format: text

text:
# Mu and Tau Neutrino Thermalization and Production in Supernovae: Processes and Timescales

## I Introduction

The cores of protoneutron stars and core-collapse supernovae are characterized by mass densities of order $`10^{10}10^{14}`$ g cm-3 and temperatures that range from $`1`$ to $`50`$ MeV. The matter is composed predominantly of nucleons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos of all species. For $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ types (collectively ‘$`\nu _\mu `$s’), which carry away 50$``$60% of the $`23\times 10^{53}`$ ergs liberated during collapse and explosion, the prevailing opacity and production processes are $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering, $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering, electron-positron annihilation ($`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$), and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. While all of these processes contribute for the electron types ($`\nu _e`$s and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$s), the charged-current absorption processes $`\nu _enpe^{}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_epne^+`$ dominate their opacity so completely that in this paper we address only $`\nu _\mu `$ production and thermalization.

Supernova theorists had long held  that $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering was unimportant as a mechanism for neutrino equilibration. While this process was included as a source of opacity , it served only to redistribute the neutrinos in space, not in energy. In contrast, $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering was thought to dominate $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrino thermalization. In addition, the only $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pair production mechanisms employed in full supernova calculations were $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and plasmon decay ($`\gamma _{pl}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$) ; nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung was neglected as a source. Recent developments, however, call both these practices into question and motivate a re-evaluation of these opacities in the supernova context. Analytic formulae have recently been derived  which include the full nucleon kinematics and Pauli blocking in the final state at arbitrary nucleon degeneracy. These efforts reveal that the average rate of energy transfer in $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering may surpass previous estimates by an order of magnitude . Hence, this process may compete with $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering as an equilibration mechanism. Similarly, estimates for the total nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung rate have been obtained  which indicate that this process might compete with $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation.

These results suggest that the time is ripe for a technical study of the relative importance of each process for production or thermalization. To conduct such a study, we consider $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos in an isotropic homogeneous thermal bath of scatterers and absorbers. In this system, the full transport problem is reduced to an evolution of the neutrino distribution function ($`_\nu `$) in energy space alone. Although this is a simplification of the true problem, it provides a theoretical laboratory in which to analyze the rates both for equilibration of an initial neutrino distribution function with dense nuclear matter and for production of the neutrinos themselves. From these rates we determine the importance and particular character of each process, and discover in which energy, temperature, or density regime each dominates. We employ a general prescription for solving the Boltzmann equation in this system with the full energy redistribution collision term. We compare quantitatively, via direct numerical evolution of an arbitrary neutrino distribution function, the rates for thermalization and production by each process, at all neutrino energies. Furthermore, we present the total nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung rate for arbitrary nucleon degeneracy and derive the single $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ production spectra. This facilitates a more comprehensive evaluation of its relative importance in neutrino production than has previously been possible.

In §II, we discuss the general form of the Boltzmann equation and our use of it to study $`\nu _\mu `$ equilibration and production rates. In §III, we provide formulae for each of the four processes we consider: $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering, $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering, and $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pair production via both nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. In §IV, we present the results of our equilibration calculations, showing the time evolution of $`\nu _\mu `$ distribution functions as influenced by each of these processes individually. We include plots of thermalization and production rates for each process as a function of neutrino energy and time. For the scattering interactions we include figures of the time evolution of the net energy transfer to the medium as a function of incident neutrino energy. We repeat this analysis at points in temperature, density, and composition space relevant to supernovae and protoneutron stars, taken from snapshots of a stellar profile during a realistic collapse calculation . Using these results, we discuss the relative importance of each process in shaping the emergent $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum. In §V, we recapitulate our findings and conclusions.

## II The Boltzmann Equation

The static (velocity$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$) Boltzmann equation for the evolution of the neutrino distribution function ($`_\nu `$), including Pauli blocking in the final state, and for a spherical geometry, is

$$\left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}+\mu \frac{}{r}+\frac{1\mu ^2}{r}\frac{}{\mu }\right)_\nu =(1_\nu )j_\nu _\nu \chi _\nu ,$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is the time, $`r`$ is the radial coordinate, and $`\mu (=\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the cosine of the zenith angle. $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ are the total $`source`$ and $`sink`$, respectively. For emission and absorption, $`j_\nu `$ is the emissivity and $`\chi _\nu `$ is the extinction coefficient. For scattering, both $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ are energy redistribution integrals which couple one neutrino energy bin with all the others. The matrix element and associated phase-space integrations which comprise $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ for electron and nucleon scattering yield the probability that a given collision will scatter a particle into any angle or energy bin. A full transport calculation couples energy and angular bins to each other through the right hand side of eq. (1).

In a homogeneous, isotropic thermal bath of scatterers and absorbers no spatial or angular gradients exist. Consequently, the Boltzmann equation becomes

$$\frac{1}{c}\frac{_\nu }{t}=(1_\nu )j_\nu _\nu \chi _\nu .$$
(2)
By dealing with this system, the transport problem reduces to an evolution of $`_\nu `$ in just energy and time. Note that for scattering processes, both $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ require an integral over the scattered neutrino distribution function $`_\nu ^{}`$. Similarly, in evolving $`_\nu `$ via the production and absorption processes, $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ involve an integration over the anti-neutrino distribution function $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$. Therefore, $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$ must be evolved simultaneously with $`_\nu `$. While $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ may be fairly complicated integrals over phase-space, the numerical solution of eq. (2) is straightforward.

Given an arbitrary initial $`_\nu `$, we divide the relevant energy range into $`n`$ energy bins. We then solve eq. (2) for each bin individually and explicitly. Angular integrals over scattering cosines which appear in the $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon and $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering formalism, as well as the electron energy integration needed for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, are carried out with a 4-point Gauss-Legendre integration scheme. The double integral over dimensionless nucleon momentum variables needed to obtain the contribution from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung is computed using nested 16-point Gauss-Laguerre quadratures.

### A Rates for $`_\nu `$ Evolution and Energy Transfer

Scattering, emission, and absorption processes, at a given neutrino energy ($`\epsilon _\nu `$), produce and remove neutrinos from the phase-space density at that energy. The former achieves this by transferring energy to the matter during scattering, the latter two by emitting or absorbing directly from that bin. The Boltzmann equation can then be written in terms of an in and an out channel, the former a source and the latter a sink:

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}=\frac{_\nu }{t}|_{in}\frac{_\nu }{t}|_{out}.$$
(3)
Consequently, for any interaction, there are two rates to consider: the rate for scattering or production into a given energy bin ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$) and the inverse rate for scattering or absorption out of that bin ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$). The rates $`cj_\nu `$ and $`c\chi _\nu `$ yield timescales for an interaction to occur, but fail, in the case of the former, to fold in Pauli blocking in the final state. Equation (3) includes these effects and provides natural timescales for $`_\nu `$ evolution:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}=\frac{1}{_\nu }\frac{_\nu }{t}|_{in}=\frac{(1_\nu )}{_\nu }cj_\nu $$
(4)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}=\frac{1}{_\nu }\frac{_\nu }{t}|_{out}=c\chi _\nu .$$
(5)
Note that although eq. (5) does not explicitly contain a Pauli blocking term, $`\chi _\nu `$ contains an integral over $`(1_\nu ^{})`$, in the case of scattering, and an appropriate final-state blocking term, in the case of absorption. At a given $`\epsilon _\nu `$, then, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ incorporates information about the $`\nu _\mu `$ phase-space density at that energy. Conversely, at that same $`\epsilon _\nu `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$ contains information about the phase-space at all other energies. Regardless of the initial distribution, $`_\nu /t=0`$ in equilibrium. This implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$ in equilibrium and, hence, we build in a test for the degree to which the system has thermalized.

Just as there are distinct rates for the $`in`$ and $`out`$ channels of the Boltzmann equation during equilibration, so too are there distinct scattering energy transfers. For $`\nu _\mu `$ scattering with a scatterer $`s`$ (electron or nucleon), at a specific $`\epsilon _\nu `$, two thermal average energy transfers can be defined;

$$\omega _{in}=d^3p_\nu ^{}\omega _\nu ^{}^{in}\left[\nu _\mu s\nu _\mu ^{}s^{}\right]/d^3p_\nu ^{}_\nu ^{}^{in}\left[\nu _\mu s\nu _\mu ^{}s^{}\right]$$
(6)
and

$$\omega _{out}=d^3p_\nu ^{}\omega (1_\nu ^{})^{out}\left[\nu _\mu s\nu _\mu ^{}s^{}\right]/d^3p_\nu ^{}(1_\nu ^{})^{out}\left[\nu _\mu s\nu _\mu ^{}s^{}\right],$$
(7)
where primes denote the scattered neutrino, $`\omega (=\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\nu ^{})`$ is the energy transfer, and $`^{in}`$ and $`^{out}`$ are the kernels for scattering into and out of a given energy bin, respectively. As a consequence of detailed balance between the in and out channels of the Boltzmann equation, $`^{in}=e^{\beta \omega }^{out}`$, where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ and $`T`$ is the matter temperature. (The scattering kernels are discussed in detail in §III for both scattering processes.) Note that the denominators in eqs. (6) and (7), up to constants which divide out in the definitions of $`\omega _{in}`$ and $`\omega _{out}`$, are just $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$, respectively.

In an effort to provide more than one measure of the timescale for $`_\nu `$ equilibration due to scattering and to make contact with previous neutrino thermalization studies  we also define a set of timescales in terms of $`\omega _{out}`$ and the higher $`\omega `$-moment, $`\omega ^2_{out}`$;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_D=c\chi _\nu \left|\frac{\omega _{out}}{\epsilon _\nu }\right|$$
(8)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_E=c\chi _\nu \frac{\omega ^2_{out}}{\epsilon _\nu ^2}.$$
(9)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ is the rate for shifting the centroid of a given distribution and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ is the rate for spreading an initial distribution . In contrast with the work of , we include the full effects of Pauli blocking in the final state, allowing us to deal consistently with cases in which the $`\nu _\mu `$s are partially degenerate.

## III Individual Interactions

This section details the source and sink terms necessary to solve the Boltzmann equation for the time-evolution of $`_\nu `$. Sections §III A and §III B are dedicated to the presentation and discussion of the collision terms for $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon and $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering, respectively. Section §III C describes the Legendre series expansion approximation and the use of it to compute the contribution to the Boltzmann equation, the pair emissivity, and the single $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum due to $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$. Our derivations of $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$, as well as the single and pair spectra from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung at arbitrary nucleon degeneracy and in the non-degenerate limit, are presented in §III D. In what follows, we take $`G^21.55\times 10^{33}`$ cm3 MeV-2 s-1, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.231`$, and employ natural units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=k_B=1`$.

