1: %%\documentclass[notitlepage,preprint,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[preprint,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[preprint,nofootinbib,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

4: %%\documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

5: 

6: \usepackage{amsmath}

7: %\usepackage{amssymb}

8: \usepackage{graphicx}

9: 

10: 

11: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}

12: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle#1\right|}

13: %\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle #1 \middle| #2 \right\rangle}

14: %\newcommand{\bramidket}[3]{\left\langle #1 \middle| #2 \middle| #3

15: %  \right\rangle}

16: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle #1 | #2 \right\rangle}

17: %\newcommand{\bramidket}[3]{\left\langle #1 | #2 \middle| #3

18: %  \right\rangle}

19: \newcommand{\bramidket}[3]{\left\langle #1 | #2 | #3 \right\rangle}

20: 

21: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathcal{R}e}

22: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathcal{I}m}

23: 

24: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

26: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

28: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}

29: \def\OMIT#1{{}}

30: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

31:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

32: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

33:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

34: 

35: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

36: \arraycolsep 2pt

37: 

38: 

39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \vspace*{.0cm}

43: 

44: \title{Beyond MSSM Baryogenesis}

45: 

46: \author{Kfir Blum}\email{kfir.blum@weizmann.ac.il}

47: \affiliation{Department of Condensed Matter Physics,

48:   Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel}

49: \author{Yosef Nir\footnote{The Amos de-Shalit chair of theoretical physics}}\email{yosef.nir@weizmann.ac.il}

50: \affiliation{Department of Particle Physics,

51:   Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel\vspace*{3mm}}

52: 

53: 

54: %\date{\today}

55: %\pacs{}

56: 

57: \begin{abstract}%\vspace*{3mm}

58: %

59:   Taking the MSSM as an effective low-energy theory, with a cut-off

60:   scale of a few TeV, can make significant modifications to the

61:   predictions concerning the Higgs and stop sectors. We investigate

62:   the consequences of such a scenario for electroweak baryogenesis. We

63:   find that the window for MSSM baryogenesis is extended and, most

64:   important, can be made significantly more natural. Specifically, it

65:   is possible to have one stop lighter than the top and the other

66:   significantly lighter than TeV simultaneously with the Higgs mass

67:   above the LEP bound. In addition, various aspects concerning CP

68:   violation are affected. Most notably, it is possible to have

69:   dynamical phases in the bubble walls at tree level, providing CP

70:   violating sources for Standard Model fermions.

71: %

72: \end{abstract}

73: 

74: \maketitle

75: 

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: \section{Introduction}

78: \label{sec:intro}

79: %

80: One of the strongest tests of the minimal supersymmetric standard

81: model (MSSM) comes from the fact that within this framework, the mass

82: of the lightest Higgs is bounded from above. Actually, the

83: experimental lower bound on the Higgs mass \cite{Yao:2006px} violates

84: the tree level bound and implies that, if the MSSM is indeed realized

85: in nature, stop-related loop corrections to the Higgs mass play an

86: important role. For these corrections to be significant, the stop

87: sector is required to exhibit special features: at least one of the

88: stop mass eigenstates should be rather heavy and/or left-right-stop

89: mixing should be substantial.

90: 

91: It is conceivable that additional new physics, beyond the MSSM, plays

92: a role in particle interactions not far above the TeV scale. Model

93: independent analyses of such scenarios were taken up in, for example,

94: Refs. \cite{Strumia:1999jm,Polonsky:2000aa,Brignole:2003cm,Casas:2003jx} and, more

95: recently, by Dine, Seiberg and Thomas [DST] in Ref.

96: \cite{Dine:2007xi}. DST extend the MSSM by adding non-renormalizable

97: terms that depend on the MSSM fields and are subject to the symmetries

98: of the MSSM. They find two such terms that could increase the Higgs

99: mass comparably to what loop corrections with heavy or mixed stops can

100: do. These works demonstrate the sensitivity of the mass spectrum of

101: the MSSM Higgs sector to changes in the quartic coupling.

102: 

103: Both the Higgs sector and the stop sector play a role in yet another

104: interesting aspect of the MSSM, and that is the cosmological scenario

105: of MSSM electroweak baryogenesis (EWBG) \cite{Cohen:1993nk}. In this

106: scenario, the two problems of the standard model baryogenesis -- the

107: fact that, with a single Higgs and taking into account experimental

108: constraints on its mass, the electroweak phase transition (EWPT)

109: cannot be strongly first order, and the fact that CP violation from

110: the Kobayashi-Maskawa phase is much too small -- are fixed by

111: supersymmetric particles and their interactions. In particular, a

112: light stop is crucial in making the EWPT strongly first order

113: \cite{Carena:1996wj,Delepine:1996vn}. It is therefore interesting to

114: ask how do the DST operators affect EWBG. In particular, since these

115: operators allow -- given a fixed Higgs mass -- lighter stops, do they

116: open up new regions in the MSSM parameter space for successful

117: baryogenesis?

118: 

119: In this work we focus on the EWPT and show that the parameter space

120: required for a strong EWPT does indeed change qualitatively by DST

121: operators. We discuss the implications of these qualitative features

122: on the naturalness of the required parameter space. The various issues

123: of calculating the baryon asymmetry of the universe (BAU) in a given

124: particle physics model are a subject of active research (see, for

125: example,

126: \cite{Konstandin:2004gy,Konstandin:2005cd,Cirigliano:2006wh,Fromme:2006wx}).

127: We do not carry out, at this stage, a detailed explicit calculation of

128: the BAU compatible with a low-cutoff MSSM, but rather point out

129: several modifications by which the mechanism responsible for the

130: produced baryon asymmetry may differ in the low-cutoff scenario from

131: the renormalizable MSSM case.

132: 

133: The narrowing EWBG-window in the MSSM parameter space has led many

134: authors to study extensions of the SM and of the MSSM

135: in this context. Some recent examples are

136: \cite{Kang:2004pp,Carena:2004ha,Huber:2006ma,Fromme:2006cm,Espinosa:2007qk}.

137: In most of these works, new particle degrees of freedom which are added

138: to the model modify the EWPT by actively participating in thermal

139: processes. Some previous studies have also considered the effect of

140: non-renormalizable corrections to the SM potential

141: \cite{Bodeker:2004ws,Grojean:2004xa,Delaunay:2007wb}. Our analysis

142: differs from previous studies in that it considers the most general

143: non-renormalizable correction to the MSSM scalar potential. We find

144: that there is no need for the beyond-MSSM (BMSSM) physics to actively

145: couple to the thermal plasma in order to get significant modifications

146: to various aspects of the EWBG.

