format: text

text:
# References

NIKHEF 2003-002

UVIC-TH/02-03

Singular supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-models

T.S. Nyaweloa, F. Riccionib, J.W. van Holtenc

NIKHEF

PO Box 41882

1009 DB Amsterdam

The Netherlands

S. Groot Nibbelinkd

(CITA National Fellow)

Univ. of Victoria, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy

PO Box 3055 STN CSC

Victoria BC, V8W 3P6

Canada

Febr. 2, 2003

Abstract
Supersymmetric non–linear $`\sigma `$–models are described by a field dependent Kähler metric determining the kinetic terms. In general it is not guaranteed that this metric is always invertible. Our aim is to investigate the symmetry structure of supersymmetric models in four dimensional space-time in which metric singularities occur. For this purpose we study a simple anomaly-free extension of the supersymmetric $`CP^1`$ model from a classical point of view. We show that the metric singularities can be regularized by the addition of a soft supersymmetry-breaking mass parameter.

a e-mail: tinosn@nikhef.nl
b e-mail: fabio@nikhef.nl
c e-mail: v.holten@nikhef.nl
d e-mail: grootnib@uvic.ca

1. Introduction

The scalar fields of supersymmetric $`\sigma `$–models in four dimensions take values in Kähler manifolds . In some supersymmetric field theories the Kähler metric develops a zero mode; then the model becomes singular in the sense that some of the kinetic terms vanish in the vacuum state, and correspondingly some couplings diverge. The central issue we want to investigate in this paper is how to treat supersymmetric field theories in which these types of complications occur. This analysis is in particular relevant for supersymmetric non-linear $`\sigma `$–model building based on homogeneous Kählerian cosets $`G/H`$ .

Supersymmetric pure $`\sigma `$–models on cosets, including among others the grassmannian models on $`SU(n+m)/[SU(n)\times SU(m)\times U(1)]`$ and the models on manifolds $`SO(2n)/U(n)`$, are known to be anomalous , since they incorporate chiral fermions in non-trivial representations of the holonomy group. These anomalies can be removed by coupling additional chiral superfields carrying specific line-bundle representations of the group $`G`$ . In a study of anomaly-free extended supersymmetric $`\sigma `$–models on coset manifolds of the type $`SO(2n)/U(n)`$, it was found that the resulting field metric can develop singularities in the form of zero-modes, and therefore may not be positive definite . Indeed, upon gauging all or part of the isometry group the $`D`$-term potential sometimes forces the scalar fields to take vacuum expectation values at the geometric singularities of field space.

In order to gain an understanding of this situation, in this paper we study an anomaly-free extension of the $`d=4`$ supersymmetric $`CP^1`$-model, where the scalar fields take values in $`SU(2)/U(1)`$, and some of the isometries are gauged. In addition to the chiral multiplet parametrizing the coset manifold, anomaly cancellation requires the inclusion of other chiral multiplets. The simplest choice corresponds to a single supermultiplet with the scalar component defining a section of a complex line bundle. We couple these matter multiplets to a gauge multiplet, focussing in particular on the case where the full $`SU(2)`$ isometry group is gauged. If one considers the most general Kähler potential corresponding to this geometry, one realizes that depending on the parameters, the resulting metric can vanish for particular values of the scalars. Moreover, in many cases the potential drives the scalars to a vacuum value exactly at these singular points. At this singularity, some of the four-fermi couplings explode, while the mass terms for the fermions stay in general finite.

Singularities can occur in two places: either the kinetic term of the scalar parametrizing $`CP^1`$ or the kinetic term of the scalars parametrizing the section of the line bundle can vanish in the vacuum. When the two singularities occur at the same point, the vacuum preserves both supersymmetry and the whole $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we describe the isometry structure of the scalar manifold, and we show how a generic choice of the Kähler potential leads to geometrical singularities. In Section 3 we describe the gauged version of the anomaly-free $`CP^1`$-model. In section 4 we classify the possible vacua, discussing general consequences for the gauge symmetries and particle spectra. Section 5 discusses a modification of the model containing a soft supersymmetry breaking mass term which preserves the full non-linear $`SU(2)`$. The mass term acts as a regulator, as it displaces the vacuum away from the singular point. The particle spectrum in this regulated model is computed and shown to be sensitive to the behaviour of the Kähler potential in the limit of small regulator mass. In section 6 we present some examples, showing that the various types of behaviour of the spectra in the limit of small regulator mass can all be realized in actual models. In section 7 we summarize our results. In the two appendices we present our notation and we give the complete expressions for the lagrangeans both off-shell and in the unitary gauge.

2. The model

We consider a simple supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-model, in which the vanishing of kinetic terms occurs in a restricted subset of the parameter domain. The model is based on the supersymmetric $`CP^1`$-model, where the scalar fields take values in $`SU(2)/U(1)`$. As the pure supersymmetric $`CP^1`$ model in four dimensions is anomalous, we include another chiral multiplet, transforming as a contravariant vector on the $`CP^1`$ manifold. The complete field content of the model is therefore specified by a complex scalar superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(z,\psi _L,H)`$ and a second complex scalar superfield $`A=(a,\phi _L,B)`$. These superfields define representations of the isometry group $`SU(2)`$; on the scalar fieldsthey take the infinitesimal form

$$\delta z=ϵ+i\theta z+\overline{ϵ}z^2,\delta a=i\theta a2\overline{ϵ}za.$$
(1)
Here $`\theta `$ is the parameter of $`U(1)`$ phase transformations, and $`(ϵ,\overline{ϵ})`$ are the complex parameters of the broken off-diagonal $`SU(2)`$ transformations. We take the fields $`z`$ and $`a`$ to be dimensionless; dimensionful fields are obtained by introducing a parameter $`f`$ with the dimension of inverse mass (in natural units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$), and making the replacements

$$zfz,afa,$$
(2)
and similarly for other fields to be introduced. The infinitesimal transformations of such other field components (chiral spinors, auxiliary fields) are found by requiring the isometries to commute with supersymmetry . Observe, that the opposite linear $`U(1)`$ transformations of the multiplets are precisely as required for cancellation of the isometry anomalies.

The dimensionless $`CP^1`$ Kähler potential

$$K_\sigma (\overline{z},z)=\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{z}z)$$
(3)
is invariant under the isometry transformations (1) up to the real part of a holomorphic function:

$$\delta K_\sigma (\overline{z},z)=F(z)+\overline{F}(\overline{z}),F(z;\theta ,\overline{ϵ})=\frac{i}{2}\theta +\overline{ϵ}z.$$
(4)
The transformations of the scalar $`a`$ can therefore be rewritten as

$$\delta a=2F(z;\theta ,\overline{ϵ})a.$$
(5)
It follows, that the dimensionless real scalar

$$X=\overline{a}ae^{2K_\sigma (\overline{z},z)}=\overline{a}a(1+\overline{z}z)^2,$$
(6)
is an invariant under the full set of isometries. With this observation in mind, we take as the starting point for our supersymmetric model a Kähler potential

$$K(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi };\overline{A},A)=K_\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi })+K_m(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi };\overline{A},A)=\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })+K_m(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(7)
with $`K_m(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ a real function of the real superfield

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{A}Ae^{2K_\sigma (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi })},$$
(8)
of which the real scalar quantity $`X`$ is the lowest component. The kinetic terms of scalars and chiral spinors in the action are then given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }K(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},\mathrm{\Phi };\overline{A},A)=d^4xG_{I\underset{¯}{I}}\left(\overline{Z}^{\underset{¯}{I}}Z^I+\overline{\psi }_L^{\underset{¯}{I}}\stackrel{}{D/}\psi _L^I\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(9)
Here $`Z^I=(z,a)`$ and $`\psi _L^I=(\psi _L,\phi _L)`$, $`I=(z,a)`$, denote the scalar and spinor components of the respective superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I=(\mathrm{\Phi },A)`$, and the dots represent four-fermion interactions. The full component action and its derivation are presented in appendices A and B. The Kähler metric in field space is obtained from the Kähler potential:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{I\underset{¯}{I}}=\frac{^2K}{Z^I\overline{Z}^{\underset{¯}{I}}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2M(X)+4\overline{z}zXM^{}(X)}{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}& 2a\overline{z}(1+\overline{z}z)M^{}(X)\\ & \\ 2\overline{a}z(1+\overline{z}z)M^{}(X)& (1+\overline{z}z)^2M^{}(X)\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where we have introduced the $`SU(2)`$-invariant function $`M(X)`$ defined in terms of $`K_m(X)`$ as

$$M(X)=\frac{1}{2}+XK_m^{}(X).$$
(11)
The primes in the equations denote derivatives w.r.t. $`X`$. The determinant of the metric is

$$detG_{I\underset{¯}{I}}=2M^{}(X)M(X).$$
(12)
Positive definite kinetic terms are obtained if both

$$M(X)>0,M^{}(X)>0.$$
(13)
We then have a standard non-linear field theory, which is well-behaved below a cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝒪(1/f^2)`$, the parameter determining the characteristic scale of the Kähler manifold.

