text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a series of papers <sup>-</sup> we have shown that renormalizations in a softly broken SUSY theory follow from those of an unbroken one in a straightforward way. This is in agreement with the other approaches  and is inspired by the original observation of Ref.. In what follows we give a review of our approach. It does not explicitly use the power of holomorphicity advocated by some authors , but ends up with the simple and straightforward algorithm which is easy to apply.

The main idea is that a softly broken supersymmetric gauge theory can be considered as a rigid SUSY theory imbedded into external space-time independent superfield $`\eta `$, so that all couplings and masses become external superfields $`S(\eta ,\overline{\eta })`$. Then, the following crucial statement is valid

The statement: In external spurion field $`\eta `$ the UV singular part of the effective action depends on the couplings $`S(\eta ,\overline{\eta })`$, but does not depend on their derivatives:

$$S_{Sing}^{eff}(g)S_{Sing}^{eff}(S,D^2S,\overline{D}^2S,D^2\overline{D}^2S),$$
(1)
where $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ are the supercovariant derivatives, and as a result has the same form in unbroken and broken cases.

With replacement of the couplings by external fields one can calculate the effective action $`S_{Sing}^{eff}(g)`$ assuming that the external field is a constant, i.e. in a rigid theory. This approach to a softly broken supersymmetric theory allows us to use remarkable mathematical properties of $`N=1`$ SUSY field theories such holomorphicity which leads to the non-renormalization theorems, cancellation of quadratic divergences, etc.

The renormalization procedure in a softly broken SUSY gauge theory can be performed in the following way:

One takes the renormalization constants of a rigid theory, calculated in some massless scheme, substitutes instead of the rigid couplings (gauge and Yukawa) their modified expressions, which depend on a Grassmannian variable, and expand over this variable. This gives renormalization constants for the soft terms. Differentiating them with respect to a scale one can find corresponding renormalization group equations.

Thus, the soft-term renormalizations are not independent but can be calculated from the known renormalizations of a rigid theory with the help of the differential operators. Explicit form of these operators has been found in a general case and in some particular models like SUSY GUTs or the MSSM . The same expressions have been obtained also in a somewhat different approach in Ref. .

In fact as it has been shown in  this procedure works at all stages. One can make the above mentioned substitution on the level of the renormalization constants, RG equations, solutions to these equations, approximate solutions, fixed points, finiteness conditions, etc. Expanding then over a Grassmannian variable one obtains corresponding expressions for the soft terms. This way one can get new solutions of the RG equations and explore their asymptotics, or approximate solutions, or find their stability properties, starting from the known expressions for a rigid theory.

Throughout the paper we assume the existence of some gauge and SUSY invariant regularization. Though it is some problem by itself, in principle it is solvable . Provided the rigid theory is well defined, we consider the modifications which appear due to the presence of soft SUSY breaking terms. To be more precise, when discussing one, two and three loop calculations of the renormalization constants we have in mind dimensional reduction and the minimal subtraction scheme. Though dimensional reduction is not self-consistent in general , it is safe to use it in low orders and all the actual calculations are performed in the framework of dimensional reduction . Nevertheless, our main formulae have general validity provided the invariant procedure exists.

Below we give some examples: the general SUSY gauge theory in higher loops, the MSSM in low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime where analytical solutions to the one-loop RG equations are known exactly and in high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime where analytical solutions are known in iterative or approximate form. We discuss some particular solutions like the fixed point ones and examine their properties. The method allows one to get the same type of solutions for the soft SUSY breaking terms. The other examples are the finite N=1 SUSY GUTs and the N=2 Seiberg-Witten model where exact (nonperturbative) solution is known. Here one can extend finiteness and the S-W solution to the soft terms as well.

## 2 Soft SUSY Breaking and the Spurion Superfields

Consider an arbitrary $`N=1`$ SUSY gauge theory with unbroken SUSY within the superfield formalism. The Lagrangian of a rigid theory is given by

$`_{rigid}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{1}{4g^2}\mathrm{Tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha }+{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\frac{1}{4g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i(e^V)_i^j\mathrm{\Phi }_j}+{\displaystyle d^2\theta 𝒲}+{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\overline{𝒲}},`$
where

$$W_\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\overline{D}^2e^VD_\alpha e^V,\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{4}D^2e^V\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}e^V,$$

are the gauge field strength tensors and the superpotential $`𝒲`$ has the form

$$𝒲=\frac{1}{6}y^{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\frac{1}{2}M^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j.$$
(3)
To fix the gauge, the usual gauge-fixing term can be introduced. It is useful to choose it in the form

$$_{gaugefixing}=\frac{1}{16}d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{f}f+f\overline{f}\right)$$
(4)
where the gauge fixing condition is taken as

$`f=\overline{D}^2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}},\overline{f}=D^2{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}}.`$ (5)
Here $`\xi `$ is the usual gauge-fixing parameter. Then, the corresponding ghost term is

$$_{ghost}=id^2\theta \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}b\delta _cfid^2\overline{\theta }\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}\overline{b}\delta _{\overline{c}}\overline{f},$$
(6)
where $`c`$ and $`b`$ are the Faddeev–Popov ghost and antighost chiral superfields, respectively, and $`\delta _c`$ is the gauge transformation with the replacement of gauge superfield parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ by chiral (antichiral) ghost fields $`c(\overline{c})`$.

For our choice of the gauge-fixing condition, the gauge transformation of $`f`$ looks like

$$\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }f=\overline{D}^2\delta _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{V}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}=i\overline{D}^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}_{V/2}[\mathrm{\Lambda }+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\mathrm{coth}(_{V/2})(\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})],$$
(7)
where $`_XY[X,Y]`$. Equation (6) then takes the form

$`_{ghost}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}b\overline{D}^2\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}_{V/2}[c+\overline{c}+\mathrm{coth}(_{V/2})(c\overline{c})]}+h.c.`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{b+\overline{b}}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}\right)_{V/2}[c+\overline{c}+\mathrm{coth}(_{V/2})(c\overline{c})]}`$
$`={\displaystyle d^4\theta \mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{b+\overline{b}}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}\right)\left(\left(c\overline{c}\right)+\frac{1}{2}[V,\left(c+\overline{c}\right)]+\frac{1}{12}[V,[V,\left(c\overline{c}\right)]]+\mathrm{}\right)}.`$
The resulting Lagrangian together with the gauge-fixing and the ghost terms are invariant under the BRST transformations. For a rigid theory in our normalization of the fields, they have the form

$`\delta V=ϵ_{V/2}[c+\overline{c}+\mathrm{coth}(_{V/2})(c\overline{c})],`$
$`\delta c^a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵf^{abc}c^bc^c,\delta \overline{c}^a={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵf^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c,`$
$`\delta b^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ\overline{D}^2\overline{f}^a,\delta \overline{b}^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵD^2f^a.`$ (9)
Breaking of supersymmetry is the problem by itself. We do not discuss here the origin of SUSY breaking but rather concentrate on the consequences of it. Usually one considers the so-called ”soft” breaking of SUSY, which means that the breaking terms do not spoil renormalizability of the theory and, in particular, the cancellation of quadratic divergences and are represented by the operators of dimension less than 4 . Hence, to perform the SUSY breaking, that satisfies the requirement of ”softness”, one can introduce a gaugino mass term as well as cubic and quadratic interactions of scalar superpartners of the matter fields

$`_{softbr}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}\lambda \lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}A^{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{ij}\varphi _i\varphi _j+h.c.]+(m^2)_j^i\varphi _i^{}\varphi ^j,`$ (10)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gaugino field, and $`\varphi _i`$ is the lowest component of the chiral matter superfield.

This is not the most general form of the soft terms. In principle, one can add the terms like $`\overline{\psi }\psi ,\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi `$, etc. . However, the conventional choice (10) is sufficient for the goal of SUSY breaking and in what follows we stick to it.

Remarkably, one can rewrite the Lagrangian (10) in terms of N=1 superfields introducing the external spurion superfields  $`\eta =\theta ^2`$ and $`\overline{\eta }=\overline{\theta }^2`$, where $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ are the Grassmannian parameters, as

$`_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{1}{4g^2}(12M\theta ^2)\mathrm{Tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha }+{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\frac{1}{4g^2}(12\overline{M}\overline{\theta }^2)\mathrm{Tr}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^i(\delta _i^k(m^2)_i^k\eta \overline{\eta })(e^V)_k^j\mathrm{\Phi }_j}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^2\theta \left[\frac{1}{6}(y^{ijk}A^{ijk}\eta )\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\frac{1}{2}(M^{ij}B^{ij}\eta )\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\right]}+h.c.`$
Thus, one can interpret the soft terms as the modification of the couplings of a rigid theory. The couplings become external superfields depending on Grassmannian parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$. To get the explicit expression for the modified couplings, consider eqs.(2). The first two terms give

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}^2}=\frac{1M\theta ^2\overline{M}\overline{\theta }^2}{g^2}.$$
(12)
Since the gauge field strength tensors $`W_\alpha `$ ($`\overline{W}_\alpha `$) are chiral (antichiral) superfields, they enter into the chiral (antichiral) integrands in eq.(2), respectively. Correspondingly, the $`M\theta ^2`$ term of eq.(12) contributes to the chiral integral, while the $`\overline{M}\overline{\theta }^2`$ term contributes to the antichiral one. There is no $`\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2`$ term in eq.(12), since it is neither chiral, no antichiral and gives no contribution to eq.(2).

We depart here from the holomorphicity arguments . Alternatively one should consider holomorphic and antiholomorphic gauge couplings and a separate non-chiral superfield to take care of the mixed term . This is where different approaches diverge. It does not lead, however, to any practical difference in applications within the PT.

Modifying the gauge coupling in the gauge part of the Lagrangian, one has to do the same in the gauge-fixing (5) and ghost (2) parts in order to preserve the BRST invariance. Here one has the integral over the whole superspace rather than the chiral one. This means that if one adds to eq.(12) a term proportional to $`\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2`$, it gives a nonzero contribution. Moreover, even if this term is not added, it reappears as a result of renormalization.

