text:
# Hadronic EDMs, the Weinberg Operator, and Light Gluinos

## I Introduction and Summary

New sources of $`CP`$ violation in supersymmetric extensions of the standard model are highly constrained by the null experimental results for the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of neutrons and heavy atoms . Typically, when the superpartners have an electroweak scale mass, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$, the additional $`CP`$ violating phases are constrained to be of $`O(10^2)`$. When confronted with the natural expectation that the size of these phases in the soft-breaking sector should be of order one, this creates a problem for weak-scale supersymmetry (SUSY).

The interactions which generate EDMs are described by a $`CP`$-odd effective Lagrangian, induced at 1GeV by integrating out heavy standard model particles and superpartners, which contains a series of operators of increasing dimension. The leading $`\theta `$–term,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{[4]}=\frac{g_s^2}{32\pi ^2}\overline{\theta }G_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^a$$
(1)
has dimension four, and an arbitrary value for $`\overline{\theta }`$ constitutes the usual strong $`CP`$ problem as its contribution to EDMs is unsuppressed by any heavy scale. Moreover, the existence of additional $`CP`$-odd phases in the soft-breaking sector of the MSSM aggravates this problem by inducing a large additive renormalization of $`\overline{\theta }`$ that survives in the decoupling limit. The conventional ‘cure’ – the Peccei-Quinn mechanism – eliminates $`\overline{\theta }`$ and leaves the dimension five quark EDMs and color EDMs (CEDMs),

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}^{[5]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=e,u,d,s}{}}d_i\overline{\psi }_i(F\sigma )\gamma _5\psi _i`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,d,s}{}}\stackrel{~}{d}_i\overline{\psi }_i(G\sigma )\gamma _5\psi _i,`$
and the Weinberg operator ,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{[6]}=\frac{1}{3}wf^{abc}G_{\mu \nu }^a\stackrel{~}{G}_{\nu \beta }^bG_{\beta \mu }^c,$$
(4)
as the dominant mediators of $`CP`$ violation from the soft breaking sector to the observables. Note that although the quark (C)EDMs have dimension five, chiral symmetry requires that the corresponding coefficients are proportional to a light quark mass, and thus $`d_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i`$, and $`w`$ generically scale in the same way with the overall SUSY breaking scale.

Extracting constraints on the underlying $`CP`$-odd phases thus requires quantitative knowledge of the dependence of observable EDMs on $`d_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i`$, and $`w`$ normalized at the hadronic scale. Recently, the dependence on $`d_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i`$ has been determined more precisely using QCD sum rules , and in this note we turn our attention to the Weinberg operator. Although rather intractable within the standard framework, we will present several sum–rule based estimates. The resulting preferred range for the neutron EDM,

$$d_n(w)=e(1030)\mathrm{MeV}w(1\mathrm{GeV}),$$
(5)
is a factor of two smaller than conventional estimates  using ‘naive dimensional analysis’ (NDA) . This moderate suppression can be understood through the appearance of combinatoric factors which are not accounted for within NDA. However, while our result for $`d_n(w)`$ is smaller than the NDA estimate, and thus $`d_n(d_i,\stackrel{~}{d}_i)`$ generally dominates the contributions to $`d_n`$, there is a regime in which $`d_n(w)`$ is important as it is generated rather differently from the quark (C)EDMs within the MSSM.

In order to explain this point recall, first of all, that there are several generic ‘strategies’ for curing the SUSY $`CP`$ problem. The first is to require that the superpartners are heavy enough to suppress all operators of dim$`5`$ generated at the SUSY threshold. This decoupling is usually applied to sfermions of the first two generations only, in order to avoid problems with fine-tuning in the Higgs sector. However, this approach is only partially successful as relatively large EDMs may be generated through higher loops  or through four-fermion operators induced by Higgs exchange . Secondly, one could conceive of a universal conspiracy leading to cancellations between different contributions , but this is difficult to reconcile with the null results for all three types of EDM measurement (neutron, paramagnetic and diamagnetic atoms) that a priori have different phase dependence . A third, perhaps more elegant, option is to invoke an exact $`CP`$ or parity at some high-energy scale and specify the mechanisms that break supersymmetry in such a way that all the relevant soft breaking parameters are rendered real. This could also be one way of obviating the need for axion relaxation . However, some of these scenarios may face problems when confronted with the large $`CP`$ violation that is by now well-documented in the $`B`$-meson system .

Given these difficulties, one may pursue another option which is to suppress the SUSY contributions by creating some (mild) hierarchies between the soft breaking parameters in order to suppress the EDMs generated at one-loop. Notably, in the limit where gauginos are much lighter than the sfermions, all one-loop contributions to the EDMs of light quarks and the electron take the following form:

$$d_i(\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop})(\mathrm{loop}\mathrm{factor})\times \frac{m_i}{m_{\mathrm{sf}}^4}\mathrm{Im}(m_\lambda A),$$
(6)
with a similar expression for $`d_i`$ induced by the relative phase of $`\mu `$ and $`m_\lambda `$. Here $`i=e,u,d,s`$, and $`m_{\mathrm{sf}}`$ stands for a generic sfermion mass. It is easy to see that as $`m_\lambda 0`$ the expression (6) for $`d_i`$ vanishes. Thus a mild hierarchy $`m_\lambda (10^310^2)m_{\mathrm{sf}}`$ would appear to be sufficient to evade the SUSY $`CP`$ problem . In slightly different language, it follows from (6) that in this regime the quark EDMs are demoted to dimension seven operators and thus are relatively harmless.

