcase.

The core sView specification constitutes an API that defines the basics of service components and personal service environment handling. It specifies service components, a runtime environment, a data structure for persistent and mobile images of service environments (service briefcases), and a server for handling service briefcases. The specification has been implemented as a set of Java packages. Service components can implement an arbitrarily large part of the functionality of the service, and range from mere proxies to web-based services, to standalone services. They can be declared persistent and/or mobile. A *persistent* service component can save its state together with the service environment when the environment is saved locally on a host or migrates to another host in the network. If a service component is *mobile* it will follow the service environment as it migrates to a different host in the network.

The entity maintaining and providing runtime support to service components is the service context. Once the service components are loaded, the service context controls and sets the states of the service components. For example, newly created service components should be taken through an initialization state and when the service environment is about to migrate, all service components should be suspended. The service context is responsible for mediating service interfaces between service components. It is straightforward to implement a message passing service component on top of the core sView service/service communication scheme, and the sView reference implementation includes such a service. Via the service context, service components can control the behavior of the service environment (e.g., migration and shutdown) as well as the behavior of other service components (such as creation, suspension, and resumption). However, since these activities are sensitive matters, the user must grant privileges to each service component in order for them to perform these actions. A service component may for example be granted the privileges to create and load, but not suspend or kill, service components within the environment. Another service component may be allowed to initiate a migration of the whole service environment to another host, but not to control any aspect of individual service components.

A service briefcase server specifies an API for service briefcase handling. It includes basic functionality such as create new, get, put, and delete briefcase. It also includes functionality for synchronization of content in different instances of a service briefcase on different servers. Synchronization is used when a service briefcase is to be moved to a server on which it has already been stored. In this case it is possible that parts of the briefcase, such as service component specifications, need not be sent with the briefcase. Synchronization is performed in two steps: the first step is to find out the difference between the two service briefcases followed by the second step to update the parts that have been changed. The two-phase commit protocol is used to ensure data integrity during synchronization.

An illustration of the different parts of the core sView specification and their relations is given in Fig. 1. On the computer marked I a briefcase server and a service environment are executing. In this case the user is sitting next to the same computer as the service environment (represented by the cloud together with service components A, B, and C) is executing on. This makes it possible to use a standard GUI for user-service interaction. The computer marked II hosts service briefcases and environments for several users, which use remote interfaces. One user is using a Web-kiosk with a Web browser for user-service interaction (III) and another user uses a WAP phone (IV). Stored service environments, in the form of service briefcases (illustrated between I and II), can migrate between any computers that run a briefcase server.

## 4 Conclusions and Further Research

The sView system is a state-of-the-art tool for letting users develop and maintain their electronic services. In particular, the system may be used as a tool for developing and maintaining services design to, in turn, monitor and manipulate agents executing on an agent trade server. An example of such a service is graphical illustrations of trades conducted by an agent, or by a team of agents. Another example is a tool for kill requests: should agent owner preferences change during the trading day, means to remove an agent entirely from the agent trade server must be available. Whether this privilege is granted the agent owner, or only member brokers for instance, is up to the marketplace owner to decide.

The sView system does not solve all problems resulting from roaming traders. For example, the issue of hot login must be solved. A roaming trader wishes independence from service providers, security mechanisms, and billing procedures. A login, presumably at a predefined priority level, should be sustained for as long as possible, and with graceful degradation if necessary. We are currently looking deeper into the case of sView being employed for roaming traders, and have begun to write actual services.

We have also started work on the actual agent trade server specification and code. Since our long-term goal is to generalize our experiences from this case to other domains, constructing a sandbox environment for trading agent development, which can later be reused, is also on our agenda.


text:
# Hawking Radiation of Weyl Neutrinos in a Rectilinearly Non-uniformly Accelerating Kinnersley Black Hole11footnote 1Supported by the NNSF of China under Grant number: 19875019