We suggest the following modification of eq.(12)

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}^2}=\frac{1M\theta ^2\overline{M}\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}{g^2},$$
(13)
which gives the final expression for the soft gauge coupling

$`\stackrel{~}{g}^2=g^2\left(1+M\theta ^2+\overline{M}\overline{\theta }^2+2M\overline{M}\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\right).`$ (14)
It will be clear below that it is self-consistent to put $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ in the lowest order of perturbation theory, but it appears in higher orders due to renormalizations.

One has to take into account, however, that, since the gauge-fixing parameter $`\xi `$ may be considered as an additional coupling, it also becomes an external superfield and has to be modified. The soft expression can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{\xi }=\xi \left(1+x\theta ^2+\overline{x}\overline{\theta }^2+(x\overline{x}+z)\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\right),$$
(15)
where parameters $`x`$ and $`z`$ can be obtained by solving the corresponding RG equation (see Appendix B).

Having this in mind, we perform the following modification of the gauge fixing condition (5) first used in

$$f\overline{D}^2\frac{V}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{g}^2}},\overline{f}D^2\frac{V}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}.$$
(16)
Then, the gauge-fixing term (4) becomes

$$_{gaugefixing}=\frac{1}{8}d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{D}^2\frac{V}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}D^2\frac{V}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}\right).$$
(17)
This leads to the corresponding modification of the associated ghost term (6)

$`_{ghost}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\xi }\stackrel{~}{g}^2}}\left(b+\overline{b}\right)_{V/2}[c+\overline{c}+\mathrm{coth}(_{V/2})(c\overline{c})]}.`$ (18)
To understand the meaning of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term, consider the quadratic part of the ghost Lagrangian (18)

$`_{ghost}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4\theta \mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}\left(1\frac{1}{2}M\xi \theta ^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{M}\xi \overline{\theta }^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\right)(b+\overline{b})\left(c\overline{c}\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}\left(1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2\right)(b+\overline{b})\left(c\overline{c}\right)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}M\xi bc}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\xi g^2}}\overline{M}\xi \overline{b}\overline{c}},`$
where we have used the explicit form of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ given in Appendix B.

If one compares this expression with the usual Lagrangian for the matter fields (2), one finds an obvious identification of the second line with the soft scalar mass term and the third line with the mass term in a superpotential. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ plays the role of a soft mass providing the splitting in the ghost supermultiplet.

The other place where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-term appears is the gauge-fixing term (17). Here it manifests itself as a soft mass of the auxiliary gauge field, one of the scalar components of the gauge superfield $`V`$.

To see this, consider the gauge-fixing term (17) in more detail. Expanding the vector superfield $`V(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ in components

$`V(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ $`=`$ $`(x)+i\theta \chi (x)i\overline{\theta }\overline{\chi }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta \theta N(x){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\overline{N}(x)\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }v_\mu (x)`$
$`+i\theta \theta \overline{\theta }[\overline{\lambda }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu \chi (x)]i\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta [\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\chi }(x)]+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }}{2}}[D(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{}(x)].`$
and substituting it into eq.(17) one finds

$`_{gaugefixing}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi g^2}}[(D\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}M\xi \overline{N}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{M}\xi N)^2(^\mu v_\mu )^2`$ (20)
$`+(\overline{N}i\overline{M}\xi )\mathrm{}(N+iM\xi )i(\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{M}\xi \chi )\sigma ^\mu _\mu (\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\xi \overline{\chi })`$
$`(\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{M}\xi \chi )\mathrm{}\chi (\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\xi \overline{\chi })\mathrm{}\overline{\chi }i\mathrm{}\chi \sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\chi }].`$
One can see from eq.(20) that the parameter $`M`$, besides being the gaugino soft mass, plays the role of a mass of the auxiliary field $`\chi `$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the soft mass of the auxiliary fields $`N`$ and $``$. All these fields are unphysical degrees of freedom of the gauge superfield. They are absent in the Wess-Zumino gauge, however, when the gauge-fixing condition is chosen in supersymmetric form (4), this gauge is no longer possible, and the auxiliary fields $`\chi `$, $`N`$, and $``$ survive. Thus, the extra $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term is associated with unphysical, ghost, degrees of freedom, just like in the component approach, one has the mass of unphysical $`ϵ`$-scalars . When we go down with energy, all massive fields decouple, and we get the usual nonsupersymmetric Yang-Mills theory.

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-term is renormalized and obeys its own RG equation which can be obtained from the corresponding expression for the gauge coupling via Grassmannian expansion. In due course of renormalization, this term is mixing with the soft masses of scalar superpartners and gives an additional term in RG equations for the latter.

In component formalism one has a similar term. In , the dimensional reduction (DRED) regularization is used. In this case, one is bounded to introduce the so-called $`ϵ`$-scalars to compensate the lack of bosonic degrees of freedom in 4-2$`ϵ`$ dimensions. These $`ϵ`$-scalars in due course of renormalization acquire a soft mass that enters into the RG equations for soft masses of physical scalar particles. This problem has been discussed in . If one gets rid of the $`ϵ`$-scalar mass by changing the renormalization scheme, $`\mathrm{DRED}\mathrm{DRED}^{}`$, there appears an additional term in RG equations for the soft scalar masses  called X  which usually coincides with our $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Besides the modification of the gauge coupling the soft terms (10) imply the modification of the Yukawa ones and the mass term

$$y^{ijk}\stackrel{~}{y}^{ijk}=y^{ijk}A^{ijk}\eta ,M^{ij}\stackrel{~}{M}^{ij}=M^{ij}B^{ij}\eta ,+h.c.$$

There is, however, also the soft mass term $`(m^2)_i^k`$. To take care of it we absorb the multiplier $`(\delta _i^k(m^2)_i^k\eta \overline{\eta })`$ into the redefinition of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. This results in the additional modification of the Yukawa couplings and the mass term

$`y^{ijk}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{y}^{ijk}=y^{ijk}A^{ijk}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y^{njk}(m^2)_n^i+y^{ink}(m^2)_n^j+y^{ijn}(m^2)_n^k)\eta \overline{\eta },`$
$`M^{ij}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{ij}=M^{ij}B^{ij}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(M^{nk}(m^2)_n^i+M^{in}(m^2)_n^k)\eta \overline{\eta }.`$ (21)
This completes our set of substitutions.

At the end of this section, we would like to comment on the BRST invariance in a softly broken SUSY theory. The BRST transformations (9) due to our choice of normalization of the gauge and ghost fields do not depend on the gauge coupling. Hence, in a softly broken theory they remain unchanged. One can easily check that, despite the substitution $`g^2\stackrel{~}{g}^2`$ and $`\xi \stackrel{~}{\xi }`$, the softly broken SUSY theory remains BRST invariant .

## 3 Renormalizations in a Softly Broken SUSY Theory

The modifications of the couplings introduced above are valid not only for the classical Lagrangian but also for the quantum one. As follows from the analysis of the Feynman diagrams in superspace  the modification of the Feynman rules due to the soft terms does not influence the UV divergent part of the effective action . This justifies the statement made above concerning the UV singular part of the effective action. The following theorem is valid:

The theorem Let a rigid theory be renormalized via introduction of the renormalization constants $`Z_i`$, defined within some minimal subtraction massless scheme. Then, a softly broken theory is renormalized via introduction of the renormalization superfields $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_i`$ which are related to $`Z_i`$ by the coupling constant redefinition

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_i(g^2,y,\overline{y})=Z_i(\stackrel{~}{g}^2,\stackrel{~}{y},\stackrel{~}{\overline{y}}),$$
(22)
where the redefined couplings are

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_i^2(1+M_i\eta +\overline{M}_i\overline{\eta }+(2M_i\overline{M}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }_i)\eta \overline{\eta }),`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{y}^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`y^{ijk}A^{ijk}\eta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y^{njk}(m^2)_n^i+y^{ink}(m^2)_n^j+y^{ijn}(m^2)_n^k)\eta \overline{\eta },`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{~}{\overline{y}}_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{y}_{ijk}\overline{A}_{ijk}\overline{\eta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y_{njk}(m^2)_i^n+y_{ink}(m^2)_j^n+y_{ijn}(m^2)_k^n)\eta \overline{\eta },`$
Eqs.(22-24) lead to a finite renormalized softly broken SUSY theory. However, in practice it is more convenient to consider not the renormalization constants $`Z_i`$ but the RG equations directly. Differentiating the renormalization constants $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_i`$ with respect to a scale one gets the RG functions for the soft terms of a broken theory in terms of unbroken one. The resulting soft term $`\beta `$ functions are summarized below.

Summary of the Soft Term Renormalizations      The Rigid Terms  The Soft Terms  $`\beta _{\alpha _i}=\alpha _i\gamma _{\alpha _i}`$ $`\beta _{M_{Ai}}=D_1\gamma _{\alpha i}`$  $`\beta _M^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(M^{il}\gamma _l^j+M^{lj}\gamma _l^i)`$ $`\beta _B^{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(B^{il}\gamma _l^j+B^{lj}\gamma _l^i)(M^{il}D_1\gamma _l^j+M^{lj}D_1\gamma _l^i)`$  $`\beta _y^{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}(y^{ijl}\gamma _l^k+`$ perm’s) $`\beta _A^{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}(A^{ijl}\gamma _l^k+`$ perm’s) - $`(y^{ijl}D_1\gamma _l^k+`$ perm’s)   $``$ $`(\beta _{m^2})_j^i=D_2\gamma _j^i`$  chiral anomalous dim. $`\beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _i}}=D_2\gamma _{\alpha _i}`$    $`D_1=M_{A_i}\alpha _i\frac{}{\alpha _i}A^{ijk}\frac{}{y^{ijk}}`$, $`\overline{D}_1=M_{A_i}\alpha _i\frac{}{\alpha _i}A_{ijk}\frac{}{y_{ijk}}`$  $`D_2=\overline{D}_1D_1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _i}\alpha _i\frac{}{\alpha _i}+\frac{1}{2}(m^2)_n^a(y^{nbc}\frac{}{y^{abc}}+y^{bnc}\frac{}{y^{bac}}+y^{bcn}\frac{}{y^{bca}}`$  $`+y_{abc}\frac{}{y_{nbc}}+y_{bac}\frac{}{y_{bnc}}+y_{bca}\frac{}{y_{bcn}})`$,  $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _i}=M_{A_i}\overline{M}_{A_i}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$

Later on we consider some examples of the application of these formulas.