### A Nucleon Scattering: $`\nu _\mu n\nu _\mu n`$ and $`\nu _\mu p\nu _\mu p`$

Researchers working on supernova and protoneutron star evolution have recently re-evaluated the issue of energy transfer via $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering . Originally, the assumption was made that the nucleons were stationary . If a neutron of mass $`m_n`$ is at rest with respect to an incoming neutrino of energy $`\epsilon _\nu `$, one finds that the energy transfer ($`\overline{\omega }`$) is $`\epsilon _\nu ^2/m_n`$. For $`\epsilon _\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ MeV, $`\overline{\omega }0.1`$ MeV, a fractional energy lost of 1%. Using these simple kinematic arguments and disregarding neutrino and nucleon Pauli blocking, one finds that the thermalization rate for $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering should be approximately a factor of 20 larger than that for $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering. In the context of interest, however, at temperatures of order 10 MeV and mass densities of order $`10^{13}`$ g cm-3, free nucleons are not stationary, but have thermal velocities. The fractional energy exchange per collision, in the case of $`\nu _\mu `$-neutron scattering, is then $`p_n/m_nc`$ . For $`T10`$ MeV this gives a $``$10$``$20% change in $`\epsilon _\nu `$ per collision. This calls the naive estimate of the relative importance of $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering as a thermalization process into question and a more complete exploration of the relative importance of the two scattering processes is necessary.

Recently, analytic formulae have been derived which include the full kinematics of $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering at arbitrary nucleon degeneracy . At the temperatures and densities encountered in the supernova context non-interacting nucleons are not relativistic. Due to nucleon-nucleon interactions, however, at and around nuclear density ($`2.68\times 10^{14}`$ g cm-3), the nucleon’s effective mass drops and is expected to be comparable with its Fermi momentum . In such a circumstance, a relativistic description of the $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering interaction is warranted. In addition, spin and density correlation effects engendered by these nucleon-nucleon interactions have been found to suppress the $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon interaction rate by as much as a factor of $`23`$ .

In this study, we focus on $`\nu _\mu `$ equilibration rates at densities $`1\times 10^{14}`$ g cm-3 where it is still unclear if nucleon-nucleon interactions will play an important role. This ambiguity is due in part to uncertainties both in the nuclear equation of state and the nucleon-nucleon interaction itself. For this reason we choose to treat the nucleons as non-relativistic and non-interacting, thereby ignoring collective effects which might enhance or reduce the $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering rate. Making these assumptions, we find that $`j_\nu `$ and $`\chi _\nu `$ in eq. (2) are given by

$$j_\nu =\frac{G^2}{(2\pi )^3}d^3\stackrel{}{p}_\nu ^{}_{\mathrm{NC}}_\nu ^{}e^{\beta \omega }$$
(10)
and

$$\chi _\nu =\frac{G^2}{(2\pi )^3}d^3\stackrel{}{p}_\nu ^{}_{\mathrm{NC}}[1_\nu ^{}],$$
(11)
where $`\beta =1/T`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_\nu ^{}`$ is the final state neutrino momentum, and $`\omega `$ is the energy transfer. In eqs. (10) and (11), the neutral-current scattering kernel is given by

$$_{\mathrm{NC}}=S(q,\omega )[(1+\mu )V^2+(3\mu )A^2],$$
(12)
where $`\mu (=\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ is the cosine of the scattering angle between incident and final state neutrinos and $`S(q,\omega )`$ is the dynamic structure function. In eq. (12), $`V`$ and $`A`$ are the appropriate vector and axial-vector coupling constants; for $`\nu _\mu `$-neutron scattering, $`V=1/2`$ and $`A=1.26/2`$. The dynamic structure function is

$`S(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^3}(1^{})(2\pi )\delta (\omega +\epsilon \epsilon ^{})}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(0)}(q,\omega )(1e^{\beta \omega })^1`$ (14)
where $`q=|p_\nu p_\nu ^{}|=[\epsilon _\nu ^2+\epsilon _\nu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}2\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\nu ^{}\mu ]^{1/2}`$ is the magnitude of the momentum transfer, and $``$ and $`^{}`$ are the incident and scattered nucleon distribution functions, respectively. In eq. (14), $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is the incident nucleon momentum, $`\epsilon `$ is the incident nucleon energy, and $`\epsilon ^{}`$ is the scattered nucleon energy. The imaginary part of the free polarization is given by

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(0)}(q,\omega )=\frac{m^2}{2\pi \beta q}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+e^{Q^2+\eta }}{1+e^{Q^2+\eta \beta \omega }}\right],$$
(15)
where

$$Q=\left(\frac{m\beta }{2}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega }{q}+\frac{q}{2m}\right),$$
(16)
$`\eta `$ is the nucleon degeneracy ($`\mu /T`$), and $`m`$ is the nucleon mass. The factor $`e^{\beta \omega }`$ which appears in eq. (10) is a consequence of the fact that $`S(q,\omega )=e^{\beta \omega }S(q,\omega )`$, itself a consequence of detailed balance between the $`in`$ and $`out`$ channels of the Boltzmann equation. The dynamic structure function can be thought of as a correlation function which connects $`\epsilon _\nu `$ and $`\epsilon _\nu ^{}`$.

The $`\varphi `$ angular integrations implicit in eqs. (10) and (11) can be computed trivially assuming the isotropy of $`_\nu `$. Furthermore, defining the coordinate system with the momentum vector of the incident neutrino, the scattering angle and the direction cosine are equivalent. Combining these two equations in the Boltzmann equation for the evolution of $`_\nu `$ due to neutral-current $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering, we obtain

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}=\frac{G^2}{(2\pi )^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _\nu ^{}\epsilon _\nu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}_1^1𝑑\mu _{\mathrm{NC}}\left\{[1_\nu ]_\nu ^{}e^{\beta \omega }_\nu [1_\nu ^{}]\right\}.$$
(17)
### B Electron Scattering: $`\nu _\mu e^{}\nu _\mu e^{}`$

At the temperatures and densities encountered in supernovae and protoneutron stars, electrons are highly relativistic. A formalism analogous to that used for $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering is desired in order to include the full electron kinematics at arbitrary electron degeneracy. Reddy et al.  have developed a relativistic generalization of the structure function formalism described in §III A. They obtain a set of polarization functions which characterize the relativistic medium’s response to a neutrino probe in terms of polylogarithmic functions. In analogy with eq. (17), we can write the Boltzmann equation for the evolution of $`_\nu `$ due to $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering, as

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}=\frac{G^2}{(4\pi )^3}d^3p_\nu ^{}_{\mathrm{NC}}^r\left\{[1_\nu ]_\nu ^{}e^{\beta \omega }_\nu [1_\nu ^{}]\right\},$$
(18)
where $`_{\mathrm{NC}}^r`$ is the relativistic neutral-current scattering kernel for $`\nu _\mu `$s, analogous to $`_{\mathrm{NC}}`$ in eq. (12). All the physics of the interaction is contained in $`_{NC}^r`$, which can be written as

$$_{\mathrm{NC}}^r=\mathrm{Im}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^R\}(1e^{\beta \omega })^1.$$
(19)
As in the non-relativistic case, $`_{\mathrm{NC}}^r`$ is composed of the lepton tensor,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }=8[2k^\alpha k^\beta +(kq)g^{\alpha \beta }(k^\alpha q^\beta +q^\alpha k^\beta )iϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }k^\mu q^\nu ],$$
(20)
which is just the squared and spin-summed matrix element for the scattering process written in terms of $`k_\alpha `$, the incident $`\nu _\mu `$ four-momentum, and $`q_\alpha \left(=(\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})\right)`$, the four-momentum transfer. The scattering kernel also contains the retarded polarization tensor, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^R`$, which is directly analogous to the free polarization in the non-relativistic case given in eq. (14). The retarded polarization tensor is related to the causal polarization by

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^R=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{1}{2}\beta \omega \right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(21)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }=i\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{Tr}[G_e(p)J_\alpha G_e^{}(p+q)J_\beta ].$$
(22)
In eq. (22), $`p_\alpha `$ is the electron four-momentum and $`J_\alpha `$ is the current operator. The electron Green’s functions ($`G_e`$ and $`G_e^{}`$), explicit in the free polarization, connect points in electron energy space and characterize the effect of the interaction on relativistic electrons. The polarization tensor can be written in terms of a vector part, an axial-vector part, and a mixed part, so that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }=V^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^V+A^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^A2VA\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^{VA}.$$
(23)
In turn, the vector part of the polarization tensor can be written in terms of two independent components, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L`$. In contrast with eq. (12), since $`v/c1`$ for the electrons, the angular terms which were dropped from the matrix element in the non-relativistic case, leading to a single structure function, must now be retained. $`_{\mathrm{NC}}^r`$ can then be written as a set of three structure functions :

$$_{\mathrm{NC}}^r=8[A𝒮_1(q,\omega )+𝒮_2(q,\omega )+B𝒮_3(q,\omega )](1e^{\beta \omega })^1,$$
(24)
where $`A=(4\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\nu ^{}+q_\alpha ^2)/2q^2`$ and $`B=\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _\nu ^{}`$. These structure functions can be written in terms of the vector parts of the retarded polarization tensor ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_T^R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L^R`$), the axial part ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_A^R`$), and the mixed part ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{VA}^R`$):

$$𝒮_1(q,\omega )=(V^2+A^2)\left[\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_L^R(q,\omega )+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_T^R(q,\omega )\right],$$
(25)
$$𝒮_2(q,\omega )=(V^2+A^2)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_T^R(q,\omega )A^2\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_A^R(q,\omega ),$$
(26)
and

$$𝒮_3(q,\omega )=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}VA\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{VA}^R(q,\omega ).$$
(27)
The retarded polarization functions, in terms of differences between polylogarithmic integrals, can be found in Appendix A.

### C Electron-Positron Annihilation: $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$

Fermi’s Golden Rule for the total volumetric emission rate for the production of $`\nu _\mu `$s via electron-positron annihilation can be written as

$$Q=\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon }\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon ^{}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}_\nu }{(2\pi )^32\epsilon _\nu }\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}_{\overline{\nu }}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}}\epsilon _\nu \left(\frac{1}{4}\underset{s}{}|^2|\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(\mathrm{P})\mathrm{\Xi }[],$$
(28)
where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }[]=(1_\nu )(1_{\overline{\nu }})_e^{}_{e^+},$$
(29)
and $`\delta ^4(\mathrm{P})`$ conserves four-momentum. In eq. (28), $`p_\alpha (=(\epsilon ,\stackrel{}{p}))`$ and $`p_\alpha ^{}(=(\epsilon ^{},\stackrel{}{p}^{}))`$ are the four-momenta of the electron and positron, respectively, and $`q_\nu ^\alpha (=(\epsilon _\nu ,\stackrel{}{q_\nu }))`$ and $`q_{\overline{\nu }}^\alpha (=(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\stackrel{}{q}_{\overline{\nu }}))`$ are the four-momenta of the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, respectively. The process of electron-positron annihilation into a neutrino/anti-neutrino pairs is related to neutrino-electron scattering considered in §III B via a crossing symmetry. In order to make the problem tractable, we follow the standard procedure  of expanding the production kernel in a Legendre series in the scattering angle to first order (see Appendix B). Near the neutrinospheres, at densities which render neutrino transport diffusive this approximation holds. In a full neutrino transport algorithm, however, which must handle both the diffusion and free-streaming limits, the second-order term, with proper closure relations, must be used in the semi-transparent regime between the neutrinospheres and the shock . Having made this approximation, including only the zeroth- and first-order terms, the single $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum is

$$\frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }=(1_\nu )\frac{\epsilon _\nu ^3}{8\pi ^4}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})(1_{\overline{\nu }}),$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})`$ is the zeroth-order production kernel expansion coefficient, an integral over the electron energy (see Appendix B) . With the differential spectrum or emissivity ($`dQ/d\epsilon _\nu `$) in hand, it is a simple matter to extract the contribution to the Boltzmann equation due to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. As eq. (30) already contains the $`\nu _\mu `$ blocking factor, the contribution to the Boltzmann equation, the $`in`$ channel explicit in eq. (3), can be written as