147: 

148: The plan of this paper goes as follows. In Section \ref{sec:mssm} we

149: review the predictions of the MSSM for the lightest Higgs mass. In

150: Section \ref{sec:DST} we give the modifications to these predictions

151: due to the DST operators. In Section \ref{sec:V} we present the

152: modifications to the finite-temperature one-loop scalar potential

153: from the DST terms. Our main results are derived in Section

154: \ref{sec:impact} where we explain how the contributions of the

155: non-renormalizable terms enlarge the window for MSSM baryogenesis

156: and, in particular, relax the fine-tuning problem of this scenario.

157: The effects of these terms on the CP violating aspects of MSSM

158: baryogenesis are discussed in Section \ref{sec:cpv}: first, the

159: possibility of CP violating bubble wall profiles (Subsection

160: \ref{subsec:sponBG}) and, second, the modification to neutralino and

161: chargino currents (Subsection \ref{subsec:modSUSY}). We summarize

162: our results in Section \ref{sec:con}. In Appendix \ref{app:subs} we

163: clarify some subtleties related to substituting the dimensionful

164: parameters of the Higgs potential with measurable quantities in the

165: presence of the DST operators.

166: 

167: 

168: 

169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

170: \section{The Lightest Higgs Mass in the MSSM}

171: \label{sec:mssm}

172: %

173: Within the MSSM, the lightest Higgs mass is bounded from

174: above. We write

175: \beq

176: m_h^2=m_h^{2({\rm tree})}+m_h^{2({\rm loop})}.

177: \eeq

178: The tree level contribution is given by

179: \beqa

180: m_h^{2({\rm tree})}&=&\frac12\left[m_Z^2+m_A^2

181:   -\sqrt{(m_A^2-m_Z^2)^2+4m_A^2m_Z^2\sin^22\beta}\right]\no\\

182: &\approx&m_Z^2-\frac{4m_Z^2m_A^2}{m_A^2-m_Z^2}\cot^2\beta,

183: \eeqa

184: where the second, approximate equality holds for large $\tan\beta$.

185: The most significant loop contribution is given by

186: \beqa

187: m_h^{2({\rm loop})}&=&\frac{3m_t^4}{4\pi^2

188:   v^2}\left[\ln\left(\frac{m_{\tilde t_1}m_{\tilde t_2}}{m_t^2}\right)

189:   +\frac{|X_t|^2}{m_{\tilde t_1}^2-m_{\tilde t_2}^2}

190:   \ln\left(\frac{m_{\tilde t_1}^2}{m_{\tilde t_2}^2}\right)\right.\no\\

191: &&\left.+\frac12\left(\frac{|X_t|^2}{m_{\tilde t_1}^2-m_{\tilde

192:         t_2}^2}\right)^2

193:   \left(2-\frac{m_{\tilde t_1}^2+m_{\tilde t_2}^2}{m_{\tilde

194:         t_1}^2-m_{\tilde t_2}^2}

195:     \ln\left(\frac{m_{\tilde t_1}^2}{m_{\tilde

196:           t_2}^2}\right)\right)\right],

197: \eeqa

198: where $X_t=A_t-\mu^*\cot\beta$.

199: 

200: The current lower bound from LEPII is $m_{h_{\rm SM}}\gsim114$ GeV,

201: well above the upper bound on the tree contribution, $m_h^{\rm

202:   (tree)}\leq m_Z$. This contribution by itself is maximized at

203: moderate to large $\tan\beta$. The top-stop loop correction should

204: be substantial. If stop mixing is small, $|X_t/m_{\tilde

205:   t_{1,2}}|^2\ll1$, the correction depends only on the logarithm of

206: the stop masses, so these must be rather heavy:

207: \beqa\label{eq:stsT}

208: (m_{\tilde t_1}m_{\tilde t_2})^{1/2}&\sim&

209: m_t\exp{\left[\frac{2\pi^2v^2\left(m_h^2-m_Z^2\right)}{3m_t^4}\right]}\no\\

210: &\sim&500\ {\rm GeV}\times \exp\left\{2.9\left[\left(\frac{m_h}{114\ {\rm

211:           GeV}}\right)^2-1\right]\right\}.

212: \eeqa

213: If, however, stop mixing is large, much lighter stops can still yield

214: large loop corrections.

215: 

216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

217: \section{The DST operators and the light Higgs mass}

218: \label{sec:DST}

219: %

220: DST consider the following two non-renormalizable terms

221: \cite{Dine:2007xi}:

222: \beq\label{eq:wdst}

223: W_{\rm DST}=\frac{\lambda_1}{M}(H_uH_d)^2+\frac{\lambda_2}{M}{\cal

224:   Z}(H_uH_d)^2,

225: \eeq

226: where ${\cal Z}$ is s SUSY-breaking spurion:

227: \beq

228: {\cal Z}=\theta^2m_{\rm susy}.

229: \eeq

230: The first term in Eq. (\ref{eq:wdst}) is supersymmetric, while the

231: second breaks SUSY. In the scalar potential, the following quartic

232: terms are generated:

233: \beq\label{eq:dstsp}

234: \frac{2\mu^*\lambda_1}{M}H_uH_d(H_u^\dagger H_u+H_d^\dagger H_d)

235: -\frac{m_{\rm susy}\lambda_2}{M}(H_uH_d)^2.

236: \eeq

237: We define

238: \beq \epsilon_1\equiv\frac{\mu^*\lambda_1}{M},\ \ \

239: \ \ \ \epsilon_2\equiv-\frac{m_{\rm susy}\lambda_2}{M}.

240: \eeq

241: The two terms in Eq. (\ref{eq:dstsp}) contribute to the lightest Higgs

242: boson mass as follows:

243: \beqa\label{eq:mhdst}

244: m_h^{2{\rm (dst)}}&=&2v^2\left[\epsilon_{2r}-2\epsilon_{1r}\sin2\beta

245:   -\frac{2\epsilon_{1r}\sin2\beta(m_A^2+m_Z^2)+\epsilon_{2r}\cos^22\beta

246:     (m_A^2-m_Z^2)}{\sqrt{(m_A^2-m_Z^2)^2+4m_A^2m_Z^2\sin^22\beta}}\right]

247: \no\\

248: &\simeq&-16v^2\epsilon_{1r}\cot\beta\frac{m_A^2}{m_A^2-m_Z^2}+{\cal

249:     O}(\epsilon_i\cot^2\beta),

250: \eeqa

251: where $\epsilon_{ir}={\cal R}e(\epsilon_i)$. Eq. (\ref{eq:mhdst})

252: gives the leading $\epsilon_i$-related shift to $m_h$, as long as

253: $\cot\beta\not\ll\epsilon_i$. (Otherwise, ${\cal O}(\epsilon_i^2)$

254: corrections are equally or even more important.)