While the quark EDMs are suppressed by this hierarchy, we emphasize that sending $`m_\lambda `$ down to hadronic scales actually enhances the neutron EDM via the generation of the Weinberg operator. The main point is that the gluino CEDM,

$$_\lambda =\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda f^{abc}\overline{\lambda ^b}\sigma G^a\gamma _5\lambda ^c,$$
(7)
can be induced by a top-stop loop , leading to

$$\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda (\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop})(\mathrm{loop}\mathrm{factor})\times \frac{m_t^2}{m_{\mathrm{sf}}^4}\mathrm{Im}(A_t\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta )$$
(8)
in a basis in which the gluino mass is real. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda `$ is a genuine dimension five operator, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda 1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$, for $`A_t\mu m_{\mathrm{sf}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. It follows that for $`m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, the gluino takes part in the strong interactions and contributes to the energy density of all hadrons. Consequently the neutron EDM is unsuppressed by any additional scale, and at a crude level $`d_ne\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda 1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$.

This enhancement by the gluino CEDM (7) persists in the intermediate hierarchical regime $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ where, on integrating out the gluino, one generates a contribution to the Weinberg operator alluded to above that scales as $`1/(m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_W)`$. At a critical scale $`m_\lambda =m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ these contributions will dominate over $`d_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}m_\lambda /\mathrm{\Lambda }_W^3`$ and $`d_n`$ will start increasing while $`m_\lambda `$ decreases. As we will determine below, the scale

$$m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}(612)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(9)
sets an effective threshold for the maximal suppression of EDMs possible with this superpartner hierarchy***As an aside, we note that (perhaps surprisingly) a gluino mass of order $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ is still not ruled out by direct constraints, and indeed has recently been revived  in relation to the enhanced hadronic $`b`$-quark production observed at CDF and D$`/0`$ ..

Our results suggest that at this scale the neutron EDM is still considerably larger than the experimental bound,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }d_n(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}})(4080)d_n^{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(10)
unless the SUSY $`CP`$ phases are fine-tuned. Note that both $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ and $`d_n(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}})`$ depend, in addition, on possible inter-generational hierarchies for the squark masses. When the first generation of sfermions is taken to be heavier than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$, $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ increases while $`d_n(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}})`$ decreases.

Therefore, the Weinberg operator has an important role to play in minimizing the suppression possible within the light gluino regime. Note that for $`m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, the $`CP`$-violating phase can be rotated to $`m_\lambda `$ itself leading to a suppression of $`d_n`$ by $`m_\lambda /\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$ as one approaches the super Yang-Mills limit. A schematic plot of the behaviour of $`d_n(m_\lambda )`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

In the next section we turn to the problem of estimating the contribution to $`d_n`$ induced by the Weinberg operator, justifying the result (5). Then, in Section 3 we describe in more detail the calculation justifying the argument outlined above which uses the Weinberg operator to limit the suppression of EDMs for light gluinos.

## II Neutron EDM induced by the Weinberg operator

Unlike the case of $`d_n`$ induced by the $`\theta `$-term, or the EDMs and CEDMs of quarks, where chiral loop  and QCD sum rule–based calculations  are available, the matrix element that relates $`d_n`$ with the Weinberg operator is unknown. The standard estimate, first obtained by Weinberg , makes use of ‘naive dimensional analysis’  which keeps track of dimensions, in terms of the generic hadronic scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$, and Goldstone-mediated interactions through the effective dimensionless coupling $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}/f_\pi `$. One finds ,

$$d_ne\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}}{4\pi }w(\mu )e90\mathrm{MeV}w(\mu ),$$
(11)
at a low-energy normalization point $`\mu `$, taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}4\pi f_\pi 1.2`$ GeV. The large value $`4\pi `$ for the coupling amounts to demanding that loop corrections are qualitatively similar to the tree-level terms at the matching scale. In the gluonic sector, which is important here, this means that within the UV quark/gluon description the relevant value of the gauge coupling is necessarily very large and consequently the inferred matching scale doesn’t mesh easily with expectations from the chiral sector . In the present context Weinberg , and many papers since , have, for the purpose of evaluating the gauge coupling, chosen a specific matching scale corresponding to $`g_s=4\pi /\sqrt{6}`$, or $`\alpha _s2`$ (cf. $`\alpha _s(1\mathrm{GeV})0.4`$). If we adopt this normalization scale in (11), and use (somewhat optimistically) the 1-loop anomalous dimension for $`w`$ , the relation $`w(\mu (g_s=4\pi /\sqrt{6}))0.4w(1\mathrm{GeV})`$ leads to the most commonly used estimate for $`d_n(w)`$:

$$d_n^{(1)}e\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}40}\mathrm{MeV}w(\mu =1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}).$$
(12)
We will avoid quoting a result for the dependence of $`d_n`$ on $`w(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W)`$, as there are additional threshold contributions from $`\stackrel{~}{d}_b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_c`$ generated by top-stop-gluino loops, which are in general model-dependent .