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}|_{in}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{(2\pi )^3}{\epsilon _\nu ^3}\frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }.$$
(31)
In order to obtain the $`out`$ channel for absorption due to $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, we need only replace $`_e^{}_{e^+}`$ in eq. (29) with an electron/positron blocking term, $`(1_e^{})(1_{e^+})`$, and replace the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ blocking terms in eq. (30) with $`_\nu _{\overline{\nu }}`$. Finally, the Boltzmann equation for the evolution of $`_\nu `$ in time due to $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ can be written as

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}=\frac{2G^2}{(2\pi )^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}^2_0^ϵ𝑑\epsilon H_o(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon )\left\{(1_\nu )(1_{\overline{\nu }})_e^{}_{e^+}_\nu _{\overline{\nu }}(1_e^{})(1_{e^+})\right\},$$
(32)
where $`ϵ=\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$ and $`H_o(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon )`$ is given in eq. (B5). In solving eq. (32), $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$ must be evolved simultaneously with $`_\nu `$. To do so, in addition to making the appropriate changes to the vector and axial-vector coupling constants, $`V`$ and $`A`$, one needs to integrate over $`\epsilon _\nu `$ instead of $`\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$. Note that the electron and positron distribution functions appear explicitly in eq. (32). We take these distributions to be Fermi-Dirac at temperature $`T`$ and with $`\eta _e`$ determined by $`T`$, $`\rho `$, and $`Y_e`$.

Equation (28) may also be used to find the total volumetric $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pair spectrum by replacing $`\epsilon _\nu `$ in the numerator with $`ϵ`$. Ignoring neutrino blocking in the final state one can show that

$$Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.09}\times 10^{24}\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^9f(\eta _e)\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1,$$
(33)
where

$$f(\eta _e)=\frac{F_4(\eta _e)F_3(\eta _e)+F_4(\eta _e)F_3(\eta _e)}{2F_4(0)F_3(0)},$$
(34)
and

$$F_n(y)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^n}{e^{xy}+1}𝑑x$$
(35)
are the Fermi integrals.

### D Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung

The importance of nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung in late-time neutron star cooling has been acknowledged for some time . Recently, however, this process has received more attention as a contributor of $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pairs and as an energy transport mechanism in both core-collapse supernova and nascent neutron star evolution . The contribution from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung is a composite of neutron-neutron ($`nn`$), proton-proton ($`pp`$), and neutron-proton ($`np`$) bremsstrahlung. Fermi’s Golden Rule for the total volumetric emissivity of single $`\nu _\mu `$s due to $`nn`$, $`pp`$, or $`np`$ bremsstrahlung, including $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ blocking in the final state, is given by

$$Q=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}_i}{(2\pi )^3}\right]\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}_\nu }{(2\pi )^32\epsilon _\nu }\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{q}_{\overline{\nu }}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}}\epsilon _\nu \left(s||^2\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(\mathrm{P})\mathrm{\Xi }[]$$
(36)
where

$$\mathrm{\Xi }[]=_1_2(1_3)(1_4)(1_\nu )(1_{\overline{\nu }}).$$
(37)
The product of differential phase space factors in eq. (36) includes a term for each of the four nucleons involved in the process; 1 and 2 denote initial-state nucleons whereas 3 and 4 denote final-state nucleons. In eq. (36), $`s`$ is a symmetry factor for identical initial-state fermions, $`\stackrel{}{q}_\nu `$ is the neutrino three-momentum, $`\epsilon _\nu `$ is the neutrino energy, and the four-momentum conserving delta function is explicit. In a one-pion exchange model for the nucleon-nucleon interaction, the spin-summed matrix element can be approximated by

$$\underset{s}{}||^264G^2g_A^2\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi }\right)^4\left[\left(\frac{k^2}{k^2+m_\pi ^2}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\right]ϵ^2(\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}\stackrel{}{q}_\nu \widehat{k}\stackrel{}{q}_{\overline{\nu }}\widehat{k})$$
(38)
where $`ϵ=\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$, $`k`$ is the magnitude of the nucleon momentum transfer, $`g_A1.26`$, $`f1`$ is the pion-nucleon coupling, and $`m_\pi `$ is the mass of the pion. In order to make the 18-dimensional phase-space integration in eq. (36) tractable we assume the quantity in square brackets to be of order unity, but possibly as low as 0.1 . To acknowledge our ignorance, we introduce the factor, $`\zeta `$, and assume these momentum terms are constant. Furthermore, we neglect the momentum of the neutrinos relative to the momentum of the nucleons. We are left with a simple, but general, form for the bremsstrahlung matrix element:

$$||^2A\zeta \frac{\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}}{ϵ^2},$$
(39)
where $`A=64G^2g_A^2f^4/m_\pi ^4`$. In the case of $`nn`$ or $`pp`$ bremsstrahlung, as appropriate for identical particles in the initial state, the symmetry factor ($`s`$) in eq. (36) is $`1/4`$. Such a symmetry factor does not enter for the mixed-nucleon process, $`np`$, which is still further enhanced by the fact that a charged pion mediates the nucleon exchange . This increases the matrix element in eq. (39) by a factor of $`7/3`$ in the degenerate nucleon limit and $`5/2`$ in the non-degenerate limit . Considering the already substantial simplifications made by choosing not to handle the momentum terms directly, we will adopt the more conservative $`4\times (7/3)`$ enhancement for the $`np`$ matrix element. The total volumetric emission rate combining all processes is just $`Q_{tot}=Q_{nn}+Q_{pp}+Q_{np}`$. What remains is to reduce eq. (36) to a useful expression in asymmetric matter and at arbitrary neutron and proton degeneracy.

Following ref. , we define new momenta, $`p_\pm =(p_1\pm p_2)/2`$ and $`p_{3c,4c}=p_{3,4}p_+`$, new direction cosines, $`\gamma _1=p_+p_{}/|p_+||p_{}|`$ and $`\gamma _c=p_+p_{3c}/|p_+||p_{3c}|`$, and let $`u_i=p_i^2/2mT`$. Furthermore, we note that $`d^3p_1d^3p_2=8d^3p_+d^3p_{}`$. Using the three-momentum conserving delta function, we can do the $`d^3\stackrel{}{p}_4`$ integral trivially. Rewriting eq. (36) with these definitions, we find that

$$Q=2As\zeta (2mT)^{9/2}(2\pi )^9𝑑\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _\nu ^3𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}𝑑u_{}𝑑u_+𝑑u_{3c}𝑑\gamma _1𝑑\gamma _c(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}/ϵ)^2(u_{}u_+u_{3c})^{1/2}\delta (E)\mathrm{\Xi }[],$$
(40)
where

$$\delta (E)=\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\epsilon _iϵ)=\delta (2T(u_{}u_{3c}ϵ/2T)).$$
(41)
The nucleon distribution functions in the term $`\mathrm{\Xi }[]`$ in eq. (40) have been rewritten in terms of the new direction cosines, the dimensionless momenta ($`u_i`$), and the initial-state nucleon degeneracy factors $`\eta _{1,2}=\mu _{1,2}/T`$:

$$_1=\frac{e^{(a_1^{}+b^{}\gamma _1)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(a_1^{}+b^{}\gamma _1)}\mathrm{and}_2=\frac{e^{(a_2^{}b^{}\gamma _1)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(a_2^{}b^{}\gamma _1)},$$
(42)
where $`a_{1,2}^{}=a_{1,2}/2=\frac{1}{2}(u_++u_{}\eta _{1,2})`$ and $`b^{}=b/2=(u_+u_{})^{1/2}`$. Furthermore,

$$(1_3)=\frac{e^{(c_1^{}+d^{}\gamma _c)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(c_1^{}+d^{}\gamma _c)}\mathrm{and}(1_4)=\frac{e^{(c_2^{}d^{}\gamma _c)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(c_2^{}d^{}\gamma _c)},$$
(43)
where $`c_{1,2}^{}=c_{1,2}/2=\frac{1}{2}(u_++u_{3c}\eta _{1,2})`$ and $`d^{}=d/2=(u_+u_{3c})^{1/2}`$. $`_\nu `$ and $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$, in contrast with the nucleon distribution functions, are independent of angle; for a given set of thermodynamic conditions, they remain functions of energy alone. While non-trivial, the integrations over $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _c`$ can be performed. For example, the result for the $`\gamma _1`$ integration is of the form

$$\frac{1}{2\sqrt{B(B+1)}}\mathrm{ln}[(B(1+2B)\xi ^2+2\xi \sqrt{B}(B+1)(\xi ^21)],$$
(44)
where $`B=\mathrm{sinh}^2a^{}`$ and $`\xi =\mathrm{cosh}b^{}\gamma _1`$. With a proper evaluation of the integration limits and some algebra one can rewrite this result as

$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}a^{}\mathrm{cosh}a^{}}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{(1+\mathrm{cosh}a\mathrm{cosh}b+\mathrm{sinh}a\mathrm{sinh}b)}{(1+\mathrm{cosh}a\mathrm{cosh}b\mathrm{sinh}a\mathrm{sinh}b)}\right].$$
(45)
Similar operations yield a result for the $`\gamma _c`$ integral in terms of $`c`$ and $`d`$. In addition, eq. (41) can be used to eliminate the integral over $`u_{}`$. Collectively, these manipulations reveal that the differential $`\nu _\mu `$ bremsstrahlung emissivity at arbitrary neutron and proton degeneracy is simply a three-dimensional integral over $`u_+`$, $`u_{3c}`$, and $`\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$:

$$\frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }=Ks\zeta (1_\nu )\epsilon _\nu ^3𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}𝑑u_+𝑑u_{3c}(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}/ϵ)^2u_+^{1/2}e^{\beta ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})(1_{\overline{\nu }}),$$
(46)
where

$$K=2G^2\left(\frac{m}{2\pi ^2}\right)^{9/2}\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi }\right)^4g_A^2T^{7/2},$$
(47)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^1(f)\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cosh}(e_+)}{1+\mathrm{cosh}(e_{})}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(f)+\mathrm{cosh}(g_+)}{\mathrm{cosh}(f)+\mathrm{cosh}(g_{})}}\right)\right]`$ (48)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^1(j)\mathrm{ln}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cosh}(h_+)}{1+\mathrm{cosh}(h_{})}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}(j)+\mathrm{cosh}(k_+)}{\mathrm{cosh}(j)+\mathrm{cosh}(k_{})}}\right)\right],`$ (49)
and

$`e_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(u_+^{1/2}\pm u_{}^{1/2})^2\eta _2`$ (50)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`u_++u_{}\eta _1/2\eta _2/2`$ (51)
$`g_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2(u_+u_{})^{1/2}\eta _1/2+\eta _2/2`$ (52)
$`h_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`(u_+^{1/2}\pm u_{3c}^{1/2})^2\eta _2`$ (53)
$`j`$ $`=`$ $`u_++u_{3c}\eta _1/2\eta _2/2`$ (54)
$`k_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2(u_+u_{3c})^{1/2}\eta _1/2+\eta _2/2.`$ (55)
Though $`u_{}`$ has been integrated out via the energy-conserving delta function, it appears here in an attempt to make this expression more compact and should be read as $`u_{}=u_{3c}+ϵ/2T`$. Importantly, if $`\eta _1=\eta _2`$ the right-hand term within both logarithmic terms in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})`$ becomes unity.