## 4 Grassmannian Taylor Expansion

We demonstrate now how the RG equations for the soft terms appear via Grassmannian Taylor expansion from those for the rigid couplings.

In what follows we would like to simplify the notations and consider numerical rather than tensorial couplings. When group structure and field content of the model are fixed, one has a set of gauge $`\{g_i\}`$ and Yukawa $`\{y_k\}`$ couplings. It is useful to consider the following rigid parameters $`\alpha _ig_i^2/16\pi ^2,Y_ky_k^2/16\pi ^2`$. Then eqs.(23-24) look like

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _i(1+M_i\eta +\overline{M}_i\overline{\eta }+(M_i\overline{M}_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)\eta \overline{\eta }),`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ $`=`$ $`Y_k(1+A_k\eta +\overline{A}_k\overline{\eta }+(A_k\overline{A}_k+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)\eta \overline{\eta }),`$
where to standardize the notations we have redefined parameter A: $`AAy`$ in a usual way and have changed the sign of A to match it with the gauge soft terms. Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ stands for a sum of $`m^2`$ soft terms, one for each leg in the Yukawa vertex and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=M_i\overline{M}_i+\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$.

Now the RG equation for a rigid theory can be written in a universal form

$$\dot{a}_i=a_i\gamma _i(a),a_i=\{\alpha _i,Y_k\},$$
(26)
where $`\gamma _i(a)`$ stands for a sum of corresponding anomalous dimensions. In the same notation the soft terms (25) take the form

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_i=a_i(1+m_i\eta +\overline{m}_i\overline{\eta }+S_i\eta \overline{\eta }),$$
(27)
where $`m_i=\{M_i,A_k\}`$ and $`S_i=\{M_i\overline{M}_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,A_k\overline{A}_k+\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\}`$.

Substituting eq.(27) into eq.(26) and expanding over $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ one can get the RG equations for the soft terms

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{a}}_i=\stackrel{~}{a}_i\gamma _i(\stackrel{~}{a}),$$
(28)
Consider first the F-terms. Expanding over $`\eta `$ one has

$$\dot{m}_i=\gamma _i(\stackrel{~}{a})|_F=\underset{j}{}a_j\frac{\gamma _i}{a_j}m_jD_1\gamma _i.$$
(29)
This is just the RG equation for the soft terms $`M_i`$ and $`A_k`$ . Proceeding the same way for the D-terms and substituting $`S_i=m_i\overline{m}_i+\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ one has the RG equation for the mass terms

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_i=\gamma _i(\stackrel{~}{a})|_D=\underset{j}{}a_j\frac{\gamma _i}{a_j}(m_jm_j+\mathrm{\Sigma }_j)+\underset{j,k}{}a_ja_k\frac{^2\gamma _i}{a_ja_k}m_jm_kD_2\gamma _i.$$
(30)
One can also obtain the RG equation for the individual soft masses out of field renormalization. Consider for this purpose the chiral Green function in a rigid theory. It obeys the following RG relation

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i>=<\mathrm{\Phi }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i>_0e^{{\displaystyle _0^t}\gamma _i\left(a\left(t^{}\right)\right)𝑑t^{}}.$$
(31)
Making the substitution

$$<\mathrm{\Phi }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i><\mathrm{\Phi }_i\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i>(1+m_i^2\eta \overline{\eta }),a\stackrel{~}{a},$$

and expanding over $`\eta \overline{\eta }`$ ( since it stands under the full Grassmann integral only D-term contributes) one has

$$m_i^2=m_{i0}^2+_0^t𝑑t^{}\gamma _i(\stackrel{~}{a}(t^{}))|_D.$$
(32)
Differentiating this relation with respect to $`t`$ leads to the RG equation for the soft mass

$$\dot{m^2}_i=D_2\gamma _i(a).$$
(33)
## 5 Illustration

Consider, as an illustration of the above formulas, the simplest case of a pure gauge theory . In a rigid theory the coupling is renormalized as

$$\alpha ^{Bare}=Z_\alpha \alpha ,\alpha g^2/16\pi ^2.$$
(34)
Making the substitution $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ one gets $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{Bare}=\stackrel{~}{Z}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ or (up to linear terms in $`\eta `$)

$$\alpha ^{Bare}(1+M_A^{Bare}\eta )=\alpha (1+M_A\eta )Z_\alpha (\alpha (1+M_A\eta )).$$
(35)
After expansion over $`\eta `$ this leads to equations

$`\alpha ^{Bare}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha Z_\alpha (\alpha ),`$
$`M_A^{Bare}\alpha ^{Bare}`$ $`=`$ $`M_A\alpha Z_\alpha (\alpha )+\alpha D_1Z_\alpha ,`$
where $`D_1=M_A\alpha \frac{}{\alpha }`$ is the differential operator extracting linear terms over $`\eta `$. As a result, we get the bare mass

$$M_A^{Bare}=M_A+D_1\mathrm{ln}Z_\alpha .$$
(36)
Differentiating eq.(36) with respect to a scale, one gets

$$\beta _\alpha =\alpha \gamma _\alpha ,\beta _{M_A}=D_1\gamma _\alpha ,$$
(37)
where $`\gamma _\alpha `$ is the gauge field anomalous dimension $`\gamma _\alpha =d\mathrm{log}Z_\alpha /d\mathrm{log}\mu ^2`$.

In fact, one does not need eq.(37) to get the RG equation form the gaugino mass and can get the same formulas (37) starting directly from the RG equation for $`\alpha `$ as shown above. One can go even further and consider a solution to the RG equation in a rigid theory.

Indeed, let us take a solution to the RG equation for the coupling written in quadratures

$$_{\alpha _0}^\alpha \frac{d\alpha ^{}}{\beta (\alpha ^{})}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}.$$
(38)
Performing the replacement of the coupling one gets

$$_{\alpha _0(1+M_{A0}\eta +\mathrm{})}^{\alpha (1+M_A\eta +\mathrm{})}\frac{d\alpha ^{}}{\beta (\alpha ^{})}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}$$
(39)
which after expansion over $`\eta `$ leads to the solution for the soft mass term

$$\frac{\alpha M_A}{\beta (\alpha )}=\frac{\alpha M_{A0}}{\beta (\alpha _0)}M_A=c_1\frac{\beta (\alpha )}{\alpha }=c_1\gamma (\alpha ),$$
(40)
where $`\alpha `$ is taken from eq.(38). Thus, the solution for the gaugino mass term directly follows from the one for the rigid coupling. Eq.(40) is the first example of RG invariants first found in  on different grounds. Following our approach one can construct the other ones . For example, one can continue the expansion up to D-terms in eq.(39), which gives a solution for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ term

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=c_2\gamma (\alpha )c_1\alpha \gamma ^{}(\alpha )\gamma (\alpha ).$$
(41)
## 6 Examples

### 6.1 General gauge theory

In the one-loop order the rigid $`\beta `$ functions are (for simplicity, we consider the case of a single gauge coupling)

$`\beta _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \gamma _\alpha ,\gamma _\alpha ^{(1)}=\alpha Q,Q=T(R)3C(G),`$ (42)
$`\beta _y^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y^{ijl}\gamma _l^k+perm^{}s),\gamma _j^{i(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{ikl}y_{jkl}2\alpha C(R)_j^i,`$
where $`T(R),C(G)`$ and $`C(R)`$ are the Casimir operators of the gauge group defined by

$$T(R)\delta _{AB}=Tr(R_AR_B),C(G)\delta _{AB}=f_{ACD}f_{BCD},C(R)_j^i=(R_AR_A)_j^i.$$

Applying our algorithm, this leads to the following soft $`\beta `$ functions:

$`\beta _{M_A}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha M_AQ,`$ (43)
$`\beta _B^{ij(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{il}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{jkm}y_{lkm}2\alpha C(R)_l^j)`$
$`+`$ $`M^{il}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{jkm}y_{lkm}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_l^j)+(ij),`$
$`\beta _A^{ijk(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{ijl}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{kmn}y_{lmn}2\alpha C(R)_l^k)`$
$`+`$ $`y^{ijl}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{kmn}y_{lmn}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_l^k)+(ij,k),`$
$`\left[\beta _{m^2}\right]_j^{i(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{ikl}A_{jkl}4\alpha M_A^2C(R)_j^i`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}y^{nkl}(m^2)_n^iy_{jkl}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}y^{ikl}(m^2)_j^ny_{nkl}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{4}}y^{isl}(m^2)_s^ky_{jkl}.`$
We used here the fact that in the given order the solution for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha =M_A\overline{M}_A`$.