In contrast, if one of the two factors is negative: $`detG<0`$, the theory contains ghosts and is inconsistent. If one of the two factors vanishes, we have critical case and we must resort to some regularization in order to investigate if the model still allows for some physically interesting interpretation. Observe however, that with the given field content it is not possible to construct an $`SU(2)`$-invariant superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi }^I)`$. With such a flat potential the vacuum expectation values of the scalar fields are undetermined, but it is natural to suppose they are to be fixed in the region where the model is well behaved according to the criterion of eq. (13).

It is important to stress that the vanishing of the kinetic terms for the scalar fields corresponds to the divergence of some four-fermi couplings in the lagrangian, once one solves the equations for the auxiliary fields (see Appendix A for the details). The four–fermion interactions take the general form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_{4fermi}=K_{z\overline{z}z\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+K_{a\overline{a}a\overline{a}}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R\hfill & & \\ & & \\ +\{K_{z\overline{z}a\overline{a}}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R+\mathrm{perm}.\},\hfill & & \end{array}$$

with the curvature components given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}K_{z\overline{z}z\overline{z}}=4M+8M^{}X,\hfill & & \\ & & \\ K_{a\overline{a}a\overline{a}}=M^{\prime \prime }+XM^{\prime \prime \prime }X\frac{M_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}}{M^{}},\hfill & & \\ & & \\ K_{z\overline{z}a\overline{a}}=2M^{}+2XM^{\prime \prime }2X\frac{M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{M}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(14)
The last term in eq. (S0.Ex1) is short-hand for four combinations with two $`\psi `$’s and two $`\phi `$’s which contribute to the four-fermion terms. From the expressions (14) it follows, that subsets of the four-fermion terms diverge at the kinetic singularities.

3. The gauged $`CP^1`$-model

The critical case is of importance when the isometry group of the model is gauged. As well-known, the gauging of the supersymmetric model involves several steps:
\- modification of the kinetic terms by introducing gauge-covariant derivatives;
\- addition of a $`D`$-term potential;
\- addition of Yukawa couplings for the fermions;
\- introduction of kinetic terms for the gauge superfields.
A simplification occurs however, because in the model with broken local $`SU(2)`$ the Goldstone bosons are absorbed completely in the longitudinal components of the massive charged vector bosons, and we can analyze the model in the unitary gauge $`\overline{z}=z=0`$, with $`X=\overline{a}a`$. In this gauge the metric (10) is automatically diagonal:

$$G_{I\underset{¯}{I}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2M(X)& 0\\ 0& M^{}(X)\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The expressions for the gauge-covariant derivatives of the complex scalar fields read

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D_\mu z\hfill & =\hfill & _\mu zigA_\mu z\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left(W_\mu ^++W_\mu ^{}z^2\right)\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}W_\mu ^+,\hfill \\ & & \\ D_\mu a\hfill & =\hfill & _\mu a+igA_\mu a+\sqrt{2}gW_\mu ^{}za_\mu a+igA_\mu a,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
whilst the covariant derivatives of the fermions become

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D_\mu \psi _L\hfill & =\hfill & _\mu \psi _LigA_\mu \psi _L\sqrt{2}gW_\mu ^{}z\psi _L_\mu \psi _LigA_\mu \psi _L\hfill \\ & & \\ D_\mu \phi _L\hfill & =\hfill & _\mu \phi _L+igA_\mu \phi _L+\sqrt{2}gW_\mu ^{}(z\phi _L+a\psi _L)\hfill \\ & & \\ & \hfill & _\mu \phi _L+igA_\mu \phi _L+\sqrt{2}gW_\mu ^{}a\psi _L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The last expression on each line is the one in the unitary gauge. We have introduced the notation $`W_\mu ^\pm `$ for the charged gauge fields corresponding to the broken $`SU(2)`$ transformations parametrized by $`(ϵ,\overline{ϵ})`$; $`A_\mu `$ is the gauge field of the $`U(1)`$ transformations. Note, that for the unitary gauge to be valid, we must assume that the charged vector bosons are massive, i.e. $`M(X)>0`$. In the critical case $`M(X)=0`$ the charged vector bosons become massless again, and the choice of the unitary gauge is not allowed.

Next we discuss the $`D`$-term potential. First we recall, that the isometries (1) can be obtained locally as gradients of a set of real Killing potentials, defined by

$$(\theta ,ϵ,\overline{ϵ})=\frac{\theta (1\overline{z}z)+2i(ϵ\overline{z}\overline{ϵ}z)}{1+\overline{z}z}M(X).$$
(18)
Indeed, the variations (1) are given by

$$\delta Z^I=iG^{I\underset{¯}{I}}\frac{M}{\overline{Z}^{\underset{¯}{I}}}.$$
(19)
Now the auxiliary $`D`$-fields couple to these Killing potentials, and after elimination of the $`D`$-fields the potential for the model with fully gauged $`SU(2)`$ becomes

$$V_D=\frac{g^2}{2}\frac{}{ϵ}\frac{}{\overline{ϵ}}+\frac{g^2}{2}\left(\frac{}{\theta }\right)^2=\frac{g^2}{2}M^2(X).$$
(20)
Finally, we also have to introduce kinetic terms for the gauge fields. They are of the canonical form

$$_{gauge}=\frac{1}{2}F^+(W)F^{}(W)\frac{1}{4}F^2(A).$$
(21)
In this expression the quadratic terms for the auxiliary $`D`$-fields have been left out, their elimination giving rise to the scalar potential (20). For the full action, including the fermionic terms required by supersymmetry, we again refer to appendix B, eqs. (82) and (87).

4. Analysis of the particle spectrum

We begin our analysis of the particle content of the model by studying the bosonic part of the $`CP^1`$-model, which up to the kinetic terms for the gauge bosons is described by the action

$$_B=g^2M(X)W^+W^{}M^{}(X)|Da|^2\frac{g^2}{2}M^2(X).$$
(22)
The vacuum expectation value of the scalar field $`a`$ is derived by minimizing the potential, which leads to the condition

$$M(X)M^{}(X)a=0.$$
(23)
It is clear that a priori there may be three ways to solve this equation:
(a) $`a=0`$ is always a solution.
(b) There may be a value $`a=a_0`$ such that $`M_0^{}=M^{}(X_0)=0`$; if the potential reaches its minimum here, then the model is critical in the sense discussed above, and we have to be careful in the analysis of the physical realization of the theory.
(c) The solution $`M_0=M(X_0)=0`$ is also logically allowed; it implies that the charged vector bosons become massless. It may happen that at the same time $`X_0M^{}(X_0)=0`$; then all $`SU(2)`$ gauge bosons become massless and the full gauge symmetry is restored. In that case the complex scalars $`(z,\overline{z})`$ are no longer Goldstone bosons, and the unitary gauge can not be used to eliminate them. We also observe, that if the solution $`M_0=0`$ exists, it is necessarily the absolute minimum of the potential: $`V_0=0`$, and supersymmetry is apparently restored as well. Of course, the standard way to describe a situation in which the gauge symmetry is restored, is to reformulate the physics in terms of linear representations of the gauge symmetry.

Assuming therefore that supersymmetry is broken and $`M_0>0`$, it depends on the precise form of $`M(X)`$ which solution is the true minimium of the potential; actually, it can happen that both conditions hold simultaneously. Quite generally, we can derive the linearized field equation for fluctuations around the vacuum, by making the expansion

$$a=a_0+\sqrt{Z_a}\delta a,$$
(24)
where the normalization factor $`Z_a`$ is still to be determined. With $`a_0`$ a solution of eq. (23), the quadratic part of the action for the linearized field fluctuations becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{lin}\hfill & =\hfill & g^2M_0W^+W^{}g^2X_0M_0^{}A_\mu ^2Z_aM_0^{}|_\mu \delta a|^2\frac{g^2}{2}M_0^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & g^2Z_aM_0M_0^{}|\delta a|^2\frac{g^2Z_a}{2}\left(M_0M_0^{\prime \prime }+M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)\left(\overline{a}_0\delta a+a_0\delta \overline{a}\right)^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
First we consider the solution (a): $`a_0=0`$ with $`M^{}(0)>0`$. Taking $`Z_a=1/M^{}(0)`$ we get a canonically normalized model for the fluctuating field, satisfying in the linearized limit a Klein-Gordon equation

$$\left(\mathrm{}+m_a^2\right)\delta a=0,$$
(26)
with the mass given by

$$m_a^2=g^2M(0)=\frac{g^2}{2}.$$
(27)
This conclusion can be extended to the case $`M^{}(0)=0`$, although $`Z_a`$ diverges in that case, because mass and kinetic terms are than rescaled by the same infinite normalization factor, and the mass remains finite. In fact, from eq.(S0.Ex1) it turns out that also the four-fermion terms stay finite in this case.