Using eq. (31), we can easily obtain the contribution to the Boltzmann equation due to nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung for arbitrary nucleon degeneracy, in asymmetric matter, and including the full nucleon and neutrino Pauli blocking terms. We find that

$$j_\nu =K^{}s\zeta 𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}𝑑u_+𝑑u_{3c}(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}/ϵ)^2u_+^{1/2}e^{\beta ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})(1_{\overline{\nu }})$$
(56)
where $`K^{}=[(2\pi )^3/4\pi ]K`$. The nucleon phase-space integrations above are identical in form for the $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ absorption process, $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu nnnn`$. In this case, then, the primed energies are now associated with nucleons 1 and 2 in the above manipulations and the incident nucleons (3 and 4) have unprimed energies. If we take the form derived above for the nucleon phase-space terms, the absorption channel ($`\chi _\nu `$) must then contain a factor of $`e^{\beta ϵ}`$. In addition, the blocking term, $`(1_{\overline{\nu }})`$, becomes $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$. The Boltzmann equation for the evolution of $`_\nu `$ in time is then,

$$\frac{1}{c}\frac{_\nu }{t}=K^{}s\zeta 𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}𝑑u_+𝑑u_{3c}(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}/ϵ)^2u_+^{1/2}e^{\beta ϵ/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})\left\{(1_\nu )(1_{\overline{\nu }})_\nu _{\overline{\nu }}e^{\beta ϵ}\right\}.$$
(57)
For the neutron-neutron ($`nn`$) or proton-proton ($`pp`$) bremsstrahlung contribution, we simply set $`s=1/4`$ in eq. (57) and use $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _n`$ or $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _p`$, respectively. For the mixed nucleon ($`np`$) bremsstrahlung we set $`s=1`$, multiply eq. (57) by $`7/3`$, and set $`\eta _1=\eta _n`$ and $`\eta _2=\eta _p`$. While eqs. (46) and (57) may not appear symmetric in $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ the logarithmic terms conspire to ensure that the rates for both $`np`$ and $`pn`$ bremsstrahlung are identical, as they should be. That is, it makes no difference whether we set $`\eta _n`$ or $`\eta _p`$ equal to $`\eta _1`$ or $`\eta _2`$.

Just as in §III C, in considering $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$ must be evolved simultaneously with $`_\nu `$. In this case, however, the situation is simpler. Suppose we wish to compare electron-positron annihilation with nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung by starting at $`t=0`$ with $`_{\overline{\nu }}=_\nu =0`$ over all energies. We then solve eq. (32) and its $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$ counterpart at each timestep and at each energy. For $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation, $`_\nu `$ and $`_{\overline{\nu }}`$ will evolve differently; they will be visibly different at each timestep, because of the weighting of the vector and axial-vector coupling constants which appear in the matrix element. In contrast, eq. (57) for bremsstrahlung must be solved only once. Since there is no difference in weighting between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, we can set $`_{\overline{\nu }}=_\nu `$ at every energy, at every timestep, as long as $`_{\overline{\nu }}=_\nu `$ at $`t=0`$. Of course, if we wish to consider $`_{\overline{\nu }}_\nu `$ initially, the two distributions would need to be evolved separately and simultaneously, coupled through the blocking and source terms on the right-hand side of the Boltzmann equation.

Equation (36) can also be used to find the total volumetric $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pair emissivity. To facilitate this we replace $`\epsilon _\nu `$ with $`ϵ`$ and insert $`\delta (ϵ(\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}))𝑑ϵ`$. Assuming the neutrinos are radiated isotropically, we can use this delta function to do the integral over $`d^3\stackrel{}{q}_{\overline{\nu }}`$ and leave the total rate in terms of an integral over $`\epsilon _\nu `$ from zero to $`ϵ`$ and another over $`ϵ`$ from zero to infinity. Momentarily ignoring neutrino blocking in the final state, the former can be integrated easily. Making the same momentum, angle, and nucleon distribution function substitutions we used in deriving the single $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum we can reduce the pair spectrum to an integral over $`u_+`$, $`u_{3c}`$, and $`q=ϵ/2T`$. We find that

$$Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }=Ds\zeta T^{8.5}𝑑q𝑑u_{3c}𝑑u_+q^4e^qu_+^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c}),$$
(58)
where

$$D=\frac{8}{15}\frac{G^2g_A^2}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^9}\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi }\right)^4m^{9/2},$$
(59)
and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(ϵ,u_+,u_{3c})`$ is defined in eq. (49). Note that eq. (58) allows us to easily calculate the pair differential volumetric emissivity ($`dQ_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }/dϵ`$). For $`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{nn}`$ and $`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{pp}`$, $`s=1/4`$. As with the single $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum, for $`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{np}`$ multiply eq. (58) by $`7/3`$ and set $`s=1`$. Finally, $`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{tot}`$=$`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{nn}`$\+ $`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{pp}`$+$`Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }^{np}`$.

#### 1 The Non-Degenerate Nucleon Limit

In the non-degenerate nucleon limit, the term $`_1_2(1_3)(1_4)`$ reduces to $`e^{\eta _1}e^{\eta _2}e^{2(u_++u_{})}`$  which is independent of angle. This tremendous simplification allows for easy integration over $`u_+`$ and $`u_{3c}`$ in eqs. (46), (57), and (58). The total volumetric emissivity of a single $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ pair in this limit, ignoring $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ blocking in the final state, is

$$Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }1.04\times 10^{30}\zeta (X\rho _{14})^2\left(\frac{T}{\mathrm{MeV}}\right)^{5.5}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(60)
For $`nn`$ and $`pp`$ bremsstrahlung, $`X`$ is the number fraction of neutrons ($`X_n`$) or protons ($`X_p`$), respectively. For the mixed-nucleon process ($`np`$), $`X^2`$ becomes $`(28/3)X_nX_p`$. Figure 1 compares the non-degenerate nucleon limit (eq. 60) with the arbitrary nucleon degeneracy generalization (eq. 58) in the case of neutron-neutron ($`nn`$) bremsstrahlung, as a function of the neutron degeneracy $`\eta _n=\mu _n/T`$. The filled square shows the degenerate limit obtained by ref. . Note that at $`\eta _n0`$, the fractional difference between the two is just $`12`$%. At realistic neutron degeneracies within the core ($`\eta _n2`$), this difference approaches 30%.

The single differential $`\nu _\mu `$ emissivity can be written in terms of the pair emissivity :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }}`$ $`=`$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }}{T^4}}\right)\epsilon _\nu ^3{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2q_\nu x}}{x^3}}(x^2x)^{1/2}𝑑x`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`C\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }}{T^4}}\right)\epsilon _\nu ^3{\displaystyle _{q_\nu }^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^q}{q}}K_1(q)(qq_\nu )^2𝑑q,`$ (62)
where $`C=2310/20481.128`$, $`q_\nu =\epsilon _\nu /2T`$, $`q=ϵ/2T`$, and $`K_1`$ is the standard modified Bessel function of imaginary argument. A useful fit to eq. (62), good to better than 3% over the full range of relevant neutrino energies is

$$\frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }0.234\frac{Q_{\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu }}{T}\left(\frac{\epsilon _\nu }{T}\right)^{2.4}e^{1.1\epsilon _\nu /T}.$$
(63)
Using eq. (31), we obtain the contribution to the Boltzmann equation including Pauli blocking of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ neutrinos in the final state:

$$\frac{_\nu }{t}=𝒞s\zeta _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}^2/ϵ)K_1\left(\frac{\beta ϵ}{2}\right)e^{\beta ϵ/2}\left\{(1_\nu )(1_{\overline{\nu }})_\nu _{\overline{\nu }}e^{\beta ϵ}\right\}.$$
(64)
where

$$𝒞=\frac{G^2m^{4.5}}{\pi ^{6.5}}\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi }\right)^4g_A^2T^{2.5}e^{\eta _1}e^{\eta _2}\frac{2G^2g_A^2}{\pi ^{3.5}}\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi }\right)^4\frac{m^{1.5}}{T^{.5}}n_1n_2.$$
(65)
In obtaining eq. (65), we have used the thermodynamic identity in the non-degenerate limit,

$$e^{\eta _i}=\left(\frac{2\pi }{mT}\right)^{3/2}\frac{n_i}{2},$$
(66)
where $`n`$ is the number density of nucleons considered and $`i`$ is 1 or 2 for neutrons or protons, depending on which nucleon bremsstrahlung process is considered.

## IV Results

The numerical algorithm we have developed accepts arbitrary initial $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ phase-space distributions. Using the scattering formalism developed in the previous section, we evolve two initial distribution functions: (1) a broad Gaussian in energy centered at 40 MeV with a maximum of $`_\nu =0.80`$ and a full-width at half-maximum of $``$28.6 MeV, and (2) a Fermi-Dirac distribution at a temperature 2$`\times `$ the temperature of the surrounding matter and with zero chemical potential. While the former is unphysical in the context of supernova calculations, it illustrates the effects of blocking on both the average energy transfer and the rates for each scattering process. Furthermore, its evolution is more dynamic than the Fermi-Dirac distribution. As a result, the way in which the distribution is spread and shifted in time is more apparent. The essential differences between the two processes are then more easily gleaned. The latter initial distribution is motivated by consideration of the environment within the core of a supernova. The $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ distribution functions, having been generated as pairs via $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung should have approximately zero chemical potential. Furthermore, even in the dense core, the $`\nu _\mu `$s will diffuse outward in radius and, hence, from higher to lower temperatures. By starting with a Fermi-Dirac distribution at twice the temperature of the matter at that radius, we learn more about how equilibration might effect the emergent $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum in an actual collapse or protoneutron star cooling calculation.

For the production and emission processes, we start with zero neutrino occupancy and let each build to an equilibrium distribution of $`\nu _\mu `$s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$s. As a check to the calculation, the asymptotic distribution should be Fermi-Dirac at the temperature of the ambient matter with zero neutrino chemical potential. Throughout these simulations, we take the factor $`\zeta `$ in eq. (57) for nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung to be 0.5. (This factor represents our ignorance of the importance of the nucleon momentum transfer terms.)