255: 

256: DST give the following numerical example. Take $m_{\tilde

257:   t_{1,2}}\simeq300\ GeV$ with small mixing, $X_t\simeq0$.  Then, at

258: moderate to large $\tan\beta$, we obtain $m_h\simeq100\ GeV$.  In the

259: same small mixing limit, and taking conservatively $m_A\gg m_Z$, the

260: additional correction (\ref{eq:mhdst}) can accommodate $m_h\gsim114\

261: GeV$ for $\epsilon_{1r}\cot\beta\lsim-0.006$ ({\it e.g.},

262: $\epsilon_{1r}=-0.06$ and $\tan\beta=10$). Assume now that the

263: right-handed stop mass is bounded from above:

264: $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}\lsim170$ GeV (the relevance of this bound to our

265: purposes will become clear below). With $\epsilon_1\cot\beta=-0.006$,

266: one obtains for the left-handed stop $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}\gsim530$

267: GeV. We learn that the heavy stop mass is pushed quite high. Setting,

268: however, $\epsilon_1=0$, would force it to much higher values:

269: $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}\gsim2$ TeV. Any further increase in the Higgs

270: mass would correspond to an exponential increase in the heavy stop

271: mass, implying fine tuning.

272: 

273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

274: \section{The scalar potential}

275: \label{sec:V}

276: %

277: The MSSM finite-temperature effective potential was calculated by several groups

278: \cite{Espinosa:1993yi,Delepine:1996vn,Carena:1996wj,Espinosa:1996qw,Bodeker:1996pc,Losada:1996ju,Farrar:1996cp,de

279: Carlos:1997ru,Cline:1998hy,Laine:1998vn,Davidson:1999ii}. Two-loop results are significant in improving the

280: one-loop calculations and, as demonstrated by non-perturbative analyses, provide a rather accurate description

281: of the full result \cite{Laine:2000rm,Csikor:2000sq}. The qualitative changes that follow from adding the DST

282: operators to the MSSM potential can, however, be well understood without the two-loop improvement. In fact, the

283: effect which we find most significant is a zero-temperature effect which leaves the thermal computation all but

284: idle. In this work we therefore employ the one-loop analysis. We leave a detailed quantitative discussion of

285: the modified MSSM parameter space to more sophisticated, two-loop computations.

286: 

287: We represent the Higgs fields in the following way:

288: \beqa\label{H} H_d=\left(\begin{array}{c} H^0_d \\

289:     H_d^- \end{array}\right)

290: =\left(\begin{array}{c} \phi_1+\frac{H^0_{dr}+iH^0_{di}}{\sqrt{2}}

291:     \\

292: H_d^- \end{array}\right), \ \ \ \  H_u=\left(\begin{array}{c} H_u^+

293: \\ H^0_u \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c} H_u^+ \\

294: \phi_2+\frac{H^0_{ur}+iH^0_{ui}}{\sqrt{2}} \end{array}\right)

295: \eeqa

296: with the VEVs $\phi_1=\langle H^0_d\rangle$ and $\phi_2=\langle

297: H^0_u\rangle$.

298: The DST terms, Eq. (\ref{eq:dstsp}), contribute the following

299: dimension-four (but {\it effective dimension}-five \cite{Dine:2007xi})

300: terms to the tree level effective potential:

301: \beq\label{eq:V_DST}

302: V_{\rm dst}=-2\left(|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2\right)\left[

303:   \epsilon_{1}\phi_1\phi_2+{\rm h.c.}\right] +

304: \left[\epsilon_2\left(\phi_1\phi_2\right)^2+{\rm h.c.}\right].

305: \eeq

306: 

307: The dimension-six terms,

308: \beq

309: V_{\rm dst}^{(6)}=

310: \left|{2\epsilon_1}/{\mu}\right|^2|\phi_1\phi_2|^2

311: \left(|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2\right),\no

312: \eeq

313: are important if the quartic couplings by themselves

314: destabilize the potential. This has been demonstrated for a SM-like

315: Higgs \cite{Bodeker:2004ws,Grojean:2004xa,Delaunay:2007wb}. We focus,

316: however, on the case where the DST operators actually raise the

317: quartic coupling above the level predicted by the MSSM. In this case,

318: the dimension-six terms can be neglected if they are suppressed in

319: comparison to the dimension-four terms:

320: \beq

321: \epsilon_1\left|{\phi}/{\mu}\right|^2\cot\beta\ll1.\no

322: \eeq

323: %

324: The dimension-six operators also enter the potential via

325: field-dependent thermal corrections. In our case the leading

326: high-temperature terms due to such corrections, which are absent

327: otherwise, are of the form

328: $\left|\frac{\epsilon_1}{\mu}\cot\beta\right|^2

329: \left(\phi^4T^2+\phi^2T^4\right)$ (we omit here numerical factors).

330: For $|\mu|\gsim100$ GeV, and within the temperature range of interest,

331: these contributions are suppressed in comparison with the usual

332: $\phi^2T^2$ thermal terms which are accompanied by much larger

333: coefficients.

334: 

335: Including the DST terms of Eq. (\ref{eq:V_DST}), the one-loop

336: effective potential for the Higgs scalars at finite temperature is

337: given by

338: \beqa\label{eq:veff}

339: V&=&m^2_1|\phi_1|^2+m^2_2|\phi_2|^2

340: -\left(m^2_{12}\phi_1\phi_2+{\rm h.c.}\right)+

341: \frac{g^2+g'^2}{8}\left(|\phi_1|^2-|\phi_2|^2\right)^2\no\\

342: &-&2\left(|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2\right)

343: \left[\epsilon_{1}\phi_1\phi_2+{\rm h.c.}\right]+

344: \left[\epsilon_2\left(\phi_1\phi_2\right)^2+{\rm h.c.}\right]\no\\

345: &+&\sum_{i=\{{\rm dof}\}}\frac{n_i m_i^4(\phi)}{64\pi^2}\left[

346:     \ln\left(\frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{Q^2}\right)-\frac32\right]\no\\

347:   &+&\sum_{i=\{{\rm dof}\}}n_i\frac{T^4}{2\pi^2}J_i\left(

348:     \frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{T^2}\right)+

349:   \sum_{i=\{{\rm sca}\}}\frac{n_i T}{12\pi}\left[

350:    m_i^3(\phi)-\bar m_i^3(\phi,T)\right].