In contrast, in case (b) with $`X_0=|a_0|^2>0`$ and $`M_0^{}=0`$, some contributions to the mass terms of the scalars $`\delta a`$ in eq. (25) generally diverge. This indicates that one of the degrees of freedom does not describe a propagating particle: it decouples from the spectrum of states. In all cases, when $`X_0M_0^{}=0`$, the mass of the $`U(1)`$ gauge boson vanishes.

Returning to the possibility (a) with unbroken $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry, the mass spectrum of the bosons is well-defined and can be read off from the action (25); they are summarized in table 1 below:

| mass | $`m_a^2`$ | $`m_A^2`$ | $`m_W^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| value | $`g^2M(0)=g^2/2`$ | 0 | $`g^2M(0)=g^2/2`$ |

Table 1: Boson mass spectrum for $`X_0=0`$

Next we turn to the spectrum of fermions. With $`U(1)`$ not broken, the fermions must fall into charged states. A positively charged Dirac fermion is formed by the quasi-Goldstone fermion $`\psi _L`$ and the gaugino $`\lambda _R^+`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{2M_0}\psi _L+\lambda _R^+,$$
(28)
whereas the remaining fermions $`\overline{\phi }_L`$, $`\lambda _L^{}`$ and $`\lambda _R`$ remain massless. The mass of the Dirac fermion (28) is $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2=2g^2M(0)=g^2`$. A straightforward calculation shows, that in the scenario with manifest non-broken $`U(1)`$ the standard supertrace formula for the mass spectrum is satisfied:

$$\text{Str}m^2=\underset{J}{}(1)^{2J}(2J+1)m_J^2=0.$$
(29)
5. Softly broken supersymmetry

As eq. (23) with $`X_0>0`$ implies that $`M_0M_0^{}=0`$, the phase with spontaneosuly broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry is always critical. The analysis of the theory is then complicated by the appearance of infinities at the classical level. However, a completely finite theory is obtained by adding an $`SU(2)`$-invariant soft supersymmetry breaking scalar mass term $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(X)=\mu ^2X`$ to the potential. In the following we take the point of view that the critical model is the limit of this regulated theory when the soft mass term is taken to vanish.

With the addition of the regulator mass term, the full potential becomes

$$V(X)=V_D(X)+\mathrm{\Delta }V(X)=\frac{g^2}{2}M^2(X)\mu ^2X.$$
(30)
As a result the minimum of the potential is shifted to the position where

$$g^2M^{}Ma=\mu ^2a.$$
(31)
Then either $`a_0=0`$ and $`U(1)`$ is not broken, as discussed previously; or $`U(1)`$ is broken, $`X_0=|a_0|^2>0`$ and

$$g^2M_0^{}M_0=\mu ^2.$$
(32)
Hence the soft supersymmetry breaking term shifts the vacuum of the model away from the critical point. Taking the broken $`U(1)`$ invariance into account, we parametrize the complex scalar field $`a`$ as

$$a=\left(\sqrt{X_0}+\sqrt{\frac{Z_h}{2}}h\right)e^{i\sqrt{Z_\theta /2}\theta },$$
(33)
where again $`Z_h`$ and $`Z_\theta `$ are normalization constants to be fixed such that we obtain canonically normalized kinetic terms. The bosonic terms in the action then become in the unitary gauge

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{bos}\hfill & =\hfill & g^2M_0W^+W^{}\frac{Z_hM_0^{}}{2}(_\mu h)^2\frac{Z_\theta X_0M_0^{}}{2}\left(_\mu \theta +g\sqrt{\frac{2}{Z_\theta }}A_\mu \right)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g^2}{2}M_0^2\mu ^2X_0\frac{g^2X_0}{M_0^{}}\left(M_0M_0^{\prime \prime }+M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)h^2+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & m_W^2W^+W^{}\frac{m_A^2}{2}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ^2V_0\frac{1}{2}(_\mu h)^2\frac{m_h^2}{2}h^2+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
where we have only written out the quadratic terms which determine the linearized field equations for the fluctuating part of the fields. To get the final result, we have taken

$$Z_h=\frac{1}{M_0^{}},Z_\theta =\frac{1}{X_0M_0^{}},$$
(35)
and

$$m_W^2=g^2M_0,m_A^2=2g^2X_0M_0^{},m_h^2=\frac{2g^2X_0}{M_0^{}}\left(M_0M_0^{\prime \prime }+M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right),$$
(36)
Also we have redefined the abelian vector field to absorb the Goldstone mode in the usual way:

$$A_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =A_\mu +\frac{1}{g}\sqrt{\frac{Z_\theta }{2}}_\mu \theta .$$
(37)
This is equivalent to the choice of unitary gauge for the broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Finally, as $`M_0`$ and $`M_0^{}`$ are related by (32), we can eliminate $`M_0`$, $`M_0^{}`$ and $`M_0^{\prime \prime }`$ and the $`U(1)`$ breaking parameter $`X_0`$ in favor of the physical parameters $`m_W^2`$, $`m_A^2`$, $`m_h^2`$ and the soft supersymmetry breaking parameter $`\mu ^2`$:

$$g^2M_0=m_W^2,M_0^{}=\frac{\mu ^2}{m_W^2},X_0=\frac{m_A^2m_W^2}{2g^2\mu ^2},M_0^{\prime \prime }=\frac{g^2\mu ^4}{m_A^2m_W^6}\left(m_h^2m_A^2\right).$$
(38)
For values $`\mu ^2>0`$ the model obviously describes massive charged and neutral vector bosons plus a massive real Higgs scalar $`h`$.

In the limit $`\mu ^20`$ we can now distinguish various possible scenarios:
a. If there is a number $`n>0`$ such that for small $`\mu `$ values $`X_0\mu ^{2n}`$, then the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is restored when the regulator mass vanishes; it also follows, that $`m_A^2m_W^2\mu ^{2(n+1)}`$. As $`X_00`$ implies that $`M_01/2`$, we find in this limit that $`m_W^2=g^2/2`$ is finite and non-zero. Therefore $`M^{}(0)\mu ^2`$, and $`m_A^2\mu ^{2(n+1)}`$, which vanishes in the limit $`\mu ^20`$ as expected when $`U(1)`$ is restored. The last relation (38) finally implies, that

$$m_h^2\mu ^{2(n1)}M^{\prime \prime }(0).$$
(39)
For finite $`M^{\prime \prime }(0)<\mathrm{}`$, the scalar mass then remains finite for $`n=1`$, and vanishes for $`n>1`$. For $`n<1`$ the scalar mass diverges. If $`M^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ itself vanishes as $`\mu ^p`$, $`p>0`$, these constraints can be further relaxed. The upshot is, that if $`X_0`$ vanishes at least as $`\mu ^2`$, then in the limit $`\mu ^20`$ we reobtain the results of section 4.
b. If in the supersymmetric limit of vanishing $`\mu ^2`$ the vacuum expectation value $`X_0>0`$, then the $`U(1)`$ symmetry remains broken. However, in the standard scenario with $`m_W^2>0`$ the $`U(1)`$ gauge boson is massless in the limit $`\mu ^20`$. This apparent contradiction is resolved by looking at the kinetic term for the Goldstone field: it turns out that in the limit its effective charge

$$g_{eff}=g\sqrt{\frac{2}{Z_\theta }}=m_A0.$$

Therefore in this case there is a decoupling: the $`U(1)`$ symmetry broken by $`X_0`$ is a global one, while the $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry remains unbroken. Finally the $`h`$-scalar mass becomes

$$m_h^2\frac{M_0^{\prime \prime }}{\mu ^2}.$$
(40)
Thus the scalar mass diverges, unless $`M_0^{\prime \prime }\mu ^p`$ with $`p2`$.

In contrast, if there is a number $`k>0`$ such that for small $`\mu `$ values $`M_0\mu ^{2k}`$, then $`m_W^20`$, and $`m_A^2\mu ^{2(1k)}`$. In this case one can not trust the limit $`\mu ^20`$ to describe the critical $`CP^1`$-model, as the restauration of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is expected to be accompanied by the reappearance of light bosons $`(z,\overline{z})`$, and it is no longer allowed to use the unitary gauge.

Nevertheless for finite $`\mu ^2`$ the regularized model is well-defined and the mass spectrum can be computed. First of all, $`m_A^2`$ becomes large for small $`\mu `$ when $`k>1`$; it is finite and $`\mu `$-independent for $`k=1`$, and it vanishes for $`k<1`$. Therefore the limit is well-behaved if $`k1`$. In that case the Higgs mass behaves as

$$m_h^2m_A^2\mu ^{2(2k1)}M_0^{\prime \prime }.$$
(41)
For finite $`M_0^{\prime \prime }`$ this implies that the masses remain finite if $`1/2k1`$. In particular, for $`k=1`$ we have $`m_h^2=m_A^2`$, both non-zero and finite. For $`k=1/2`$ $`m_h^2`$ can be finite non-zero whilst $`m_A^2=0`$.