In two loops the rigid anomalous dimensions are

$`\gamma _\alpha ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha ^2C(G)Q{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{r}}C(R)_j^i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{jkl}y_{ikl}2\alpha C(R)_i^j),r=dimG=\delta _{AA},`$
$`\gamma _j^{i(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(y^{imp}y_{jmn}+2\alpha C(R)_j^p\delta _n^i)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nkl}y_{pkl}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)+2\alpha ^2QC(R)_j^i.`$
In this case, again the solution for the ghost mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ can be found analytically  and coincides with the mass of $`ϵ`$-scalars

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{(2)}=2\alpha [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(m^2)_j^iC(R)_i^jM_A^2C(G)].`$ (47)
Then, the soft renormalizations are as follows:

$`\beta _{M_A}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\alpha ^2M_AC(G)Q{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha M_A}{r}}C(R)_j^i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{jkl}y_{ikl}2\alpha C(R)_i^j)`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{r}}C(R)_j^i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{jkl}y_{ikl}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_i^j),`$
$`\beta _B^{ij(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{il}(y^{jkp}y_{lkn}+2\alpha C(R)_l^p\delta _n^j)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}y_{pst}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)`$ (49)
$`M^{il}(A^{jkp}y_{lkn}2\alpha M_AC(R)_l^p\delta _n^j)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}y_{pst}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)`$
$`M^{il}(y^{jkp}y_{lkn}+2\alpha C(R)_l^p\delta _n^j)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{nst}y_{pst}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_p^n)`$
$`+B^{il}\alpha ^2QC(R)_l^j4M^{il}\alpha ^2QC(R)_l^jM_A+(ij),`$
$`\beta _A^{ijk(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{ijl}(y^{kmp}y_{lmn}+2\alpha C(R)_l^p\delta _n^k)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}y_{pst}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)`$ (50)
$`+A^{ijl}\alpha ^2QC(R)_l^k4y^{ijl}\alpha ^2QC(R)_l^jM_A`$
$`y^{ijl}(A^{kmp}y_{lmn}2\alpha M_AC(R)_l^p\delta _n^k)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}y_{pst}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)`$
$`y^{ijl}(y^{kmp}y_{lmn}+2\alpha C(R)_l^p\delta _n^k)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{nst}y_{pst}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_p^n)`$
$`+(ij)+(ik),`$
$`\left[\beta _{m^2}\right]_j^{i(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`(A^{ikp}A_{jkn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2)_l^iy^{lkp}y_{jkn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{ikp}y_{lkn}(m^2)_j^l`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2}}y^{ilp}(m^2)_l^sy_{jsn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{iks}(m^2)_s^py_{jkn}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y_{ikp}(m^2)_n^sy_{jks}`$
$`+4\alpha M_A^2C(R)_j^p\delta _n^i)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}y_{pst}2\alpha C(R)_p^n)`$
$`(y^{ikp}y_{jkn}+2\alpha C(R)_j^p\delta _n^i)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{nst}A_{pst}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m^2)_l^ky^{lst}y_{pst}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}y^{nst}y_{lst}(m^2)_p^l+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{4}}y^{nlt}(m^2)_l^sy_{pst}2\alpha M_A^2C(R)_p^n)`$
$`(A^{ikp}y_{jkn}2\alpha M_AC(R)_j^p\delta _n^i)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}y^{nst}A_{pst}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_p^n)`$
$`(y^{ikp}A_{jkn}2\alpha M_AC(R)_j^p\delta _n^i)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^{nst}y_{pst}+2\alpha M_AC(R)_p^n)`$
$`+12\alpha ^2M_A^2QC(R)_j^i+4\alpha ^2C(R)_j^i[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(m^2)_l^kC(R)_k^lM^2C(G)],`$
where the last term is an extra contribution due to nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(2)}`$ in (47).

To demonstrate the power of the proposed algorithm, we calculate the three loop gaugino mass renormalization out of a gauge $`\beta `$ function. One has in three loops

$`\gamma _\alpha ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^3C(G)Q[4C(G)Q]{\displaystyle \frac{6}{r}}\alpha ^3QC(R)_j^iC(R)_i^j`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r}}\alpha ^2(y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)C(R)_s^jC(R)_i^s{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\alpha ^2C(G)(y^{ikl}y_{jkl}`$
$``$ $`4\alpha C(R)_j^i)C(R)^j_i+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\alpha y^{ikm}y_{jkn}(y^{nst}y_{mst}4\alpha C(R)_m^n)C(R)^j_i`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\alpha (y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)(y^{jst}y_{pst}4\alpha C(R)_p^j)C(R)_i^p.`$
The corresponding gaugino mass renormalization is

$`\beta _{M_A}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha ^3C(G)Q[4C(G)Q]M_A{\displaystyle \frac{18}{r}}\alpha ^3QC(R)_j^iC(R)_i^jM_A`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{r}}\alpha ^2(y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)C(R)_s^jC(R)_i^sM_A{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r}}\alpha ^2(A^{ikl}y_{jkl}`$
$`+4\alpha C(R)_j^iM_A)C(R)^j_sC(R)^s_i{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}\alpha ^2C(G)(y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)C(R)^j_iM_A`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\alpha ^2C(G)(A^{ikl}y_{jkl}+4\alpha C(R)_j^iM_A)C(R)_i^j+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\alpha y^{ikm}y_{jkn}(y^{nst}y_{mst}`$
$`4\alpha C(R)_m^n)C(R)^j_iM_A{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\alpha A^{ikm}y_{jkn}(y^{nst}y_{mst}4\alpha C(R)_m^n)C(R)^j_i`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2r}}\alpha y^{ikm}y_{jkn}(A^{nst}y_{mst}+4\alpha C(R)_m^nM_A)C(R)_i^j`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\alpha (y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)(y^{jst}y_{pst}4\alpha C(R)_p^j)C(R)_i^pM_A`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\alpha (A^{ikl}y_{jkl}+4\alpha C(R)_j^iM_A)(y^{jst}y_{pst}4\alpha C(R)_p^j)C(R)_i^p`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\alpha (y^{ikl}y_{jkl}4\alpha C(R)_j^i)(A^{jst}y_{pst}+4\alpha C(R)_p^jM_A)C(R)_i^p.`$
To argue that a solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ exists in all orders of PT, one can consider the so-called NSVZ-scheme  where the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _\alpha `$ is known to all orders of PT

$$\gamma _\alpha ^{NSVZ}=\alpha \frac{Q2r^1\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma C(R)]}{12C(G)\alpha }.$$
(54)
Then the solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{NSVZ}=2\alpha \frac{r^1\mathrm{Tr}[m^2C(R)]M_A^2C(G)}{12C(G)\alpha }.$$
(55)
and coincides with the for $`ϵ`$-scalar mass .

### 6.2 The MSSM in low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime

Consider the MSSM in low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime. One has three gauge and one Yukawa coupling. The one-loop RG equations are

$`\dot{\alpha }_i`$ $`=`$ $`b_i\alpha _i^2,b_i=({\displaystyle \frac{33}{5}},1,3),i=1,2,3,`$ (56)
$`\dot{Y}_t`$ $`=`$ $`Y_t({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3+3\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}\alpha _16Y_t),`$ (57)
with the initial conditions: $`\alpha _i(0)=\alpha _0,Y_t(0)=Y_0`$ and $`t=\mathrm{ln}(M_X^2/Q^2)`$. Their solutions are given by

$$\alpha _i(t)=\frac{\alpha _0}{1+b_i\alpha _0t},Y_t(t)=\frac{Y_0E(t)}{1+6Y_0F(t)},$$
(58)
where

$`E(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1+b_i\alpha _0t)^{c_i/b_i},c_i=({\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}},3,{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}),F(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}E(t^{})𝑑t^{}.`$
To get the solutions for the soft terms it is enough to perform the substitution $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`Y\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and expand over $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$. Expanding the gauge coupling in (58) up to $`\eta `$ one has (hereafter we assume $`M_{i0}=M_0`$)

$$\alpha _iM_i=\frac{\alpha _0M_0}{1+b_i\alpha _0t}\frac{\alpha _0b_i\alpha _0M_0t}{(1+b_i\alpha _0t)^2}=\frac{\alpha _0}{1+b_i\alpha _0t}.\frac{M_0}{1+b_i\alpha _0t},$$

or

$$M_i(t)=\frac{M_0}{1+b_i\alpha _0t}.$$
(59)
Performing the same expansion for the Yukawa coupling and using the relations

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{E}}{d\eta }|_\eta =M_0t\frac{dE}{dt},\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{d\eta }|_\eta =M_0(tEF),$$

one finds a well known expression

$$A_t(t)=\frac{A_0}{1+6Y_0F}+M_0\left(\frac{t}{E}\frac{dE}{dt}\frac{6Y_0}{1+6Y_0F}(tEF)\right).$$
(60)
To get the solution for the term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_{H_2}^2`$ one has to make expansion over $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$. This can be done with the help of the following relations

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{E}}{d\eta d\overline{\eta }}|_{\eta ,\overline{\eta }}=M_0^2\frac{d}{dt}\left(t^2\frac{dE}{dt}\right),\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{F}}{d\eta d\overline{\eta }}|_{\eta ,\overline{\eta }}=M_0^2t^2\frac{dE}{dt},$$

and leads to

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0A_0^2}{1+6Y_0F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(A_0M_06Y_0(tEF))^2}{(1+6Y_0F)^2}}`$
$`+M_0^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{6Y_0}{1+6Y_0F}}t^2{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}\right].`$
With analytic solutions (60,6.2) one can analyze asymptotics and, in particular, find the so-called infrared quasi fixed points  which correspond to $`Y_0\mathrm{}`$

$`Y_t^{FP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{6F}},`$ (62)
$`A_t^{FP}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{tEF}{F}}\right),`$ (63)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t^{FP}`$ $`=`$ $`M_0^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{tEF}{F}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dt}}\right].`$ (64)
However, the advantage of the Grassmannian expansion procedure is that one can perform it for fixed points as well. Thus the FP solutions (63,64) can be directly obtained from a fixed point for the rigid Yukawa coupling (62) by Grassmannian expansion. This explains, in particular, why fixed point solutions for the soft couplings exist if they exist for the rigid ones and with the same stability properties .