To get some intuition regarding the estimate (12), we can consider more carefully the loop-factors which are effectively set to unity in (11). For illustration, consider reducing the Weinberg operator to the EDM by ‘integrating out’ the gluons. This leads to an effective loop factor of $`g_s^3/(4\pi )^4`$ which reproduces (11) provided we take $`g_s4\pi `$. One obtains a similar conclusion for the effective scale by considering the gauge kinetic term itself . As a consistent matching condition we might then choose $`\mu =\mu (g_s=4\pi )`$, leading to a result

$$d_n^{(2)}e\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}18}\mathrm{MeV}w(\mu =1\mathrm{GeV}),$$
(13)
which is half the size of (12). Although both results (12) and (13) are consistent within the expected precision of NDA, it is clear that independent quantitative calculations are needed to determine $`d_n(w)`$ to better than an order of magnitude.

As a quantitative test of the NDA estimates, we will now revisit the calculation of $`d_n(w)`$ using QCD sum rules, leading to a result that is a factor of 2 smaller than (12) and consistent with (13). To proceed, we note first that the leading contribution to the EDM from the operator product expansion (OPE) of the nucleon current correlator in the presence of the source (4) exhibits a logarithmic infrared divergence. This signals  the presence of additional operators, required to resolve the divergence, whose contributions are generally rather difficult to calculate directly. Therefore, we will be content to regulate the log-divergent contributions with an IR cutoff. These terms will then form the basis of our estimates as they are correspondingly enhanced and thus provide the dominant contributions to the EDM.

We begin by noting that the Weinberg operator allows for a perturbative insertion into the quark propagator. The leading $`CP`$-odd correction is described by the diagram shown in Fig. 2, and standard manipulations  lead to the following result:

$$iS(p)=\frac{i/p}{p^2}+\frac{ig_sw}{8p^4}\gamma _5\overline{q}g_s(G\sigma )q,$$
(14)
where the value of the quark-gluon condensate is given by

$$\overline{q}g_s(G\sigma )q=m_0^2|\overline{q}q|0.8\mathrm{GeV}^2\overline{q}q,$$
(15)
with $`\overline{q}q=(230\mathrm{MeV})^3`$. It is the $`1/p^4`$ momentum dependence in the second term of Eq. (14) which leads to the logarithmic infrared divergence alluded to above in the correlator of two nucleon currents. This signals the breakdown of the OPE, but also singles out this insertion as providing the dominant effect which we will use in calculating $`d_n(w)`$. The ambiguity of the infrared log does of course render the result less reliable than the corresponding determination of $`d_n(d_i,\stackrel{~}{d}_i)`$ , but nonetheless sufficient for our estimates.

The insertion present in the second term in (14) behaves as a “soft $`\gamma _5`$-mass”. Indeed, while irrelevant for large $`p^2`$, at hadronic scale momenta it mimics the existence of an effective $`CP`$-odd mass of order

$$m_5^{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{g_sw}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}^2}\overline{q}g_s(G\sigma )q(120\mathrm{MeV}160\mathrm{MeV})^3w$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$ is the effective hadronic scale, which we take to lie in a range from $`m_\rho `$ up to $`4\pi f_\pi `$, with previous results  suggesting that the lower end of this range is most relevant for EDM observables. This determines the neutron EDM according to the scaling relation ,

$$d_ne\frac{|m_5^{\mathrm{eff}}|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}^2}e(1.57)\mathrm{MeV}w(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}),$$
(17)
where the large range in this estimate arises from the allowed variation in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$.

This result is 5–10 times smaller than the conventional NDA estimate (12). This is actually not too surprising once we recall that a priori $`d_n(w)`$ should be of $`O(\overline{q}q^0)`$ in the chiral limit, while the contribution in (17) is $`O(\overline{q}q)`$ and thus may indeed be subleading. To test this one can consider an explicit sum-rules based estimate  utilizing the insertion (14). One finds that for the natural chirally invariant Lorentz structure, $`\{/p,(F\sigma )\gamma _5\}`$ , the tractable contributions are of $`O(\overline{q}q^2)`$ and render a result for $`d_n`$ within the range (17). Previous experience  would suggest that the terms of $`O(\overline{q}q^2)`$ are sub-dominant, but unfortunately the (a priori) leading contributions of $`O(\overline{q}q^0)`$ for $`d_n(w)`$ are intractable in this direct approach due to the presence of unknown condensates.

