format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been a renewed interest in the possible existence of anomalous neutral gauge boson self-couplings. This is due to the acquisition of new experimental results at LEP2  which, together with the TEVATRON results , begin to produce interesting constraints on such couplings; which should further improve in the future at the next colliders .

This has lead to a reexamination of the phenomenological description commonly used for these couplings. The necessity of certain corrections was discovered and their implications for $`ZZ`$ and $`Z\gamma `$ production at $`e^{}e^+`$ and hadron colliders were discussed .

For what concerns the quantitative theoretical predictions for each of these neutral couplings, very little has been said up to now , in contrary to the of the charged ($`ZWW`$ and $`\gamma WW`$) self-couplings for which several types of predictions had been given since a long time . A reappraisal of the theoretical expectations for these neutral couplings, is still lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to fill this lack and study the Standard Model (SM) predictions for these couplings, as well as the predictions arising from possible new physics beyond it.

In Section 2 we first recall some general properties following from Bose statistics, Lorentz symmetry and $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge invariant effective lagrangians. The most notable of them is that the neutral gauge couplings vanish whenever all three gauge boson are on-shell. Thus, at least one the gauge boson need to be off-shell, for such couplings to appear. Then, in Section 3 we consider the perturbative contributions to these couplings arising at one loop. When standard vertices for the gauge boson interactions are used, and in particular no CP violation in the photon- and $`Z`$\- couplings to fermions is considered, then of course only CP conserving neutral gauge self-couplings can arise. At the 1-loop level, such couplings can only be induced by a fermionic triangle diagram, involving either new or SM fermions. We give the exact expression of these contributions to the real and imaginary parts of the neutral gauge couplings, in terms of the fermionic ones $`(g_{vj},g_{aj})`$ and the fermion masses $`M_j`$, as well as the squared mass $`s`$ of the off-shell vector boson. To elucidate the remarkable properties of these results, we study both the high $`s`$ behaviour of these gauge couplings at fixed fermion mass $`M_j`$, as well as their high fermion-mass limit ($`M_j^2s,m_Z^2`$). As we will see, the behaviour in these limits is intimately related to the way the anomaly cancellation is realized.

The quantitative aspects of these fermionic contributions are discussed in Section 4, where we consider the SM contributions to the real and imaginary parts of the couplings, as well as the relative magnitude of the lepton- , light quark- and the top quark-contributions. We observe that the anomaly cancellation is intimately accompanied by considerable cancellation between the lepton and quark contribution to the physical neutral gauge boson couplings at high energy. We then consider the supersymmetric contributions due to the charginos and neutralinos in the MSSM. And finally we discuss the possibility of heavy fermions associated to some form of new physics (NP) with a high intrinsic scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$.

Section 5 is devoted to contributions that could arise beyond the fermionic one loop level, either though higher order perturbative diagrams or through non perturbative effects. Finally, in Section 6, we summarize our results and their consequences for the observability of neutral self-boson couplings at present and future colliders.

## 2 General properties of neutral self-boson couplings

Because of Bose statistics, the $`Z`$ and $`\gamma `$ self-couplings vanish identically, when all three particles are on-shell. The general form of the couplings of one off-shell boson ($`V=Z,\gamma `$) to a final pair of on-shell $`ZZ`$ or $`Z\gamma `$ bosons, is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ZZV}^{\alpha \beta \mu }(q_1,q_2,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(sm_V^2)}{m_Z^2}}\left[f_4^V(P^\alpha g^{\mu \beta }+P^\beta g^{\mu \alpha })f_5^Vϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta \rho }(q_1q_2)_\rho \right],`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Z\gamma V}^{\alpha \beta \mu }(q_1,q_2,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i(sm_V^2)}{m_Z^2}}\{h_1^V(q_2^\mu g^{\alpha \beta }q_2^\alpha g^{\mu \beta })+{\displaystyle \frac{h_2^V}{m_Z^2}}P^\alpha [(Pq_2)g^{\mu \beta }q_2^\mu P^\beta ]`$ (2)
$``$ $`h_3^Vϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta \rho }q_{2\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{h_4^V}{m_Z^2}}P^\alpha ϵ^{\mu \beta \rho \sigma }P_\rho q_{2\sigma }\},`$
where the momenta are defined as in Fig.1 and $`sP^2`$, is111$`ϵ^{0123}=1`$. used. The expressions (1, 2) follow from the general forms written in  and the corrections made in . The forms associated to $`f_4^V,h_1^V,h_2^V`$ are CP-violating, whereas the ones associated to $`f_5^V,h_3^V,h_4^V`$ are CP-conserving.

The CP-conserving forms in (1, 2) are C- and P- violating and in this respect they are analogous to the anapole $`ZW^+W^{}`$ and $`\gamma W^+W^{}`$ vertices

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{W^+W^{}V}^{\alpha \beta \mu }(q_1,q_2,P)=i\frac{z_V}{m_W^2}\left\{ϵ^{\mu \alpha \sigma \rho }P_\sigma (q_1q_2)_\rho P^\beta ϵ^{\mu \beta \sigma \rho }P_\sigma (q_1q_2)_\rho P^\alpha \right\},$$
(3)
as well to the corresponding gauge boson-fermion anomalous anapole coupling. None of these couplings exist at tree level in the Standard Model (SM). At the one-loop SM level though, as we will see below, such couplings do appear and tend to be strongly decreasing with $`s`$.

Since the CP violating couplings in (1, 2) can never be generated, if the NP interactions of $`Z`$ and photon conserve CP, we concentrate below on the CP conserving couplings $`f_5^V,h_3^V,h_4^V`$. As already observed these are analogous to the anapole ones. But the situation in this neutral anapole sector is rather different from the one in the sector of the general charged $`ZWW`$ and $`\gamma WW`$ couplings. This can been seen by comparing the results of the calculation of the triangular graph of Fig.2, with the generic expectations from a dimensional analysis in the effective lagrangian framework. More explicitly, the contribution of a heavy fermion of mass $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$ to the aforementioned 1-loop triangular graph results to an $`f_5^V`$ or $`h_3^V`$ coupling, which may occasionally behave like $`(m_W/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP})^2`$. On the other hand, when one writes the effective lagrangian in terms of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge invariant operators in the linear representation , then at the lowest non-trivial level of $`dim=6`$ operators several anomalous $`ZWW`$ and $`\gamma WW`$ couplings are generated . However, at this level, neither the anapole $`ZWW`$ coupling of (3), nor any neutral gauge couplings ever appear. These couplings require higher dimensional $`dim8`$ operators, which means that their magnitude should be depressed by at least one more power of $`m_W^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^2`$ and behave like222The same conclusion should also be valid if the non-linear Higgs representation is used. In this later case the $`ZWW`$ anapole coupling can be generated at the dominant $`D_{chiral}=4`$ level; but the generation of neutral self-couplings still requires higher dimensional operators . $`(m_W/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP})^4`$.

It is therefore interesting to examine more precisely the conditions under which such couplings can be generated and what type of NP effects determine their magnitude.

## 3 Fermion loop contributions

We have first looked at the perturbative ways in which the neutral couplings in (1, 2) could be generated. One immediately observes that at the 1-loop level the relevant graphs are triangular ones of the type of Fig.2. For scalars or $`W^\pm `$ bosons running along the loop in such graphs, with standard $`ZWW`$ and $`\gamma WW`$ couplings, we always get identically vanishing contributions. In particular for the CP conserving couplings, the reason is that the $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ tensor can never be generated from them. Only a fermionic loop (either with a single fermion $`F_j`$ running along the loop, or with mixed $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{}`$ fermionic contributions), can generate such $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ terms, through the axial $`Z`$ coupling (see Fig.2). To describe them, we use the standard definitions

$``$ $`=`$ $`eQ_jA^\mu \overline{F}_j\gamma _\mu F_j{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}}Z^\mu \overline{F}_j\left(\gamma _\mu g_{vj}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5g_{aj}\right)F_j`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}}Z^\mu \overline{F}_1\left(\gamma _\mu g_{v12}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5g_{a12}\right)F_2,`$
where $`Q_j`$ is the $`F_j`$ charge, while $`g_{vj}`$, $`g_{aj}`$ and the mixed couplings $`g_{v12}`$, $`g_{a12}`$ determine the $`Z`$-fermion interactions. If there are no CP violating NP sources, then all these couplings must be real, and hermiticity requires $`g_{v12}=g_{v21}`$, $`g_{a12}=g_{a21}`$. As already said, in such a case only the CP conserving neutral gauge boson couplings in (1, 2) can in principle be generated.

Using standard techniques for preserving CVC and Bose symmetry, (or equivalently for isolating the anomaly contribution) we get the 1-loop fermionic contributions to the CP conserving couplings $`h_3^{Z,\gamma }`$ and $`f_5^{Z,\gamma }`$ presented in Appendix A in terms of Passarino-Veltman functions, and in Appendix B in terms of the Feynman parametrization. These expressions are used below for computing the precise predictions of the Standard Model and of the MSSM. Before presenting these though, the following remarks are in order.