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of Hawking radiation$`^{\text{[1]}}`$ has not only solved some contradictions inside black hole thermodynamics but also revealed a profound intrinsic relations among quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and general relativity. It is an important subject of black hole physics to investigate the thermal properties of various black holes.$`^{\text{[2]}}`$ Thanks to the existence of various astrophysical processes such as evaporation and accretion,$`^{\text{[3]}}`$ a black hole in the universe must change with time, thus to make a deeper investigation on the Hawking radiation of an evaporating black hole is of much significance to understand such dark celestial bodies as black holes. In recent years, researches on the Hawking radiation of non-stationary black holes attract much more attention, but most of these studies concentrated on the quantum thermal effect of scalar fields. The investigation of the Hawking radiation of fermions in the non-static black holes is merely limited to those in spherically symmetric ones.$`^{\text{[2]}}`$ Recently, by making use of the generalized tortoise transformation proposed by Zhao Zheng,$`^{\text{[2]}}`$ Wu and Cai$`^{\text{[4]}}`$ has successfully dealt with the Hawking radiation of Dirac particles in a non-stationary Kerr black hole.$`^{\text{[5]}}`$ They simultaneously treated the first-order and second-order Dirac equations and derived both the event horizon equation and the Hawking temperature which coincide with previous results.$`^{\text{[6]}}`$ A New quantum effect observed in the thermal radiation spectrum of fermions probably originates from the coupling of the spin of particles with the angular momentum of black holes. It is absent from the Bosonic radiation spectrum of scalar particles.$`^{\text{[6]}}`$

In this paper, we use the method developed in Ref.  to cope with the Hawking radiation of massless fermions namely Weyl neutrinos in a rectilinearly non-uniformly accelerating Kinnersley black hole.$`^{\text{[7]}}`$ The corresponding quantum thermal effect of scalar particles in the same space-time has already been studied in Ref. .

## 2 The Weyl equation in the background space-time

The metric of a rectilinearly non-uniformly accelerating Kinnersley black hole that we will take into account can be rewritten in the advanced Eddington-Finkelstein coordinate system as$`^{\text{[7]}}`$

$$ds^2=2dv(Gdvdrr^2fd\theta )r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),$$
(1)
where $`2G=12M/r2ar\mathrm{cos}\theta r^2f^2`$, $`f=a\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, the parameter $`a=a(v)`$ is the magnitude of acceleration, the mass $`M(v)`$ of the hole is a function of time $`v`$.

We choose such a complex null-tetrad $`\{𝒍,𝒏,𝒎,\overline{𝒎}\}`$ that satisfies the orthogonal conditions $`𝒍𝒏=𝒎\overline{𝒎}=1`$. Thus the covariant one-forms can be written as

$`𝒍=dv,𝒏=Gdvdrr^2fd\theta ,`$
$`𝒎={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d\theta +i\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi \right),`$
$`\overline{𝒎}={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d\theta i\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi \right),`$ (2)
and their corresponding directional derivatives are

$`D=_r,\mathrm{\Delta }=_v+G_r,`$
$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}\left(r^2f_r+_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\phi \right),`$
$`\overline{\delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}\left(r^2f_r+_\theta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\phi \right).`$ (3)
It is not difficult to compute the non-vanishing Newman-Penrose (NP)$`^{\text{[9]}}`$ spin coefficients as follows (we denote $`G_{,r}=dG/dr`$)

$`\rho =1/r,\mu =G/r,\gamma =G_{,r}/2,\tau =\stackrel{~}{\pi }=f/\sqrt{2},\beta =\mathrm{cot}\theta /(2\sqrt{2}r),`$
$`\alpha =\mathrm{cot}\theta /(2\sqrt{2}r)+f/\sqrt{2},\nu =\left[(2rGr^2G_{,r})f+r^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }\right]/(\sqrt{2}r).`$ (4)
Inserting the related spin coefficients and directional derivatives into the spinor form of the Weyl neutrino equation$`^{\text{[5, 10]}}`$ in the NP formalism

$`(D+ϵ\rho )\eta _1(\overline{\delta }+\stackrel{~}{\pi }\alpha )\eta _0=0,`$
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }+\mu \gamma )\eta _0(\delta +\beta \tau )\eta _1=0,`$ (5)
we obtain

$`𝒟_1\eta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}\left(r^2f𝒟_2\right)\eta _0=0,`$
$`\left(_v+G𝒟_1+G_{,r}/2\right)\eta _0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}r}}\left(^{}r^2f𝒟_1\right)\eta _1=0,`$ (6)
in which we have defined operators

$$𝒟_n=_r+n/r,=_\theta +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cot}\theta \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\phi ,^{}=_\theta +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cot}\theta +\frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\phi .$$

With further substitutions $`\chi _1=\sqrt{2}r\eta _1`$, $`\chi _0=\eta _0`$, into Eq. (6), we can reduce them to the form

$`𝒟_0\chi _1+\left(r^2f𝒟_2\right)\chi _0=0,`$
$`r^2\left(2_v+2G𝒟_1+G_{,r}\right)\chi _0\left(^{}r^2f𝒟_0\right)\chi _1=0.`$ (7)
## 3 Event horizon equation