### 6.3 The MSSM in high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime

Consider the MSSM in high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime. One has three gauge and three Yukawa couplings. The one-loop RG equations are

$`\dot{\alpha }_i=b_i\alpha _i^2,\dot{Y}_k=Y_k({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_{ki}\alpha _i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}a_{kl}Y_l),`$ (65)
where $`i=1,2,3;k=t,b,\tau `$, $`d/dt,t=\mathrm{log}M_{GUT}^2/Q^2`$ and

$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`\{33/5,1,3\},a_{tl}=\{6,1,0\},a_{bl}=\{1,6,1\},a_{\tau l}=\{0,3,4\},`$
$`c_{ti}`$ $`=`$ $`\{13/15,3,16/3\},c_{bi}=\{7/15,3,16/3\},c_{\tau i}=\{9/5,3,0\}.`$
Despite a simple form of these equations, there is no explicit analytic solution similar to (58). One has either the iterative solution  or the approximate one . In both the cases the Grassmannian expansion over $`\eta `$ leads to the corresponding solutions for the soft terms.

Consider first the iterative solution. It can be written as

$$\alpha _i=\frac{\alpha _i^0}{1+b_i\alpha _i^0t},Y_k=\frac{Y_k^0u_k}{1+a_{kk}Y_k^0_0^tu_k},$$
(66)
where the functions $`\{u_k\}`$ obey the integral system of equations

$`u_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_t}{\left(1+6Y_b^0_0^tu_b\right)^{1/6}}},u_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{E_\tau }{\left(1+6Y_b^0_0^tu_b\right)^{1/2}}},`$
$`u_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_b}{\left(1+6Y_t^0_0^tu_t\right)^{1/6}\left(1+4Y_\tau ^0_0^tu_\tau \right)^{1/4}}},`$ (67)
and the functions $`E_k`$ are given by $`E_k=_{i=1}^3(1+b_i\alpha _i^0t)^{c_{ki}/b_i}.`$

Let us stress that eqs.(66) give the exact solution to eqs.(65), while the $`u_k`$’s in eqs.(67), although solved formally in terms of the $`E_k`$’s and $`Y_k^0`$’s as continued integrated fractions, should in practice be solved iteratively.

To get the solutions for the soft terms it is enough to perform substitution $`\alpha _i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$ and $`Y_k\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ and expand over $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$. One has :

$`M_i={\displaystyle \frac{M_i^0}{1+b_i\alpha _i^0t}},A_k=e_k+{\displaystyle \frac{A_k^0/Y_k^0+a_{kk}u_ke_k}{1/Y_k^0+a_{kk}u_k}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k=\xi _k+A_k^2+2e_kA_k{\displaystyle \frac{(A_k^0)^2/Y_k^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^0/Y_k^0+a_{kk}u_k\xi _k}{1/Y_k^0+a_{kk}u_k}},`$ (68)
where the new functions $`e_k`$ and $`\xi _k`$ have been introduced which obey the iteration equations. For illustration we present below the corresponding expressions for $`e_t`$ and $`\xi _t`$

$`e_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{E}_t}{d\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_b^0u_bu_be_b}{1/Y_b^0+6u_b}},`$
$`\xi _t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{E}_t}{d\eta d\overline{\eta }}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_t}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{E}_t}{d\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{A_b^0u_bu_be_b}{1/Y_b^0+6u_b}}+7{\displaystyle \frac{\left(A_b^0u_bu_be_b\right)^2}{\left(1/Y_b^0+6u_b\right)^2}}`$ (69)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^0+(A_b^0)^2)u_b2A_b^0u_be_b+u_b\xi _b}{1/Y_b^0+6u_b}},`$
where the variations of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k`$ should be taken at $`\eta =\overline{\eta }=0`$ and are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{E}_k}{d\eta }}|_{\eta ,\overline{\eta }=0}`$ $`=t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{E}_k}{d\eta d\overline{\eta }}}|_{\eta ,\overline{\eta }=0}`$ $`=t^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}c_{ki}\alpha _iM_i^0\right)^2+2t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}c_{ki}\alpha _i(M_i^0)^2t^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}c_{ki}b_i\alpha _i^2(M_i^0)^2.`$
When solving eqs.(67) and (69) in the $`n`$-th iteration one has to substitute in the r.h.s. the $`(n1)`$-th iterative solution for all the corresponding functions.

The same procedure works for the approximate solutions. Once one gets an approximate solution for the Yukawa couplings, one immediately has those for the soft terms as well .

We consider as an illustration the approximate solution. It can be taken in the form

$`Y_t^{app}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{t0}E_t(t)}{[1+\frac{7}{2}(Y_{t0}F_t(t)+Y_{b0}F_b(t))]^{2/7}[1+7Y_{t0}F_t(t)]^{5/7}}}`$
$`Y_b^{app}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{b0}E_b(t)}{[1+\frac{7}{2}(Y_{t0}F_t(t)+Y_{b0}F_b(t))]^{2/7}[1+7Y_{t0}F_t(t)]^{2/7}}},`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{[1+\frac{7}{3}(3Y_{b0}F_b(t)+Y_{\tau 0}F_\tau )]^{3/7}}},`$
$`Y_\tau ^{app}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{\tau 0}E_\tau (t)}{[1+\frac{21}{4}Y_{\tau 0}F_\tau ]^{4/7}[1+\frac{7}{3}(3Y_{b0}F_b(t)+Y_{\tau 0}F_\tau )]^{3/7}}}.`$
To demonstrate the accuracy of the approximate solution (6.3) and the efficiency of the Grassmannian expansion, we present in Fig.1 the comparison of numerical and approximate solutions for the Yukawa couplings of a rigid theory as well as the soft terms.

One can notice perfect agreement of numerical and analytical curves. Shown also are the fixed point behaviour, again for the Yukawa couplings and for the soft terms obtained via the expansion procedure for the approximate solutions (6.3). The numerical curves approach the analytically calculated FP’s in the infrared region.

### 6.4 Totally all loop finite N=1 SUSY gauge theories

Another example of application of the same procedure is the so-called finite field theories in the framework of SUSY GUTs. These are the theories where all the UV divergences cancel and hence all the $`\beta `$ functions vanish. This can be achieved in a rigid theory if the following two conditions are satisfied :

$``$ The group representations are chosen in a way to obey the sum rule

$$T(R)=3C_2(G)$$
(71)
$``$ The Yukawa couplings are the functions of the gauge one

$$Y_i=Y_i(\alpha ),Y_i(\alpha )=c_1^i\alpha +c_2^i\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(72)
where the coefficients $`c_n^i`$ are calculated algebraically in the n-th order of PT.

To achieve the complete finiteness of the model including the soft terms, one has to modify the finiteness condition (72) as

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_i=Y_i(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })$$
(73)
and perform the expansion over $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$. This gives

$$\{\begin{array}{c}A_i=M_A\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Y_i}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha },\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_i=M_A^2\frac{d}{d\alpha }\alpha \frac{d\mathrm{ln}Y_i}{d\mathrm{ln}\alpha },\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
where $`Y(\alpha )`$ is assumed to be known from a rigid theory. These expressions lead to a totally finite softly broken SUSY field theory!

Alternatively one can formulate the same conditions in terms of the bare couplings. They are finite in this case. In dimensional regularization one has instead of eq.(72)

$$Y_i^{Bare}=\alpha _{Bare}f_i(\epsilon ),f_i(\epsilon )=c_i^{(1)}+c_i^{(2)}\epsilon +c_i^{(3)}\epsilon ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(75)
where the coefficients $`c_i^{(n)}`$ are in one-to-one correspondence to those in eq.(72). Replacing the couplings in eq.(75) in a usual way one finds that the function $`f(\epsilon )`$ cancels and one has simple relations for the soft terms valid in all orders of PT

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_i^{Bare}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{Bare}f_i(\epsilon )\{\begin{array}{c}A_i^{Bare}=M_A^{Bare},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_i^{Bare}=(M_A^{Bare})^2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
These relations for the bare quantities provide the vanishing of the $`\beta `$ functions for the soft terms.

### 6.5 N=2 SUSY Seiberg-Witten Theory

Consider now the N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory. The Lagrangian written in terms of N=2 superfields is :

$$=\frac{1}{4\pi }mTrd^2\theta _1d^2\theta _2\frac{1}{2}\tau \mathrm{\Psi }^2,$$
(77)
where N=2 chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ is defined by constraints $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{D}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and

$$\tau =i\frac{4\pi }{g^2}+\frac{\theta }{2\pi }^{topological}.$$
(78)
The expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in terms of $`\theta _2`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(y,\theta _1,\theta _2)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{(1)}(y,\theta _1)+\sqrt{2}\theta _2^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(2)}(y,\theta _1)+\theta _2^\alpha \theta _{2\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }^{(3)}(y,\theta _1),$$

where $`y^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta _1\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }_1+i\theta _2\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(k)}(y,\theta _1)`$ are N=1 chiral superfields.

The soft breaking of N=2 SUSY down to N=0 can be achieved by shifting the imaginary part of $`\tau `$:

$$m\tau m\stackrel{~}{\tau }=m\tau (1+M_1\theta _1^2+M_2\theta _2^2+M_3\theta _1^2\theta _2^2)$$
(79)
This leads to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{4}}\lambda \lambda {\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{4}}\psi \psi ({\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{4}})\varphi \varphi +h.c.]({\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2}{4}})\overline{\varphi }\varphi ,`$
where the fields $`\lambda `$ are the gauginos, $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the spinor and scalar matter fields, respectively.