Turning to the fermion sector, the quadratic part of the lagrangean is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{ferm}\hfill & =\hfill & 2M_0\overline{\psi }_L\stackrel{}{/}\psi _LM_0^{}\overline{\phi }_L\stackrel{}{/}\phi _L\overline{\lambda }_L\stackrel{}{/}\lambda _L\overline{\lambda }_L^+\stackrel{}{/}\lambda _L^{}\overline{\lambda }_L^{}\stackrel{}{/}\lambda _L^+\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +4gM_0\left(\overline{\lambda }_R^{}\psi _L+\overline{\psi }_L\lambda _R^+\right)+2ig\sqrt{2X_0}M_0^{}\left(\overline{\lambda }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\lambda _R\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
This is diagonalized by defining the Dirac spinors

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{2M_0}\psi _L+\lambda _R^+,\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{M_0^{}}\phi _Li\lambda _R.$$
(43)
In terms of these fields, the expression (42) becomes

$$_{ferm}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{}{/}\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{}{/}\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\lambda }_L^+\stackrel{}{/}\lambda _L^{}+2g\sqrt{2M_0}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }+2g\sqrt{2X_0M_0^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(44)
It follows, that we have the fermion mass spectrum as given in table 2:

| mass | $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2`$ | $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ | $`m_\lambda ^{}^2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| value | $`2g^2M_0`$ | $`2g^2X_0M_0^{}`$ | 0 |

Table 2: Fermion mass spectrum in the presence of soft supersymmetry breaking.

Combining the boson and fermion mass spectra we obtain a supertrace formula including soft supersymmetry breaking:

$$\text{Str}m^2=\frac{2g^2M_0}{M_0^{}}\left(M_0^{}X_0M_0^{\prime \prime }\right)=2m_W^2m_A^2+m_h^2.$$
(45)
In particular, if in the limit $`\mu ^20`$ the $`U(1)`$ symmetry remains broken: $`X_0>0`$, and if in this limit the model is well-behaved, there are numbers $`\omega ^2>0`$ and $`1/2k1`$ such that for small $`\mu ^2`$ to first approximation

$$\begin{array}{c}m_W^2=\omega ^2\mu ^{2k},m_A^2=\frac{2g^2X_0}{\omega ^2}\mu ^{2(1k)},\hfill \\ \\ m_h^2=\frac{2g^2X_0}{\omega ^2}\mu ^{2(1k)}\left(1+\frac{\omega ^6}{g^2}\mu ^{6k4}M_0^{\prime \prime }\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Then

$$\text{Str}m^2=2\omega ^2\mu ^{2k}+2\omega ^4X_0M_0^{\prime \prime }\mu ^{2(2k1)}\stackrel{\mu ^20}{}\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/2<k1;\hfill \\ 2\omega ^4X_0M_0^{\prime \prime },\hfill & \text{if }k=1/2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
In fact, the supertrace vanishes even for $`k>1`$, but that is because the difference $`m_h^2m_A^2`$ then vanishes, even though both masses diverge individually.

The results (45) and (47) can be compared with standard results for the supertrace formula . This provides an excellent check on our results, as in the general form the supertrace of the mass matrix is computed in a gauge-independent way. Specifically, from the general lagrangean (82) and (85) we obtain

$$\text{Str}m^2=\text{tr}\left(m_0^22m_{1/2}^2+3m_1^2\right)$$
(48)
with the traces of the mass matrices for the various spins given by

$$\text{tr}m_1^2=2g^2\left(M_0+X_0M_0^{}\right),$$
(49)
for the vectorbosons;

$$\text{tr}m_{1/2}^2=4g^2\left(M_0+X_0M_0^{}\right),$$
(50)
for the fermions; and finally

$$\text{tr}m_0^2=2G^{\underset{¯}{I}I}V_{,I\underset{¯}{I}}=\frac{2(M_0+X_0M_0^{})}{M_0M_0^{}}V_0^{}+\frac{2X_0V_0^{\prime \prime }}{M_0^{}}.$$
(51)
To obtain this result, we have used the general expression for $`G^{\underset{¯}{I}I}`$ in eq.(74) in appendix A. Now observing that by definition of the vacuum state $`X_0V_0^{}=0`$, and that

$$\frac{2X_0V_0^{\prime \prime }}{M_0^{}}=\frac{2g^2X_0}{M_0^{}}\left(M_0M_0^{\prime \prime }+M_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right),$$
(52)
the final expression for the supertrace of the mass matrix takes the form (45):

$$\text{Str}m^2=\frac{2g^2M_0}{M_0^{}}\left(X_0M_0^{\prime \prime }M_0^{}\right).$$
(53)
The regulator mass $`\mu ^2`$ does not appear explicitly in this expression, because it does not contribute to $`V^{\prime \prime }`$. Observe, that the result (53) even holds for $`X_0=0`$, due to the equality $`g^2M_0=\mu ^2/M_0^{}`$. Finally observe, that in this derivation we have not used the unitary gauge at all.

6. Examples

In this section we provide examples of models with the properties conjectured in sections 4 and 5.
1. Let

$$K_m(X)=\kappa _1X+\frac{\kappa _2}{2}X^2$$
(54)
Then

$$M(X)=\frac{1}{2}+\kappa _1X+\kappa _2X^2,M^{}(X)=\kappa _1+2\kappa _2X,M^{\prime \prime }(X)=2\kappa _2.$$
(55)
1.a If $`\kappa _1>0`$ and $`\kappa _20`$, then $`M(X)`$ and $`M^{}(X)`$ have no zeros for $`X0`$, and the potential reaches its minimum for $`X=0`$; it follows that the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is preserved, whilst supersymmetry is broken as described in section 4, eqs. (26) and (27).
1.b If $`\kappa _1>0`$ and $`\kappa _2<0`$, then $`M(X)`$ possesses a zero for

$$X_0=\frac{1}{\kappa _1\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{2|\kappa _2|}{\kappa _1^2}}1\right)}.$$
(56)
However, if we include the soft breaking term (30), we find that at the minimum $`M<0`$ and $`M^{}<0`$, and the latter condition remains true in the limit $`\mu ^20`$; hence the model contains tachyons. We do not consider this case further.
1.c If $`\kappa _1<0`$ and $`\kappa _2>0`$ with $`\kappa _1^2<2\kappa _2`$, then $`M(X)`$ has no zeros; however, $`M^{}(X)=0`$ at

$$X_0=\frac{|\kappa _1|}{2\kappa _2}<1M_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{\kappa _1^2}{2\kappa _2}\right).$$
(57)
This is the absolute minimum of the $`D`$-term potential. If we now include the soft supersymmetry breaking term with small $`\mu ^2`$, we have to first approximation

$$X_1=X_0+\mathrm{\Delta }X,M_1=M_0,M_1^{}=2\kappa _2\mathrm{\Delta }X,$$
(58)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X=\frac{\mu ^2}{2\kappa _2g^2M_0}=\frac{2\mu ^2}{g^2\left(2\kappa _2\kappa _1^2\right)}.$$
(59)
In this case the mass spectrum of bosons reads to first approximation

$$m_W^2=\frac{g^2}{2}\left(1\frac{\kappa _1^2}{2\kappa _2}\right),m_A^2=\frac{4\mu ^2|\kappa _1|}{2\kappa _2\kappa _1^2},m_h^2=\frac{g^4|\kappa _1|}{2\mu ^2}\left(1\frac{\kappa _1^2}{2\kappa _2}\right)^2.$$
(60)
For the fermions we obtain the masses

$$m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2=2m_W^2=g^2\left(1\frac{\kappa _1^2}{2\kappa _2}\right),m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2=m_A^2=\frac{2\mu ^2}{2\kappa _2\kappa _1^2},m_\lambda ^{}=0.$$
(61)
1.d If $`\kappa _1<0`$ and $`\kappa _2>0`$ with $`\kappa _1^2>2\kappa _2`$, then $`M(X)`$ has two zeros, at

$$X_\pm =\frac{1}{|\kappa _1|\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{2\kappa _2}{\kappa _1^2}}\right)}.$$
(62)
Again, including the soft breaking term the model contains tachyons at $`X_+`$. At $`X_{}`$ it is well-behaved, with

$$M_{}=0,M_{}^{}=|\kappa _1|\sqrt{1\frac{2\kappa _2}{\kappa _1^2}}.$$
(63)
The physical minimum of the potential now occurs at

$$X_1=X_{}+\mathrm{\Delta }X,$$
(64)
where to first approximation in $`\mu ^2`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X=\frac{\mu ^2}{g^2M_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},M_1=M_{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }X,M_1^{}=M_{}^{}.$$
(65)
It follows, that the bosonic mass spectrum in this approximation reads