This analysis suggests that the range (17) might represent an underestimate of $`d_n(w)`$. A natural path to follow is to consider the sum-rules in chirally-variant channels such as $`(F\sigma )`$ or $`/p(F\sigma )/p`$ from which one can still extract $`d_n(w)`$ along the lines considered previously for $`d_n(\theta )`$ . A convenient means of estimating $`d_n(w)`$ in this vein is to calculate the $`\gamma _5`$–rotation of the nucleon wavefunction induced by the Weinberg operator and determine $`d_n`$ in terms of the corresponding rotation of the neutron anomalous magnetic moment $`\mu _n`$:

$`d_n\mu _n{\displaystyle \frac{N|\frac{w}{3}(GG\stackrel{~}{G})|N}{m_n\overline{N}i\gamma _5N}}.`$ (18)
This approach was considered previously by Bigi and Uraltsev  who estimated $`N|(GG\stackrel{~}{G})|N`$ in terms of $`N|GG|N`$ and the corresponding vacuum condensates.

We can follow this route and perform a more explicit calculation by evaluating the ‘$`\gamma _5`$’ term in the standard mass sum-rule correlator of the two nucleon currents. For the conventional choice of the Ioffe interpolating current for the neutron $`\eta `$ , we obtain at leading order,

$`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{ipx}\eta (0)\overline{\eta }(x)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}p^2\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{UV}}^2/p^2)\overline{q}q`$ (19)
$`\times \left[1+i\gamma _5{\displaystyle \frac{3g_sw}{32\pi ^2}}m_0^2\mathrm{ln}(p^2/\mu _{IR}^2)\right]+\mathrm{}.`$ (20)
It is the relative coefficient between the structures 1 and $`i\gamma _5`$ that determines the chiral rotation and consequently enters into the estimate of . From (18) and (20) we obtain

$$d_n\mu _n\frac{3g_sm_0^2}{32\pi ^2}w\mathrm{ln}(M^2/\mu _{IR}^2)e22\mathrm{MeV}w(1\mathrm{GeV}),$$
(21)
where we took $`M/\mu _{IR}=2`$ and $`g_s=2.1`$. It is important to note that the estimate (21) arises at $`O(\overline{q}q^0)`$, which we would expect to be dominant, and is indeed considerably larger than the estimate (17). A more involved calculation of the nucleon current correlator in an external electromagnetic field  reveals additional contributions to $`d_n(w)`$, but the overall result remains quite close to (21). Additional induced corrections, from Peccei-Quinn relaxation, would also be subleading  as they cannot contribute at $`O(\overline{q}q^0)`$.

The only other QCD sum-rules estimate of $`d_n(w)`$ that we are aware of was made by Khatsimovsky  who considered a high order term in the OPE proportional to the dimension-eight operator $`F(GG\stackrel{~}{G})`$. An estimate of the nonlocal correlator, $`d^4x0|T\{(GG\stackrel{~}{G})(0),(GG\stackrel{~}{G})(x)\}|0`$ produced a result for $`d_n(w)`$ similar to (11). However, combinatoric factors were ignored in this calculation which clearly reduce the result to a value consistent with – or somewhat smaller than – (17,21). In practice a precise calculation along these lines does not appear feasible, as multiple perturbative insertions of the gluon field strength into a quark line generally leads to power-like infrared divergences , signifying the breakdown of the OPE.

Putting these results together, and ignoring the lower range of (17) for the reasons discusssed above, we find the preferred range for $`d_n(w)`$,

$`d_n(w)e(1030)\mathrm{MeV}w(1\mathrm{GeV}),`$ (22)
which is a factor of two smaller than the conventional NDA estimate (12), and consistent with (13). This result will be discussed in more detail elsewhere , but we turn now to a regime of the SUSY parameter space for which this contribution to $`d_n`$ is nonetheless very significant.

## III Enhancement via gluino color EDM

As described and schematically illustrated in Section I, the neutron EDM is particularly enhanced in the domain $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ where the gluino develops a color EDM via a top–stop loop ,

$`\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda (\mathrm{\Lambda }_W)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^3(\mathrm{\Lambda }_W)}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}})\mathrm{sin}\delta _t`$ (24)
$`\times \left[f_g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2}}f_g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2}}\right)\right],`$
with $`\delta _t=\text{Arg}[A_t\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta ]`$ and $`f_g(y)=(1y+\mathrm{ln}(y))/(1y)^2`$. Note that this expression is independent of $`m_\lambda `$ and scales as $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. The corresponding contribution to the Weinberg operator ,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }w(m_\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{3g_s^2(m_\lambda )}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda (m_\lambda )}{m_\lambda }}`$ (25)
scales as $`1/m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. It is worth noting that in addition to the obvious enhancement by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W/m_\lambda `$ relative to the standard scenario , the gluino CEDM–induced shift of the Weinberg operator is also enhanced relative to that induced by $`c`$ or $`b`$ quarks which is of order $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_W^2`$ .

The normalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }w`$ at the hadronic scale involves running the gluino CEDM from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$ down to the gluino mass threshold, and subsequent running of $`w`$ down to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{hadr}}`$. For completeness, we give the 1-loop $`\beta `$ function coefficient, $`\beta _0=112n_\lambda 2n_q/3`$, where $`n_x`$ stands for the number of light $`x`$ particles at the scale under concern. Besides this, the anomalous dimensions of $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\lambda `$ and $`w`$ are given, respectively, by $`\gamma ^\lambda =18+\beta _0`$ and $`\gamma ^W=36+3\beta _0`$. The latter has been computed in , and the computation of the former is similar to that of the quark color EDMs .