We first note that at the one-loop level, we can never generate $`h_4^Z`$ and $`h_4^\gamma `$, i.e.

$$h_4^Zh_4^\gamma 0.$$
(5)
Therefore, the neutral couplings most likely to appear are $`f_5^{\gamma ,Z}`$ and $`h_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$. From the expressions given in the Appendices A or B, it is easy to obtain their behaviour in the high and low energy limit. At high energy $`sM_j^2,m_Z^2`$, we get

$`h_3^Z`$ $``$ $`f_5^\gamma N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}}{8\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{s}}\right),`$ (6)
$`f_5^Z`$ $``$ $`N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_{aj}[g_{aj}^2+3g_{vj}^2]}{48\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{s}}\right),`$ (7)
$`h_3^\gamma `$ $``$ $`N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}}{4\pi ^2s_Wc_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{s}}\right),`$ (8)
where $`M_j`$ is the mass of the single fermion $`F_j`$ assumed to run along the loop in Fig.2 and $`N_F`$ is a counting factor for colour and/or hypercolour.

In the opposite  heavy fermion $`F_j`$ limit where $`M_j^2s,m_Z^2`$, we get

$`f_5^Z{\displaystyle \frac{e^2g_{aj}N_F}{960\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_j^2}}\right)\left[5g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(2s+3m_Z^2)(7g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2)}{21M_j^2}}\right],`$ (9)
$`h_3^Zf_5^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{e^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}N_F}{96\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_j^2}}\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2(s+m_Z^2)}{15M_j^2}}\right],`$ (10)
$`h_3^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{e^2Q_j^2g_{aj}N_F}{48\pi ^2s_Wc_W}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{M_j^2}}\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2s+m_Z^2}{15M_j^2}}\right],`$ (11)
which is the situation applying to NP contributions characterized by high scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}M_j`$.

In both these limits, the relation

$$h_3^Zf_5^\gamma $$
(12)
holds independently of the fermion couplings. Nevertheless, this relation cannot be exact. Indeed, as one can see from the expressions of the Feynman integrals (B.4B.1), the approximate equality (12) is violated by the different threshold effects associated to the $`Z\gamma `$ and $`ZZ`$ final pairs, in the triangular graph in Fig.2. It turns out though that these threshold effects are rather small and moreover, they rapidly diminish as soon as $`s`$ goes away from threshold. In this respect, we have checked that in a high $`M_j`$ expansion, the violation of the equality (12) is very tiny and of the order of $`m_Z^6/M_j^6`$. The overall conclusion is therefore, that (12) is approximately correct for most of the range of the $`s`$ and $`M_j`$ values. This is also shown by the numerical applications presented in Section 4 below.

We next mention the fermion contribution to the anapole $`ZWW`$ and $`\gamma WW`$ couplings, since they are of the same nature as the above neutral couplings. Indeed, when one computes the triangle loop with a doublet of fermions $`F,F^{}`$ of masses $`M_F,M_F^{}`$, one obtains the result given in (B.21-B.23) in Appendix B. Using then (B.24\- B.26) for the case of standard couplings and a degenerate fermion iso-doublet pair satisfying $`M_F=M_F^{}m_W`$, that result simplifies to

$$z_Z\frac{s_W}{c_W}z_\gamma =N_F\frac{e^2}{1152\pi ^2s_Wc_W}\left(\frac{m_W^2}{M_F^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{4s+2m_W^2}{15M_F^2}\right),$$
(13)
for quarks, and

$$z_Z\frac{s_W}{c_W}z_\gamma =N_F\frac{e^2}{384\pi ^2s_Wc_W}\left(\frac{m_W^2}{M_F^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{4s+2m_W^2}{15M_F^2}\right),$$
(14)
for leptons.

The numerical predictions for the fermion contributions to $`f_5^V`$ and $`h_3^V`$, are strongly affected by the way the anomalies are (presumably) cancelled in the complete theory. Consequently, in the final part of this section we discuss their effect. Such anomalies are generated by triangular fermion loop diagrams. In SM they are cancelled whenever one or more complete families of leptons and quarks are considered. In the MSSM the total chargino or neutralino contributions are separately anomaly free. However, since these anomalies are proportional to the quantities

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{vj}g_{aj}Q_j,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{aj}Q_j^2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_j,`$
and independent of the masses of the fermions running along the loop, their cancellation may involve fermions with very large mass differences. Consequently three distinct possibilities arise. Either all participating fermions are almost degenerate at scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$; or they have mass differences of the electroweak size; or finally certain fermions are much lighter than others, the contributions of the heavier ones to the neutral couplings being then negligible.

These different situations lead to very different predictions for the size of the neutral couplings. In the first case, a complete family of exactly degenerate heavy fermions (for example degenerate heavy leptons and quarks with the SM structure) would lead to the vanishing of all the NP couplings. This arises because, in this case, the combination of the heavy fermion contributions is the same as in the mass independent cancelling triangle anomaly. This is the unbroken $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ situation.

If instead, one introduces mass splittings of the electroweak size (i.e. $`m_Z^2`$ ) among the multiplets; like e.g. between the heavy lepton and the heavy quark doublets, then the resulting couplings are of the order $`m_Z^4/M_F^4`$, which means that they are suppressed by an extra power $`m_Z^2/M_F^2`$ as compared to (9-11). This case corresponds to a spontaneous broken $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ situation. Identifying $`M_F`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$, we then indeed get a contribution of order $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^4`$, similar to what is predicted by $`dim=8`$ gauge-invariant operators.

Finally, if a single heavy fermion (or a partial set of heavy fermions) is much lighter than all the other fermions in the family, then the couplings are directly given by the leading terms in (9-11); i.e. just proportional to $`(m_Z^2/M_F^2)`$. This is obviously the most favorable situation for their observability, but it would essentially mean that $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge symmetry is strongly broken in the NP sector.

In the next Section we give some quantitative illustrations.

## 4 Contributions from Standard Model and Beyond

### 4.1  The Standard Model contributions

The SM contribution arises from the three families of leptons and quarks, and the anomaly cancellation occurs separately inside each family. To the couplings $`h_3^{Z,\gamma }`$ and $`f_5^\gamma `$ only the charged fermions contribute; while $`f_5^Z`$ receives contributions from the neutrinos also. In Fig.3 we have drawn the SM contributions to the real and the imaginary parts of these couplings. The respective magnitudes of the contributions of the leptons, the five light quarks, and the top quark are also shown. The consequences of the anomaly cancellation are clearly reflected in the behaviour of the predicted couplings at high energy i.e. for $`sm_Z^2,M_F^2`$. Indeed it can be seen in Fig.3 that although each fermionic contribution decreases like $`1/s`$ in agreement with eq.(6-8), their sum decreases like $`\mathrm{ln}s/s^2`$.

The neutral couplings get imaginary parts as soon as $`s>4M_F^2`$ or $`M_Z^2>4M_F^2`$. After a spectacular threshold enhancement though, the imaginary contribution of each fermion behaves like $`(m_Z^2M_F^2/s^2)\mathrm{ln}(s/M_F^2)`$ for $`s(M_Z^2,4M_F^2)`$. Therefore, the light fermion contribution to the imaginary parts of the couplings is strongly suppressed, and only the top quark effect is visible on Fig.3.

Summarizing, the SM neutral couplings are in general complex but the relative importance of the real and imaginary parts is strongly energy dependent. Below the $`2m_t`$ threshold, the imaginary part is negligible. Above $`2m_t`$, real and imaginary parts have a comparable magnitude; with the imaginary part being somewhat larger. In Table 1, we collect these SM contributions at LEP2 ($`\sqrt{s}=200GeV`$) and at a $`500GeV`$ Linear Collider. The results in Fig.3 and Table 1 indicate also the extent to which (12) is approximately correct for any $`s`$ and $`M_j`$ values.

### 4.2  The MSSM contributions

As a first example of new physics effect, we have computed the additional one loop contributions arising in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). They are rather simple, as the only new fermions are charginos and neutralinos. The two charginos $`\chi _{1,2}^\pm `$ contribute to the four $`h_3^{Z,\gamma }`$ and $`f_5^{Z,\gamma }`$ couplings; while the four neutralinos $`\chi _{14}^0`$ contribute only to $`f_5^Z`$. Charginos couple to the gauge bosons through both their gaugino and higgsino components, whereas neutralinos only contribute through their higgsino components. The new feature, as compared to SM contributions, is that there now exist triangle loops with mixed contributions, for example $`(F_1,F_2,F_2)`$ in the chargino case. This is caused by the non-diagonal $`g_{v12},g_{a12}`$ Z-couplings in (4). The explicit expressions of these new contributions are also given in Appendices A and B. However, because the non-diagonal Z-couplings are generally weaker than the diagonal ones (see below), these mixed contributions turn out to be notably smaller than the unmixed contributions.