$$m_W^2=\frac{\mu ^2}{M_{}^{}},m_h^2m_A^2=2g^2X_{}M_{}^{}=2g^2\frac{\sqrt{1\frac{2\kappa _2}{\kappa _1^2}}}{1\sqrt{1\frac{2\kappa _2}{\kappa _1^2}}}.$$
(66)
This corresponds to the results (46) with $`k=1`$ and $`\omega ^2=1/M_{}^{}`$. The fermionic mass spectrum becomes

$$m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2=2m_W^2=\frac{2\mu ^2}{M_{}^{}},m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2=m_A^2=2g^2X_{}M_{}^{},m_\lambda ^{}^2=0.$$
(67)
2. The above analysis is typical for models which do not have simultaneous zeros of $`M(X)`$ and its derivative $`M^{}(X)`$. If such simultanous zeros exist, as in the above model with $`2\kappa _2=\kappa _1^2`$, the analysis is changed. As a generic example, consider the model

$$M(X)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\kappa X1\right)^n,M^{}(X)=\frac{n\kappa }{2}\left(\kappa X1\right)^{n1}.$$
(68)
When $`n`$ is a positive integer, an $`n`$-fold zero of $`M(X)`$ occurs at $`X=1/\kappa `$; it is also an $`(n1)`$-fold zero of $`M^{}(X)`$. The minimum of the potential, including the soft breaking term, is at

$$\frac{n\kappa g^2}{4}\left(\kappa X1\right)^{2n1}=\mu ^2\left(\kappa X1\right)=\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n1}}.$$
(69)
It follows that at the minimum to lowest order in $`\mu ^2`$:

$$\kappa X_1=1+\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n1}},M_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2n1}},M_1^{}=\frac{n\kappa }{2}\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n1}{2n1}}.$$
(70)
Then the spectrum of boson masses becomes

$$m_W^2=\frac{g^2}{2}\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2n1}},m_A^2=ng^2\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n1}{2n1}},$$
(71)
with the Higgs mass to lowest order in $`\mu ^2`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}m_h^2=\frac{3}{2}m_A^2,\hfill & n=2,\hfill \\ & \\ m_h^2=m_A^2,\hfill & n>2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(72)
In all expressions we have kept only the terms of leading order in $`\mu ^2`$ for small $`\mu ^2`$. The fermion mass spectrum for these models reads

$$m_\mathrm{\Psi }^2=g^2\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{2n1}},m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2=ng^2\left(\frac{4\mu ^2}{n\kappa g^2}\right)^{\frac{n1}{2n1}},m_\lambda ^{}^2=0.$$
(73)
We observe, that in the limit $`\mu ^20`$ and for $`n`$ a positive integer, all masses vanish, even though $`X_0=1/\kappa `$ remains finite and non-zero. For $`n=1`$ the masses $`m_A^2=m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ are finite non-zero, whilst for $`1/2<n<1`$ they diverge.

7. Discussion

In this paper we have investigated non-linear $`\sigma `$-models with singular metrics, such that the kinetic terms of some fields vanish. Such models are for example supplied by gauged supersymmetric extensions of well-known coset-models.

We have shown by general arguments and by regularization based upon the addition of soft supersymmetry breaking terms to the potential, that different types of behavior are possible. For example, the subset of linear gauge symmetries can be realized manifestly, or in a spontaneously broken mode; this is reflected in the mass of the corresponding vector bosons.

In some cases the singularities imply the vanishing of all vector boson masses, which one expects to be accompanied by the reappearance of light bosons in the physical spectrum. However, this is difficult to show while staying in the original framework, as in particular it invalidates the use of the unitary gauge. Of course, one could abandon the present approach and return to ordinary Yang-Mills theories with matter in linear representations; however, a more sophisticated formulation of the present models is possible and may shed light on this issue .

Our treatment of the $`\sigma `$-model is based firmly on the classical action, although some features of our model were motivated by quantum aspects like the absence of holonomy and gauge anomalies. Higher order quantum corrections  may change the behavior of the models by renormalization of the Kähler potential.

Another extension of interest would be to study what happens if one only gauges the linear stability group, i.e. $`U(1)`$ in the $`CP^1`$-model. This changes the $`D`$-terms and allows for the introduction of a Fayet-Iliopoulos term. Therefore it is likely that such models offer less problems to obtain physically reasonable spectra of masses. In the present paper we have not analyzed this modification.

Finally, we have not studied in detail the issue of the appearance of tachyons in certain parameter ranges. The standard lore is that in this range the model is inconsistent.

Acknowledgements
For three of us (T.S.N., F.R. and J.W.v.H) this work is part of the research programme Theoretical Subatomic Physics (FP52) of the Foundation for Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM). S.G.N. acknowledges the support of CITA and NSERC.

Appendix A

In this appendix we collect some results for the Kähler metric and its derivatives. The metric is given in (10):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G_{I\underset{¯}{I}}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{^2K}{Z^I\overline{Z}^{\underset{¯}{I}}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{z\overline{z}}& G_{z\overline{a}}\\ G_{a\overline{z}}& G_{a\overline{a}}\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+2(1+2\overline{z}z)XK_m^{}+4\overline{z}zX^2K_m^{\prime \prime }}{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}& 2\overline{z}a(1+\overline{z}z)\left(K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }\right)\\ & \\ 2\overline{a}z(1+\overline{z}z)\left(K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }\right)& (1+\overline{z}z)^2\left(K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }\right)\end{array}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

with the inverse

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G^{\underset{¯}{I}I}\hfill & =\hfill & \left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}{1+2XK_m^{}}& \frac{2\overline{z}a(1+\overline{z}z)}{1+2XK_m^{}}\\ & \\ \frac{2\overline{a}z(1+\overline{z}z)}{1+2XK_m^{}}& \frac{1}{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}\left(\frac{1}{K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{4\overline{z}zX}{1+2XK_m^{}}\right)\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
We define the differential operators

$$=dZ^I\frac{}{Z^I}=dz\frac{}{z}+da\frac{}{a},\overline{}=\overline{Z}^I\frac{}{\overline{Z}^I}=d\overline{z}\frac{}{\overline{z}}+d\overline{a}\frac{}{\overline{a}},$$
(75)
such that $`d=+\overline{}`$. Their action on the variable $`X`$ is given by

$$X=\frac{2\overline{z}dz}{1+\overline{z}z}X+\overline{a}da(1+\overline{z}z)^2,\overline{}X=\frac{2zd\overline{z}}{1+\overline{z}z}X+ad\overline{a}(1+\overline{z}z)^2.$$
(76)
Applying these differential operators to the metric (10) we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G_{z\overline{z}}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{2\overline{z}dz}{(1+\overline{z}z)^3}\left[12(1+\overline{z}z)XK_m^{}(4+10\overline{z}z)X^2K_m^{\prime \prime }4\overline{z}zX^3K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +2\overline{a}da\left[(1+2\overline{z}z)K_m^{}+(1+6\overline{z}z)XK_m^{\prime \prime }+2\overline{z}zX^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right].\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{z\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & 2a\overline{z}^2dz\left[K_m^{}+5XK_m^{\prime \prime }+2X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +2\overline{z}da(1+\overline{z}z)\left[K_m^{}+3XK_m^{\prime \prime }+X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right].\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{a\overline{z}}\hfill & =\hfill & 2\overline{a}dz\left[(1+2\overline{z}z)K_m^{}+(1+6\overline{z}z)XK_m^{\prime \prime }+2\overline{z}zX^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +2z\overline{a}^2da(1+\overline{z}z)^3\left[2K_m^{\prime \prime }+XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{a\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & 2\overline{z}dz(1+\overline{z}z)\left[K_m^{}+3XK_m^{\prime \prime }+X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\overline{a}da(1+\overline{z}z)^4\left[2K_m^{\prime \prime }+XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(77)
and their complex conjugates. Next we compute the mixed second derivative of the metric components:

$$\overline{}G_{I\underset{¯}{I}}=d\overline{z}dzG_{I\underset{¯}{I},z\overline{z}}+d\overline{a}dzG_{I\underset{¯}{I},z\overline{a}}+d\overline{z}daG_{I\underset{¯}{I},a\overline{z}}+d\overline{a}daG_{I\underset{¯}{I},a\overline{a}}.$$
(78)
This gives the following results:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G_{z\overline{z},z\overline{z}}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{(1+\overline{z}z)^4}[2+4\overline{z}z+4(1+\overline{z}z)^2XK_m^{}+(8+64\overline{z}z+68(\overline{z}z)^2)X^2K_m^{\prime \prime }\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}\overline{z}z(2+5\overline{z}z)X^3K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+16(\overline{z}z)^2X^4K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }]\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{z\overline{z},a\overline{z}}\hfill & =\hfill & G_{a\overline{z},z\overline{z}}=[G_{z\overline{z},z\overline{a}}]^{}=[G_{z\overline{a},z\overline{z}}]^{}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & \frac{4\overline{a}z}{(1+\overline{z}z)}[(1+\overline{z}z)K_m^{}+(5+11\overline{z}z)XK_m^{\prime \prime }+(2+11\overline{z}z)X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{z}zX^3K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }]\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{z\overline{z},a\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & G_{z\overline{a},a\overline{z}}=G_{a\overline{z},z\overline{a}}=G_{a\overline{a},z\overline{z}}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & 2(1+2\overline{z}z)K_m^{}+2(3+14\overline{z}z)XK_m^{\prime \prime }+2(1+12\overline{z}z)X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+4\overline{z}zX^3K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{z\overline{a},z\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & 2(a\overline{z})^2(1+\overline{z}z)^2\left[6K_m^{\prime \prime }+9XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+2X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{z\overline{a},a\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & G_{a\overline{a},z\overline{a}}=[G_{a\overline{z},a\overline{a}}]^{}=[G_{a\overline{a},z\overline{a}}]^{}\hfill \\ & & \\ & =\hfill & 2\overline{z}a(1+\overline{z}z)^3\left[4K_m^{\prime \prime }+5XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{a\overline{a},a\overline{a}}\hfill & =\hfill & (1+\overline{z}z)^4\left[2K_m^{\prime \prime }+4XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(79)
We can now compute the components of the Kähler connection and curvature; in the unitary gauge $`z=\overline{z}=0`$ the non-trivial ones read explicitly