351: \eeqa

352: %

353: The first line corresponds to the tree-level MSSM terms. The second

354: line corresponds to the tree-level DST contributions. The third line

355: is the zero-temperature one-loop contribution. The summation goes over

356: %

357: \beq

358: \{{\rm dof}\}=\{t,b,\tilde t_{1,2},\tilde b_{1,2},H_e,H_o,H_c,

359: W_T,Z_T,\gamma_T,W_L,Z_L,\gamma_L\},

360: \eeq

361: with

362: \beqa

363: n_t&=&n_b=-12,\ n_{\tilde t_{1,2}}=n_{\tilde b_{1,2}}=6,\no\\

364: n_{H_e}&=&n_{H_o}=2,\ n_{H_c}=4,\no\\

365: n_{W_T}&=&4,\ n_{Z_T}=n_{\gamma_T}=2,\ n_{W_L}=2,\

366: n_{Z_L}=n_{\gamma_L}=1.

367: \eeqa

368: Here $H_e$ and $H_o$ refer to, respectively, the two CP-even and two

369: CP-odd neutral Higgs bosons; $H_c$ are the charged Higgs bosons;

370: sub-indices $T$ and $L$ stand for, respectively, transverse and

371: longitudinal. The fourth line is the finite-temperature

372: contribution. The $J_i$ functions are defined by

373: \beq

374: J_i(r)=\int_0^\infty dx\ x^2\ln[1-(-1)^{2s_i}e^{-\sqrt{x^2+r}}].

375: \eeq

376: The last term corresponds to daisy improvement. The masses $\bar

377: m_i^2(\phi,T)$ are the field- and temperature-dependent eigenvalues of

378: the mass matrices with first-order thermal masses included. We use the

379: conventions of Ref. \cite{de Carlos:1997ru}, where the reader is

380: referred to for further details. The summation is over

381: \beq

382: \{{\rm sca}\}=\{\tilde

383: t_{1,2},\tilde b_{1,2},H_e,H_o,H_c,W_L,Z_L,\gamma_L\}.

384: \eeq

385: 

386: 

387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

388: \section{The electroweak phase transition}

389: \label{sec:impact}

390: %

391: The most important effect that we find comes from the tree level

392: change in the quartic couplings of the scalar potential of Eq.

393: (\ref{eq:veff}). The most significant consequence of this effect is

394: that it allows a strongly first-order EWPT with a relatively light

395: $\widetilde{t}_L$. In this section, we analyze this effect.

396: 

397: The region in MSSM parameter space which is compatible with a strong

398: enough first-order phase transition (the \emph{MSSM window}) has two

399: distinctive characteristics (see

400: \cite{Cline:2006ts,Quiros:2007zz,Buchmuller:2007fd} and references

401: therein):

402: %

403: \begin{enumerate}

404: \item {A light, (mostly) right-handed stop:

405: \beq\label{eq:mtcond}

406: m_{\widetilde{t}_R}\lsim m_t;

407: \eeq}

408: \item {A light Higgs, close to the LEP lower bound:

409: \beq\label{eq:mhcond}

410: m_h\approx115 \ GeV.

411: \eeq}

412: \end{enumerate}

413: In order to understand how this window is affected by the DST

414: operators, we now explain how these constraints come about.

415: 

416: The condition for the sphaleron processes in the broken phase not to

417: erase the baryon asymmetry that is produced along the expanding

418: bubble wall reads \cite{Shaposhnikov:1986jp}

419: \beq\label{eq:vcTc}

420: \frac{\sqrt{2}v_c}{T_c}\gsim1.

421: \eeq

422: %

423: Here $v_c=v(T_c)$ and $T_c$ are the Higgs VEV and the temperature at

424: the instance in which the symmetric and the asymmetric vacua become

425: degenerate. The normalization is such that $v_0=v(T=0)=174 \ GeV$.

426: 

427: The light stop constraint, Eq. (\ref{eq:mtcond}), comes from the need to reduce thermal screening for at least

428: one scalar which has a large coupling to the Higgs field \cite{Carena:1996wj,Delepine:1996vn}. EW precision

429: measurements can be accommodated more easily if this light stop is dominantly `right-handed'. Let us focus on

430: the case of large but finite $m_A^2\gg m_Z^2$, relevant to the analysis of Ref. \cite{Dine:2007xi}. The

431: minimization of the potential reduces in this case to a one dimensional problem

432: \cite{Carena:1996wj,Quiros:1999jp}, yielding

433: %

434: \beq\label{eq:cond1loop}

435: \frac{v_c}{T_c}\approx\frac{E}{\lambda}.

436: \eeq

437: %

438: Here $E$ is the coefficient of the cubic (barrier) term, and $\lambda$

439: is the effective quartic coupling for the light Higgs. If the soft

440: mass-squared of $\widetilde{t}_R$ is chosen negative such that it

441: cancels exactly the thermal mass at the critical temperature, one has

442: %

443: \beq\label{eq:E} E\approx\frac{h_t^3\sin^3\beta\left(1-X_t^2/m_Q^2\right)^{3/2}}{2\pi}.

444: \eeq

445: %

446: For small stop mixing, $X_t^2/m_Q^2\ll1$, $E$ can be of order $0.1$

447: and thus an order of magnitude larger than the SM contribution due to

448: transverse gauge bosons, $E_{\rm SM}\sim0.01$. Eq. (\ref{eq:E}) biases

449: the MSSM window towards small stop mixing regions. Most importantly,

450: the requirement of negative $m_U^2$ forces $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}<m_t$.

451: Within one-loop analysis, one must in fact impose a rather strong

452: constraint, $m_U^2\sim-\left(80\ GeV\right)^2$ or equivalently

453: $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}\sim150$ GeV, to obtain a strong enough PT.