Though Eq. (7) can not be decoupled with respect to $`\theta `$, however to deal with the problem of Hawking radiation, one should be concerned about its asymptotic behaviors near the horizon only. Basing upon of the symmetry of the space-time under consideration, we introduce a generalized tortoise coordinate transformation as follows

$$r_{}=r+\frac{1}{2\kappa }\mathrm{ln}[rr_h(v,\theta )],v_{}=vv_0,\theta _{}=\theta \theta _0,$$
(8)
namely,

$$dr_{}=dr+\frac{1}{2\kappa (rr_h)}\left(dr\dot{r}_hdvr_h^{}d\theta \right),dv_{}=dv,d\theta _{}=d\theta ,$$

where $`r_h=r_h(v,\theta )`$ is the location of the event horizon. $`\kappa `$ is an adjustable parameter to be determined, the parameters $`v_0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are arbitrary constants, all of them remain unchanged under the tortoise coordinate transformation. $`\dot{r}_h=_vr_h`$ and $`r_h^{}=_\theta r_h`$ can be viewed as parameters depicting the evolution of the event horizon. All induced relations among the first-order and second-order derivatives from the transformation (8) can be referred to Ref.  and are not listed here.

Now we apply the transformation (8) to Eq. (7) and take the $`rr_h(v_0,\theta _0)`$, $`vv_0`$ and $`\theta \theta _0`$ limits, then we can obtain its limiting form near the event horizon as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _1\left(r_h^{}+r_h^2f\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _0=0,`$
$`\left(r_h^{}+r_h^2f\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _1+2r_h^2\left(G\dot{r}_h\right){\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _0=0.`$ (9)
Obviously the condition that Eq. (9) has a nontrial solution for $`\chi _0`$ and $`\chi _1`$ is that its determinant vanishes, which gives the following equation to determine the location of the event horizon

$$2G2\dot{r}_h+\left(r_hf+\frac{r_h^{}}{r_h}\right)^2=0.$$
(10)
It is easily to see that this result is consistent with that inferred from the null-surface condition: $`g^{ij}_iF_jF=0`$. Making a similar prescription as done in the above to the null-surface equation

$$(2G+r^2f^2)(_rF)^2+2_vF_rF2f_\theta F_rF+\frac{1}{r^2}(_\theta F)^2+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }(_\phi F)^2=0,$$
(11)
we can arrive at an equation

$$\left(2G+r_h^2f^22\dot{r}_h+2fr_h^{}+\frac{r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r_h^2}\right)\left(\frac{}{r_{}}F\right)^2=0,$$

which results in the same one (10) that determines the event horizon after we let the coefficient in the front of the derivative $`\left(\frac{}{r_{}}F\right)^2`$ to be zero. Eq. (10) shows that $`r_h`$ depends not only on $`v`$ but also on $`\theta `$. This means that the location of the event horizon and the shape of the black hole change with time.

## 4 Hawking temperature

To investigate the Hawking radiation of Weyl neutrinos, we are now in a position to consider the second-order form of the Weyl equation. After a direct calculation to the second-order Weyl equations

$$[r^2𝒟_2(2_v+2G𝒟_1+G_{,r})+(^{}r^2f𝒟_2)(r^2f𝒟_2)]\chi _0=0,$$
(12)
and

$`[r^2(2_v+2G𝒟_1+G_{,r})𝒟_0+(r^2f𝒟_0)(^{}r^2f𝒟_0)]\chi _1`$
$`=2r^2\{[(2rGr^2G_{,r})f+r^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }]_r`$
$`+(rG_{,r}3G+r^2G_{,rr}/2)f+2rf_{,v}+G_{,\theta }/r+G_{,r\theta }/2\}\chi _0,`$ (13)
we can get their explicit forms as follows

$`[(2r^2G+r^4f^2)_r^2+2r^2_{vr}^2+_\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\phi ^22r^2f_{r\theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\phi `$
$`+(\mathrm{cot}\theta 4rf)_\theta +4r_v+(3r^2G_{,r}+6rG+6r^3f^22r^2f\mathrm{cot}\theta )_r`$
$`+r^2G_{,rr}+4rG_{,r}+2G+6r^2f^24rf\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}]\chi _0=0,`$ (14)
and

$`[(2r^2G+r^4f^2)_r^2+2r^2_{vr}^2+_\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\phi ^22r^2f_{r\theta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}_\phi `$
$`+\mathrm{cot}\theta _\theta +(r^2G_{,r}+2rG+2r^3f^22r^2f\mathrm{cot}\theta )_r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}]\chi _1`$
$`=2r^2\{[(2rGr^2G_{,r})f+r^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }]_r`$
$`+(rG_{,r}3G+r^2G_{,rr}/2)f+2rf_{,v}+G_{,\theta }/r+G_{,r\theta }/2\}\chi _0.`$ (15)
Application of a similar procedure as in the last section to Eqs. (14,15) leads to