We repeat these calculations for four temperature, density, and composition points (StarA, StarB, StarC, and StarD) taken from the one-dimensional collapse calculation profile, Star , corresponding to four radii below the shock ($`80`$ km). Roughly, these points have densities $`10^{14}`$, $`10^{13}`$, $`10^{12}`$, and $`10^{11}`$ g cm-3. The actual numbers are shown in Table I.

### A Scattering

Figures 2 and 3 show the evolution of a Gaussian distribution at $`t=0`$ to an equilibrium Fermi-Dirac distribution at the temperature of the surrounding matter due to $`\nu _\mu `$-neutron ($`\nu _\mu n`$) and $`\nu _\mu `$-electron ($`\nu _\mu e^{}`$) scattering, respectively. The equilibrium distribution has a non-zero neutrino chemical potential set by the initial total number of $`\nu _\mu `$s, which is conserved to better than .001% throughout the calculation. Multiple curves on each plot show snapshots of $`_\nu `$ in time from $`t=0`$ to 1000 microseconds ($`\mu `$s). Both calculations were carried out at the thermodynamic point StarB whose characteristics are shown in Table I. StarB is indicative of the core of a supernova, a region of moderate to high temperatures ($`T15`$ MeV) and densities of $`10^{13}`$ g cm-3. These two figures illustrate the fundamental differences between $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ and $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering as thermalization processes. Curve A in Fig. 2 and curve C in Fig. 3 indicate that at high $`\nu _\mu `$ energies ($`\epsilon _\nu `$ 30 MeV) $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering is a much more effective thermalization mechanism. At $`\epsilon _\nu 40`$ MeV both curves show the distribution is within $``$30% of equilibrium. Importantly, however, curve A is at 0.33 $`\mu `$s for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering whereas curve C is at 3.30 $`\mu `$s for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering. Curve C, in Fig. 2 for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering, also at $`t=3.30`$ $`\mu `$s, shows that above $``$25 MeV the distribution has almost equilibrated. For $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering, similar evolution at high neutrino energies takes approximately 25 $`\mu `$s. These simple estimates reveal that $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering is about 10 times faster than $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering at equilibrating $`\nu _\mu `$s with energies greater than approximately 25 MeV.

This situation is reversed at low $`\epsilon _\nu `$s. Comparing curve E at $`t=33.0`$ $`\mu `$s in both Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, we can see that at $`10`$ MeV both distributions have filled to approximately the same percentage of the asymptotic, equilibrium $`_\nu `$. However, below $`\epsilon _\nu `$8 MeV, $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering has not filled $`_\nu `$ to the extent $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering has. In fact, the rate at which these low energy states are filled by $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering is very low; the energy transfer ($`\omega `$) is much smaller than the incident $`\nu _\mu `$ energy. In this regime, the Fokker-Planck approximation for the time evolution of $`_\nu `$ in energy space may be applicable. In marked contrast, Fig. 3 indicates how effective $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering is at filling the lowest $`\epsilon _\nu `$ states. Curves F from Figs. 2 and 3, taken at 1000 $`\mu `$s, show that though the distribution has reached equilibrium via $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering, for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering the very lowest energy states remain unfilled. For each of the four points in the Star profile we consider, $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering dominates at high energies ($`20`$ MeV), whereas $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering dominates at low $`\nu _\mu `$ energies ($`10`$ MeV) and particularly for $`\epsilon _\nu 3`$ MeV.

Figures 4 and 5 depict the evolution of $`_\nu `$ via $`\nu _\mu n`$ and $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering, respectively, for an initial Fermi-Dirac distribution at 2$`\times `$ the temperature of the surrounding neutrons and electrons and with zero neutrino chemical potential. This calculation was carried out at StarC (see Table I), which is representative of the outer core, in the semi-transparent regime, where the neutrinos begin to decouple from the matter (near the neutrinosphere). The same systematics highlighted in the discussion of the evolution of the initial Gaussian distribution for StarB are borne out in these figures. Curves A and B on both plots, denoting 0.10 and 0.33 milliseconds (ms) of elapsed time, respectively, confirm that above $`\epsilon _\nu 15`$ MeV $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering dominates thermalization.

Figures 6 and 7 show $`\omega _{in}`$ and $`\omega _{out}`$, as defined in eqs. (6) and (7), for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering and $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering, respectively. The separate curves portray the evolution in time of the thermal average energy transfers as the distributions evolve to equilibrium (cf. Figs. 4 and 5). As one would expect from kinematic arguments, the magnitudes of both $`\omega _{in}`$ and $`\omega _{out}`$ for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering are much less than those for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering. Though the energy transfers are much smaller, even at the highest energies, $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering still dominates $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering in thermalizing the $`\nu _\mu `$ distribution because the rate for scattering is so much larger. At low neutrino energies, however, both average energy transfers for neutron scattering go to zero, whereas they approach large negative values ($`20`$ MeV) for electron scattering. At these low energies, the fact that the rate for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering is larger than for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering fails to compensate for the vanishing energy transfer. For example, at $`\epsilon _\nu =3`$ MeV and $`t=33`$ ms, the energy transfer for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering is more than 100 times that for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering.

In order to fold in information about both the rate of scattering and the average thermal energy transfer, we plot $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ (eqs. 8 and 9) in Fig. 8 for all four points considered in the Star profile. We show here a snapshot of the rates for both scattering processes for a Fermi-Dirac distribution initially at twice the local matter temperature, with zero neutrino chemical potential. Note that the spikes in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ indicate the neutrino energy at which $`\omega _{out}=0`$ (cf. Figs. 6 and 7). In general, we find that as $`\epsilon _\nu 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ go to zero for $`\nu _\mu `$-neutron scattering, whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ approaches a constant and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ gets very large for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering . This is a consequence of the fact that, regardless of $`_\nu `$, $`\omega _{out}0`$ for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering as $`\epsilon _\nu 0`$, as shown in Fig. 6. For $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering the situation is different. As Fig. 7 reveals, $`\omega _{out}`$ approaches $`20`$ MeV at $`\epsilon _\nu =0`$. As expected from our analysis of the evolution of $`_\nu `$ in Figs. 4 and 5, at approximately 40 MeV the thermalization rate for $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering for StarB is about an order of magnitude greater than that for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering. Specifically, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$’s cross at $``$15 MeV, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$’s cross at $``$20 MeV. Below these energies, both $`\nu _\mu n`$ rates drop off precipitously as a consequence of the fact that $`\omega _{out}0`$. Below $`\epsilon _\nu 5`$ MeV, the thermalization rate for $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering dominates by 2-5 orders of magnitude. As evidenced by the other panels in Fig. 8, this same trend holds in the other regions of the stellar profile. In general, the rates drop over the whole energy range for both processes as the density and temperature decrease, but the same systematics hold. In fact, for StarA, StarC, and StarD the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D`$ crossing points for both processes are lower than those for StarB. As a result of the higher temperature at this radius ($`T14.5`$ MeV) $`\nu _\mu e^{}`$ scattering is important in thermalizing slightly higher energy neutrinos than at the other radii. For StarC and StarD, specifically, both rates cross at neutrino energies less than 12 MeV.

These results demonstrate that $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering is an important thermalization process from the dense core through the semi-transparent regime for $`\nu _\mu `$s with energies greater than approximately 15 MeV. The addition of this energy transfer mechanism implies that the $`\nu _\mu `$s stay energetically coupled to the surrounding matter longer than has been previously estimated . We can approximate the radius at which the $`\nu _\mu `$s energetically decouple from the matter (the $`E_\mu `$-sphere)  by observing when the diffusion timescale is approximately equal to the equilibration timescale given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D^1=\tau _D`$, as defined in eq. (8). Using this crude approximation we find that by including $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon energy transfer the $`E_\mu `$-sphere is pushed outward in radius by approximately 3 kilometers. This difference in radius corresponds to a 1-2 MeV drop in the matter temperature in the model Star. The average energy of the emergent spectrum is roughly correlated with the local matter temperature of the $`E_\mu `$-sphere. Therefore, we conclude that $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon energy transfer in full transport calculations will likely soften the emergent $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum.

### B Emission and Absorption

Figure 9 shows the total integrated volumetric emissivity as a function of radius in the model Star for nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung in the non-degenerate nucleon limit (eq. 60), its generalization for arbitrary nucleon degeneracy (eq. 58), and the emissivity for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation (eq. 33). Note that not one of these expressions contains neutrino blocking terms and that the general bremsstrahlung rate crosses that for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at $`23`$ kilometers where $`\rho 6\times 10^{12}`$ g cm-3, $`T11`$ MeV, and $`Y_e0.13`$. While this plot gives a general idea of where $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation should begin to compete with nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, it fails to include the differential nature of the production in energy. In addition, it does not include absorption or blocking effects, which quantitatively alter the relative strength of the emission.

To begin to understand the import of these terms and the character of each pair production process, we include Figs. 10 and 11, which show the time evolution of $`_\nu `$ via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung and electron-positron annihilation, respectively, for the point StarC, initialized with zero $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ phase-space occupancies. The final equilibrium distribution is Fermi-Dirac at the temperature of the surrounding matter, with zero neutrino chemical potential. Comparing curve C on both graphs, which marks 10.0 milliseconds (ms) of elapsed time, one can see that bremsstrahlung dominates production below $`15`$ MeV. Indeed, bremsstrahlung overshoots its equilibrium distribution at energies below 10 MeV before finally filling the higher $`\epsilon _\nu `$ states. In contrast, electron-positron annihilation fills the higher states first and moves slowly toward the low-lying neutrino energies, taking a factor of 10 more time at this thermodynamic point to reach equilibrium.

In Figs. 12 and 13, we plot $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$, as defined in eqs. (4) and (5), for both production processes at the point StarB. As one would predict from our simple observations of the time evolution of $`_\nu `$, the bremsstrahlung rates are much faster ($``$2 orders of magnitude) than the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation rates at low neutrino energies. At StarC, $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation competes with bremsstrahlung above $`\epsilon _\nu 15`$ MeV. For StarB, however, at a matter density an order of magnitude greater than that for StarC, the energy at which nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung becomes more important than $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation is $`60`$ MeV. In this regime, where $`T1214`$ MeV and $`\rho 10^{13}`$ g cm-3, we find that bremsstrahlung dominates neutrino pair-production via electron-positron annihilation. A close look at the evolution of the total thermal average neutrino energy ($`\epsilon _\nu `$) reveals that $`_\nu `$ reaches its asymptotic equilibrium distribution via nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung in $`1`$ ms. Electron-positron annihilation takes $`50`$ ms to fill all but the very lowest energy states. This trend continues as the matter becomes more dense. For StarA, well beneath the neutrinospheres at $`\rho 10^{14}`$ g cm-3, the rates for bremsstrahlung and electron-positron annihilation never cross. In fact, the former produces an equilibrium Fermi sea of $`\nu _\mu `$’s in $`50`$ $`\mu `$s, whereas the latter takes $`10^3`$ seconds. This difference of 8 orders of magnitude in timescale, however, is a bit misleading. Similar to $`\nu _\mu n`$ scattering, $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation has trouble filling only the very lowest neutrino energy states. In actuality, at the highest energies, both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{in}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{out}`$ for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation come within 3-4 orders of magnitude of the rates for bremsstrahlung at the same energy. Still, the difference is striking. As the temperature drops from StarB (14 MeV) to StarA (10 MeV) and the density increases by an order of magnitude, $`\eta _e`$ goes from 3.79 to 15.75. Consequently, Pauli blocking of electrons in the final state suppresses the process $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu e^+e^{}`$, and the phase-space density of positrons is depleted to such an extent that $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ is suppressed as well. We conclude that beneath the neutrinospheres and specifically for $`\rho 10^{13}`$ g cm-3, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung is the primary and dominant $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ source. Near the neutrinosphere, within the gain region and behind the shock, between 30 km and 60 km at $`\rho 10^{12}`$ g cm-3 and $`T68`$ MeV, bremsstrahlung competes with $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at all neutrino energies and is the primary production process for the low-lying $`\epsilon _\nu `$ and $`\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$ states.