We now illustrate numerically the impact of light gluinos on the neutron EDM using the range for $`d_n(w)`$ in (5). Using (24) and (25), we can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }d_n100\mathrm{sin}\delta _t\frac{(412)\mathrm{GeV}}{m_\lambda }d_n^{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(26)
where we have taken $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=700\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=\pi /4`$, and the current experimental bound on the neutron EDM is $`d_n^{\mathrm{exp}}<6\times 10^{26}\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{cm}`$ . The final results are presented in Fig. 3, where we have chosen the mid-value $`d_n=20`$MeV$`w`$ in (5). The solid curve stands for $`m_\lambda =1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (with $`d_n/d_n^{\mathrm{exp}}980`$ at $`\delta _t=\pi /2`$), the dashed curve for $`m_\lambda =m_b`$ (with $`d_n/d_n^{\mathrm{exp}}170`$ at $`\delta _t=\pi /2`$), and the dot–dashed curve for $`m_\lambda =20\mathrm{GeV}`$ (with $`d_n/d_n^{\mathrm{exp}}30`$ at $`\delta _t=\pi /2`$). Thus, for light gluinos, where $`m_\lambda (14)\mathrm{GeV}`$, one finds that $`d_n(w)`$ exceeds the experimental bound by at least two orders of magnitude throughout the entire preferred range in (5) unless the SUSY phases are tuned such that $`\delta _t<10^2`$.

Of particular interest is the maximal suppression that one can achieve for the EDM in this hierarchical regime with light gluinos. We denote by $`m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}`$ the critical scale at which the 1-loop contribution induced by quark EDMs (and CEDMs) is approximately equal to the contribution associated with the Weinberg operator discussed here. Choosing the soft-breaking parameters in the first generation of squarks to be $`𝒪(200\mathrm{GeV})`$, and assuming no accidental cancellations, we find

$$m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}}(612)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(27)
accounting for the range in (5), for which the (minimal) correction to the EDM is approximately,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }d_n(m_\lambda ^{\mathrm{int}})(4080)d_n^{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(28)
which still exceeds the experimental bound by at least an order of magnitude unless the $`CP`$-odd phases are small.

It is interesting to compare our estimates for $`d_n`$ with those one obtains when the gluino is heavy, $`m_\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_W`$. In this case, the Weinberg operator is first generated at the weak scale at two-loop order . On including the contributions arising at the $`b`$–quark and $`c`$–quark thresholds, one finds that $`d_n`$ obtained via (11) only exceeds $`d_n^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ by at most one order of magnitude . Consequently, the light gluino scenario actually induces a larger contribution to $`d_n`$ via the color EDM of the gluino. Thus, while it is possible to suppress the one–loop contributions to the EDMs of leptons and hadrons by taking light gauginos , the induced contribution to the Weinberg operator means that the constraints on the SUSY $`CP`$-odd phases are not correspondingly relaxed.

We thank Louis Clavelli, Glennys Farrar and Oleg Lebedev for useful discussions. The work of D.D. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-94ER40823.


format: text

text:
# Spin-Orbit Coupling, Antilocalization, and Parallel Magnetic Fields in Quantum Dots

## Abstract

We investigate antilocalization due to spin-orbit coupling in ballistic GaAs quantum dots. Antilocalization that is prominent in large dots is suppressed in small dots, as anticipated theoretically. Parallel magnetic fields suppress both antilocalization and also, at larger fields, weak localization, consistent with random matrix theory results once orbital coupling of the parallel field is included. *In situ* control of spin-orbit coupling in dots is demonstrated as a gate-controlled crossover from weak localization to antilocalization.

The combination of quantum coherence and electron spin rotation in mesoscopic systems produces a number of interesting and novel transport properties. Numerous proposals for potentially revolutionary electronic devices that use spin-orbit (SO) coupling have appeared in recent years, including gate-controlled spin rotators DattaDas  as well as sources and detectors of spin-polarized currents SOPol . It has been predicted that the effects of some types of SO coupling will be strongly suppressed in small 0D systems, i.e., quantum dots Khaetskii ; Halperin ; RMT . This suppression as well as overall control of SO coupling will be important if quantum dots are used to store electron spin states as part of a future information processing scheme.

In this Letter, we investigate SO effects in ballistic-chaotic GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots. We identify the signature of SO coupling in ballistic quantum dots to be antilocalization (AL), leading to characteristic magnetoconductance curves, analogous to known cases of disordered 1D and 2D systems HLK ; BergmannReview ; DresselhausExp ; Millo ; Miller ; Knap . AL is found to be prominent in large dots and suppressed in smaller dots, as anticipated theoretically Khaetskii ; Halperin ; RMT . Results are generally in excellent agreement with a new random matrix theory (RMT) that includes SO and Zeeman coupling RMT . Moderate magnetic fields applied in the plane of the 2D electron gas (2DEG) in which the dots are formed cause a crossover from AL to weak localization (WL). This can be understood as a result of Zeeman splitting, consistent with RMT RMT . At larger parallel fields WL is also suppressed, which is not expected within RMT. The suppression of WL is explained quantitatively by orbital coupling of the parallel field, which breaks time-reversal symmetry Falko . Finally, we demonstrate *in situ* electrostatic control of the SO coupling strength by tuning from AL to WL in a dot with a center gate.