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2\kappa }}+2r_h^2(2G\dot{r}_h)+2r_h^4f^2+2fr_h^2r_h^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}^2}}\chi _02\left(fr_h^2+r_h^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}\theta _{}}}\chi _0`$
$`+2r_h^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}v_{}}}\chi _0+[A+3r_h^2G_{,r}+r_h(6G4\dot{r}_h)+6r_h^3f^2`$
$`2r_h^2f\mathrm{cot}\theta _0+(4fr_h\mathrm{cot}\theta _0)r_h^{}r_h^{\prime \prime }]{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _0=0,`$ (16)
and

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2\kappa }}+2r_h^2(2G\dot{r}_h)+2r_h^4f^2+2fr_h^2r_h^{}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}^2}}\chi _12\left(fr_h^2+r_h^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}\theta _{}}}\chi _1`$
$`+2r_h^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{r_{}v_{}}}\chi _1+[A+r_h^2G_{,r}+2r_hG+2r_h^3f^22r_h^2f\mathrm{cot}\theta _0\mathrm{cot}\theta _0r_h^{}`$
$`r_h^{\prime \prime }]{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _1=2r_h^2[(2r_hGr_h^2G_{,r})f+r_h^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }]{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r_h^{}+r_h^2f}{G\dot{r}_h}}\left[(2r_hGr_h^2G_{,r})f+r_h^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{}}}\chi _1,`$ (17)
in which the coefficient $`A`$ is an infinite form of $`0/0`$-type. Its value can be computed by means of L’ Hôspital rule as

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{rr_h(v_0,\theta _0)}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2r^2(G\dot{r}_h)+r^4f^2+2fr^2r_h^{}+r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{rr_h}}`$
$`=`$ $`2r_h^2G_{,r}+4r_h(G\dot{r}_h)+4r_h^3f^2+4fr_hr_h^{}`$
$`=`$ $`2r_h^2G_{,r}+2r_h^3f^22r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/r_h.`$
Now we adjust the parameter $`\kappa `$ in Eqs. (16,17) such that the ratio of the coefficients before $`\frac{^2}{r_{}^2}`$ and $`\frac{^2}{r_{}v_{}}`$ is equal to $`1:2`$, namely

$$\frac{A}{2\kappa }+2r_h^2(2G\dot{r}_h)+2r_h^4f^2+2fr_h^2r_h^{}r_h^2,$$

and get the surface gravity of the event horizon

$$\kappa =\frac{r_h^2G_{,r}+r_h^3f^2r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/r_h}{r_h^2(12G)r_h^4f^2+r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.$$
(18)
Dividing both sides of Eqs. (16,17)by $`r_h^2`$ after substituting the coefficient $`A`$ into them, we can reduce both of them to a standard wave equation near the event horizon

$$\frac{^2}{r_{}^2}\mathrm{\Psi }+2\frac{^2}{r_{}v_{}}\mathrm{\Psi }2B\frac{^2}{r_{}\theta _{}}\mathrm{\Psi }+2C\frac{}{r_{}}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(19)
where $`B=f+r_h^{}/r_h^2`$, for $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\chi _0`$ we have

$$2C=\frac{2G}{r_h}+G_{,r}+2r_hf^2(2fr_h+\frac{r_h^{}}{r_h^2})\mathrm{cot}\theta _0\frac{r_h^{\prime \prime }}{r_h^2},$$

while for $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\chi _1`$ we have

$`2C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2G}{r_h}}G_{,r}(2f+{\displaystyle \frac{r_h^{}}{r_h^2}})\mathrm{cot}\theta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{2r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r_h^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_h^{\prime \prime }}{r_h^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f+r_h^{}/r_h^2}{G\dot{r}_h}}\left[(2r_hGr_h^2G_{,r})f+r_h^2f_{,v}+G_{,\theta }\right].`$
From the above prescriptions, we can see that it is with the aid of the relations (9) derived in the preceding section that we can recast the coupled equation (17) into a second-order wave equation of one component. This demonstrates that our disposition of the first-order and second-order equations is self-consistent and meets with the needs on physical grounds.

## 5 Thermal radiation spectrum

Now that all coefficients in Eq. (19) can be regarded as finite real constants, one can separate variables as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=R(r_{})\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta _{})e^{i(m\phi \omega v_{})},$$
(20)
and with this ansatz substituted into equation (19), one gets the following equation

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\lambda \mathrm{\Theta },R^{\prime \prime }=2(i\omega C_0)R^{},$$

with their solutions being

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=e^{\lambda \theta _{}},R=C_1e^{2(i\omega C_0)r_{}}+C_2,$$
(21)
where $`\lambda `$ is a real constant introduced in the separation variables, $`C_0=C\lambda B`$.