Let us first discuss the chargino contributions. If $`\mu `$ and the soft breaking SUSY parameters are taken to be real, as would be the case if no new CP violation source, beyond the one contained in the Yukawa couplings exists; then the chargino masses are given by

$$M_{\chi _{1,2}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left\{M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2)^24[M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )]^2}\right\}.$$
(15)
The photon couplings in (4) are then fixed by $`Q_{\chi _{1,2}}=+1`$.

For the $`Z\chi _1\chi _1`$ couplings in (4) we have

$$g_{v1}=\frac{3}{2}2s_W^2+\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R],g_{a1}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R],$$
(16)
while for the $`Z\chi _2\chi _2`$ couplings

$$g_{v2}=\frac{3}{2}2s_W^2\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L+\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R],g_{a2}=\frac{1}{4}[\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R],$$
(17)
where

$`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _R={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}m_W(\mu \mathrm{cos}\beta +M_2\mathrm{sin}\beta )}{D}}`$ , $`\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _L={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}m_W(\mu \mathrm{sin}\beta +M_2\mathrm{cos}\beta )}{D}}`$
$`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _R={\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2\mu ^2+2m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{D}}`$ , $`\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _L={\displaystyle \frac{M_2^2\mu ^22m_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{D}},`$ (18)
with

$$D=\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu ^2+2m_W^2)^24(M_2\mu m_W^2sin2\beta )^2}.$$
(19)
Finally, the mixed $`Z\chi _1\chi _2`$ couplings are

$`g_{v12}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Sign}(M_2)}{4}}[\mathrm{Sign}(M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _R+\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _L],`$
$`g_{a12}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Sign}(M_2)}{4}}[\mathrm{Sign}(M_2\mu m_W^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta )\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _R\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _L],`$ (20)
where $`\mathrm{Sign}(x)`$ means sign of $`x`$. As expected, the anomaly cancellation in the chargino sector arises when one sums the mixed and unmixed contributions of the two charginos.

For the numerical applications we used the sets of parameters at the electrowaek scale presented in Table 2, .

The main feature of the data in Table 2 is that almost always one of the chargino is considerably lighter than the other. Thus, at energies around $`2M_{\chi _1}`$ but considerably below $`2M_{\chi _2}`$, the dominant contribution comes from the lighter chargino, while the heavier one gives a weaker contribution of opposite sign. At energies higher than both chargino thresholds, these two contributions tend to cancel; the cancellation being a relic of the anomaly cancellation in the chargino sector.

More quantitatively, as the chargino couplings are of electroweak size, when one chargino is light enough (around $`100GeV`$ or less), then their contribution is similar to the SM ones, for what concerns the real parts of the couplings. Similarly to the top quark SM case, the imaginary parts get threshold enhancements just above $`2M_\chi `$, where their magnitude is comparable to that of the real part. These features can be seen in Figs.4, 5 where we have illustrated the cases of the Sets 5 and 6. The results for the Sets 1, 2, 3 are quite similar; although it may remarked that the chargino contribution, particularly to $`f_5^Z`$ or $`f_5^\gamma `$, is somewhat more pronounced there. In Set 4 the chargino contribution is very small, because there, the lightest chargino is relatively heavy, and the Z-axial couplings are very small. The later is due to $`|\mu ||M_2|`$ in this model, which forces $`\varphi _L,\varphi _R`$ to have similar values and thereby the Z-axial couplings to have very low values. The cases of Sets 5 and 6 are identical to the low and high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenarios suggested in  as a benchmark for SUSY studies. In Table 3 we give the precise predictions for these sets at $`\sqrt{s}=200,500GeV`$.

In addition there is a neutralino contribution to $`f_5^Z`$. It only arises from the $`Z`$ couplings to the Higgsino components. In order to have an estimate of the largest possible neutralino effect, we have taken the case in which the lightest neutralinos are of Higgsino type. As the contribution to $`f_5^Z`$ is proportional to the cubic power of the $`Z`$-neutralino coupling, it would become rapidly negligible if the neutralinos were not dominantly Higgsino-like. So we have taken pure axial Z-Higgsino couplings

$$g_{v\chi _1^0}=g_{v\chi _2^0}=0,g_{a\chi _1^0}=g_{a\chi _2^0}=1,$$
(21)
and only considered the contribution from two neutralinos. The results for the masses (in GeV)

$$(M_{\chi _1^0},M_{\chi _2^0})=(71,130),(78,165),(93,165),(170,195),$$
(22)
are shown in Fig.6. They are somewhat smaller than those due to charginos for comparable masses, this being due to the difference in the $`Z`$ couplings. Remarkable threshold effects nevertheless appear when one neutralino is light enough. The largest effects are obtained for the couple (71,130)GeV.

For this couple, at 200 and at 500 GeV, the contributions to $`f_5^Z`$ in units of $`10^4`$, are

$$0.26+3.3i\text{ and}0.320.22i$$

respectively; i.e. comparable to the SM and to chargino contributions. The same type of comments about the behaviour of the real and of the imaginary parts can be made.

Let us finally note that, if there is nearly degeneracy of the lightest chargino and neutralino, their cumulative effect in $`f_5^Z`$ can be occasionally important and increase the SM contribution by a factor of 2 to 3.

### 4.3  Other NP possibilities.

The above study of the MSSM contributions gives already a good feeling of what can arise from any other perturbative NP contributions at one loop. We now want to extend the discussion by considering quantitatively, in a model-independent way, the contribution of a new fermion $`F`$. Such new fermionic states arise in many extensions of the SM, like in GUTS or in TC models.

We take couplings of electroweak size, which means typical values of the order of $`g_{vF}=g_{aF}=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`Q_F=1`$, and keep the colour-hypercolour factor $`N_F=1`$. In Fig.7 we show how the resulting couplings depend on the fermion mass $`M_F`$, at fixed energies $`\sqrt{s}=200,500GeV`$. The cusps in the real parts and the peaks in the imaginary parts that occur around $`M_F=\sqrt{s}/2`$, are clearly visible there. They have the same structure as in the previous SM and MSSM cases and with the chosen couplings, their magnitude is similar, i.e. a few $`10^4`$.

However for $`M_F\sqrt{s}/2`$, which is the case that we now want to discuss, the $`M_F`$ dependence is smooth and the resulting neutral couplings are purely real. Thus in this limit, they can be well approximated by the energy-independent empirical formulae

$`h_3^\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`0.02\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1TeV}{M_F}}\right)^2,`$ (23)
$`h_3^Z`$ $`=`$ $`f_5^\gamma =0.01\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1TeV}{M_F}}\right)^2,`$ (24)
$`f_5^Z`$ $`=`$ $`0.009\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{1TeV}{M_F}}\right)^2;`$ (25)
(compare with eq.(9-11)).

As they stand, these results would describe the most favorable NP case in which a single fermion is lighter than the other ones. With the chosen electroweak couplings and taking $`N_F=1`$, such a contribution becomes nevertheless quickly unobservable when the mass $`M_F`$ reaches the level of a few hundred of GeV. It could only be sizeable if the heavy fermions have enhanced couplings to the photon or to the $`Z`$ (see Section 5), or if the colour-hypercolour factor $`N_F`$ is large. Consequently, it is unlikely that such a new contribution (even without the depressing effect of the anomaly cancellation), can appreciably modify the SM prediction.

## 5 Higher orders and Non Perturbative effects

At the one-loop level we have exploited so far, only the fermionic triangle diagram can contribute to the generation of neutral gauge couplings. In such a case, the CP conserving $`h_4^{\gamma ,Z}`$ couplings are never generated. This is a direct consequence of the symmetries of the fermionic trace of the triangular diagram and of Shouten’s relation. It is therefore interesting to examine if there is any other way to generate such $`h_4^{\gamma ,Z}`$ couplings and enhance its magnitude; compare eq.(2).

Perturbatively, this may happen at a higher-loop level. We have thus explored diagrams of the form of Fig.8a, where the hatched blob denotes a fermion 1-loop diagram generating an anapole $`ZWW`$ coupling. We have found that such an anapole $`ZWW`$-vertex, inside the W-loop of Fig.8a, generates an $`h_4^{\gamma ,Z}`$ coupling of the size

$$h_4^{\gamma ,Z}\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }h_3^{\gamma ,Z};$$
(26)
i.e. the size of a typical electroweak correction to the NP prediction to $`h_3^{\gamma ,Z}`$. Of course the result (26) should only be considered as a rough order of magnitude expectation, since a complete model prediction would require the computation of other diagrams appearing at the same 2-loop order, like those depicted in Fig.8b.