It is well known that in mesoscopic samples coherent backscattering of time-reversed electron trajectories leads to a conductance minimum (WL) at $`B=0`$ in the spin-invariant case, and a conductance maximum (AL) in the case of strong SO coupling HLK . In semiconductor heterostructures, SO coupling results mainly from electric fields DyakanovPerel  (appearing as magnetic fields in the electron frame) leading to momentum dependent spin precessions due to crystal inversion asymmetry (Dresselhaus term Dresselhaus ) and heterointerface asymmetry (Rashba term Rashba ).

SO coupling effects have been previously measured using AL in GaAs 2DEGs DresselhausExp ; Millo ; Miller  and other 2D heterostructures Knap . Other means of measuring SO coupling in heterostructures, such as from Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations SdH  and Raman scattering spectroscopy Jusserand  are also quite developed. SO effects have also been reported in mesoscopic systems (comparable in size to the phase coherence length) such as Aharonov-Bohm rings, wires, and carbon nanotubes rwt . Recently, parallel field effects of SO coupling in quantum dots were measured Hackens ; Folk . In particular, an observed reduction of conductance fluctuations in a parallel field Folk  was explained by including SO effects Halperin ; RMT , leading to an important extension of random matrix theory (RMT) to include new symmetry classes associated with SO and Zeeman coupling RMT .

This RMT addresses quantum dots coupled to two reservoirs via $`N`$ total conducting channels, with $`N1`$. It assumes $`(\gamma ,ϵ_Z)E_T`$, where $`\gamma =N\mathrm{\Delta }/(2\pi )`$ is the level broadening due to escape, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean level spacing, $`ϵ_Z=g\mu _BB`$ is the Zeeman energy and $`E_T`$ is the Thouless energy (Table I). Decoherence is included as a fictitious voltage probe BBB ; RMT  with dimensionless dephasing rate $`N_\phi =h/(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\phi )`$, where $`\tau _\phi `$ is the phase coherence time. SO lengths $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ along respective principal axes $`[110]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ are assumed (within the RMT) to be large compared to the dot dimensions $`L_{1,2}`$ along these axes. We define the mean SO length $`\lambda _{so}=\sqrt{|\lambda _1\lambda _2|}`$ and SO anisotropy $`\nu _{so}=\sqrt{|\lambda _1/\lambda _2|}`$. SO coupling introduces two energy scales: $`ϵ_{}^{so}=\kappa _{}E_T(L_1L_2/\lambda _{so}^2)^2`$, which represents a spin-dependent Aharonov-Bohm-like effect, and $`ϵ_{}^{so}((L_1/\lambda _1)^2+(L_2/\lambda _2)^2)ϵ_{}^{so}`$, providing spin flips. AL appears in the regime of strong SO coupling, $`(ϵ_{}^{so},ϵ_{}^{so})\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is the total level broadening $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=(\gamma +\mathrm{}/\tau _\phi )`$. Note that large dots reach the strong SO regime more readily (i.e., for weaker SO coupling) than small dots. Parameters $`\lambda _{so}`$, $`\tau _\phi `$, and $`\kappa _{}`$ (a dimensionless parameter characterizing trajectory areas within the dot) are extracted from fits to dot conductance as a function of perpendicular field, $`B_{}`$. The asymmetry parameter, $`\nu _{so}`$, is estimated from the dependence of magnetoconductance on parallel field, $`B_{}`$.

The quantum dots are formed by lateral Cr-Au depletion gates defined by electron-beam lithography on the surface of a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure grown in the  direction. The 2DEG interface is $`349\mathrm{\AA }`$ below the wafer surface, comprising a $`50\mathrm{\AA }`$ GaAs cap layer and a $`299\mathrm{\AA }`$ AlGaAs layer with two Si $`\delta `$-doping layers $`143\mathrm{\AA }`$ and $`161\mathrm{\AA }`$ from the 2DEG. An electron density of $`n5.8\times 10^{15}\mathrm{m}^2`$ Subb  and bulk mobility $`\mu 24\mathrm{m}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$ (cooled in the dark) gives a transport mean free path $`\mathrm{}_e3\mu \mathrm{m}`$. This 2DEG is known to show AL in 2D Miller . Measurements were made in a 3He cryostat at $`0.3\mathrm{K}`$ using current bias of $`1\mathrm{nA}`$ at $`338\mathrm{Hz}`$. Shape-distorting gates were used to obtain ensembles of statistically independent conductance measurements Chan95  while the point contacts were actively held at one fully transmitting mode each ($`N=2`$).