The addition of nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung will have quantitative implications for the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ emergent spectra. Specifically, they should be softer and brighter. Burrows et al.  confirm this with their study of static supernova and protoneutron star atmospheres, having included nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung in the non-degenerate limit. In addition to observing a systematic softening, they also find that the $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum is a factor of 2 more luminous at $`\epsilon _\nu =10`$ MeV.

## V Summary and Conclusions

Our results for equilibration via $`\nu _\mu `$-electron scattering and $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering indicate that the latter competes with or dominates the former as a thermalizer for neutrino energies $`10`$ MeV for $`\rho 1\times 10^{11}`$ g cm-3 at all temperatures. At neutrino energies $`30`$ MeV the difference at all densities and temperatures is approximately an order of magnitude. For the production and absorption processes, we find that nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, at the average energy of an equilibrium Fermi-Dirac distribution at the local temperature, is 5 and 2 orders of magnitude faster than $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation at StarA ($`T10`$ MeV, $`\rho 10^{14}`$ g cm-3) and StarB ($`T15`$ MeV, $`\rho 10^{13}`$ g cm-3), respectively. Only for $`\rho 10^{12}`$ g cm-3 and $`T6`$ MeV does $`e^+e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ begin to compete with bremsstrahlung at all energies. We conclude from this study that the emergent $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ spectrum is (1) brighter and (2) softer than previously estimated. The former results from the inclusion of the new pair emission process, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. The latter is a consequence of both the increased energy coupling between the nuclear and neutrino fluids through $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering and the fact that bremsstrahlung dominates $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation near the neutrinospheres at the lowest neutrino energies. While the full transport problem, including $`\nu _\mu `$-nucleon scattering energy redistribution and nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung, must be solved in order to delineate precisely what consequences these processes have for the emergent $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum, these calculations demonstrate that they should not be omitted.

## VI Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sanjay Reddy for helpful correspondence. A.B. and T.A.T. acknowledge support under NSF Grant No. AST96-14794 and J.E.H. acknowledges funding from the Fundacão de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo.

## A Neutrino-electron scattering

Each of the retarded polarization functions in eqs. (25-27) can be written in terms of one-dimensional integrals over electron energy ($`\epsilon _e`$), which we label $`I_n`$ ;

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_L^R(q,\omega )=\frac{q_\mu ^2}{2\pi |q|^3}\left[I_2+\omega I_1+\frac{q_\mu ^2}{4}I_0\right],$$
(A1)
$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_T^R(q,\omega )=\frac{q_\mu ^2}{4\pi |q|^3}\left[I_2+\omega I_1+\left(\frac{q_\mu ^2}{4}+\frac{q^2}{2}+m^2\frac{q^2}{q_\mu ^2}\right)I_0\right],$$
(A2)
$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_A^R(q,\omega )=\frac{m^2}{2\pi |q|}I_0,$$
(A3)
and

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{VA}^R(q,\omega )=\frac{q_\mu ^2}{8\pi |q|^3}\left[\omega I_0+2I_1\right].$$
(A4)
The authors of  were able to express the $`I_n`$’s in terms of polylogarithmic integrals such that

$$I_0=Tz\left(1\frac{\xi _1}{z}\right),$$
(A5)
$$I_1=T^2z\left(\eta _e\frac{z}{2}\frac{\xi _2}{z}\frac{e_{}\xi _1}{zT}\right),$$
(A6)
and

$$I_2=T^3z\left(\eta _e^2z\eta _e+\frac{\pi ^2}{3}+\frac{z^2}{3}+2\frac{\xi _3}{z}2\frac{e_{}\xi _2}{Tz}+\frac{e_{}^2\xi _1}{T^2z}\right),$$
(A7)
where $`\eta _e=\mu _e/T`$ is the electron degeneracy, $`z=\beta \omega `$, $`\omega `$ is the energy transfer, and

$$e_{}=\frac{\omega }{2}+\frac{q}{2}\sqrt{14\frac{m^2}{q_\mu ^2}}.$$
(A8)
In eqs. (A5-A7), the $`\xi _n`$’s are differences between polylogarithmic integrals; $`\xi _n=\mathrm{Li}_n(\alpha _1)\mathrm{Li}(\alpha _2)`$, where

$$\mathrm{Li}_n(y)=_0^y\frac{\mathrm{Li}_{n1}(x)}{x}𝑑x,$$
(A9)
and Li$`{}_{1}{}^{}(x)=\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$. The arguments necessary for computing the integrals are $`\alpha _1=\mathrm{exp}[\beta (e_{}+\omega )\eta _e]`$ and $`\alpha _2=\mathrm{exp}(\beta e_{}\eta _e)`$.

## B electron-positron annihilation

The production kernel is defined by

$$R^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{1}{2\epsilon _\nu \epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}}\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon }\frac{d^3\stackrel{}{p}^{}}{(2\pi )^32\epsilon ^{}}_e^{}_{e^+}\left(\frac{1}{4}\underset{s}{}||^2\right)(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(\mathrm{P}).$$
(B1)
The differential production spectrum for final state $`\nu _\mu `$s can then be written as

$$\frac{dQ}{d\epsilon _\nu }=(1_\nu )\frac{\epsilon _\nu ^3}{(2\pi )^6}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}^2𝑑\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}_1^1𝑑\mu ^{}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi R^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\mathrm{cos}\theta )(1_{\overline{\nu }}),$$
(B2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the differential solid angle for the $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrino, $`\mu ^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ is the cosine of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ angular coordinate, and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$. Expanding the production kernel in a Legendre series in the scattering angle, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mu \mu ^{}+[(1\mu ^2)(1\mu ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$,

$$R^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{l}{}(2l+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_l^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(B3)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^p`$, in eqs. (30) and (B3), is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0^p(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }})=\frac{G^2}{\pi }_0^{\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}}𝑑\epsilon _e^{}_{e^+}H_0(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu },}\epsilon ),$$
(B4)
where $`_{e^+}`$ is a function of $`\epsilon ^{}(=\epsilon _\nu +\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}\epsilon )`$ and

$$H_0(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon )=(V+A)^2J_0^I(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon )+(VA)^2J_0^{II}(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon ).$$
(B5)
Each $`J_0`$ in eq. (B5) is a polynomial in $`\epsilon _\nu `$, $`\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }}`$, and $`\epsilon `$ of dimension \[energy\]. They are related to each other by

$$J_0^I(\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon )=J_0^{II}(\epsilon _{\overline{\nu }},\epsilon _\nu ,\epsilon ).$$
(B6)
Both $`J_0^I`$ and $`J_0^{II}`$ can be found in ref.  (correcting for the typo in their eq. C67). From eqs. (30) and (B5) we see that the differences between the spectra for $`\nu _\mu `$s and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$s for a given temperature and electron degeneracy ($`\eta _e`$) arise solely from the relative weighting constants $`(V+A)^2`$ and $`(VA)^2`$ in eq. (B5) for $`J_0^I`$ and $`J_0^{II}`$, respectively. Indeed, in this approximation the same can be said for the difference in the spectrum between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos.


text:
# 𝒩=4 Super Yang-Mills Low-Energy Effective Action at Three and Four Loops

## Abstract

We investigate the low-energy effective action in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(n)`$ spontaneously broken down to its maximal torus. Using harmonic superspace technique we prove an absence of any three- and four-loop corrections to non-holomorphic effective potential depending on $`N=2`$ superfield strengths. A mechanism responsible for vanishing arbitrary loop corrections to low-energy effective action is discussed.

Supersymmetry imposes the significant restrictions on a structure of effective action in field models. It is naturally to expect that the most strong restrictions have to arise in maximally extended rigid supersymmetric model, that is in $`N=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory.

Recently Dine and Seiberg found that a dependence of $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills low-energy effective action on $`N=2`$ superfield strengths $`𝒲`$ and $`\overline{𝒲}`$ is exactly fixed only by general properties of the quantum theory under consideration like finiteness and scale independence . According to ref  the leading low-energy contributions to effective action in $`N=4`$ SYM with gauge group $`SU(2)`$ spontaneously broken down to $`U(1)`$ are described by non-holomorphic effective potential $`(𝒲,\overline{𝒲})`$ of the form

$`(𝒲,\overline{𝒲})=c\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒲^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝒲}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right)`$ (1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is some scale. The effective potential (1) possesses by two remarkable properties. First, the corresponding effective action

$`{\displaystyle d^4xd^8\theta (𝒲,\overline{𝒲})}`$ (2)
is scale independent. Second, any quantum corrections, if they exist at all, are included into a single constant $`c`$.

The explicit calculations of the non-holomorphic effective potential and finding the coefficient $`c`$ in one-loop approximation have been carried out in refs \[2-4\]. Extension of the above results for $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(n)`$, $`n>2`$, spontaneously broken down to its maximal torus have been developed in refs \[5-8\]. General structure of low-energy effective action in $`N=2,4`$ superconformal invariant field models was investigated in ref .

In the paper  Dine and Seiberg presented the qualitative arguments based on principle of naturalness  (see application of this principle to SUSY theories in ref ) that effective potential (1) gets neither perturbative nor non-perturbative quantum corrections beyond one loop. Therefore the expression (1) together with the results of one-loop calculations of the coefficient $`c`$ \[2-4\] determines exact low-energy effective action in $`N=4`$ $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory. The above arguments have also been discussed in refs . Another approach leading to the same conclusion about structure of low-energy effective action was developed in recent papers .

We would like to pay an attention that a mechanism providing an absence of higher loop corrections to non-holomorphic effective potential in $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory is unknown up to now. The firm results concern only two-loop approximation where the corresponding corrections are prohibited by $`N=2`$ supersymmetry  (see also direct two-loop calculations in refs ).

An interesting aspect of $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(n)`$, $`n>2`$, has been recently pointed out in refs . The symmetry arguments do not prohibit an appearance of some new invariant structures, besides logarithmic, in non-holomorphic effective potential which are absent at $`n=2`$. The direct calculations \[5-8\] do not confirm such structures in one-loop approximation. However a question concerning their appearance at higher loops is open.