It is conceivable that non-perturbative effects could enhance the above neutral gauge boson couplings. In this respect we may consider strong vector $`𝒱`$ ($`\rho `$-like) and axial $`𝒜`$ ($`A_1`$-like) resonances coupled to the photon and $`Z`$, like in TC models , through the junctions

$$eg_{𝒱\gamma }=eF_𝒱M_𝒱,eg_{𝒱Z}=e\frac{(12s_W^2)}{2s_Wc_W}F_𝒱M_𝒱,eg_{𝒜Z}=\frac{e}{2s_Wc_W}F_𝒜M_𝒜,$$
(27)
where we expect that in the strong coupling regime

$$\frac{F_{𝒱,𝒜}}{M_{𝒱,𝒜}}O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}),$$
(28)
should hold. New strong interactions can generate non perturbative couplings among the $`𝒱`$ and $`𝒜`$ vector bosons; like e.g. those expected in the Vector Dominance Model (VDM) of hadron physics for the $`\rho `$ and $`A_1`$ vector mesons . Such couplings, depicted by the central bubble in Fig.9, could have the same Lorentz decomposition as in eq.(2), but with strengths determined by

$`h_3^S/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^2`$ $`,h_4^S/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^4,`$
where $`h_{3,4}^S\sqrt{4\pi }`$. By multiplying these strengths by the junctions given in eq.(27) and using the corresponding $`𝒱`$ or $`𝒜`$ propagators according to Fig.9, one then obtains the corresponding predictions for neutral gauge couplings. For $`s,m_Z^2M_{𝒱,𝒜}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^2`$ we then get

$$h_4^{Z,\gamma }\frac{m_Z^2}{M_{𝒱,𝒜}^2}h_3^{Z,\gamma }\alpha \left(\frac{m_Z^2}{M_{𝒱,𝒜}^2}\right)^2.$$
(29)
For vector meson masses $`M_{𝒱,𝒜}`$ not too far in the TeV range, these values may be somewhat higher than those predicted by the previous perturbative computations.

## 6 Concluding Remarks

We have studied various ways to generate neutral triple gauge boson couplings among the photon and $`Z`$. Since these couplings are actually form factors involving at least one off-shell vector boson, they depend on the corresponding energy-squared variable $`s`$. The simplest way to generate them is through a fermionic triangle loop, involving fermions with arbitrary vector and axial gauge couplings. Such diagrams only generate CP-conserving couplings satisfying

$$h_3^Zf_5^\gamma ,h_4^Zh_4^\gamma 0,$$
(30)
for almost any $`s`$ and fermion mass.

We have then studied the high energy behaviour of these couplings at a fixed fermion mass; as well a the high fermion mass limit at current energies. This last case allows us to illustrate different possible situations, that depend on the NP mass spectrum and on the way the anomaly cancellation takes place. The most favorable situation arises whenever one of the states needed to cancel the anomaly is much lighter that the rest.

To acquire a feeling of the expected magnitudes we have presented in Fig.3 the SM prediction for these coupling as a function of the energy $`\sqrt{s}`$. These SM predictions are found to be at the level of a few $`10^4`$ for LEP (200GeV), while for LC(500GeV) they reduce to a few $`10^5`$; see Table 1. Just above the $`2m_t`$ threshold, an imaginary part of the order of $`10^4`$ appears due to top quark contribution. According to a previous study , such values should be unobservable at LEP2, but marginally observable at a high luminosity LC .

Subsequently, we have computed the supersymmetric (chargino and neutralino) contributions in MSSM, varying the input masses inside the currently reasonable ranges appearing in Table 2 and eq.(22). The results strongly depend on the mass of the lightest SUSY state (chargino or neutralino). If this is close to $`100GeV`$, then the SUSY contribution can be comparable to or even larger (if the chargino and neutralino effects cumulate) than the contribution from the top quark, or even the total SM one; compare Figs.4,5 with Fig.3, and the results in Table 3. As in the SM top case, a non negligible imaginary part is again generated just above the chargino or neutralino thresholds.

To summarize, the ”low mass” contributions, both in SM and in MSSM, predict complex and strongly energy dependent values for these couplings, with remarkable cusp and peak effects which could however only be observed at a high luminosity LC. Note also that for such small values of the couplings no effect from the imaginary parts should be observable in $`ZZ`$ or $`Z\gamma `$ production cross sections, because there is no imaginary tree level contribution with which they could interfer, see .

To acquire a somewhat more model-independent feeling, we have also considered the contributions of a single heavy fermion, supposed to be the lightest one of a new physics spectrum. Keeping its gauge couplings to photon and $`Z`$ as standard, we have studied its contribution versus its mass $`M_F`$. Results are presented in Fig.7 for medium values of $`M_F`$, while empirical formulae have been established for higher values. Obviously, as soon as the fermion is too heavy to be produced in pairs, no imaginary part is generated by such NP. The real parts decrease like $`1/M_F^2`$ and become of the order of $`10^6`$ for a mass $`M_F`$ in the TeV range; compare (23-25). So one would need either a large colour-hypercolour factor or enhanced couplings of the heavy fermion to the photon or to the $`Z`$, in order to get observable NP contributions of this type.

Finally we have discussed how high order effects could feed the couplings $`h_4^V`$, which are still vanishing at one loop. However such contributions are always accompanied by an additional $`\alpha /4\pi `$ factor, which make them totally unobservable. Thus the only chance to generate $`h_4^V`$ is through some kind of non perturbative contributions. An example of such effect based on analogy with low energy hadronic Physics and the Vector Dominance Model has been considered. But even such a rather extreme model only leads to

$$\frac{h_4^V}{h_3^V}\frac{m_Z^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}^2},$$

which for reasonable values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{NP}`$ should render $`h_4^V`$ unobservable.

Our overall conclusion is that it is very unlikely that the neutral gauge couplings would depart in an observable way from SM prediction; provided of course that the new states couple to the photon and $`Z`$ through standard gauge couplings. Exceptions to this statement could come, either from low-lying (order 100 GeV) new states (for example light charginos or neutralinos); or from enhanced photon-new fermion or $`Z`$-new fermion couplings, (for example due to some resonant states of the VDM type).

Appendix A: Fermion loop contributions in terms of Passarino-Veltman functions.

Using the short-hand notation of the Passarino-Veltman functions

$`B_0(s;ij)`$ $`=`$ $`B_0(s;M_i,M_j)`$ (A.1)
$`B_Z(s;ij)`$ $``$ $`B_0(s;M_i,M_j)B_0(m_Z^2+iϵ;M_i,M_j),`$ (A.2)
$`C_{ZZ}(s;ijk)`$ $``$ $`C_0(m_Z^2,m_Z^2,s;M_i,M_j,M_k),`$ (A.3)
$`C_{Z\gamma }(s;ijk)`$ $``$ $`C_0(m_Z^2,0,s;M_i,M_j,M_k),`$ (A.4)
where $`sP^2`$ , and observing the symmetry relations

$`B(s;ij)`$ $`=`$ $`B(s;ji),`$ (A.5)
$`C_{ZZ}(s;ijk)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{ZZ}(s;kji),`$ (A.6)
we get for the contribution of $`F_j`$-fermion loop

$`f_5^\gamma (j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_FQ_je^2m_Z^2g_{aj}g_{vj}}{8\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2(s4m_Z^2)^2s}}\{2B_Z(s;jj)m_Z^2(s+2m_Z^2)+(s2m_Z^2)(s4m_Z^2)`$ (A.7)
$`+`$ $`2C_{ZZ}(s;jjj)[M_j^2(s4m_Z^2)(s2m_Z^2)+2m_Z^4(sm_Z^2)]\},`$
$`f_5^Z(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_Fe^2m_Z^2g_{aj}}{16\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3(s4m_Z^2)^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(3g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2)(s4m_Z^2)}{3}}`$ (A.8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_Z(s;jj)}{sm_Z^2}}\left[4g_{aj}^2M_j^2(s4m_Z^2)+(3g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2)m_Z^2(s+2m_Z^2)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2C_{ZZ}(s;jjj)[(g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2)M_j^2(s4m_Z^2)+m_Z^4(3g_{vj}^2+g_{aj}^2)]\},`$
$`h_3^\gamma (j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_Fe^2Q_j^2g_{aj}m_Z^2}{4\pi ^2c_Ws_W(sm_Z^2)}}\left[1+2M_j^2C_{Z\gamma }(s;jjj)+{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}}B_Z(s;jj)\right],`$ (A.9)
$`h_3^Z(j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_Fe^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}m_Z^2}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2(sm_Z^2)^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{sm_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}}B_Z(s;jj)`$ (A.10)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s+m_Z^2}{2}}[2C_{Z\gamma }(s;jjj)M_j^2+1]\},`$
where $`M_j`$ is the $`F_j`$ mass, and $`N_F`$ denotes any (colour hypercolour) counting factor.

The mixed term contribution arises when two different fermions, having the same charge but mixed $`ZF_1F_2`$-couplings, are running along the loop in Fig2. We consider mixed $`ZF_1F_2`$ couplings of the type appearing in the second line of (4), which arise e.g. in the chargino and neutralino cases333For simplicity we disregard the case, that three different fermions run along the loop in Fig.2, which could in principle only arise in the case of three light neutralino states.. Thus, for the $`ZZ\gamma ^{}`$ case we obtain

$$f_5^\gamma (12)=\frac{N_FQ_1e^2m_Z^2g_{a12}g_{v12}}{8\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2(s4m_Z^2)^2s}R_{ZZ\gamma ^{}},$$
(A.11)
where

$`R_{ZZ\gamma ^{}}=4(sm_Z^2)(M_2^2M_1^2)[B_0(s;11)B_0(s;22)]+2(s2m_Z^2)(s4m_Z^2)`$
$`+2m_Z^2(s+2m_Z^2)[B_0(s;11)+B_0(s;22)2B_0(m_Z^2+iϵ;12)]`$
$`+4(sm_Z^2)(M_1^4+M_2^4+m_Z^42M_1^2M_2^22M_1^2m_Z^22M_2^2m_Z^2)[C_{ZZ}(s;121)+C_{ZZ}(s;212)]`$
$`+2s(s+2m_Z^2)[M_2^2C_{ZZ}(s;121)+M_1^2C_{ZZ}(s;212)],`$ (A.12)
and $`Q_1=Q_2`$ is the common charge of $`F_1,F_2`$.