Figure 1 shows average conductance $`g`$, and variance of conductance fluctuations, $`\mathrm{var}(g)`$, as a function of $`B_{}`$ for the three measured dots: a large dot ($`A8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$), a variable size dot with an internal gate ($`A5.8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ or $`8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$, depending on center gate voltage), and a smaller dot ($`1.2\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$). Each data point represents $`200`$ independent device shapes. The large dot shows AL while the small and gated dots show WL. Estimates for $`\lambda _{so}`$, $`\tau _\phi `$ and $`\kappa _{}`$, from RMT fits are listed for each device below the micrographs in Fig. 1 (see Table I for corresponding $`ϵ_{}`$ and $`ϵ_{}`$). When AL is present (i.e., for the large dot), estimates for $`\lambda _{so}`$ have small uncertainties ($`\pm 5\%`$) and give upper and lower bounds; when AL is absent (i.e., for the small and gated dots) only a lower bound for $`\lambda _{so}`$ ($`5\%`$) can be extracted from fits. The value $`\lambda _{so}4.4\mu \mathrm{m}`$ is consistent with all dots and in good agreement with AL measurements made on an unpatterned 2DEG sample from the same wafer Miller .

Comparing Figs. 1(a) and 1(c), and recalling that all dots are fabricated on the same wafer, one sees that AL is suppressed in smaller dots, even though $`\lambda _{so}`$ is sufficient to produce AL in the larger dot. We note that these dots do not strongly satisfy the inequalities $`L/\lambda _{so}1,N1`$, having $`N=2`$ and $`L/\lambda _{so}=0.64(0.34)`$ for the large (small) dot. Nevertheless, Fig. 1 shows the very good agreement between experiment and the new RMT.

We next consider the influence of a parallel magnetic field on average magnetoconductance. In order to apply tesla-scale $`B_{}`$ while maintaining subgauss control of $`B_{}`$, we mount the sample with the 2DEG aligned to the axis of the primary solenoid (accurate to $`1^{}`$) and use an independent split-coil magnet attached to the cryostat to provide $`B_{}`$ as well as to compensate for sample misalignment Folk . Figure 2 shows plots of the deviation of the shape-averaged conductance from its value at $`B_{}\varphi _0/A`$ (i.e., with time-reversal symmetry fully broken by $`B_{}`$), $`\delta g(B_{},B_{})=g(B_{},B_{})g(B_{}\varphi _0/A,B_{})`$. Figure 2(a) shows $`\delta g(B_{},B_{})`$ as a function of $`B_{}`$ at several values of $`B_{}`$, along with fits of RMT RMT  in which parameters $`\lambda _{so}`$, $`\tau _\phi `$ and $`\kappa _{}`$ have been set by a single fit to the $`B_{}=0`$ data. The low-field dependence of $`\delta g(0,B_{})`$ on $`B_{}`$ (Fig. 2(b)) then allows the remaining parameter, $`\nu _{so}`$, to be estimated as described below.

Besides $`ϵ_Z`$ (which is calculated using $`g=0.44`$ rather than fit), parallel field combined with SO coupling introduces an additional new energy scale, $`ϵ_{}^Z=\frac{\kappa _zϵ_Z^2A}{2E_T}_{i,j=1,2}\frac{l_i}{\lambda _i}\frac{l_j}{\lambda _j}`$, where $`\kappa _Z`$ is a dot-dependent constant and $`l_{1,2}`$ are the components of a unit vector along $`B_{}`$ RMT . Because orbital effects of $`B_{}`$ on $`\delta g(B_{},B_{})`$ dominate at large $`B_{}`$, $`ϵ_{}^Z`$ must instead be estimated from RMT fits of $`\mathrm{var}(g)`$ with already-broken time reversal symmetry, which is unaffected by orbital coupling Zumbuhlvar .

The RMT formulation RMT  is invariant under $`\nu _{so}r/\nu _{so}`$, where $`r=L_1/L_2`$ sym , and gives an extremal value of $`\delta g(0,B_{})`$ at $`\nu _{so}=\sqrt{r}`$. As a consequence, fits to $`\delta g(0,B_{})`$ cannot distinguish between $`\nu _{so}`$ and $`r/\nu _{so}`$. As shown in Fig. 2(b), data for the $`8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ dot ($`r2`$) are consistent with $`1\nu _{so}2`$ and appear best fit to the extremal value, $`\nu _{so}1.4`$. Values of $`\nu _{so}`$ that differ from one indicate that both Rashba and Dresselhaus terms are significant, which is consistent with 2D data taken on the same material Miller .

Using $`\nu _{so}=1.4`$ and values of $`\lambda _{so}`$, $`\tau _\phi `$, and $`\kappa _{}`$ from the $`B_{}=0`$ fit, RMT predictions for $`\delta g(B_{},B_{})`$ agree well with experiment up to about $`B_{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\mathrm{T}`$ (Fig. 2(a)), showing a crossover from AL to WL. For higher parallel fields, however, experimental $`\delta g`$’s are suppressed relative to RMT predictions. By $`B_{}2\mathrm{T}`$, WL has vanished in all dots (Fig. 2(c)) while RMT predicts significant remaining WL at large $`B_{}`$. The full range of $`\delta g(0,B_{})`$ for the three dots is shown in Fig. 2(c). The center-gated ($`5.6\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$) dot and the small ($`1.2\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$) dot show WL for all $`B_{}`$, and a similar suppression of WL above $`B_{}2\mathrm{T}`$.