In this paper we are going to develop a technique for investigating a structure of the non-holomorphic effective potential at higher loops, to find a mechanism providing a cancellation of higher-loop contributions, and to clarify situation concerning the non-logarithimic corrections to low-energy effective action in $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SU(n)`$, $`n>2`$, spontaneously broken to its maximal torus. To be more precise, we investigate a structure of three- and four-loop supergraphs and show how $`N=4`$ supersymmetry provides an efficient mechanism of supergraph cancellations.

We consider $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory formulated in terms of $`N=2`$ superfields and get $`N=2`$ Yang-Mills theory coupled to hypermultiplet in adjoint representation. The most convenient and simple way to carry out quantum calculations in $`N=2`$ SUSY models is given by harmonic superspace approach \[16-18\] which is used in the paper. The various implementations of this approach to effective action in $`N=2`$ SUSY theories are discussed in refs .

The starting point of our consideration is the classical action of the $`N=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory in $`q`$-hypermultiplet realization written in harmonic superspace

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\mathrm{tr}{\displaystyle d^{12}z\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{i})^n}{n}𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_n\frac{V^{++}(z,u_1)\mathrm{}V^{++}(z,u_n)}{(u_1^+u_2^+)(u_2^+u_3^+)\mathrm{}(u_n^+u_1^+)}}+`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}𝑑u\stackrel{˘}{q}^+(D^{++}+iV^{++})q^+}.`$
The denotions introduced in the paper  are employed here and further.

The calculations are carried out in framework of $`N=2`$ background field method . We make background-quantum splitting by the rule

$$V^{++}V^{++}+gv^{++}$$
(4)
and construct the corresponding Faddeev-Popov ghost action in the form

$$S_{gh}=\mathrm{tr}𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}𝑑u𝐛(^{++})^2𝐜\mathrm{i}g\mathrm{tr}𝑑u𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}^{++}𝐛[v^{++},𝐜].$$
(5)
The background-dependent superpropagators in the theory with action of $`N=2`$ gauge multiplet and $`N=2`$ matter hypermultiplet (3) and action of ghosts (5) have been obtained in  and look like

$`<v_\tau ^{++}(1)v_\tau ^{++}(2)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_1^+)^4}\left\{\delta ^{12}(z_1z_2)\delta ^{(2,2)}(u_1,u_2)\right\}`$
$`<q_\tau ^+(1)\stackrel{˘}{q}_\tau ^+(2)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_1^+)^4}\left\{\delta ^{12}(z_1z_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(u_1^+u_2^+)^3}}\right\}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_2^+)^4}`$
$`<\omega _\tau (1)\omega _\tau ^\mathrm{T}(2)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_1^+)^4}\left\{\delta ^{12}(z_1z_2){\displaystyle \frac{(u_1^{}u_2^{})}{(u_1^+u_2^+)^3}}\right\}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_2^+)^4}`$
$`<𝐜_\tau (1)𝐛_\tau (2)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_1^+)^4}\left\{\delta ^{12}(z_1z_2){\displaystyle \frac{(u_1^{}u_2^{})}{(u_1^+u_2^+)^3}}\right\}\stackrel{}{(𝒟_2^+)^4}.`$ (6)
with the operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ of the form

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟^m𝒟_m+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}}(𝒟^{+\alpha }𝒲)𝒟_\alpha ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}}(\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}^+\overline{𝒲})\overline{𝒟}^{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{4}}(𝒟^{+\alpha }𝒟_\alpha ^+𝒲)D^{}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{8}}[𝒟^{+\alpha },𝒟_\alpha ^{}]𝒲+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\overline{𝒲},𝒲\}`$
Here index $`\tau `$ denotes that corresponding superfields taken in $`\tau `$-frame  where covariant derivatives $`𝒟_\alpha ^i`$, $`\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$ are introduced to be independent of harmonic coordinates. The propagators look like (6) just in this frame (see details in ).

Our aim consists in calculations of three- and four-loop contributions to non-holomorphic effective potential. We consider the case of the gauge group $`SU(n)`$ spontaneously broken down to its maximal Abelian subgroup. The corresponding background strength $`𝒲`$ is a diagonal matrix of the form

$`𝒲=diag(𝒲_1,𝒲_2\mathrm{}𝒲_n);{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}𝒲_i=0.`$ (8)
Since non-holomorphic effective potential depends only on background superfield strengths but not on their derivatives we omit everywhere all terms including derivatives of $`𝒲`$, $`\overline{𝒲}`$ in (6,7). Hence the operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ in propagators (6) looks like

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟^m𝒟_m+𝒲\overline{𝒲},`$ (9)
or, in the manifest form,

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝒟^m𝒟_m+𝒲_1\overline{𝒲}_1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 𝒟^m𝒟_m+𝒲_n\overline{𝒲}_n\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
As a result we face a problem of calculating three- and four-loop supergraphs in the theory with constant background superfield strengths and operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ given by (8) and (9) respectively.

First of all, let us note that arbitrary $`L`$-loop supergraph provides non-zero contribution to non-holomorphic effective potential if and only if number of $`D`$-factors contained in it is equal to $`8L`$ or greater since contracting of any loop to a point by the rule
$`\delta ^8(\theta _1\theta _2)(D^+(u_1))^4(D^+(u_2))^4\delta ^8(\theta _1\theta _2)=(u_1^+u_2^+)^4\delta ^8(\theta _1\theta _2)`$ requires 8 $`D`$-factors. Then, an arbitrary supergraph with $`P_v`$ propagators of $`N=2`$ gauge superfield, $`P_m`$ propagators of matter hypermultiplet, $`P_c`$ propagators of ghosts, $`V_m`$ vertices containing interaction with matter and $`V_c`$ ones including interaction with ghosts contains the following number of $`D`$-factors:

$`N_D=4P_v+8P_m+8P_c4V_m4V_c`$ (14)
because of structure of propagators given in (6) with the operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ has the form (9) and vertices corresponding to actions (3,5) (recall that transformation of vertex of the form $`𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}`$ to an integral over whole superspace by the rule $`𝑑\zeta ^{(4)}(D^+)^4=d^{12}z`$ requires four $`D`$-factors). Then, it is easy to see that number of propagators of ghosts and matter is equal to number of vertices including interaction with ghosts and matter respectively since each pure ghost (matter) loop contains equal number of vertices and propagators, i.e. $`P_m=V_m`$, $`P_c=V_c`$. As a result, number of $`D`$-factors in arbitrary supergraph is equal to $`N_D=4P`$ where $`P`$ is a full number of propagators in corresponding supergraph. Hence any $`L`$-loop supergraph can contribute to non-holomorphic effective potential if and only if $`P2L`$. For example, two-loop supergraph should contain 4 and more propagators, and since number of propagators in two-loop supergraphs is no more than three we see that there is no two-loop contribution to $`(𝒲,\overline{𝒲})`$ in accordance with conclusion of  where namely such an analysis was used to prove absence of two-loop non-holomorphic contribution. However a situation beyond two loops is much more complicated. In three- and four-loop supergraphs number of propagators should be no less than 6 or 8 respectively. Such supergraphs actually exist and are studied bellow.

Let us consider three-loop supergraphs corresponding to theory defined by actions (3,5). They are given by Figs. 1a, 1b. Here as usual wavy line is used for gauge propagator, solid line is for matter propagator, dashed line is for ghost propagator. The numbers near any supergraph at Fig. 1a will be explained later.

$`\frac{1}{2}`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`1`$   $`1`$ $`Fig.1a`$  $`1`$

$`Fig.1b`$

We are going to show that total contribution of the supergraphs given by Fig. 1a to non-holomorphic effective potential vanishes due to $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. To clarify a mechanism providing manifestation of $`N=4`$ supersymmetry in the supergraphs formulated in terms of $`N=2`$ superfields we introduce a notion of $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs. Three supergraphs are called $`N=4`$ superpartners if they have the following structure. One of the supergraphs contains the gauge loop given by Fig. 2a and some system of the propagators associated with this loop. Another supergraph contains the matter loop given by Fig. 2c instead of gauge one and the same system of the propagators as in first case. Third supergraph contains the ghost loop given by Fig. 2b instead of gauge one and the same system of the propagators as in first case. The examples of systems of superpartner supergraphs are given also by Figs. 3a – 3c, Figs. 4a – 4c, Fig. 5. Appearance of such a set of supergraphs turned out to be typical for higher loop contributions. The simplest set of $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs arising at one-loop order is given by Fig. 2a – Fig. 2c. We show that sum of three these supergraphs for background dependent superpropagators is equal to zero in the case of constant background superfield strengths.

$`Fig.2a`$    $`Fig.2b`$    $`Fig.2c`$

Structure of the supergraphs containing $`N=4`$ superpartners in the case when propagators do not depend on background superfields was studied in details by GIKOS . However we prove that the same result takes place when we consider non-holomorphic effective potential using the background field dependent propagators (7,10).

To evaluate contributions from supergraphs given by Figs. 2a – 2c one reminds that in $`\tau `$-frame (where the propagators look like (6)) covariant harmonic derivatives $`^{++},^{}`$ coincide with standard harmonic derivatives . Then, the commutation relations $`[^{++},𝒟_A^+]=0`$ with $`𝒟_A^+`$ be either vector or spinor covariant derivative take place in any frame . At the same time we pay attention to the fact that $`[𝒟_\gamma ^+,𝒟_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=iϵ_{\gamma \alpha }\overline{𝒟}_{\dot{\alpha }}^+\overline{𝒲}`$. Therefore one can put $`[𝒟_\gamma ^+,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}]=0`$ in the sector of non-holomorphic effective potential.

Let us consider the supergraphs given by Figs.2a – 2c in more details. The contribution from the supergraph given at Fig.2a is equal to (see (6))

$`I_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^8\theta _1d^8\theta _2{\displaystyle }du_1du_2du_3dw_1dw_2dw_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}\delta _{12}^8(𝒟_2^+)^4(𝒟_3^+)^4\delta _{12}^8V^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)\times `$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(u_1^+u_2^+)(u_2^+u_3^+)(u_1^+u_3^+)(w_1^+w_2^+)(w_2^+w_3^+)(w_1^+w_3^+)}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(2,2)}(u_2,w_2)\delta ^{(2,2)}(u_3,w_3)`$
We take into account that $`𝒟^+`$ commutes with $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ and use the relation
$`\delta _{12}^8(𝒟_2^+)^4(𝒟_3^+)^4\delta _{12}^8=(u_2^+u_3^+)^4\delta _{12}^8`$. Integration over $`w_2`$ and $`w_3`$ leads to

$`I_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^8\theta 𝑑u_1𝑑u_2𝑑u_3𝑑w_1\frac{1}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}V^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)\frac{(u_2^+u_3^+)^2}{(u_1^+u_2^+)(u_1^+u_3^+)(w_1^+u_2^+)(w_1^+u_3^+)}}`$ (16)
This expression coincides with the result obtained in , the only difference consists in presence of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{}`$. However since superfield strength $`𝒲`$ does not depend on harmonic coordinates we can carry out the trick which was used in . We express $`(u_2^+u_3^+)^2`$ as $`D_2^{++}D_3^{++}[(u_2^{}u_3^{})(u_2^+u_3^+)]`$ and integrate by parts to transfer $`D_2^{++}D_3^{++}`$ to other terms of $`I_a`$. After that the $`I_a`$ takes the form

$`I_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^8\theta 𝑑u_1𝑑w_1\frac{1}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}V^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)\frac{u_1^+w_1^{}}{u_1^+w_1^+}}`$ (17)
Analogous consideration allows to show that contributions from supergraphs given by Fig.2b, Fig.2c are respectively equal to

$`I_b`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle d^8\theta 𝑑u_1𝑑w_1\frac{1}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}V^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)\frac{(u_1^+w_1^{})(u_1^{}w_1^+)}{(u_1^+w_1^+)^2}}`$ (18)
and

$`I_c`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle d^8\theta 𝑑u_1𝑑w_1\frac{1}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}}}V^{++}(1)V^{++}(2)\frac{1}{(u_1^+w_1^+)^2}}`$ (19)
Here $`V^{++}(1)`$, $`V^{++}(2)`$ are external gauge lines (which are contracted to some systems of propagators or vertices in multiloop supergraphs containing graphs given at Fig.2a – Fig.2c as subdiagrams). These contributions are analogous to corresponding expressions given in  with the only difference in presence of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{}`$. It is evident that $`I_1+I_2+I_3=0`$ in accordance with , i.e. these supergraphs cancel each other in sector of constant background fields. This effect provides vanishing of sum of supergraphs given by Fig. 3a – Fig. 3c, Fig. 4a – Fig. 4c and Fig. 5.