Correspondingly for the $`ZZZ^{}`$ case we get

$`f_5^Z(12)={\displaystyle \frac{N_Fe^2m_Z^2}{16\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3(s4m_Z^2)}}\{[g_{a1}(g_{a12}^2+g_{v12}^2)+2g_{a12}g_{v12}g_{v1}]R_a`$
$`+[g_{a1}(g_{a12}^2+g_{v12}^2)2g_{a12}g_{v12}g_{v1}]R_b+g_{a1}(g_{a12}^2g_{v12}^2)R_c+(12)\},`$ (A.13)
where

$`R_a=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2(M_1^2M_2^2)(s+2m_Z^2)}{s(s4m_Z^2)}}[B_0(m_Z^2;12)B_0(m_Z^2;11)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(sm_Z^2)(s4m_Z^2)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C_{ZZ}(s;112)}{s}}[2M_1^2s^3s^2(M_1^2(M_1^2M_2^2)`$
$`m_Z^2(7M_1^2+3M_2^24m_Z^2))+4sm_Z^2(M_1^2M_2^22M_1^2m_Z^2M_2^4+m_Z^4)+4m_Z^4(M_1^2M_2^2)^2]`$
$`C_{ZZ}(s;121)[s^2M_2^2+s(M_1^43M_1^2M_2^23M_1^2m_Z^2+2M_2^42M_2^2m_Z^2+2m_Z^4)`$
$`+2m_Z^2(M_1^4M_2^4+2M_2^2m_Z^2m_Z^4)]+B_Z(s;11)[(M_1^2m_Z^2)(s+2m_Z^2)`$
$`2M_2^2(sm_Z^2)]+B_Z(s;12)[3M_1^2(s2m_Z^2)+(M_2^22m_Z^2)(s+2m_Z^2)]\},`$ (A.14)
$`R_b={\displaystyle \frac{M_1^2}{sm_Z^2}}\{(M_1^2M_2^2m_Z^2)[C_{ZZ}(s;112)C_{ZZ}(s;121)]`$
$`+(sm_Z^2)C_{ZZ}(s;112)+B_Z(s;11)+2B_Z(s;12)\},`$ (A.15)
$`R_c={\displaystyle \frac{M_1M_2}{sm_Z^2}}\{(2M_1^22M_2^2+s)[C_{ZZ}(s;112)C_{ZZ}(s;121)]`$
$`+2(sm_Z^2)C_{ZZ}(s;121)+2B_Z(s;11)+4B_Z(s;12)\}.`$ (A.16)
Finally for the $`Z\gamma Z^{}`$ mixed case we have

$`h_3^Z(12)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_Fe^2Q_1g_{v12}g_{a12}m_Z^2}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2(sm_Z^2)^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2sm_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}}B_Z(s;12)`$ (A.17)
$`+`$ $`(s+m_Z^2)[M_2^2C_{Z\gamma }(s;122)+M_1^2C_{Z\gamma }(s;211)+1]\}.`$
We note that there is no mixed contribution for $`h_3^\gamma `$.

Appendix B: Fermion loop contributions in terms of Feynman integrals.

The contributions of a single $`F_j`$-fermion loop in terms of Feynman integrals are:

$$f_5^\gamma (j)=N_F\frac{e^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}I_5^\gamma ,$$
(B.1)
$$f_5^Z(j)=N_F\frac{e^2g_{aj}}{96\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3}([g_{aj}^2+3g_{vj}^2]I_5^{Z1}+[g_{vj}^2g_{aj}^2]I_5^{Z2}),$$
(B.2)
$$h_3^\gamma (j)=N_F\frac{e^2Q_j^2g_{aj}}{2\pi ^2s_Wc_W}I_3^\gamma ,$$
(B.3)
$$h_3^Z(j)=N_F\frac{e^2Q_jg_{vj}g_{aj}}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}I_3^Z,$$
(B.4)
with

$$I_5^\gamma =_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\frac{x_1(1x_1x_2)m_Z^2}{D_{ZZ}(s)},$$
(B.5)
$`I_5^{Z1}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dx_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}dx_2`$ (B.6)
$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{[(1x_1x_2)(m_Z^2x_2^2sx_1^2)+x_2(13x_1)(sx_1+m_Z^2(2x_21))]}{D_{ZZ}(s)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_Z^2[(1x_1x_2)(x_2^2x_1^2)+x_2(13x_1)(x_1+2x_21)]}{D_{ZZ}(m_Z^2)}}\},`$
$$I_5^{Z2}=\frac{6M_F^2m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\frac{(13x_1)}{D_{ZZ}(s)},$$
(B.7)
where

$$D_{ZZ}(s)M_j^2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_21),$$
(B.8)
and

$$I_3^\gamma =_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\frac{x_1(1x_1x_2)m_Z^2}{D_{Z\gamma }(s)},$$
(B.9)
$$I_3^Z=\frac{m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\frac{(sx_1m_Z^2x_2)(1x_1x_2)}{D_{Z\gamma }(s)},$$
(B.10)
where

$$D_{Z\gamma }(s)M_j^2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_1+x_21).$$
(B.11)
The mixed contributions due to two different fermions (with the same charge) around the loop are:

$$h_3^Z(12)=N_F\frac{e^2Q_1g_{v12}g_{a12}}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}I_3^Z+(12),$$
(B.12)
where $`I_3^Z`$ is given by (B.10) with $`D_{Z\gamma }(s)`$ replaced by

$$D_{Z\gamma }^{}(s)M_1^2+(M_2^2M_1^2)(1x_1x_2)+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_1+x_21).$$
(B.13)
Correspondingly

$$f_5^\gamma (12)=N_F\frac{e^2Q_1g_{v12}g_{a12}}{4\pi ^2s_W^2c_W^2}I_5^\gamma +(12),$$
(B.14)
where $`I_5^\gamma `$ is given by the same expression as in (B.5) with $`D_{ZZ}(s)`$ replaced by

$$D_{ZZ}^{}(s)M_1^2+(M_2^2M_1^2)x_2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_21).$$
(B.15)
Finally,

$`f_5^Z(12)=N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{96\pi ^2s_W^3c_W^3}}([g_{a1}(g_{a12}^2+g_{v12}^2)+2g_{v1}g_{a12}g_{a12}]I_5^{Za}+M_1^2[g_{a1}(g_{a12}^2+g_{v12}^2)`$
$`2g_{v1}g_{a12}g_{v12}]I_5^{Zb}+2M_1M_2g_{a1}(g_{v12}^2g_{a12}^2)I_5^{Zc})+(12),`$ (B.16)
with

$`I_5^{Za}={\displaystyle \frac{3m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dx_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}dx_2\{[sx_1(1x_1x_2)(x_21)+m_Z^2x_2^2(1x_2)].`$
$`.({\displaystyle \frac{1}{D_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{D_2}})+(13x_2)(lnD_1+2lnD_2)\}`$ (B.17)
$$I_5^{Zb}=\frac{3m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\{\frac{1x_1}{D_1}\frac{2x_2}{D_2}\}$$
(B.18)
$$I_5^{Zc}=\frac{3m_Z^2}{sm_Z^2}_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\{\frac{2x_2}{D_1}\frac{2(12x_2)}{D_2}\}$$
(B.19)
and

$`D_1=M_1^2+(M_2^2M_1^2)x_2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_21),`$
$`D_2=M_1^2+(M_2^2M_1^2)x_1+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_Z^2x_2(x_21),`$ (B.20)
Some of the unmixed parts of these expressions can be derived from the results obtained in . We have checked by doing a direct numerical integration, that they agree with the numerical results obtained from the Passarino-Veltman expressions and the FF-package .

It is easy, from the above analytic expressions, to derive the asymptotic expressions given in eq.(6-8) and (9-11).