One would expect WL/AL to vanish once orbital effects of $`B_{}`$ break time reversal symmetry. Following Ref. Falko  (FJ), we account for this with a suppression factor $`f_{FJ}(B_{})=(1+\tau _B^1/\tau _{esc}^1)^1`$, where $`\tau _B^1aB_{}^2+bB_{}^6`$, and assume that the combined effects of SO coupling and flux threading by $`B_{}`$ can be written as a product, $`\delta g(0,B_{})=\delta g_{RMT}(0,B_{})f_{FJ}(B_{})`$. The $`B_{}^2`$ term reflects surface roughness or dopant inhomogeneities; the $`B_{}^6`$ term reflects the asymmetry of the quantum well. We consider fits taking $`a`$ as a fit parameter ($`a_1`$, Table I) with $`b=\mathrm{1.4\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{T}^6`$ fixed, obtained from self-consistent simulations FJsim , or allowing both $`a`$ and $`b`$ to be fit parameters ($`a_2`$ and $`b_2`$, Table I). Figure 2(c) shows that allowing both to be free is only significant for the (unusually shaped) center-gated dot; for the small and large dots, the single-parameter ($`a`$) fit gives good quantitative agreement.

We next consider the effects of temperature and dephasing. We find that increased temperature reduces the overall magnitude of $`\delta g`$ and also suppresses AL compared to WL, causing AL at $`300\mathrm{mK}`$ to become WL by $`1.5\mathrm{K}`$ (maximum of $`\delta g(B_{},0)`$ at $`B_{}=0`$ becomes minimum) in the $`8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ dot (Fig. 3a). Fits of RMT to $`\delta g(B_{},0)`$ yield $`\lambda _{so}`$ values that are roughly independent of temperature (Fig. 3b), consistent with 2D results Millo , and $`\tau _\phi `$ values that decrease with increasing temperature. Dephasing is well described by the empirical form $`(\tau _\phi [\mathrm{ns}])^17.5\mathrm{T}[\mathrm{K}]+2.5(\mathrm{T}[\mathrm{K}])^2`$, consistent with previous measurements in low-SO dots HuibersDephasing . As temperature increases, long trajectories that allow large amounts of spin rotations are being cut off by the decreasing $`\tau _\phi `$ and the AL peak is diminished, as observed.

Finally, we demonstrate *in situ* control of the SO coupling using a center-gated dot. Figure 4 shows the observed crossover from AL to WL as the gate voltage $`V_g`$ is tuned from $`+0.2\mathrm{V}`$ to $`1\mathrm{V}`$. At $`V_g=1\mathrm{V}`$, electrons beneath the center gate are fully depleted producing a dot of area $`5.8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ which shows WL. In the range of $`V_g0.3`$ V, the region under the gate is not fully depleted and the amount of AL is controlled by modifying the density under the gate. Note that for $`V_g>0\mathrm{V}`$ the AL peak is larger than in the ungated $`8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ dot. We interpret this enhancement not as a removal of the SO suppression due to an inhomogeneous SO coupling BrouwerInho , which would enhance AL in dots with $`L/\lambda _{so}1`$ (not the case for the $`8\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$ dot), but rather as the result of increased SO coupling in the higher-density region under the gate when $`V_g>0\mathrm{V}`$.

One may wish to use the evolution of WL/AL as a function of $`V_g`$ to extract SO parameters for the region under the gate. To do so, the dependence may be ascribed to either a gate-dependent $`\lambda _{so}`$ or to a gate-dependence of a new parameter $`\kappa _{}=ϵ_{}^{so}/(((L_1/\lambda _1)^2+(L_2/\lambda _2)^2)ϵ_{}^{so})`$. Both options give equally good agreement with the data (fits in Fig. 4 assume $`\lambda _{so}(V_g)`$), including the parallel field dependence (not shown). Resulting values for $`\lambda _{so}`$ or $`\kappa _{}`$ (assuming the other fixed) are shown in the inset in Fig. 4. We note that the 2D samples from the same wafer did not show gate-voltage dependent SO parameters Miller . However, in the 2D case a cubic Dresselhaus term that is not included in the RMT of Ref. RMT  was significant. For this reason, fits using RMT  might show $`\lambda _{so}(V_g)`$ though the 2D case did not. Further investigation of the gate dependence of SO coupling in dots will be the subject of future work.

We thank I. Aleiner, B. Altshuler, P. Brouwer, J. Cremers, V. Falko, J. Folk, B. Halperin, T. Jungwirth and Y. Lyanda-Geller. This work was supported in part by DARPA-QuIST, DARPA-SpinS, ARO-MURI and NSF-NSEC. Work at UCSB was supported by QUEST, an NSF Science and Technology Center. JBM acknowledges partial support from NDSEG.