Now one can use the power of duality in N=2 SUSY theory and take the Seiberg-Witten solution

$$\tau =\frac{da_D}{du}/\frac{da}{du},$$
(80)
where

$`a_D(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(u1)F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},2;{\displaystyle \frac{1u}{2}}),a(u)=\sqrt{2(1+u)}F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1;{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+u}}).`$
In perturbative domain when $`uQ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{},a=\sqrt{2u},a_D=\frac{i}{\pi }a(2\mathrm{ln}a+1)`$ one reproduces the well known one-loop result

$$\frac{4\pi }{g^2}=\frac{1}{\pi }[\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}+3].$$
(81)
Assuming that renormalizations in N=2 SUSY theory follow the properties of those in N=1, one can try to apply the same expansion procedure for a non-perturbative solution. Substituting eq.(79) into (80) with

$$u\stackrel{~}{u}=u(1+M_1^0\theta _1^2+M_2^0\theta _2^2+M_3^0\theta _1^2\theta _2^2)$$

and expanding over $`\theta _1^2`$ and $`\theta _2^2`$, one gets an analog of S-W solution for the mass terms :

$$M_1=M_1^0\frac{m\left[u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a^{}}}\right)\tau \right]}{m\tau },M_2=M_2^0\frac{m\left[u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a^{}}}\right)\tau \right]}{m\tau },$$

$$M_3=\frac{m\left[M_3^0u\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a^{}}}\right)\tau +M_1^0M_2^0u^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime \prime }}{a^{}}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_D^{\prime \prime }}{a_D^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{\prime \prime }}{a^{}}}\right)\right)\tau \right]}{m\tau }$$

In perturbative regime one has

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1^0}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+3}},M_2={\displaystyle \frac{M_2^0}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+3}},M_3={\displaystyle \frac{M_3^0M_1^0M_2^0}{\mathrm{ln}Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+3}}.`$
## 7 Renormalization of the Fayet-Iliopoulos Term

We gave above a complete set of the rules needed for writing down the RG equations for the soft SUSY breaking terms in an arbitrary non-Abelian N=1 SUSY gauge theory. However, in the Abelian case, there exists an additional gauge invariant term, the so-called Fayet-Iliopoulos or the D-term

$$_{F.I.}=\xi D=d^4\theta \xi V,$$
(82)
which requires special consideration. In Ref. , it has been shown that in the unbroken theory this term is not renormalized provided the sum of hypercharges and their cubes equals zero. These requirements guarantee the absence of chiral and gravity anomalies and are usually satisfied in realistic models.

In case of a softly broken Abelian SUSY gauge theory, the F-I term happens to be renormalized even if anomalies are cancelled. The RG equation for $`\xi `$ depends not only on itself, but on the other soft breaking parameters (the soft mass of chiral scalars $`m^2`$, the soft triple coupling $`A^{ijk}`$ and the gaugino masses $`M_i`$). Recently, the renormalization of $`\xi `$ has been performed up to three loops  using the component approach and/or superfields with softly broken Feynman rules. Following our main idea that renormalizations of a softly broken SUSY theory are completely defined by a rigid one, we argue that the renormalization of the F-I term, in full analogy with all the other soft terms renormalizations, is completely defined in a rigid or an unbroken theory. However, contrary to the other soft renormalizations, there is no simple differential operator that acts on the renormalization functions of a rigid theory and allows one to get the renormalization of the F-I term. One needs an analysis of the superfield diagrams and some additional diagram calculations in components.

The addition of the F-I term leads to the modification of the Lagrangian in components. The relevant part of the Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{2g^2}D^2+\xi D+D\overline{\varphi }^j𝒴_j^i\varphi _i\overline{\varphi }^j(m^2)_j^i\varphi _i+\mathrm{}$$
(83)
where $`𝒴_j^i`$ is the hypercharge matrix of the chiral supermultiplet, and $`(m^2)_j^i`$ is a soft scalar mass. After eliminating the auxiliary field $`D`$ this becomes

$$=\overline{\varphi }^j(m^2)_j^i\varphi _i\frac{1}{2}g^2(\overline{\varphi }^j𝒴_j^i\varphi _i)^2+\mathrm{},$$
(84)
where

$$(m^2)_j^i=(m^2)_j^i+g^2\xi 𝒴_j^i.$$
(85)
From eqs.(84) and (85) it follows that the F-I term gives an additional contribution to the renormalization of the soft scalar mass $`(m^2)_j^i`$

$$[\beta _{m^2}]_j^i=[\beta _{m^2}]_j^i+\beta _{g^2}\xi 𝒴_j^i+g^2\beta _\xi (m^2,\mathrm{})𝒴_j^i=[\beta _{m^2}]_j^i+g^2\beta _\xi (m^2,\mathrm{})𝒴_j^i.$$
(86)
The last equality follows from the fact that eq.(84) does not contain $`\xi `$ explicitly and, hence, $`\xi `$ should be dropped from all the expressions.

There are four different types of contributions to the renormalization of the F-I term in a softly broken theory: those proportional to $`(m^2)_j^i`$, $`M\overline{M}`$, $`A^{ijk}\overline{A}_{lmn}`$ and $`M\overline{A}_{lmn}`$ ($`\overline{M}A^{ijk}`$).

We have found that all the information about the renormalizations of the soft SUSY breaking terms is contained in a rigid, unbroken theory. To calculate the renormalization of an additional Fayet-Iliopoulos term, one needs an analysis of superfield diagrams. To find the contribution proportional to the soft scalar mass $`(m^2)_j^i`$ (the square of gaugino mass $`M\overline{M}`$), one needs to take the self-energy diagrams for the vector superfield and replace one of the external vertices with the hypercharge $`𝒴_j^i`$ by $`(m^2)_j^i`$ ($`M\overline{M}\delta _j^i`$). In this case, there is no need to do any calculations except in superfields.

The other contributions (proportional to $`A\overline{A}`$ and $`M\overline{A}`$) can be found from the analysis of the matter superfield propagator diagrams in a rigid theory and the corresponding component diagrams in a softly broken theory extracting from the latter the contribution of the tadpole graphs. In this case, one needs to calculate additionally some component diagrams the number of which is essentially reduced compared to a direct component calculation .

## 8 Conclusion

Summarizing, we would like to stress once again that is very useful to consider a spontaneously broken theory in terms of a rigid one in an external field. In case when one is able to absorb the external field into the redefinition of parameters of the original theory and perform the renormalizations for an arbitrary field, one can reproduce renormalization properties of a spontaneously broken theory from a rigid one. The Grassmannian expansion in softly broken SUSY theories happens to be a very efficient and powerful method which can be applied in various cases where the renormalization procedure in concerned. It demonstrates once again that softly broken SUSY theories are contained in rigid ones and inherit their renormalization properties.

The following statements are valid:

* All the renormalizations are defined in a rigid theory. There are no independent renormalizations in a softly broken theory.
* RG flow in a softly broken theory follows that in a rigid theory.
* This statement is true for RG equations, solutions to these equations, particular (fixed point) solutions, approximate solutions, etc.
* Renormalization of the F-I term needs a special treatment but can be also deduced from unbroken theory.

## Appendix A. Three-loop renormalizations in the MSSM

In this section, we present explicit formulae for rigid and soft term renormalizations in the MSSM in the three-loop approximation in the case when we retain only $`\alpha _3`$ and top Yukawa coupling $`Y_t`$.

The rigid renormalizations are

$`\beta _{\alpha _3}`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha _3^2+\alpha _3^2(14\alpha _34Y_t)+\alpha _3^2[{\displaystyle \frac{347}{3}}\alpha _3^2{\displaystyle \frac{104}{3}}\alpha _3Y_t+30Y_t^2],`$ (A.1)
$`\gamma _t`$ $`=`$ $`(2Y_t{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3)(8Y_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\alpha _3^2)+[(30+12\zeta _3)Y_t^3`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}+96\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{544}{3}}\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2+({\displaystyle \frac{2720}{27}}+320\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3],`$
$`\gamma _b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\alpha _3^2+[{\displaystyle \frac{80}{3}}Y_t\alpha _3^2+({\displaystyle \frac{2720}{27}}+320\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3],`$ (A.3)
$`\gamma _Q`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_t{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3)(5Y_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}\alpha _3^2)+[(15+6\zeta _3)Y_t^3`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}+48\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{72}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{272}{3}}\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2+({\displaystyle \frac{2720}{27}}+320\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3],`$
$`\gamma _{H_2}`$ $`=`$ $`(3Y_t)(9Y_t^216Y_t\alpha _3)`$
$`+`$ $`[(57+18\zeta _3)Y_t^3+(72144\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}+16\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2],`$
$`\beta _{Y_t}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_t\{(6Y_t{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3)(22Y_t^216Y_t\alpha _3+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}\alpha _3^2)+[(102+36\zeta _3)Y_t^3`$ (A.6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{272}{3}}Y_t^2\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{296}{3}}+288\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2+({\displaystyle \frac{5440}{27}}+640\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3]\},`$
$`\beta _{\mu ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^2\{3Y_t(9Y_t^216Y_t\alpha _3)`$
$`+`$ $`[(57+18\zeta _3)Y_t^3+(72144\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3({\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}+16\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2]\},`$
Using the explicit form of anomalous dimensions calculated up to some order, one can reproduce the desired RG equations for the soft terms. In case of squark and slepton masses, they contain the contributions from unphysical masses $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _i}`$. To eliminate them, one has to solve the equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _i}`$. In the case of the MSSM up to three loops, the solutions are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _1}`$ $`=`$ $`M_1^2\alpha _1\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{199}{25}}\alpha _1^2M_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{27}{5}}\alpha _1\alpha _2M_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{88}{5}}\alpha _1\alpha _3M_3^2`$ (A.8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{5}}\alpha _1Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{5}}\alpha _1Y_b(\mathrm{\Sigma }_b+A_b^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\alpha _1Y_\tau (\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau +A_\tau ^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _2}`$ $`=`$ $`M_2^2\alpha _2(\sigma _24M_2^2)\alpha _2^2(4\sigma _2+9M_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}\alpha _2\alpha _1M_1^224\alpha _2\alpha _3M_3^2`$ (A.9)
$`+`$ $`3\alpha _2Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+3\alpha _2Y_b(\mathrm{\Sigma }_b+A_b^2)+\alpha _2Y_\tau (\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau +A_\tau ^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha _3}`$ $`=`$ $`M_3^2\alpha _3(\sigma _36M_3^2)\alpha _3^2(6\sigma _322M_3^2){\displaystyle \frac{11}{5}}\alpha _3\alpha _1M_1^29\alpha _3\alpha _2M_2^2`$ (A.10)
$`+`$ $`2\alpha _3Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+2\alpha _3Y_b(\mathrm{\Sigma }_b+A_b^2),`$
where we have used the combinations