For comparison we also give the fermion doublet contribution to the $`\gamma WW`$ and $`ZWW`$ anapole couplings defined in (3). Denoting the ”up” and ”down” fermions as $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ and defining their Z-couplings as in (4), we get

$`z_Z`$ $`=`$ $`N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2s_Wc_W}}([(g_{vF}+g_{aF}]I_F+[(g_{vF^{}}+g_{aF^{}}]I_F^{}),`$ (B.21)
$`z_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`N_F{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2s_W^2}}(Q_FI_F+Q_F^{}I_F^{}),`$ (B.22)
where

$`I_F={\displaystyle _0^1}dx_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}dx_2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1(1x_1x_2)m_W^2}{M_F^2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_W^2x_2(x_1+x_21)+(M_F^{}^2M_F^2)x_2}}`$ (B.23)
and $`I_F^{}=I_F(M_F^2M_F^{}^2)`$. In the case of a degenerate doublet $`M_F=M_F^{}`$, with standard couplings, this result simplifies to

$$z_Z=\frac{s_W}{c_W}z_\gamma =N_F\frac{e^2}{48\pi ^2s_Wc_W}I_W,$$
(B.24)
for a doublet of quarks, and

$$z_Z=\frac{s_W}{c_W}z_\gamma =N_F\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2s_Wc_W}I_W,$$
(B.25)
for a doublet of leptons, with

$$I_W=_0^1𝑑x_1_0^{1x_1}𝑑x_2\frac{x_1(1x_1x_2)m_W^2}{M_F^2+sx_1(x_1+x_21)+m_W^2x_2(x_1+x_21)},$$
(B.26)
which, for $`M_Fm_W`$, leads to eq.(13,14).

Note that for a completely degenerate standard family (a doublet of lepton and a doublet of coloured quarks) the total contribution vanishes.


text:
# First Detection of Molecular Gas in the Shells of CenA Based on observations made with the Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) at La Silla, Chile

## 1 Introduction

Early type galaxies (E/S0) are often found to be surrounded by faint arc-like stellar structures, called shells or ripples (Malin & Carter (1980)), due to the accretion and subsequent merging of a smaller companion galaxy. It is widely accepted that the high frequency of galaxies with shells ($``$ 50%) attests to the importance of merging in galaxy formation (Schweizer & Seitzer 1988, 1992). Simulations of the stellar component have shown that the shells or ripples are created either by “phase-wrapping” of the tidal debris of the accreted companion on nearly radial orbits (Quinn (1984)), or by “spatial-wrapping” of matter in thin disks (Dupraz & Combes (1987), Hernquist & Quinn (1989)).

CenA is a giant elliptical galaxy with strong radio lobes on either side of a prominent dust lane situated along its minor axis (Clarke et al. (1992)). Additionally, optical and HI observations (Dufour et al. (1979), van Gorkom et al. (1990)) show a warped gaseous disk which has been accreted along the minor axis of this apparently prolate elliptical galaxy. CO mapping suggests that the disk contains 2$`\times 10^8`$ M of molecular gas (Eckart et al. (1990)). Recently, mid-IR observations revealed the presence of a bisymmetric bar-like distribution of hot dust in the inner disk (Mirabel et al. (1999)). High contrast optical images of the galaxy show stars distributed in a large number of faint narrow shells around the galaxy (Malin et al. (1983)). The presence of the warped gas disk and shells suggests that CenA has accreted one (or more) smaller disk galaxy(ies) approximately $`10^8`$ yrs ago (Quillen et al. (1992)).

Schiminovich et al. 1994 detected 4$`\times 10^8`$ M of HI gas associated with the stellar shells, having the same arc-like curvature but displaced 1 arcmin to the outside of the stellar shells. This result is intriguing since in general it is thought that the dynamics of the gas and stellar components are decoupled during a merging event. Detailed numerical modeling of the infall of a small companion on a massive elliptical has demonstrated that aligned and interleaved shells are formed through phase wrapping of the companion’s stars on almost radial orbits (Quinn (1984), Dupraz & Combes (1987)). When gas is taken into account, due to its dissipation it rapidly concentrates in the nucleus and does not form any shell (Weil & Hernquist (1993)). Another possibility is that shells result from space wrapping when the relative angular momentum of the two galaxies is high. In this case the stellar shells do not have the same regular structure (Prieur (1990)) and as they rotate around the central potential they dissolve more rapidly. The gas could remain associated with the stellar shells during a few dynamical times before condensing to the center. The morphology of the shells in CenA, though, suggests a combination of both phase and space wrapping since there are both a number of shells aligned with the major axis of the prolate giant elliptical and there are a few which are irregular. Furthermore, the HI is mostly associated with what Malin et al. (1983) called the diffuse shells.

To explain the presence of gas in phase-wrapped shells, one should consider the interstellar medium as multiphase: a large fraction of the ISM could be composed of dense clumpy material with low dissipation. During a galaxy merger the dense gas behaves almost as collisionless particles and can orbit through the center as the stars do. To trace this dense component we attempted to detect molecular gas from the shells in CenA. The results were positive beyond our expectation, as described now.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

The observations have been carried out in May 1999 in La Silla, Chile, with the 15m Swedish-ESO Submillimeter Telescope (SEST) (Booth et al. (1989)). We used the IRAM 115 and 230 GHz receivers to observe simultaneously at the frequencies of the 12CO(1–0) and the 12CO(2–1) lines. At 115 GHz and 230 GHz, the telescope half-power beam widths are 44′′ and 22′′, respectively. The main-beam efficiency of SEST is $`\eta `$$`{}_{\mathrm{mb}}{}^{}=T_\mathrm{A}^{}/T_{\mathrm{mb}}`$=0.68 at 115 GHz and 0.46 at 230 GHz (SEST handbook, ESO). The typical system temperature varied between 300 and 450 K (in $`T_\mathrm{A}^{}`$ unit) at both frequencies. A balanced on-off dual beam switching mode was used, with a frequency of 6 Hz and two symmetric reference positions offset by 12 in azimuth. The pointing was regularly checked on the SiO maser R Dor as well as using the continuum emission of the nucleus of CenA. The pointing accuracy was 4′′ rms. The backends were low-resolution acousto-optical spectrometers. The total bandwidth available was 500 MHz at 115 GHz and 1 GHz at 230 GHz, with a velocity resolution of 1.8 km s-1. We mapped four regions of CenA associated with HI and stellar shells (noted as S1–4 in Fig. 1a). Regions S1 and S2 were covered with a 3$`\times `$3 half CO(1-0) beam maps centered at $`\alpha `$=13h26m16.1s, $`\delta `$=$`42^{}`$4655.7′′ and $`\alpha `$=13h24m35.4s, $`\delta `$=$`42^{}`$0834.9′′ (J2000) respectively. S3 consisted of a series of pointings along an optical shell and S4 was a single pointing. The rms noise per pointing was $`\sigma _{\mathrm{mb}}`$ 3 mK for both frequencies.

## 3 Results and Discussion

We detected CO emission from two of the fully mapped optical shells (S1 and S2) with associated HI emission, indicating the presence of 4.3$`\times 10^7`$ M of H2 assuming the standard CO to H2 conversion ratio. The CO lines were detected at the 4$`\sigma `$ level in four out of the nine pointings of each 3$`\times `$3 map. Figure 1 shows an optical image of CenA, with the positions mapped in CO, the location of the HI and stellar shells, as well as the spectra of the strongest CO detections found at the central position of each map. The molecular gas in both positions is clearly associated with the HI shells since their velocities (340 km s-1 for S1 and 720 km s-1 for S2) follow the velocities of the HI as presented in Fig. 3 of Schiminovich et al. (1994). The width of CO lines is $``$ 20 km s-1 while in a beam of twice the size the HI linewidth is 80 km s-1. This difference is easily explained by the systematic velocity gradients within the beams.

As shown in Table 1, the ratio between the H2 mass (derived from the CO emission) and the HI mass found in the same area is nearly unity for both detected shells and central regions. In fact, the mass ratio between H2 and HI that we find in CenA is about normal for giant spiral galaxies, where the global M(H2)/M(HI) has been found on average to be equal to unity in a survey of 300 objects (Young & Scoville (1991)). According to the type of the galaxy and its star formation activity as measured by the far-infrared flux, this ratio could vary (Sage (1993)). It has been found equal to M(H2)/M(HI)=0.2 in the Coma supercluster (Casoli et al. (1998)), and it is even much lower (by a factor 10) in dwarf galaxies (Taylor et al. (1998)).

The total gas mass found in CenA is almost 109 M, comparable to that of a giant spiral galaxy. Since this gas must have once belonged entirely to the accreted companion, we can deduce that the latter was not a dwarf, but a massive spiral such as the Milky Way. This also explains the large ratio of CO emission to HI gas observed, leading through the standard conversion ratio to the high values of M(H2)/M(HI) found. More surprising is the fact that this ratio is the same (close to unity) in the center, and at 15 kpc from it. In general for most galaxies, due to the metallicity gradient (Vila-Costas & Edmunds (1992)), the ratio decreases exponentially with radius from about 30 in the central part to less than 0.1 in the outermost parts where CO is detected (Combes (1999)). Furthermore the CO(2-1)/CO(1-0) ratio in the shells, corrected for the different beam sizes, is $``$0.6. This is not much lower than the 0.9 observed in the nuclei of nearby spirals (Braine & Combes (1992)) and slightly above what is found in disks. This means that CO lines are not highly subthermally excited and therefore the density of the gas is at least 104 cm-3.