454: 

455: Two-loop calculations (see, for example,

456: \cite{Davidson:1999ii,Quiros:1999jp,Cline:2006ts} and references

457: therein) extend the window by correcting Eq. (\ref{eq:cond1loop}):

458: \beq\label{eq:cond2loop} \frac{v_c}{T_c}\approx\frac{E}{2\lambda}

459: +\sqrt{\frac{E^2}{4\lambda^2}+\frac{c_2}{\lambda}}, \eeq where $c_2$

460: is the coefficient of the generic two-loop correction,

461: \[\Delta V^{\rm (2-loop)}\approx-c_2T^2\phi^2\ln\frac{\phi}{T}.\]

462: Eq. (\ref{eq:cond2loop}) explains how two-loop corrections make room for some stop mixing and relax the upper

463: bound on $m_U^2$. However, sizeable positive values of $m_U^2$ or large mixing are still forbidden, as they

464: directly decrease $E$. In addition, the effective quartic coupling $\lambda$ remains in the denominator of

465: (\ref{eq:cond2loop}).

466: 

467: The light Higgs constraint, Eq. (\ref{eq:mhcond}), can also be

468: understood from the previous discussion. Since $\lambda$ is

469: proportional to the zero temperature value of the Higgs mass-squared

470: (up to a weak logarithmic dependence which distinguishes $\lambda$ of

471: Eqs. (\ref{eq:cond1loop},\ref{eq:cond2loop}) from the zero-temperature

472: $\lambda$), $\lambda\approx{m_h^2}/{(2v_0^2)}$, the constraint of a

473: light Higgs turns out to be a zero-temperature effect in the MSSM.

474: 

475: In fact, Refs. \cite{Cline:1998hy,Cline:2006ts} note that the

476: requirement of a light Higgs in the MSSM window does not arise

477: directly from the two-loop thermal calculation. Instead, it is a

478: consequence of the theoretical ``upper bound''

479: $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}\lsim$ TeV, coming from fine-tuning

480: considerations. The question is how can an increase in the Higgs mass

481: above the LEP bound be accounted for in the MSSM, where the stop-Higgs

482: relation of Eq. (\ref{eq:stsT}) holds. Within the MSSM window,

483: that is when  Eq. (\ref{eq:mtcond}) is obeyed, a corresponding

484: (exponentially large!) increase of $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}$ is

485: required. In contrast, outside the baryogenesis window, the task can

486: be shared among the two stops. Two-loop analyses

487: \cite{Cline:1998hy,Cline:2006ts} show that this naive argument is

488: qualitatively correct, though quantitatively the bound is somewhat

489: weaker than what follows from Eq. (\ref{eq:stsT}). Within the MSSM

490: window, they obtain

491: \beq\label{eq:mQCline}

492: m_Q\cong 100 \

493: GeV\times\exp{\left[0.11\left({m_h}{[GeV]}-85.9\right)\right]}.

494: \eeq

495: This strong constraint implies, for example, that in order to account

496: for $m_h\sim120$ GeV, one must take $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}\sim4

497: \ TeV$ within the MSSM window, while outside this window one can

498: have $m_{\widetilde{t}_L}\sim m_{\widetilde{t}_R}\sim680 \ GeV$, a

499: much less fine-tuned situation.

500: 

501: This is the point where the effect of the DST corrections

502: (\ref{eq:mhdst}) is most significant. The DST operators modify the

503: quartic coupling at zero-temperature, and consequently the task of

504: stabilizing the potential can be shared between them and the stop

505: sector. This adds a new twist to a well-recognized fact: The smallness

506: of the quartic coupling in the tree level MSSM makes the spectrum

507: extremely sensitive not only to quantum corrections but also to

508: non-renormalizable contributions. However, in contrast to the loop

509: corrections which require in this case a strong fine tuning, the

510: low-cutoff corrections relieve this tuning by allowing a light soft

511: mass for the stop \cite{Casas:2004uu}. We demonstrate this effect in

512: Fig.  \ref{fig:HiggsMassStopEps}, where we plot curves of constant

513: $\epsilon_1$ in the $m_h-m_Q$ plane. For the purpose of illustration,

514: we use vanishing stop mixing, $X_t=0$, and a light right-handed stop,

515: $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}=150 \ GeV$, consistent with a strongly

516: first-order EWPT at one-loop. One learns from this figure that even a

517: modest non-renormalizable correction, $\epsilon_{1r}\sim-0.05$,

518: suffices to reduce fine tuning in the Higgs sector by two orders of

519: magnitude, making a sizable part of the traditional MSSM window

520: significantly more natural.

521: 

522: In Fig. \ref{fig:PT_profile_FixLightStop} we evaluate the one loop

523: potential, in order to support our statement that the opening of the

524: MSSM window

525: for a lighter left-handed stop is a zero-temperature effect. We

526: present in the figure the order parameter

527: $v(T)=\sqrt{|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2}$ at the true vacuum as a function

528: of temperature for different values of $\epsilon$. (Notice the

529: first-order nature of the EWPT, even at one loop, for the selected set

530: of parameters.) Keeping the left-handed stop heavy and decoupled, we

531: see that the effect of varying $\epsilon$ is mainly to shift the

532: resulting values of the critical VEV and temperature such that

533: $({v_c}/{T_c})\cdot m_h^2\approx$ const. This confirms the simple

534: expectation of Eq. (\ref{eq:cond1loop}), and shows that a change in

535: ${v_c}/{T_c}$ due to the DST operators is simply a result of the

536: zero-temperature change in Higgs mass. Two-loop and lattice

537: calculations then imply that a strongly first-order EWPT can occur

538: even if $m_h$ is well above the LEP bound.

539: 

540: Let us conclude this section by summarizing the qualitative picture

541: that arises from our analysis. The main results can be understood

542: from Eqs. (\ref{eq:vcTc}) and (\ref{eq:cond1loop}). The resulting

543: constraints on the relevant supresymmetric parameters can be

544: schematically presented as follows:

545: \beq

546: \frac{E(m_{\tilde t_R})}{\lambda(m_{\tilde t_R},m_{\tilde

547:     t_L},\epsilon_i)}\geq 1.

548: \eeq

549: %

550: Given that there is an {\it experimental} lower bound on $\lambda$,

551: the requirement of strongly first order EWPT translates into a lower

552: bound on $E$ which, in our framework, requires $m_{\tilde t_R}$ to be

553: within the narrow range between the lower bound (coming from direct

554: searches and/or the requirement that there is no color breaking) and

555: (roughly) $m_t$. Since $E$ does not dpened directly on $\epsilon_i$,

556: this constraint is hardly affected by extending the MSSM with

557: non-renormalizable terms. Thus, the main effect of $\epsilon_i$ is

558: that it can be combined with $m_{\tilde t_L}$ to render $\lambda$

559: close to the lower bound (with $m_{\tilde t_R}$ almost fixed). In

560: particular, negative values of $\epsilon_1$ allow lower values of

561: $m_{\tilde t_L}$ compared to the MSSM. This is the content of Fig.