We note that vanishing of this sum is caused by $`N=4`$ supersymmetry and does not depend on structure of (Abelian) gauge group. Therefore such a situation is common for any $`SU(n)`$ gauge group broken down to its maximal Abelian subgroup independently of value of $`n`$.

Let us return back to the supergraphs given by Fig. 1a. Each supergraph has some combinatoric factor. The straightforward calculations show that they are proportional to each other with the coefficients 1/2 or 1 which are written near the corresponding supergraphs. We call these coefficients the relative factors.

The supergraphs given by Fig. 1a can be equivalently regroupped into the sets of $`N=4`$ superpartners as shown on Figs. 3a - 3c where the relative factors are also written near the supergraphs. All supergraphs on Fig. 3a are $`N=4`$ superpartners as well as the supergraphs on Figs. 3b, 3c respectivelly. As a result one gets the three sets of the $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs. Each such a set can be studied by the same methos as the supergraphs on Figs. 2a - 2c. It leads to conclusion that sum of the contributions of the supergraphs in every set is equal to zero.

$`\frac{1}{2}`$   $`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`Fig.3a`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`\frac{1}{2}`$   $`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`Fig.3b`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`\frac{1}{2}`$   $`\frac{1}{2}`$ $`Fig.3c`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$

Now we turn to remaining three-loop supergraphs including six propagators which are given by Fig. 1b. There are also two pairs of supergraphs analogous to this pair, they include ghost and gauge propagators instead of matter propagators. After $`D`$-algebra transformations contributions of both these supergraphs and their analogs in which matter loop is replaced by gauge and ghost loop respectively turn to be proportional to the following integral over internal momenta:

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`tr{\displaystyle }d^8\theta {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3}{(2\pi )^{12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_2^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_3^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((k_1+k_2)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_1+k_3)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_2+k_3)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}`$
Here $`tr`$ is a matrix trace. We use the expression for $`N=2`$ background superfield strength in the form (8), the operator $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}`$ in the form (9). The integral in the expression (20) is formally logarithmically divergent (although supergraphs without matter legs and legs including derivatives of gauge strengths have superficial degree of divergence equal to zero , the corresponding divergences vanish due to supersymmetry). Therefore we carry out dimensional regularization via changing integration over $`d^4k_i`$ by integration over $`d^{4+ϵ}k_i`$ (with $`i=1,2,3`$). Straightforward calculation of $`J`$ leads to the result

$`J=tr{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(16\pi ^2)^3}}{\displaystyle d^8\theta (\frac{2}{ϵ}+\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2}))}`$ (21)
However pole part vanishes due to known properties of integration over anticommuting variables (see f.e. ). Since $`𝒲,\overline{𝒲}`$ are the diagonal matrices they commute with each other, and we can use identity $`d^8\theta \mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2})=d^8\theta (\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲}{\mu })+\mathrm{log}(\frac{\overline{𝒲}}{\mu }))`$. This expression vanishes due to chirality of $`𝒲`$. Therefore the supergraphs given by Fig. 1b give zero contribution. The same situation takes place for analogous supergraphs where the matter propagators are replaced by gauge and ghost ones. Hence we conclude that three-loop contribution to non-holomorphic effective potential is equal to zero.

Now let us consider four-loop supergraphs. It turns to be that the situation we observed at three-loop order takes place also at four-loop order, i.e. each supergraph either has $`N=4`$ superpartners sum together with which it is equal to zero or gives the contribution proportional to $`d^{12}z\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2})=0`$.

First of all, at four-loop order we get two systems of supergraphs given by Figs. 4.1 – 4.6 and Fig.5 which can be separated into sets of $`N=4`$ superpartners. The straightforward calculations show that the combinatoric factors of different supergraphs at Figs. 4.1-4.6 are proportional to each other with the relative factors 1 or 1/2. These factors are written near of each supergraph.

$`Fig\mathrm{.4.1}`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$    $`Fig\mathrm{.4.2}`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$    $`Fig\mathrm{.4.3}`$  $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`Fig\mathrm{.4.4}`$ $`1`$     $`Fig\mathrm{.4.5}`$ $`1`$     $`Fig\mathrm{.4.6}`$ $`1`$

The scheme of separation of supergraphs given by Fig. 4.1 – Fig. 4.6 into sets of $`N=4`$ superpartners is given by Fig. 4a – Fig. 4c where the relative factor is also manifestly shown near corresponding supergraph. We again get three sets of the $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs as in three-loop case (see Figs. 3a - 3c). Each line on the Figs. 4a – 4c contains the superpartner supergraphs.

$`\frac{1}{2}`$     $`\frac{1}{2}`$  $`Fig.4a`$    $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`\frac{1}{2}`$     $`\frac{1}{2}`$  $`Fig.4b`$    $`\frac{1}{2}`$

$`\frac{1}{2}`$     $`\frac{1}{2}`$  $`Fig.4c`$    $`\frac{1}{2}`$

It is evident that the total contribution of the supergraphs given by Figs. 4a – 4c is equal to that one of the supergraphs given by Figs. 4.1 – 4.6. Since the supergraphs within every set are the superpartners their total contribution vanishes. It is proved by the same method as three loop order.

Another system of $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs at four-loop order is given by Fig.5.

$`Fig.5`$

Since these supergraphs are $`N=4`$ superpartners, it is easy to see that sum of contributions of these supergraphs is equal to zero.

The remaining four-loop supergraphs with eight propagators are given by Figs. 6a – 6c.

$`Fig.6a`$    $`Fig.6b`$      $`Fig.6c`$

The contributions of these supergraphs after $`D`$-algebra transformations are proportional to the following integrals over internal momenta respectively:

$`J_{6a}`$ $`=`$ $`tr{\displaystyle }d^8\theta {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3d^4k_4}{(2\pi )^{16}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_2^2+W\overline{W})(k_3^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((k_1+k_2)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_1+k_2+k_3)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_1+k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_4^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_2+k_3k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}`$
$`J_{6b}`$ $`=`$ $`tr{\displaystyle }d^8\theta {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3d^4k_4}{(2\pi )^{16}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_2^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_3^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((k_1+k_2)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_1+k_3)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_3+k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_4^2+W\overline{W})((k_1+k_3+k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}`$
$`J_{6c}`$ $`=`$ $`tr{\displaystyle }d^8\theta {\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k_1d^4k_2d^4k_3d^4k_4}{(2\pi )^{16}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_1^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_2^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})(k_3^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((k_1+k_2)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_2+k_3)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_2+k_3k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}\times `$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_4^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})((k_1+k_2+k_4)^2+𝒲\overline{𝒲})}}`$
After dimensional regularization and integration the $`J_{6a}`$, $`J_{6b}`$, $`J_{6c}`$ turn to be equal to

$`J_{6a}=J_{6b}=J_{6c}=tr{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(16\pi ^2)^4}}{\displaystyle d^8\theta (\frac{2}{ϵ}+\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2}))}`$ (23)
This expression is completely analogous to (21). As a result we get the same conclusion. Each of supergraphs given by Figs. 6a – 6c is proportional to $`d^{12}z\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2})`$ where $`𝒲`$ is diagonal matrix of the form (8) and $`\overline{𝒲}`$ is its conjugate. The same situation takes place for the analogous supergraphs where the matter superpropagators are replaced by gauge and ghost ones. Hence their contributions also vanish. By the way, we convinced that terms of the form $`\frac{𝒲_a𝒲_b}{𝒲_c𝒲_d}`$ supposed in  do not arise in non-holomorphic effective potential at least at three and four loops.

We investigated all four-loop supergraphs including eight internal lines. Namely for this number of superpropagators all $`D`$-factors are used for contracting loops to points in $`\theta `$-space. The four-loop supergraphs with nine superpropagators are also present but after $`D`$-algebra transformations in such supergraphs the extra factor $`(𝒟^+)^4`$ remains. It can act only on background superfield strengths. Therefore four-loop supergraphs with nine propagators cannot contribute to non-holomorphic effective potential.

To conclude, we have considered three- and four-loop supergarphs contributing to non-holomorphic effective potential and proved that only two situations are possible for these supergraphs: (i) either contribution of this supergraph is proportional to $`d^{12}z\mathrm{log}(\frac{𝒲\overline{𝒲}}{\mu ^2})`$, and such a structure vanishes due to properties of integral in superspace (ii) or such a supergraph has $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs, and sum of contribution from three $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs is equal to zero because of $`N=4`$ supersymmetry. This result is common for any unitary gauge group broken down to its maximally symmetric torus since vanishing of sum of superpartner supergraphs is caused only by $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, not by structure of gauge group.

We found that the mechanism of vanishing of corrections to non-holomorphic effective potential at three-loop order essentially differs from that one at two loops. Absence of two-loop contributions is stipulated only by $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. $`N=4`$ supersymmetry begins to work efficiently at three loops and higher and manifests itself by means of $`N=4`$ superpartner supergraphs. However we proved that the situation at four loops is completely analogous to one in the previous order. The mechanism of vanishing the three- and four-loop contributions to non-holomorphic effective potential looks like very generic and one can expect that it works at any loop.

Detailed study of the structure of above three- and four- loop supergraphs and explicit results of their calculations will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgements. The authors are glad to acknowledge S.M. Kuzenko for valuable discissions and remarks and A.A. Tseytlin for interest to the work and remarks. The work was supported in part by the RFBR grant 99-02-16617, by the DFG-RFBR grant 99-02-04022, by the INTAS grant No 96-0308 and by GRACENAS grant 97-6.2-34. I.L.B. is grateful to the NATO research grant PST.CLG 974965, to the FAPESP grant and to Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo for hospitality.