Our data reveal the presence of dense molecular gas in the shells. This presence helps to understand the existence of HI shells, the HI gas being the diffuse envelopes of the dense molecular clumps, the interface between the interstellar radiation field and the clumps. Should this diffuse gas be present alone, it would have been driven quickly towards the center during the stellar shells formation. Modeling of the ISM should take into account a multiphase medium with a low dissipation gaseous component. Such models have been developed by numerically simulating the gas dynamics through a cloud-collision scheme (Kojima & Noguchi (1997), Combes & Charmandaris (1999)). In these simulations the low dissipation of gas enables a fraction of it to follow the stellar component. However, due to a different initial distribution of gas and stars in the companion galaxy, the gaseous shells do not coincide with the stellar ones. More precisely the gas is radially more extended in the companion disk than the stars and therefore less gravitationally bound. Hence, during the merger the gas is the first to be tidally stripped from the companion and thus does not experience dynamical friction. On the other hand, dynamical friction brakes efficiently the remaining stellar core which is tidally stripped somewhat later in the merging process. Since the stars have lost more energy than the gas they oscillate in the potential with smaller apocenters and thus the shells they form are located inside the gas shells. In this framework the observed displacement of the gas with respect to stars in CenA shells is naturally explained. The presence of a diffuse gas (seen in HI) at those regions is expected since part of the clumpy gaseous component dragged into shells will be dissociated either by local star formation activity or by the global galactic radiation field.

What remains unclear is why the metallicity in the shells is sufficient for the CO emission to be detected. Indeed as described above, the dynamical friction segregates the gas in the elliptical potential according to its initial distribution in the companion and a metallicity gradient should still exist in the final merger remnant.

A solution to this puzzle could be found if we consider the effect of the radio jet of CenA on the gaseous shell. Note that from the four shells mapped in CO emission only the two shells (S1, S2 in Fig. 1) aligned with the jet have been detected. Optical filaments are observed along the jet, only in the regions where the jet and the shells intersect, suggesting that the ambient gas is ionized by the nuclear beamed radiation or is excited by shocks (Graham & Price (1981), Morganti et al (1991)). Moreover, a group of blue stars has been discovered, just between the northern HI shell and its corresponding outermost optical filament (see Fig. 1 and 2 in Graham 1998 and Fasset & Graham 2000). The formation of these stars is proposed to be triggered by the impact of the radio jet on the HI shell. The HII regions ionized by these blue stars have measured velocities coinciding with those of the adjacent HI and CO gas. A study of the stellar content reveals several generations of stars whose lifetimes extend over a period of 15$`\times 10^6`$ years, while supernovae dissipate into the surrounding medium in less than 106 years (Caleb & Graham (2000)). This observed stellar activity has certainly enriched the observed gas in metals and can explain our detection of CO molecules. Moreover, the impact of the radio jet could be responsible for the formation of new dense molecular clouds. It is necessary, however, that some of the gas was already present in the jet region, and this gas be driven there by the shells. The formation of gaseous shells requires the presence of dense molecular gas first, since the jet can only maintain or form secondary molecular clouds (as quoted by Graham (1998)), but cannot serve as their primary formation mechanism. Indeed, we can eliminate the alternative possibility in which diffuse gas is spread by the interaction everywhere, and is compressed in molecular clouds in the jet; there would then be no coincidence between the HI gas and the stellar shells in this scenario.

## 4 Conclusions

We have detected CO molecules in two shells aligned along the major axis of Centaurus A. The molecular gas is globally associated with the HI and stellar shells but with a radial shift, the HI being the more external component, and the stars the more internal. The presence of molecular clouds in these distant shells is compatible with the dynamical scenario of phase-wrapping, following the merger of a spiral galaxy with Centaurus A. Part of the interstellar medium of the spiral is clumpy, with very low collision rate and dissipation, and can follow nearly radial orbits during the merger, like the stellar component, without accumulating towards the center. The differential dynamical friction experienced by the gas and stellar components, that are unbound from the spiral companion at different epochs, can explain the radial shifts between the different shells.

The detection of CO emission far from the center implies the presence of H2 molecules as far as 1.16 R25. The present detections, taking into account that only a small fraction of the shells was mapped in CO, suggest that more than 50% of the gas in the outer regions of CenA is in molecular form, and at least 10% of the total molecular gas detected in CenA is not in the nucleus. Moreover the derived HI/H2 mass ratio is nearly constant with radius. This requires a metallicity enrichment in the most external gas, that could be due to the interaction between the gaseous shells and the radio jet. This prototypical example of a gaseous accretion suggests that the molecular gas is not always confined in the nuclear regions in merger remnants.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to J. van Gorkom for providing the HI data of Cen A, as well F. Mirabel, M. Noguchi, K. Uchida and an anonymous referee for their valuable comments. VC would like to acknowledge the financial support from a Marie Curie fellowship (TMR grant ERBFMBICT960967).


text:
# Nuclear Multifragmentation in the Non-extensive Statistics - Canonical Formulation

\[

## Abstract

We apply the canonical quantum statistical model of nuclear multifragmentation generalized in the framework of recently proposed Tsallis non-extensive thermostatistics for the description of nuclear multifragmentation process. The test calculation in the system with $`A=197`$ nucleons show strong modification of the ’critical’ behaviour associated with the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition for small deviations from the conventional Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics.

\]

Most of the fragmenting systems are characterized by strongly off-equilibrium processes which cease due to dissipation. The theoretical description of the fragmentation process depends on whether the equilibrium has been reached before system starts fragmenting. If the equilibrium is attained, then the thermodynamic models using different statistical ensembles in a given fixed volume (freeze-out volume) can be applied. The ingredients specific for the considered phenomenology enter through the definition of fragments sizes and (binding) energies, fragment internal excitation properties, system size, conserved quantities in this process etc. The observable characteristics of the fragmenting system are employed to fix certain features of, in general unknown, intermediate equilibrium state. In nuclear physics, several models of this kind have been tried with unquestionable success in describing the transitional phenomenon in heavy ion collisions from the regime of particle evaporation at lower excitation energies to the explosion at about 5 - 10 MeV/nucleon of the hot source accompanied by the copious production of the intermediate mass fragments . The situation when the fragment production has to be considered as an off-equilibrium process is described by various kinetic equations, mainly on the level of one-body distribution functions . Here the statistical equilibrium is not assumed but the kinetic models in turn are plagued by the unsurmountable conceptual difficulties in the calculation of asymptotic, observable features of the fragments. As an attempt to overcome at least some of these difficulties in both groups of models, in this work we extend the thermodynamic (canonical) model of the fragmentation in the framework of the recently proposed thermostatistics  to include certain off-equilibrium correlations in the system. The Tsallis’ generalized statistical mechanics (TGSM), which provides the basis for generating this new model, is based on an alternative definition for the equilibrium entropy of a system whose $`i`$th microscopic state has probability $`\widehat{p}_i`$ :

$$S_q=k\frac{1_i\widehat{p}_i^q}{q1},\underset{i}{}\widehat{p}_i=1$$
(1)
and $`q`$ (entropic index) defines a particular statistics. Entropy $`S_q`$ has the usual properties of positivity, equiprobability, concavity and irreversibility, and preserves the Legendre transformations structure of thermodynamics. In the limit : $`q1`$, one obtains the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs formulation of the statistical mechanics. The main difference between the Boltzmann-Gibbs formulation and the TGSM lies in the nonadditivity of the entropy. Indeed, for two independent subsystems $`A`$, $`B`$, such that the probability of $`A+B`$ is factorized into : $`p_{A+B}=p_Ap_B`$, the global entropy verifies :

$$S_q(A+B)=S_q(A)+S_q(B)+(1q)S_q(A)S_q(B)$$
(2)
TGSM provides a natural framework for the thermodynamical formalism of the anomalous diffusion and ubiquity of Levy distributions . Long-range correlations in the system, as appearing in the situation of the thermalization of a hot gas penetrating in a cold gas in the presence of long range interactions, is typical for $`q>1`$ . In some cases, the entropic index $`q`$ in TGSM can can be also related to the fluctuations of the temperature in the system . Variety of the off-equilibrium situations which can be accounted for within the TGSM make it useful as a basis for the generalization of the thermodynamical fragmentation models and , in particular in addressing the problem of the influence of these non-extensivity correlations on the signatures of ’criticality’ in finite systems. In the context of nuclear multifragmentation, this is usually referred to as the signatures of liquid-gas phase transition in small systems.