562: \ref{fig:HiggsMassStopEps}. We expect other, smaller effects, on the

563: allowed range of $\tan\beta$ and $X_t$, but to quantify them we need

564: the full two-loop calculation.

565: 

566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

567: \section{CP violation}

568: \label{sec:cpv}

569: %

570: The non-renormalizable terms affect not only the phase transition,

571: but also the CP violation that is relevant to baryogenesis. First,

572: they induce CP violating bubble wall profiles and by that allow the

573: third generation fermions to directly produce some baryon asymmetry.

574: Second, they modify the chargino and neutralino currents. These two

575: effects are described in the two respective subsections.

576: 

577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

578: \subsection{CP violation in bubble wall}

579: \label{subsec:sponBG}

580: %

581: In the tree level potential of the MSSM, the $m_1^2$ and $m_2^2$

582: parameters are real, while the $m_{12}^2$ parameter can have an

583: arbitrary phase. However, one may use global field redefinitions to

584: make $m_{12}^2$ real and positive. In this basis, $\phi_1$ and

585: $\phi_2$ are real and positive throughout the phase transition. Thus

586: one arrives at the well known conclusion that, within the MSSM, CP

587: violation in bubble walls is insignificant

588: \cite{Cohen:1991iu,Abel:1992za,Huber:1999sa} (see, however,

589: \cite{Comelli:1993ne}).

590: 

591: Adding the DST operators changes this picture. Let us define

592: \beqa\label{eq:vdef}

593: v^2&=&|\phi_1|^2+|\phi_2|^2, \no\\

594: \tan\beta&=&|\phi_1/\phi_2|,\ \ s=\sin\beta,\ c=\cos\beta,\no\\

595: e^{-i\theta}&=&v^2sc/(\phi_1\phi_2).

596: \eeqa

597: %

598: Note that $v$ and $\beta$ (and $\theta$) parameterize the VEVs at the

599: {\it finite}-temperature vacuum. The phase dependent part in the tree

600: level potential is

601: \beq\label{eq:spontBG}

602: -\left[\left(m^2_{12}+2v^2\epsilon_{1}\right)e^{-i\theta}-

603:   \epsilon_2v^2sce^{-2i\theta}+{\rm h.c.}\right]v^2sc.

604: \eeq

605: %

606: In contrast to the MSSM scenario, it is not possible -- even at tree

607: level -- to globally define the phases of $\phi_i$ such that the

608: coefficient in square brackets in Eq. (\ref{eq:spontBG}) is maximized

609: for varying $v$.  During the PT, the phase of $\phi_1\phi_2$ aligns

610: dynamically, inducing an energy gap between left and right chiral

611: components of fermions \cite{Cohen:1991iu}.  This situation resembles

612: the case of the two-Higgs doublet model \cite{Fromme:2006cm}. It is

613: different from the MSSM scenario in that, for example, the BAU can be

614: generated through top or tau rather than chargino or neutralino

615: currents.

616: 

617: The produced BAU due to a varying complex phase in the bubble wall is

618: proportional to an integral over the gradient of the phase across the

619: wall. To find the dynamical phase profile requires obtaining the

620: tunneling solution, as in \cite{Huber:1999sa}. Here we use Eq.

621: (\ref{eq:spontBG}) to estimate the total variation of

622: $\theta$ between the symmetric and broken vacua, based on potential

623: energy alone. Let us neglect for now the effect of $\epsilon_2$. In

624: this limit, $\theta$ is given by

625: \beq

626: \theta=\arg{\left(m_{12}^2+2v^2\epsilon_1\right)}.\no

627: \eeq

628:                                 %

629: Adopting a basis for the symmetric vacuum in which $m_{12}^2$ is real

630: and positive, we get, to leading order in $\epsilon_1$,

631: %

632: \beq\label{eq:Dphi}

633: \Delta\theta\approx2\epsilon_{1i}\left(\frac{v_c}{m_A}\right)^2\tan\beta

634: \eeq

635: We substitute here $m_{12}^2\approx\frac{1}{2}m_A^2\sin2\beta$, which

636: holds at tree level and to zeroth order in $\epsilon$ (see Appendix

637: \ref{app:subs}). Note that our approximations here and in Section

638: \ref{sec:DST} hold for $(m_A/v_0)^2>2\epsilon\tan\beta$. Thus the phase

639: cannot be large, $\Delta\theta<0.3$.

640: 

641: The tree level CP violation at the bubble walls triggers some amount

642: of baryogenesis, through varying complex phases in the field-dependent

643: masses of SM particles, like top and bottom quarks or tau leptons.

644: Which of these plays the most significant role depends on the

645: specifics of the scenario under consideration, particularly the value

646: of $\tan\beta$.

647: 

648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

649: \subsection{SUSY particle currents}

650: \label{subsec:modSUSY}

651: %

652: In the renormalizable MSSM, mass eigenmodes in the chargino and

653: neutralino sectors develop time-varying complex phases due to the

654: variation of EW breaking, real, off-diagonal terms in the associated

655: mass matrices. CP violation is provided by complex-valued SUSY and

656: soft SUSY-breaking parameters. DST operators affect this computation,

657: even in case that they do not introduce any new phases.