$`\sigma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\left[3(m_{H_1}^2+m_{H_2}^2)+3(\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+3\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+8\stackrel{~}{m}_U^2+2\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2+6\stackrel{~}{m}_E^2)\right],`$
$`\sigma _2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1}^2+m_{H_2}^2+3(3\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2),`$ (A.11)
$`\sigma _3`$ $`=`$ $`3(2\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_U^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_D^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_{H_2}^2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=\stackrel{~}{m}_b^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2+m_{H_1}^2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau =\stackrel{~}{m}_\tau ^2+\stackrel{~}{m}_L^2+m_{H_1}^2.`$
The corresponding soft term renormalizations read

$`\beta _{M_3}`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha _3M_3+28\alpha _3^2M_34Y_t\alpha _3(M_3A_t)`$
$`+`$ $`347\alpha _3^3M_3{\displaystyle \frac{104}{3}}\alpha _3^2Y_t(2M_3A_t)+30\alpha _3Y_t^2(M_32A_t),`$
$`\beta _{A_t}`$ $`=`$ $`(6Y_tA_t+{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3M_3)[44Y_t^2A_t16Y_t\alpha _3(A_tM_3){\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}\alpha _3^2M_3]`$
$`+`$ $`[(306+108\zeta _3)Y_t^3A_t+{\displaystyle \frac{272}{3}}Y_t^2\alpha _3(2A_tM_3)`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{296}{3}}+288\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2(A_t2M_3)3({\displaystyle \frac{5440}{27}}+640\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3M_3],`$
$`\beta _B`$ $`=`$ $`3Y_tA_t[18Y_t^2A_t16Y_t\alpha _3(A_tM_3)]+[(171+54\zeta _3)Y_t^3A_t`$
$`+`$ $`(72144\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3(2A_tM_3)({\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}+16\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2(A_t2M_3)],`$
$`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{m}_t^2}`$ $`=`$ $`2Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2){\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3M_3^216Y_t^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2A_t^2){\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\alpha _3^2M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3^2\sigma _3`$
$`+`$ $`3(30+12\zeta _3)Y_t^3(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+3A_t^2)+({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}+96\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3[(2A_tM_3)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+M_3^2]({\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{544}{3}}\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2[(A_t2M_3)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2M_3^2]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}Y_t\alpha _3^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+4({\displaystyle \frac{2564}{9}}+960\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{160}{9}}\alpha _3^3\sigma _3,`$
$`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{m}_b^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3M_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\alpha _3^2M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3^2\sigma _3{\displaystyle \frac{80}{3}}Y_t\alpha _3^2[(A_t2M_3)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$
$`+`$ $`2M_3^2]{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}Y_t\alpha _3^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+4({\displaystyle \frac{2564}{9}}+960\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{160}{9}}\alpha _3^3\sigma _3,`$
$`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2){\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\alpha _3M_3^210Y_t^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2A_t^2){\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}\alpha _3^2M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\alpha _3^2\sigma _3`$
$`+`$ $`3(15+6\zeta _3)Y_t^3(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+3A_t^2)+({\displaystyle \frac{40}{3}}+48\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3[(2A_tM_3)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+M_3^2]({\displaystyle \frac{72}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{272}{3}}\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2[(A_t2M_3)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2M_3^2]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}Y_t\alpha _3^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)+4({\displaystyle \frac{2564}{9}}+960\zeta _3)\alpha _3^3M_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{160}{9}}\alpha _3^3\sigma _3,`$
$`\beta _{m_{H_2}^2}`$ $`=`$ $`3Y_t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+A_t^2)18Y_t^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2A_t^2)+16Y_t\alpha _3[(A_tM_3)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+M_3^2]`$
$`+`$ $`3(57+18\zeta _3)Y_t^3(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+3A_t^2)+(72144\zeta _3)Y_t^2\alpha _3[(2A_tM_3)^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+M_3^2]({\displaystyle \frac{160}{3}}+16\zeta _3)Y_t\alpha _3^2[(A_t2M_3)^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_t+2M_3^2]`$
$``$ $`16Y_t\alpha _3^2(\sigma _36M_3^2).`$
## Appendix B

The RG equation for the parameter $`\xi `$ in a rigid theory is

$$\dot{\xi }=\gamma _V\xi ,$$
(B.1)
where $`\gamma _V`$ is the anomalous dimension of the gauge superfield. To find the soft terms $`x,\overline{x}`$ and $`z`$, one should solve the modified equation

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{\xi }}=\gamma _V(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{y},\stackrel{~}{\xi })\stackrel{~}{\xi }.$$
(B.2)
In one-loop order $`\gamma _V=(b_1+b_2\xi )\alpha `$, where $`b_1+b_2=Q`$, and the solutions are

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`(M+x_0){\displaystyle \frac{b_1+b_2\xi }{Q}},\overline{x}=(\overline{M}+\overline{x}_0){\displaystyle \frac{b_1+b_2\xi }{Q}},`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha +z_0){\displaystyle \frac{b_1+b_2\xi }{Q}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_2\xi }{Q}}(M+x_0)(\overline{M}+\overline{x}_0){\displaystyle \frac{b_1+b_2\xi }{Q}},`$ (B.3)
where $`x_0,\overline{x}_0`$, and $`z_0`$ are arbitrary constants. In the Abelian case when $`b_1=Q,b_2=0`$, the solutions are simplified and can be chosen as

$$x=M(1\xi ),\overline{x}=\overline{M}(1\xi ),z=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (1\xi )M\overline{M}\xi (1\xi ).$$

Together with the expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ (14) it gives eq.(2) above.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my colleagues L.Avdeev, I.Kondrashuk, S.Codoban, G.Moultaka and V.Velizhanin in collaboration with whom these results have been obtained. I am grateful to the organizers of the conference ”Continuous Advances in QCD-02” and especially to M.Shifman for their invitation to participate in the conference and to present this report. Many thanks are to M.Shifman, A.Vainshtein, M.Strassler, I.Jack, T.Jones and R.Rattazzi for useful discussions.

Financial support from RFBR grants # 02-02-16889 and # 00-15-96691 is kindly acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Picosecond Nonlinear Relaxation of Photoinjected Carriers in a Single GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As Quantum Dot

## Abstract

Photoemission from a single self–organized GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As quantum dot (QD) is temporally resolved with picosecond time resolution. The emission spectra consisting of the multiexciton structures are observed to depend on the delay time and the excitation intensity. Quantitative agreement is found between the experimental data and the calculation based on a model which characterizes the successive relaxation of multiexcitons. Through the analysis we can determine the carrier relaxation time as a function of population of photoinjected carriers. Enhancement of the intra–dot carrier relaxation is demonstrated to be due to the carrier–carrier scattering inside a single QD.

Semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are designable mesoscopic atoms easily integrable in bulk electronics. These zero–dimensional structures, being solid state systems with an atomic–like density of states, have attracted large interest as possible efficient replacements of other quantum heterostructures for standard optoelectronic devices. Recently a more general prospective has been addressed, aiming to exploit the specific features of QDs for a new generation of novel devices. Examples of this new trend are in the field of quantum cryptography Moreau et al. (2001) and quantum computing Bayer et al. (2001), based on single QD (SQD) devices. Within this framework it is obvious that the main effort in QD research has been focused on the comprehension and the control of SQD properties. Studies of the phase relaxation Besombes et al. (2001), the spectral diffusion Seufert et al. (2000) and the carrier–carrier correlation Bacher et al. (1999); Bayer et al. (2000); Dekel et al. (2000a, b) are nowadays the focus of attention in QD basic research.

In this paper we study the ultrafast nonlinear properties on the carrier relaxation inside a single QD. The SQD emission transients are resolved with ps time resolution and interpreted in terms of the successive transition between the correlated few–exciton states. Quantitative analysis on the SQD emission allows us to determine the temporal dependence of the carrier population confined in a single dot. This permits us to show a strict correlation between the intrinsic carrier energy relaxation and the number of photoinjected carriers. We demonstrate that the intra–dot carrier–carrier scattering process is responsible for the efficient carrier relaxation in semiconductor QDs.

The samples are GaAs/Al0.3Ga0.7As self–assembled QDs grown by modified droplet epitaxy (MDE) Koguchi et al. (1991); Watanabe et al. (2000). MDE is a non–conventional growth method for self–assembling QDs even in lattice matched systems Watanabe et al. (2000). By modifying the surface reconstruction and the adatom mobility it is possible to obtain QD samples with a density as low as $`6\times 10^8`$ cm-2. Surface and cross sectional high resolution scanning electron microscope images demonstrate the formation of pyramidal shape nanocrystals of 16 nm height and 20 nm base Watanabe et al. (2001).

The optical measurement was performed with a fs mode–locked Ti–sapphire laser of 76–MHz repetition rate. A second–harmonic beam of the laser output ($`\lambda =400`$ nm) was used for excitation. This beam was loosely focused on the sample by a conventional lens of $`f=`$ 200 mm. The emitted signal was collected by a microscope objective of N.A. = 0.5. The present configuration allows one to irradiate the sample homogeneously inside the detection spot, and to determine the power density with precise accuracy. The spatial resolution was $`1.2\mu `$m, causing $`7`$ QDs to be collected on average. The signal was dispersed by a polychromator, and detected by a synchronously scanning streak camera. The temporal and spectral resolution was 15 ps and 0.8 meV, respectively. The sample was attached to a cold finger of a He–flow cryostat. All experiments were performed at 3.5 K.