Our starting point is the canonical multifragmentation model  with the recurrence equation method  which makes the model solvable without the Monte Carlo technique and transparent to the physical assumptions and generalizations. Canonical ensemble method in TGSM was discussed in . The main ingredient of the TGSM generalization of the canonical fragmentation model  is the expression for fragment partition function :

$`𝒵_q(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}[1+q_1\beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{p}(s,t)]^{1/q_1}`$ (3)
where $`q_1q1`$, $`s`$ and $`t`$ are the fragment mass and charge respectively, and the fragment partition probability equals :

$`\widehat{p}_\stackrel{}{p}(s,t)=(𝒵_q(s,t))^1[1+q_1\beta \epsilon _\stackrel{}{p}(s,t)]^{1/q_1}`$ (4)
where $`\epsilon _\stackrel{}{p}(s,t)=p^2/2m+U(s,t)`$, $`\beta 1/T`$. The internal energy $`U`$ includes the fragment binding energy, the excitation energy and the Coulomb interaction between fragments in the Wigner-Seitz approximation . Changing summation into the integration in (3) one gets :

$`𝒵_q(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gV_f}{\lambda _T^3}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(q_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}3/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left(q_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\times `$ (5)
$`\times `$ $`q_1^{3/2}[1+q_1\beta U(s,t)]^{\frac{1}{q_1}+3/2},`$ (6)
where $`g`$ is the spin degeneracy factor, $`V_f`$ is the free volume and $`\lambda _T=[(2\pi )/(mT)]^{1/2}`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the fragment $`(s,t)`$. In the limit $`q1`$, one recovers the familiar expression : $`𝒵_1=gV_f\lambda _{T}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{exp}(\beta U)`$.

Given the partition function, the mean value of any quantity in TGSM is  :

$`<𝒪>_q={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}𝒪_\stackrel{}{p}\widehat{p}_\stackrel{}{p}^q`$ (7)
For the average energy of fragment $`(s,t)`$ one obtains :

$`<\epsilon (s,t)>_q={\displaystyle \frac{}{\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1[𝒵_q(s,t)]^{q_1}}{q_1}}\right).`$ (8)
In the dilute gas approximation , a partition function of the whole system can be written as follows :

$`𝒬_q(A,Z)={\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{n}\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,Z}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[𝒵_q(s,t)\right]^{N_{\widehat{n}}(s,t)}}{N_{\widehat{n}}(s,t)!}},`$ (9)
where the sum runs over the ensemble $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,Z}`$ of different partitions of $`A`$ and $`Z`$ of the decaying system : $`\{\widehat{n}\}=\{N_{\widehat{n}}(1,0),N_{\widehat{n}}(1,1),\mathrm{},N_{\widehat{n}}(A,Z)\}`$ and $`N_{\widehat{n}}(s,t)`$ is the number of fragments of mass $`s`$ and charge $`t`$ in the partition $`\widehat{n}`$. In this approximation, the recurrence relation technique  can be applied providing exact expression for $`𝒬_q(A,Z)`$ :

$`𝒬_q(A,Z)=`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,t<s;st<AZ}{}}s𝒵_q(s,t)𝒬_q(As,Zt)`$ (11)
These relations can now be conveniently used to calculate ensemble averaged characteristics. However, in order to ensure the proper normalization, it is better to work with generalized averages  :

$`𝒪_q=<𝒪>_q/<1>_q.`$ (12)
These normalized mean values exhibit all convenient properties of the original mean values (7). Moreover, when the normalized mean values (12) are used, the TGSM can be reformulated in terms of ordinary linear mean values calculated for the renormalized entropic index : $`q^{}=1+(q1)/q`$. In particular, the total average energy of the system becomes :

$`_q={\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}<N(s,t)>_{q^{}AZ}<\epsilon (s,t)>_q^{}`$ (13)
where $`<\epsilon (s,t)>_q^{}`$ is given in (8) and :

$`<N(s,t)>_{qAZ}=𝒵_q(s,t){\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_q(As,Zt)}{𝒬_q(A,Z)}}.`$ (14)
Analogously, the heat capacity ($`=_q/T_V`$) is :

$`C_V`$ $`=`$ $`\beta ^2\{{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s^{^{}},t^{^{}}}{}}<\mathrm{\Delta }(st;s^{^{}}t^{^{}})>_q^{}<\epsilon (s,t)>_q^{}\times `$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`<\epsilon (s^{^{}},t^{^{}})>_q^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{s,t}{}}<N(s,t)>_{q^{}AZ}\times `$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`[<\epsilon ^2(s,t)>_q^{}<\epsilon (s,t)>_q^{}^2]\},`$ (17)
where :

$`<\mathrm{\Delta }(st;s^{^{}}t^{^{}})>_q`$ $``$ $`<N(s,t)N(s^{^{}},t^{^{}})>_{qAZ}`$ (18)
$``$ $`<N(s,t)>_{qAZ}<N(s^{^{}},t^{^{}})>_{qAZ}`$ (19)
and

$`<N(s,t)N(s^{^{}},t^{^{}})>_{qAZ}=`$ (21)
$`𝒵_q(s,t)𝒵_q(s^{^{}},t^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_q(Ass^{^{}},Ztt^{^{}})}{𝒬_q(A,Z)}}+`$
$`+`$ $`\delta _{ss^{^{}}}\delta _{tt^{^{}}}𝒵_q(s,t){\displaystyle \frac{𝒬_q(As,Zt)}{𝒬_q(A,Z)}}.`$ (22)
Fig. 1 shows the caloric curve for different values of the entropic index $`q1`$ in the above described canonical multifragmentation model. The calculations are done for the system with $`Z=79`$ protons and $`N=118`$ neutrons ($`A=197`$). The free volume is : $`V_f=3A/\rho _0A/\rho _f`$, where $`\rho _0=0.168`$fm<sup>-3</sup>. The excitation energy is : $`E^{}=_q(T,\rho _f)_q(T=0,\rho _0)`$. Curves $`T(E^{}/A)`$ for different $`q`$ are very similar outside of the ’critical zone’ of excitation energies : $`E^{}/A(2.510)`$MeV. On the other hand, a strong sensitivity to even tiny changes of $`q`$ can be seen inside of the ’critical zone’.

This fragility of equilibrium ($`q=1`$) ’critical behavior’ to the small changes of the entropic index can be seen even better in Fig. 2 which shows the specific heat vs the temperature. Increasing of the entropic index $`q`$ is associated with both a significant sharpening of the peak in $`C_V`$ and an increase of the ’critical’ temperature $`T_C`$. Since this increase of $`T_C`$ is accompanied by only a small change of the total excitation energy (see Fig. 1), therefore the kinetic part in the total energy increases with $`q`$. In other words, the multifragmentation in statistical systems with $`q>1`$ takes place in the hotter environment than in the limiting equilibrium case $`q=1`$.

It is an open question whether the correlations for $`q1`$ change the nature of the equilibrium ’phase transition’. Whereas the liquid-gas phase transition is characterized by properties of the largest cluster , the shattering phase transition in off-equilibrium systems is characterized by the multiplicity of fragments . Fig. 3 shows the average multiplicity dependence of the normalized second factorial cumulant moment of the multiplicity distribution : $`\gamma _2=(<m(m1)><m>^2)/<m>^2`$. $`\gamma _2`$ is a measure of the fragment - fragment correlations and equals 0 for the Poisson distribution. One can see strong build up of multiplicity fluctuations with increasing $`q`$ in the ’critical region’. This enhancement of $`\gamma _2`$ is associated with the strong pic in $`C_V`$ as seen in Fig. 2. For $`q=1.001`$, the maximum of $`\gamma _2`$ is comparable with those found in the 2D and 3D percolation systems of comparable size .

The fragment-size distributions $`dN/dA`$ at $`TT_C`$ for different $`q`$ values are shown in Fig. 4. One can see the significant evolution of $`dN/dA`$ with increasing entropic index which, together with the evolution of multiplicity distributions (see Fig. 3), illustrate the change of mechanism of the multifragmentation. At $`T=T_C`$, one finds approximately power-like fragment-size distribution for $`q=1`$, and the persistence of the heaviest residue for $`q>1`$. The ’critical zone’ for $`q>1`$ is associated with the exponential fragment-size distribution. This resembles the critical binary fragmentation with the Gaussian dissipation  which is an off-equilibrium process. For $`T/T_C>1`$ and $`q>1`$, the heavy residue explodes into the large number of light fragments and the fragment-size distribution remains exponential.

In conclusion, we have developed the generalization of canonical multifragmentation model in TGSM. This new model provides an alternative way of taking into account expected deviations from the thermodynamical equilibrium due to nonextensive correlations in the multifragmentation process. We see the main advantage of the proposed approach in the correct description of of produced fragments and in the preservation of mathematical structure of thermodynamics. Variability of different signals of equilibrium phase transiton with respect to even small deviations from $`q=1`$, demonstrates that the characterization of nuclear phase transition in terms of finite-size scaling analysis may be hazardous. On the other hand, signals of ’criticality’ in $`q`$-generalized canonical fragmentation model are stronger, what in turn demonstrates the robustness of this ’critical phenomenon’. It is worth mentioning that all considered characteristics change qualitatively with $`q`$ in the ’critical zone’ of excitation energies and one cannot exclude that order of the phase transition changes as well.

The new flexible family of fragmentation models obeying $`q`$-statistics provides a powerful tool in analyzing experimental data and in characterizing possible deviations from idealized equilibrium phase-transition picture in nuclear multifragmentation in terms of the entropic index. This analysis is now in progress.

The work was supported by the CNRS-JINR agreement No 96-28.