658: 

659: We continue to use the parametrization of Eq. (\ref{eq:vdef}). The

660: neutralino $\widetilde{N}$ and the chargino $\widetilde{C}$ mass

661: matrices get contributions from the dimension-five DST operator

662: \cite{Dine:2007xi}:

663: \beq\label{eq:dst5}

664: \frac{\epsilon_1}{\mu^*}\left[2(H_uH_d)(\widetilde{H_u}\widetilde{H_d})

665: +2(\widetilde{H_u}H_d)(H_u\widetilde{H_d})+(H_u\widetilde{H_d})(H_u\widetilde{H_d})

666: +(\widetilde{H_u}H_d)(\widetilde{H_u}H_d)\right]+{\rm h.c.},

667: \eeq

668: arising from the superpotential of Eq. (\ref{eq:wdst}). In the

669: gauge eigenstate basis, one obtains \cite{Martin:1997ns}:

670: \beq\label{eq:MNino}

671: M_{\widetilde{N}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} M_1 & 0 &

672:     -\frac{g'\phi_1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g'\phi_2}{\sqrt{2}}\\

673:     0 & M_2 & \frac{g\phi_1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g\phi_2}{\sqrt{2}}\\

674:     -\frac{g'\phi_1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{g\phi_1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & -\mu\\

675:     \frac{g'\phi_2}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{g\phi_2}{\sqrt{2}} & -\mu & 0

676: \end{array}\right) -

677: \frac{\epsilon_1}{\mu^*}\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 0  & 0 & 0 & 0 \\

678:   0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \phi_2^2 & 4\phi_1\phi_2\\

679: 0 & 0 & 4\phi_1\phi_2 & \phi_1^2 \end{array}\right),

680: \eeq

681: \beq\label{eq:MCino}

682: M_{\widetilde{C}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} M_2 & g\phi_2 \\

683:     g\phi_1 & \mu \end{array}\right)

684: + \frac{2\epsilon_1}{\mu^*}\phi_1\phi_2

685: \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right).

686: \eeq

687: %

688: Apart from modifications of the spectrum, the DST corrections

689: introduce position dependence into the $\widetilde{H}-\widetilde{H}$

690: entries of the matrices. Position dependence of the diagonal

691: elements is by itself a new effect. The gradients of DST-induced

692: entries are, however, suppressed by factors of ${\cal

693: O}(\epsilon\phi/\mu)$, small compared to the usual suppression of

694: ${\cal O}(g)$.

695: 

696: 

697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

698: \section{Discussion}

699: \label{sec:con}

700: %

701: The tree-level renormalizable scalar potential of the MSSM yields an

702: upper bound on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson which is

703: experimentally known to be violated. Loop-corrections involving the

704: top quarks and squarks can (still?) relax the theoretical bound

705: sufficiently, at the cost of some fine-tuning. Non-renormalizable

706: terms, suppressed by a cut-off scale in the few TeV range, can

707: similarly relax the bound without, however, fine-tuning

708: \cite{Dine:2007xi}. We analyzed the consequences of such beyond-MSSM

709: (BMSSM) effects on electroweak baryogenesis (EWBG). We find that, even

710: in this regime, the non-renormalizable terms may easily alter some of

711: the principal features of the so called ``window'' for EWBG in the

712: MSSM.

713: 

714: In particular, the fine-tuning that arises if the required increase of

715: the quartic Higgs coupling is attributed solely to stop-related loop

716: corrections, becomes quite strong in the MSSM window for

717: baryogenesis. The reason is that, to have a large enough cubic term in

718: the scalar potential as necessary for strongly first-order phase

719: transition, the mass of the lighter stop must be below the top mass

720: which, in turn, requires that the heavy stop mass is in the few

721: TeV range. In our framework, however, the task of increasing the

722: quartic coupling can be shared between the stop-related

723: loop-corrections and the non-renormalizable contributions. This allows

724: a strongly first-order phase transition simultaneously with a Higgs

725: mass above the LEP bound with the heavier stop mass well below

726: TeV. Thus, the MSSM window is extended and, most significantly, made

727: natural.

728: 

729: Additional relevant consequences of the non-renormalizable terms

730: concern CP violation. The new operators provide new sources of CP

731: violation. These make a qualitative change in the picture of CP

732: violation. Unlike in the MSSM, it is impossible in general to choose

733: a phase convention whereby the relative phase between the two Higgs

734: VEVs vanishes all along the bubble wall. The interactions of the

735: third generation fermions -- top, bottom and tau -- with the bubble

736: wall could thus contribute significantly to the generation of the

737: baryon asymmetry. Finally, the chargino and neutralino currents,

738: which within the MSSM are usually responsible for the baryogenesis,

739: are modified in a qualitatively interesting way, though the

740: quantitative effects are parametrically suppressed and may turn out

741: small.

742: 

743: We conclude that BMSSM effects, which may become

744: necessary to give a consistent picture of the Higgs and stop sectors,

745: can play a significant role also in supersymmetric baryogenesis. In

746: particular, the BMSSM window for baryogenesis allows for parameters

747: that are significantly more natural than those of the MSSM

748: baryogenesis.

749: 

750: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

751: \section*{Acknowledgments}

752: %

753: We are grateful to Michael Dine and Ann Nelson for useful discussions

754: and to Michael Peskin, Scott Thomas and, in particular, Jose Espinosa,

755: for helpful correspondence. This research is supported

756: by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of

757: Sciences and Humanities, the United States-Israel Binational Science

758: Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, Israel, the German-Israeli foundation for

759: scientific research and development (GIF), and the Minerva Foundation.

760: 

761: %

762: %

763: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

764: \appendix

765: 

766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%

767: \section{Substituting $m_1^2,m_2^2,m_{12}^2$}

768: \label{app:subs}

769: %%

770: The effective potential of Eq. (\ref{eq:veff}) depends on three

771: dimensionful quantitities: $m_1^2,m_2^2$ and $m_{12}^2$.  These

772: parameters need to be replaced by measurable quantities, for which we

773: choose $m_Z,m_A$ and $\tan\beta$ at the zero-temperature vacuum:

774: %

775: \beqa\label{eq:A1}

776: m_{12}^2&=&\frac12 m_A^2 s_{2\beta}-2\epsilon_{1r}

777: v^2+2\epsilon_{2r} v^2 s_{2\beta} +\frac{3g^2 m_t^2 A_t\mu}{32\pi^2

778:   s^2_\beta m_W^2}g(m_{\tilde t_1}^2,m_{\tilde t_2}^2) +\frac{3g^2

779:   m_b^2 A_b\mu}{32\pi^2 c^2_\beta

780:   m_W^2}g(m_{\tilde b_1}^2,m_{\tilde b_2}^2),\no\\

781: g(m_1^2,m_2^2)&=&\frac{m_1^2[\ln(m_1^2/Q^2)-1]

782:   -m_2^2[\ln(m_2^2/Q^2)-1]}{m_1^2-m_2^2},\no\\

783: %\label{eq:A2}

784: m_1^2&=&m_{12}^2\tan\beta-\frac12

785: m_Z^2 c_{2\beta}+2\epsilon_{1r}

786: v^2(\tan\beta+s_{2\beta})-2\epsilon_{2r} v^2 s^2_\beta\no\\

787: &&-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left\{\sum_{i=\{{\rm

788:       dof}\}}n_i\frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{\phi_1}\frac{\partial

789:     m_i^2(\phi)}{\partial\phi_1}\left[

790:     \ln\left(\frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{Q^2}\right)-1\right]\right\}_{v,\beta},\no\\

791: m_2^2&=&m_{12}^2\cot\beta+\frac12 m_Z^2 c_{2\beta}+2\epsilon_{1r}

792: v^2(\cot\beta+s_{2\beta})-2\epsilon_{2r} v^2 c^2_\beta\no\\

793: &&-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\left\{\sum_{i=\{{\rm

794:       dof}\}}n_i\frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{\phi_2}\frac{\partial

795:     m_i^2(\phi)}{\partial\phi_2}\left[

796:     \ln\left(\frac{m_i^2(\phi)}{Q^2}\right)-1\right]\right\}_{v,\beta}.