Figure 1 shows a series of time–resolved SQD emission in a linear gray scale at various excitation powers, Pexc. These emissions originate from the recombination of an electron (and a hole) which is in the lowest–energy QD state. As is clearly shown, a highly nonlinear behavior and peculiar temporal dynamics appear on the SQD emission. At low excitation, P$`{}_{exc}{}^{}=47`$ nJ/cm2, Fig. 1(a) exhibits a narrow line, defined as A, and a weak band, defined as B, at the low–energy side of A. Both components decrease monotonically with time, although the B band decays much faster than the A line. With increasing excitation power to 150 nJ/cm2 (Fig. 1(b)), the B band appears as strong as A, and an additional rapid–decay component, defined as C, emerges at the lower energy. Simultaneously, the temporal shape of A tends to be stretched, and the finite rise profile is evidently resolved. After nearly 500 ps the spectral evolution is almost identical with that of the lower excitation case. On increasing the irradiation, as in Fig. 1(c), the broad C band dominates the transient stage of emission, and the rise of A and B is found to be slower. It is worth noting that the present features are common to all the SQD emissions, independent of their energy or dot size.

The temporal behavior of SQD emission is characterized by the transient PL spectra reported in Fig. 2(a). We selected four spectra from the PL trace at P$`{}_{exc}{}^{}=150`$ nJ/cm2, indicated by the white arrows in Fig. 1(b). The spectra show that: (i) the broad C band together with the B band dominates the early stage of the emission; (ii) the C band rapidly fades away with time; and finally, (iii) in the long time limit, the B band is totally replaced by the A line. Temporal development of these emission bands are reported in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d) for two different excitation powers. In the transient spectra, we also resolve a red shift of the A line ($``$0.8 meV, presented by vertical lines in Fig. 2(a)) and a narrowing of the B band with increasing time. These observations suggest that A and B originate from multiple components which are not spectrally resolved. This speculation is supported by the high–resolution SQD spectra with cw excitation, reported in Fig. 2(b). In fact, the high–resolution spectra exhibit two lines split by 0.8 meV in the A–line region, while four lines characterize the B–band region. When the irradiation is weak enough, the highest–energy line appears alone, and with increasing irradiation, other lower–energy lines take place. Note that a very similar spectral profile is obtained for Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), although a different QD was captured.

The transient emissions are therefore characterized by three components: the long lasting, high energy A line at 1828 meV, the B line at 1823 meV, and the fast and broad C band whose energy depends on the excitation power and delay time. This peculiar evolution can be attributed to multiexcitonic effects. The presence of more than one exciton in the QD determines the splitting and the red shift of the emission energy of the QD ground state transition. In fact, the carrier exchange interaction leads to a progressive decrease of emission energy when increasing the number of excitons in the QD, although a certain reduction is expected due to correlation effects Williamson et al. (2001). Thus, when the number of excitons increases, more lines appear in the low energy side of the fundamental single exciton transition. Within this framework we attribute the doubly degenerate A line to single exciton and biexciton recombinations, and the four–fold degenerate B band to the recombinations when the total number of excitons is between 3 and 6. A larger number of excitons captured in the QD give rise to the C band. These attributions reproduce the power dependence of the SQD emissions well, as will be discussed later.

It is noteworthy that the multiexciton complex has been first explored in bulk indirect semiconductors weakly doped by impurities Sauer (1973); Thewalt and Rostworowski (1978). In this case multiple carriers are bound by the Coulomb interaction, and their eigen-state is described by the shell model, which specifies the relative motion of carriers Kirczenow (1977). For the case of QDs, on the other hand, multiple carriers are bound mainly due to the quantum confinement, and the shell structure is simply given by the confinement sublevels determined for a single carrier. The carrier–carrier correlation reflects in the renormalization of the single carrier levels. In the present QDs, the energy split between the lowest energy shell (s shell) and the second-lowest one (p shell) is $``$ 80 meV, and we focus on the recombination of an electron (and a hole) occupied in the s shell, which is modified by the correlation with the other carriers.

To perform a quantitative discussion, we analyze the time evolution of the SQD PL using a model based on the successive transitions between the multiexciton states. Since our observations suggest that the transient SQD spectrum is solely determined by the population of excitons at a specific time, the emission dynamics are described by a set of rate equations Sauer (1973); Dekel et al. (2000b), $`d\rho _i/dt=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\rho _i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i+1}\rho _{i+1}`$, where $`\rho _i(t)`$ is the probability to find $`i`$ excitons inside the QD, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is the $`i`$X transition rate – hereafter $`i`$X indicates the recombination with $`i`$ excitons inside the QD. We also adopt the realistic assumption that the number of photoinjected carriers are statistically distributed, and it is given by the Poisson distribution, so that $`\rho _i(t=0)=e^{\overline{\rho }}\overline{\rho }^i/i\text{!}`$, where $`\overline{\rho }`$ represents the average number of photoinjected carriers Sauer (1973).

The efficiency of photoinjection was extracted by analyzing the time–integrated (TI) intensities of the SQD emissions. Variations of the TI intensities for the A–, B–, and C emission bands are presented in Fig. 3(a), together with the calculations based on the above model. The best fit to the data gives an efficient carrier–capturing cross section, $`\xi `$, of $`1.85\times 10^{11}`$ cm2. With the use of $`\xi `$, the number of photoinjected carriers is given by the multiplication of $`\xi `$ with the photon flux, or the carrier density at the sample surface. The present procedure allows us to determine the carrier population inside the QD. It was found that the magnitude of $`\xi `$ is consistent with a result of the PL yield measurement of the present sample, and of the same order with that of the InAs/GaAs QDs reported in Ref. Dekel et al., 2000b.

To interpret the temporal evolution of the SQD emission, $`\rho _i(t)`$ is solved numerically. For simplicity we assume that the transition rate of the multiexciton state is given by the summation of the relevant single–carrier recombination rates. In this treatment, dynamics of up to 10 excitons are specified using the three lowest inter–shell (s–, p–, and another higher shell) transition rates as free parameters. In Figs. 3(b) and 3(c), the best fits of the data (Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)) are presented, where the transition times for the s–, p–, and the higher energy shell are derived as 400 ps, 600 ps, and 300 ps, respectively, by an accuracy of 20 %. Excellent agreement between calculation and the data supports the validity of the assumption that the multiexciton transition strength, i.e., overlapping between the few electron–hole pairs, is not strongly modified by the carrier–carrier correlation.

The rise characteristics of the SQD emissions are shown in Fig. 4. Here we plot a phenomenological rise time, $`\tau _M`$, by measuring the time delay needed for each emission band to reach its maximum, as a function of average number of photoinjected carriers. Note that $`\tau _M`$ is roughly three to four times larger than the conventional rise time, $`\tau _R`$, obtained by a single–exponential fit. The C band indicates the fastest rise time ($`\tau _M=85\pm 10`$ ps), close to our time resolution limit. The A band and the B band show an increase in rise time when the exciton number is larger than two. This delay feature is understood by the present model based on the successive relaxation of multiexcitons: the emission of the $`i`$X band starts only when the internal excitons decrease to $`i`$, through several recombinations after pulse excitation, thus resulting in a delay of the $`i`$X onset time. The observed behavior of the emission rise for $`\overline{\rho }>2`$ is well reproduced by the calculation using the parameters described above. On the other hand, in the case of low carrier injection, $`\overline{\rho }<2`$, the experimental rise time is instead longer than the predicted one. It is therefore suggested that the intra–dot carrier relaxation to the ground–state configuration is evidently slowed down in the absence of multiple carriers inside the QD. This phenomenology is strictly related to the well–known PL characteristics observed by the ensemble QD experiment. In this case, the emission rise time, $`\tau _R`$, increases to several 10 ps at weak excitation density. With increasing density, on the other hand, the PL rise is observed to be fast. The commonly accepted interpretation is that the intra–dot relaxation is enhanced due to the Auger–like scattering of photoinjected carriers involving continuum electronic states Morris et al. (1999); Uskov et al. (1998); Raymond et al. (2000).

Our SQD data is consistent with the result of ensemble QD measurements, which generally show a monotonic decrease in PL rise time with photoinjection intensity Sanguinetti et al. (2002). In addition, by resolving the SQD emission dynamics we obtain a different and more precise picture of the intrinsic relaxation process. The speeding up of the carrier energy relaxation occurs whenever the number of excitons in the SQD is larger than few unities. At low carrier injection, when there is less than two excitons per QD (in this case the B band is weak or not resolved), the carrier relaxation to the ground state is relatively slow and almost independent of the excitation power. The B band already shows a fast rise at the minimum injection needed for detection. With increasing photoinjection, the C band becomes the dominant contribution of the SQD emission (the A and B bands appear only at very long delay times). Contribution of the all SQD emission bands leads to the monotonic decrease in the PL rise time, found in the ensemble averaged measurement. These results demonstrate that the shortening of the rise time of the QD emission stems from a multiexciton recombination, which cannot be resolved in standard PL of the QD ensemble, due to the large inhomogeneous broadening. At the same time our data show that the Auger–like processes effective in the QD relaxation should be associated to carrier–carrier scattering inside the QD Ferreira and Bastard (1999); Sanguinetti et al. (2002), rather than that involving the carrier population in the wetting layer and/or barrier states, as usually considered in the literature Morris et al. (1999); Uskov et al. (1998); Raymond et al. (2000).

In conclusion, we have determined the nonlinear carrier dynamics in a single quantum dot by means of PL measurements with picosecond time resolution. Effects of the multiexciton dynamics leads to strong nonlinearities in the SQD emission. The observed behavior stems from successive relaxation dynamics of multiexcitons. Moreover, the efficient intra–dot relaxation has been shown to be due to the nonlinear interaction between carriers inside a QD. We believe that the investigation of transient SQD emissions allows us to get deeper understandings on the ultrafast carrier dynamics in zero dimensional semiconductor systems.