The in-going wave and the out-going wave are, respectively

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ $``$ $`e^{i(m\phi \omega v_{})+\lambda \theta _{}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ $``$ $`e^{i(m\phi \omega v_{})+\lambda \theta _{}}e^{2(i\omega C_0)r_{}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}e^{2(i\omega C_0)r_{}},(r>r_h).`$
Near the event horizon, we have $`r_{}\frac{1}{2\kappa }\mathrm{ln}(rr_h)`$. The in-going wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is regular at the event horizon, but the out-going wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}(r>r_h)`$ is irregular at the event horizon $`r=r_h`$, it can be analytically extended from the outside of the hole into the inside of the hole through the lower complex $`r`$-plane

$$(rr_h)(r_hr)e^{i\pi }$$

to

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(m\phi \omega v_{})+\lambda \theta _{}}e^{2(i\omega C_0)r_{}}e^{\pi (\omega +iC_0)/\kappa }`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}e^{\pi (\omega +iC_0)/\kappa },(r<r_h).`$
According to the method suggested by Damour-Ruffini-Sannan,$`^{\text{[11]}}`$ the relative scattering probability of the outgoing wave at the horizon is

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}}}\right|^2=e^{2\pi \omega /\kappa },$$
(24)
and the thermal radiation Fermionic spectrum of Weyl neutrinos from the event horizon of the hole is given by

$$𝒩(\omega )=\frac{1}{e^{\omega /T_h}+1},$$
(25)
with the obvious expression of the Hawking temperature being

$$T_h=\frac{\kappa }{2\pi }=\frac{1}{4\pi r_h}\frac{Mr_hr_h^3a\mathrm{cos}\theta _0r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{Mr_h+r_h^3a\mathrm{cos}\theta _0+r_{h}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2}.$$
(26)
It follows that the temperature depends not only on the time, but also on the angle $`\theta `$. The temperature is in accord with the corresponding result presented in Ref. .

## 6 Conclusions

Equations (10) and (26) give the location and the temperature of event horizon, which depend not only on the advanced time $`v`$ but also on the polar angle $`\theta `$. They are just the same results as that obtained in the discussion of the thermal radiation of scalar fields.$`^{\text{[8]}}`$ Equation (25) shows the Hawking radiation spectrum of Weyl neutrinos in a rectilinearly non-uniformly accelerating Kinnersley black hole.

This study and those in Refs. \[4,12-14\] manifest that the method of generalized coordinate transformation is a powerful tool to investigate black hole radiation. It was initially proposed by Damour-Ruffini$`^{\text{[11]}}`$ to deal with the quantum thermal effect of scalar fields in a static (Schwarzshild) black hole and in a stationary (Kerr) black hole. Later Sannan$`^{\text{[11]}}`$ developed this method and made it suitable not only to dealing with the thermal radiation of scalar fields but also to that of fermions. Zhao Zheng$`^{\text{[2]}}`$ further extended this transformation in the static and stationary cases to that in the non-static and non-stationary cases and have made several discussions about the quantum thermal effects of scalar fields in various black holes and that of Dirac particles in some non-static and spherically symmetric black holes. But this method meets great difficulties when it is applied to the Hawking radiation of Dirac particles in a most general space-time such as a non-static and non-spherically symmetric black hole or a non-stationary axisymmetry black hole. The reason is that the Dirac equation can not be completely separable for all variables in the most general space-time. Now this difficulty is overcome when we simultaneously treat the first-order and second-order equations, and use the relations between the first-order derivatives to remove the crossing-terms in the second-order equations. This procedure enables us to reduce each second-order equation of one component to a simple separable standard wave equation near the event horizon after we have made a generalized tortoise coordinate transformation.

In conclusion, the work in this paper and those in Refs. \[4,12-14\] make the method of generalized tortoise transformation more perfect. They indicate that this theory becomes a fairly integrated system. The method developed by us is applicable not only to discussing the Hawking radiation of Weyl neutrinos in a non-static and non-spherically symmetric Kinnersley black hole with arbitrarily acceleration and that of electrons in a non-stationary axisymmetry black hole, but also, in principle, to studying the quantum thermal effect of any space-time with a non-degenerate event horizon.$`^{\text{[14]}}`$ Also it is easily extended to discuss the Hawking effect of fields with an arbitrary spin.$`^{\text{[12, 13]}}`$