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}^K=G^{\underset{¯}{K}K}G_{I\underset{¯}{K},J}\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{az}^z=2\overline{a}\frac{K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }}{1+2XK_m^{}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{aa}^a=\overline{a}\frac{2K_m^{\prime \prime }+XK_m^{\prime \prime \prime }}{K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }},\hfill \end{array}$$
(80)
and their complex conjugates, for the connection; and for the curvature:

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{I\underset{¯}{I}J\underset{¯}{J}}=G_{I\underset{¯}{I},J\underset{¯}{J}}G^{\underset{¯}{K}K}G_{I\underset{¯}{K},J}G_{K\underset{¯}{I},\underset{¯}{J}}\hfill \\ \\ K_{z\overline{z}z\overline{z}}=2(12XK_m^{}4X^2K_m^{\prime \prime }),\hfill \\ \\ K_{z\overline{z}a\overline{a}}=K_{a\overline{a}z\overline{z}}=K_{z\overline{a}a\overline{z}}=K_{a\overline{z}z\overline{a}}\hfill \\ \\ =\frac{2}{1+2XK_m^{}}\left(K_m^{}+3XK_m^{\prime \prime }+X^2K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }+2X^2K_m^{}K_m^{\prime \prime }+2X^3(K_m^{}K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime })\right),\hfill \\ \\ K_{a\overline{a}a\overline{a}}=\frac{1}{K_m^{}+XK_m^{\prime \prime }}(2K_m^{}K_m^{\prime \prime }+2X(K_m^{}K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime })+X^2K_m^{}K_m^{\prime \prime \prime }\hfill \\ \\ +X^3(K_m^{\prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }K_m^{\prime \prime \prime \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})).\hfill \end{array}$$
(81)
Appendix B

In the singular limit of supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-models, the elimination of auxiliary fields is a delicate procedure. Therefore in this appendix we present the off-shell lagrangean for our models (7). The Lagrange density for the gauged supersymmetric CP1 model plus the chiral matter multiplet is given on the next page. The Lagrange density of the gauge multiplet is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{gauge}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{2}F^+(W)F^{}(W)\frac{1}{4}F^2(A)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \overline{\lambda }_L^{}\stackrel{}{D/}\lambda _L^+\overline{\lambda }_L^+\stackrel{}{D/}\lambda _L^{}\overline{\lambda }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\lambda _L+D^+D^{}+\frac{1}{2}D^2+\xi D.\hfill \end{array}$$
(82)
Here $`\xi `$ is the Fayet-Iliopoulos parameter, which can only be included in the model with gauged linear $`U(1)`$ (and hence $`W^\pm =0`$); furthermore the decomposition of the vector multiplet $`V=(W_\mu ,\lambda ,D)`$ is defined by

$$V=V^i\tau _i,V^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(V^1\pm iV^2\right),V=V^3.$$
(83)
In particular: $`W^\pm =(W^1\pm iW^2)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`A=W^3`$, and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F_{\mu \nu }^\pm (W)\hfill & =\hfill & \left(_\mu igA_\mu \right)W_\nu ^\pm \left(_\nu igA_\nu \right)W_\mu ^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ F_{\mu \nu }(A)\hfill & =\hfill & _\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu igW_\mu ^+W_\nu ^{}+igW_\nu ^+W_\mu ^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(84)
Elimination of the auxiliary $`D`$-fields from (82) with $`\xi =0`$, and using the Lagrange density below, then leads to the potential $`V_D`$, eq. (20).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\sigma +m}\hfill & =\hfill & G_{z\overline{z}}\left(D\overline{z}Dz+\overline{\psi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\psi _L\overline{H}H\right)G_{a\overline{a}}\left(D\overline{a}Da+\overline{\phi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\phi _L\overline{B}B\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & G_{z\overline{a}}\left(D\overline{a}Dz+\overline{\phi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\psi _L\overline{B}H\right)G_{a\overline{z}}\left(D\overline{z}Da+\overline{\psi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\phi _L\overline{H}B\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{z\overline{z},z}D_\mu zG_{z\overline{z},\overline{z}}D_\mu \overline{z}+G_{z\overline{z},a}D_\mu aG_{z\overline{z},\overline{a}}D_\mu \overline{a}\right)\overline{\psi }_L\gamma ^\mu \psi _L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{a\overline{a},z}D_\mu zG_{a\overline{a},\overline{z}}D_\mu \overline{z}+G_{a\overline{a},a}D_\mu aG_{a\overline{a},\overline{a}}D_\mu \overline{a}\right)\overline{\phi }_L\gamma ^\mu \phi _L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{z\overline{a},z}D_\mu zG_{z\overline{a},\overline{z}}D_\mu \overline{z}+G_{z\overline{a},a}D_\mu aG_{z\overline{a},\overline{a}}D_\mu \overline{a}\right)\overline{\phi }_L\gamma ^\mu \psi _L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{a\overline{z},z}D_\mu zG_{a\overline{z},\overline{z}}D_\mu \overline{z}+G_{a\overline{z},a}D_\mu aG_{a\overline{z},\overline{a}}D_\mu \overline{a}\right)\overline{\psi }_L\gamma ^\mu \phi _L\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{z\overline{z},z}\overline{H}+G_{z\overline{a},z}\overline{B}\right)\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\left(G_{z\overline{z},\overline{z}}H+G_{a\overline{z},\overline{z}}B\right)\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \left(G_{a\overline{z},a}\overline{H}+G_{a\overline{a},a}\overline{B}\right)\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\left(G_{z\overline{a},\overline{a}}H+G_{a\overline{a},\overline{a}}B\right)\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & 2\left(G_{z\overline{z},a}\overline{H}+G_{z\overline{a},a}\overline{B}\right)\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L2\left(G_{z\overline{z},\overline{a}}H+G_{a\overline{z},\overline{a}}B\right)\overline{\phi }_L\psi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +G_{z\overline{z},z\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+2G_{z\overline{z},a\overline{z}}\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+2G_{z\overline{z},z\overline{a}}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +G_{z\overline{a},z\overline{a}}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R+G_{a\overline{z},a\overline{z}}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R+4G_{z\overline{z},a\overline{a}}\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +G_{a\overline{a},a\overline{a}}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R+2G_{a\overline{a},a\overline{z}}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\psi _R+2G_{a\overline{a},z\overline{a}}\overline{\psi }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}gG_{z\overline{z}}\left[\left(\overline{\lambda }_R^{}i\sqrt{2}\overline{z}\overline{\lambda }_R+\overline{z}^2\overline{\lambda }_R^+\right)\psi _L+\overline{\psi }_L\left(\lambda _R^++i\sqrt{2}z\lambda _R+z^2\lambda _R^{}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}gG_{z\overline{a}}\left[\left(i\sqrt{2}\overline{a}\overline{\lambda }_R2\overline{z}\overline{a}\overline{\lambda }_R^+\right)\psi _L+\overline{\phi }_L\left(\lambda _R^++i\sqrt{2}z\lambda _R+z^2\lambda _R^{}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}gG_{a\overline{z}}\left[\left(\overline{\lambda }_R^{}i\sqrt{2}\overline{z}\overline{\lambda }_R+z^2\overline{\lambda }_R^+\right)\phi _L\overline{\psi }_L\left(i\sqrt{2}a\lambda _R+2za\lambda _R^{}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}gG_{a\overline{a}}\left[\left(i\sqrt{2}\overline{a}\overline{\lambda }_R2\overline{z}\overline{a}\overline{\lambda }_R^+\right)\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\left(i\sqrt{2}a\lambda _R+2za\lambda _R^{}\right)\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{g}{2}\left(1+2XK_m^{}(X)\right)\frac{D(1\overline{z}z)+i\sqrt{2}(D^+\overline{z}D^{}z)}{1+\overline{z}z}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(85)
In addition to the potential $`V_D`$ generated by the $`D`$-terms, we observe that the equations for the auxiliary fields $`(H,B)`$ and their complex conjugates become

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{z\overline{z}}H+G_{a\overline{z}}B=G_{z\overline{z},z}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L+G_{a\overline{z},a}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L+2G_{z\overline{z},a}\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L,\hfill \\ \\ G_{z\overline{a}}H+G_{a\overline{a}}B=G_{z\overline{a},z}\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L+G_{a\overline{a},a}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L+2G_{z\overline{a},a}\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L,\hfill \end{array}$$
(86)
and their conjugates.

In the unitary gauge $`z=\overline{z}=0`$ this becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\sigma +m}\hfill & =\hfill & 2M(X)\left(\frac{g^2}{2}W^{}W^++\overline{\psi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\psi _L\overline{H}H\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & M^{}(X)\left(D\overline{a}Da+\overline{\phi }_L\stackrel{}{D/}\phi _L\overline{B}B\right)gM(X)D\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(\overline{a}\underset{\mu }{\overset{}{D}}a)\left[M^{}(X)\overline{\psi }_L\gamma ^\mu \psi _L+M^{\prime \prime }(X)\overline{\phi }_L\gamma ^\mu \phi _L\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\sqrt{2}gM^{}(X)\left[aW_\mu ^{}\overline{\phi }_L\gamma ^\mu \psi _L+\overline{a}W_\mu ^+\overline{\psi }_L\gamma ^\mu \phi _L\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & M^{\prime \prime }(X)\left(\overline{a}\overline{B}\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L+aB\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}M^{}(X)\left(\overline{a}\overline{H}\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L+aH\overline{\phi }_L\psi _R\right)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\left(M(X)2XM^{}(X)\right)\overline{\psi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\psi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\left(M^{\prime \prime }(X)+XM^{\prime \prime \prime }(X)\right)\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L\overline{\phi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\left(M^{}(X)+XM^{\prime \prime }(X)\right)\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L\overline{\psi }_L\phi _R\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{2}g[\sqrt{2}M(X)(\overline{\lambda }_R^{}\psi _L+\overline{\psi }_L\lambda _R^+)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +iM^{}(X)(\overline{a}\overline{\lambda }_R\phi _La\overline{\phi }_L\lambda _R)]\hfill \end{array}$$
(87)
In case the superpotential vanishes the dependence on the charged vector fields $`W^\pm `$ and their superpartners $`\lambda ^\pm `$ and auxiliary fields $`D^\pm `$ disappears, and the model is indistinguishable of that with gauged $`U(1)`$ only.

In the unitary gauge the equations for the auxiliary fields become

$$\begin{array}{c}M(X)H=2\overline{a}M^{}(X)\overline{\phi }_R\psi _L,\hfill \\ \\ M^{}(X)B=\overline{a}M^{\prime \prime }(X)\overline{\phi }_R\phi _L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(88)


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Recent observations - of large suppression moderate $`p_{}5`$ GeV hadrons produced in $`Au+Au`$ at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) have been interpreted as evidence for jet quenching of light quark and gluon jets -. Jet quenching was predicted  to occur due to medium induced radiative energy loss of high energy partons propagating through ultra-dense QCD matter. The quenching pattern therefore provides a novel tomographic tool that can be used to map out the evolution of the plasma density. Of course, even without final state interactions, gluon radiation associated with hard QCD processes softens considerably the lowest order jet spectra. This is taken into account through the $`Q^2`$ (DGLAP) evolution of the hadronic fragmentation functions. Medium induced radiation is the extra gluon radiation that arises from higher twist final state interactions and depends on the optical thickness or opacity $`L/\lambda `$ of the medium.

A similar quenching pattern was predicted  to occur for heavy quark ($`c`$ or $`b`$) jets. However, in  it was pointed out that the heavy quark mass leads to a “dead cone” effect for $`\theta <M/E`$ that reduces the induced radiative energy loss of heavy quarks as compared to light partons. Numerical estimates indicated that the quenching of charm quarks may be approximately about a half that of light quarks. Experimentally, PHENIX data  on “prompt” single electron production in $`Au+Au`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=130`$ AGeV have provided a first test of heavy quark energy loss. Remarkably, no indication for a QCD medium effect was found within the admittedly large experimental errors (see also ref. ). In future runs, much higher statistics and wider $`p_T`$ range will become accessible.

In this letter we investigate whether the apparent null effect observed for heavy quark energy loss via single electrons could be due to other medium effects that compete with the induced radiation. Our title is motivated by a similar puzzling null effect seen previously with light quarks at much lower SPS energies .

We study here the non-abelian analog of the Ter-Mikayelian - effect. In  the suppression of radiation below a plasma frequency cutoff was estimated to be only $`10\%`$ effect on the induced energy loss. However, the Ter-Mikayelian effect on the zeroth order in opacity $`(L/\lambda )^0`$ radiation has not yet been considered quantitatively. The first estimates of the influence of a plasma frequency cutoff in QCD plasmas were reported in ref.  using a constant plasmon mass $`\omega _0`$ - . The $`k`$ dependence of the gluon self energies and the magnitude of longitudinal radiation were not investigated. In this letter, we extend those results by taking both longitudinal as well as transverse modes consistently into account via the frequency and wavenumber dependent hard thermal (1-loop HTL) self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(\omega ,k)`$ -.

The dielectric properties of an isotropic plasma lead to a transverse gluon self energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T(\omega _{pl}(0),0)=\omega _{pl}^2(0)\mu ^2/3`$, where $`\mu gT`$ is the Debye screening mass of a plasma at temperature $`T`$ in the deconfined phase. In addition, long wavelength collective longitudinal gluon modes arise with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L(\omega _{pl}(0),0)=\omega _{pl}^2(0)`$. This dynamical gluon mass suppresses the radiation of soft $`\omega <\omega _{pl}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ gluons and shields the collinear $`k_{}0`$ singularities that arise for massless quarks.

The second part of our study is to generalize the GLV opacity expansion method  to compute the first order induced energy loss including the kinematic effects due to both heavy quarks and massive transverse gluons. These mass effects change the formation times of the gluons and hence the destructive (LPM) interference pattern that reduces the radiative energy loss in comparison to the incoherent Bethe-Heitler limit. For ultra-relativistic light partons, the formation times are generally long compared to nuclear dimensions. The energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{ind}L^2`$ for very high energy light partons depends quadratically on the thickness of a static QCD medium , while for heavy quarks we show below that it is closer to a linear $`L^1`$ dependence.

In this letter, we answer the question in the title by showing that there is a surprising degree of cancellation between the reduction of the zeroth order energy loss due to the QCD Ter-Mikayelian effect and the induced radiative GLV energy loss for heavy quarks. The technical details of the derivations and further discussion will be presented elsewhere . Our main result is that while the dead cone effect  is not sufficient by itself to explain the null effect by PHENIX , the approximate cancellation of medium effects for heavy quarks could be.

## Plasmon Effect on 0th order Energy Loss

Our first goal was to test the accuracy of the commonly used simplifying assumption of neglecting the $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ dependence of effective plasmon mass as in  and also neglecting longitudinal modes. As shown below and in more detail in , this assumption was found to be accurate to $`10\%`$ as long as the asymptotic plasmon mass , $`\omega _{\mathrm{}}=\mu /\sqrt{2}`$ rather than the long wavelength $`\omega _{pl}(k=0)=\sqrt{2/3}\omega _{\mathrm{}}`$ is employed. The accuracy of the approximation also improves dramatically as the mass of the heavy quark increases.

We computed the plasmon effect on the (zeroth order in opacity) vacuum energy energy loss, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{med}^{(0)}=𝑑k(dI_T/dk+dI_L/dk)`$ using the optical theorem in the soft gluon limit ignoring the spin of the heavy quark. The zeroth order transverse and longitudinal radiated energy losses per wave number for an initial quark jet with four momentum $`P=(E,\stackrel{}{𝐩})`$ are found to be given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dI_T}{d|\stackrel{}{𝐤}|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2\stackrel{}{𝐩}^2\omega _T^2(\omega _T^2\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2)}{\omega _T^2\mu ^2(\omega _T^2\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2)^2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{(Q^2M^2)^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dI_L}{d|\stackrel{}{𝐤}|}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2\stackrel{}{𝐩}^2(\omega _L^2\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2)}{\mu ^2(\omega _L^2\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2)}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _S(Q^2)}{(Q^2M^2)^2}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2}{2\stackrel{}{𝐩}^2}}\right)^2`$ (1)
where $`Q^2=2Pk+k^2+M^2`$ is the invariant mass of the intermediate state, $`k^2=\omega ^2\stackrel{}{𝐤}^2`$ and $`Pk=E\omega |\stackrel{}{𝐩}||\stackrel{}{𝐤}|\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ with $`\omega =\omega _T(k)`$ for the case of transverse radiation and $`\omega =\omega _L(k)`$ for longitudinal radiation. The well known dispersion relations, $`\omega _T(k)`$ and $`\omega _L(k)`$ are obtained from $`\omega ^2ϵ_T(\omega ,k)𝐤^2=0`$ and $`ϵ_L(\omega ,k)=0`$ respectively. Analytic expressions for $`ϵ_T`$ and $`ϵ_L`$ in the HTL or equivalently, semi-classical transport linear response approximations can be found in refs. . The angular integration can be performed analytically if $`\alpha _S`$ does not run. We perform the integration with running coupling at the scale $`Q^2`$ as in conventional DGLAP evolution.

FIG 1. The reduction of the zeroth order (vacuum) energy loss for charm quark due to the QCD Ter-Mikayelian plasmon effect is shown as a function of the charm quark energy. The upper curve shows the vacuum energy loss if gluons are treated as massless and transversely polarized. The lower solid curve shows medium modified (but zeroth order in opacity) transverse fractional energy loss. The dashed curve shows the negligible additional effect of longitudinal plasmons.

The numerical results for a medium characterized by a Debye screening scale $`\mu =0.5`$ GeV in Fig.1 show that the longitudinal plasmon contribution to the energy loss is indeed negligible for the range of energies considered. However, the transverse plasmon mass effect reduces the zeroth order energy loss by, $`30\%`$ , relative to the vacuum case. The plasmon mass cutoff would effectively enhance the yield of high transverse momentum charm quarks were it not for the extra medium induced radiation discussed in the next section.

## Medium induced radiative energy loss

The second effect of the medium on the the propagation of heavy quarks is induced radiation caused by the multiple interactions with partons in the medium. In order to compute medium induced energy loss for heavy quarks we extended the GLV method  to include the kinematic modification of the propagators. The new feature here is that unlike in previous applications, both the quark and and gluon plasmon mass ($`M`$ and $`m_g`$ respectively) are taken into account.

Since we found  that the dielectric plasmon effect can be well approximated numerically neglecting the longitudinal modes and using the wavenumber independent asymptotic mass $`\mu /\sqrt{2}`$ as the effective gluon mass, we will use this simplifying assumption in computing the induced radiative energy loss.

The heavy quark generalization of the GLV energy loss to first order in the opacity $`L/\lambda =𝑑x\sigma \rho `$ is found to be :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ind}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F\alpha _S}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xE{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2dq_{}^2}{(q_{}^2+\mu ^2)^2}\frac{dk_{}^2\theta (xEk_{})}{(\frac{4Ex}{L})^2+(k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M^2x^2+m_g^2)^2}}`$ (2)
$`\left\{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}M^2x^2m_g^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M^2x^2+m_g^2)(k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+M^2x^2+m_g^2)}{\sqrt{((k_{}q_{})^2+M^2x^2+m_g^2)((k_{}+q_{})^2+M^2x^2+m_g^2)}}}\right\},`$
where $`q_{}`$ is the magnitude of the transverse momentum transfer between a target parton and a jet, $`k_{}`$ is the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the radiated gluon, and $`\lambda `$ is the mean free path of the gluon. The simple analytic form of the destructive interference factor involving $`(4Ex/L)^2`$ arises for an assumed exponential distribution $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }z/L)/L`$ between scattering centers. The expression in $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ reduces in the $`M=m_g=0`$ limit to $`2k_{}^2\theta (q_{}k_{})`$, and the GLV asymptotic result eq.(127) of  can be recovered. We ignore the finite kinematic bounds on $`q_{}<\sqrt{6ET}`$. The $`q_{}^2`$ integral can then be performed analytically but is cumbersome. Qualitatively, the effect of increasing $`M`$ is to reduce the relevance of the formation time factor $`(4Ex/L)^2`$ in the denominator of the integrand. Formally, setting this factor to zero recovers the Bethe-Heitler result with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ind}^{(1)}\alpha _sEL/\lambda `$ modulo a logarithmic factor.

The numerical results for the first order induced radiative energy loss are shown on Fig.2 for charm and bottom quarks. We fix the effective static plasma opacity to be $`L/\lambda =4`$ from the analysis of light quark quenching in $`Au+Au`$ at $`130`$ GeV from the results of Levai et al . We assume here that $`\alpha _s=0.3,\mu =0.5\mathrm{GeV},`$ and $`\lambda =1`$ fm for the plasma parameters. In the energy range, $`E515`$ GeV, the Ter-Mikayelian effect reduces the induced energy loss in this extension of the GLV approach somewhat more than in the BDMS approximation. However, on an absolute scale, this only corresponds to a change of $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(1)}/E)0.05`$, which is negligible. Note that with both dead cone and plasmon mass reduction, there remains a sizeable induced energy loss fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(1)}/E0.2`$ for charm quarks while only about half that is predicted for bottom. Therefore, the dead cone effect by itself is not sufficient to explain the PHENIX heavy quark null effect.

FIG 2. The $`1^{st}`$ order in opacity fractional energy loss for heavy quarks with (solid curves) and without (dashed curves) Ter-Mikayelian effect approximated by a constant $`m_g=\mu /\sqrt{2}`$ for transverse modes only. Upper curves correspond to charm, and lower to bottom quarks as a function of their energy in a plasma characterized by $`\alpha _s=0.3,\mu =0.5\mathrm{GeV},`$ and $`L=4\lambda =4`$ fm.

## The net heavy quark energy loss

Fig.3 shows the competition between the medium dependence of the induced energy loss and the zeroth order energy loss taking into account the Ter-Mikayelian effect. Even in the absence of a medium ($`L=0)`$, a charm quark with energy $`10`$ GeV suffers an average energy loss, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{vac}^{(0)}/E1/3`$, due to the sudden change of the color current when it is formed in the vacuum. The dielectric plasmon effect reduces this to about $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{med}^{(0)}/E1/4`$. This contribution is independent of the thickness of the plasma as long as $`L`$ is not too small. For very small $`L<1/m_g`$, the plasmon dispersion is smeared out due to the uncertainty principle, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{med}^{(0)}`$ must approach $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{vac}^{(0)}`$ from below.

The induced contribution, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ind}^{(1)}`$, on the other hand, increases with $`L`$. Note that for charm quarks the thickness dependence is closer to the linear Bethe-Heitler like form, $`L^1`$, than the asymptotic energy quadratic form. More importantly, the two competing effects tend to cancel to a large extend for an effective thickness in the physically relevant range $`L`$.

FIG 3. The fractional energy loss for a 10 GeV charm quark is plotted versus the effective static thickness $`L`$ of a plasma characterized by $`\mu =0.5`$ GeV and $`\lambda =1`$ fm. The dashed middle horizontal line corresponds to the energy loss in the vacuum taking into account the kinematic dead cone of radiation for heavy quarks . The lower horizontal solid line shows our estimate of the reduction of the zeroth order energy loss due to the QCD analog of the Ter-Mikayelian effect. The solid curve corresponds to the net energy loss, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ind}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{med}^{(0)}`$.

The net energy loss, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{med}^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{ind}^{(1)}`$ is found to be remarkably close to the naive vacuum value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{vac}^{(0)}`$ for the effective static opacity medium with $`L3`$ fm and $`\mu 0.5\mathrm{GeV},\lambda 1`$fm). These results suggest that in addition to the heavy quark dead cone effect, a high degree of cancellation between the competing medium effects may be an important factor that could explain the null effect found experimentally by PHENIX for $`Au+Au`$ at 130 GeV. The different dependence of these effects on the plasma thickness $`L`$ and on the transport properties, $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$, should make it possible to test this explanation by varying the beam energy, $`A`$, and centrality at RHIC and LHC energies.

In closing, we note a third mechanism that could also play a role in explaining the null effect reported by PHENIX. As shown in , for quark momenta below $`3T`$ detailed balance in a thermal medium gives rise to a positive feedback due to thermal gluon absorption that limits the energy loss. For a rapidly expanding hydrodynamic medium with transverse flow boost rapidity, $`\eta _T`$, even large energy loss cannot quench the spectrum below the blue shifted $`p_T3Te^{\eta _T}`$ thermal distribution if the heavy quark comes into local equilibrium. As noted in , for charm quarks there may in fact be only a small room between the unquenched pQCD spectrum and the fully quenched hydrodynamical spectrum in the $`p_T`$ range accessible thusfar at RHIC. A decisive test of this explanation would be the observation of charm elliptic flow at RHIC. If, on the other hand, no charm elliptic flow is observed and the null effect persists to higher $`p_T`$, then the cancellation mechanism discussed above could solve the charm puzzle.

Acknowledgments: Valuable discussions with I. Vitev, Z. Lin, J. Nagle, and W. Zajc on heavy quark production at RHIC are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-93ER40764.