797: \eeqa

798: %

799: The values of $v,\beta$ in Eqs. (\ref{eq:A1}) refer to the

800: zero-temperature vacuum.

801: 

802: The basis in which we define the phases of $\epsilon$ above is defined

803: by having $m_{12}^2$ real and positive. Adopting the conventions of

804: Eq. (\ref{eq:vdef}), the $\theta$-dependent part in the tree-level

805: potential is approximately given by

806: %

807: \beq\label{eq:theta}-2v^4\cot\beta \cdot

808: {\cal R}e\left[\left(\frac{m_{12}^2}{v^2}

809:     +2\epsilon_{1}-\cot\beta\epsilon_2e^{-i\theta}\right)

810:   e^{-i\theta}\right].

811: \eeq

812: %

813: For $m_{12}^2/v^2\gg2\epsilon$, there is a small $\theta$

814: solution which minimizes (\ref{eq:theta}):

815: %

816: \beq \theta\approx\frac{v^2}{m_{12}^2}

817: \left(2\epsilon_{1i}-\cot\beta\epsilon_{2i}\right),\no \eeq

818: %

819: to leading order in $\epsilon$.  For this solution, we can treat

820: $\phi_{1,2}$ as positive numbers and replace the real part in

821: (\ref{eq:theta}) by absolute value:

822: %

823: \beq

824: -2m^2_{12}\phi_1\phi_2-4\epsilon_{1r}

825: \left(\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2\right)\phi_1\phi_2+

826: 2\epsilon_{2r}\phi_1^2\phi_2^2,\no

827: \eeq

828: %

829: which is used in Eqs. (\ref{eq:A1}).

830: 

831: 

832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

833: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

834: 

835: %\cite{Yao:2006px}

836: \bibitem{Yao:2006px}

837:   W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

838:   ``Review of particle physics,''

839:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006) and 2007 partial update for the 2008

840:   edition.

841:   %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%

842: 

843: %\cite{Strumia:1999jm}

844: \bibitem{Strumia:1999jm}

845:   A.~Strumia,

846:   ``Bounds on Kaluza-Klein excitations of the SM vector bosons from

847:   electroweak tests,''

848:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 466}, 107 (1999)

849:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266].

850:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B466,107;%%

851: 

852: %\cite{Polonsky:2000aa}

853: \bibitem{Polonsky:2000aa}

854:   N.~Polonsky,

855:   ``The scale of supersymmetry breaking as a free parameter,''

856:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 101}, 357 (2001)

857:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0102196].

858:   %%CITATION = NUPHZ,101,357;%%

859: 

860: %\cite{Brignole:2003cm}

861: \bibitem{Brignole:2003cm}

862:   A.~Brignole, J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and I.~Navarro,

863:   ``Low-scale supersymmetry breaking: Effective description, electroweak

864:   breaking and phenomenology,''

865:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 666}, 105 (2003)

866:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0301121].

867:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B666,105;%%

868: 

869: %\cite{Casas:2003jx}

870: \bibitem{Casas:2003jx}

871:   J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and I.~Hidalgo,

872:   ``The MSSM fine tuning problem: A way out,''

873:   JHEP {\bf 0401}, 008 (2004)

874:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310137].

875:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0401,008;%%

876: 

877: %\cite{Dine:2007xi}

878: \bibitem{Dine:2007xi}

879:   M.~Dine, N.~Seiberg and S.~Thomas,

880:   ``Higgs Physics as a Window Beyond the MSSM (BMSSM),''

881:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 095004 (2007)

882:   [arXiv:0707.0005 [hep-ph]].

883:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,095004;%%

884: 

885: %\cite{Cohen:1993nk}

886: \bibitem{Cohen:1993nk}

887:   A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,

888:   ``Progress in electroweak baryogenesis,''

889:   Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 43}, 27 (1993)

890:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9302210].

891:   %%CITATION = ARNUA,43,27;%%

892: 

893: %MSSM BG

894: %-------

895: %\cite{Carena:1996wj}

896: \bibitem{Carena:1996wj}

897:   M.~S.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

898:   ``Opening the Window for Electroweak Baryogenesis,''

899:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 380}, 81 (1996)

900:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9603420].

901:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B380,81;%%

902: 

903: %\cite{Delepine:1996vn}

904: \bibitem{Delepine:1996vn}

905:   D.~Delepine, J.~M.~Gerard, R.~Gonzalez Felipe and J.~Weyers,

906:   ``A light stop and electroweak baryogenesis,''

907:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 386}, 183 (1996)

908:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9604440].

909:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B386,183;%%

910: 

911: 

912: %calculating the BAU: transport eq. etc.

913: %---------------------------------------

914: 

915: %\cite{Konstandin:2004gy}

916: \bibitem{Konstandin:2004gy}

917:   T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,

918:   ``Kinetic description of fermion flavor mixing and CP-violating sources  for

919:   baryogenesis,''

920:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 716}, 373 (2005)

921:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410135].

922:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B716,373;%%

923: 

924: %\cite{Konstandin:2005cd}

925: \bibitem{Konstandin:2005cd}

926:   T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec, M.~G.~Schmidt and M.~Seco,

927:   ``MSSM electroweak baryogenesis and flavour mixing in transport  equations,''

928:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 738}, 1 (2006)

929:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0505103].

930:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B738,1;%%

931: 

932: %\cite{Cirigliano:2006wh}

933: \bibitem{Cirigliano:2006wh}

934:   V.~Cirigliano, M.~J.~Ramsey-Musolf, S.~Tulin and C.~Lee,

935:   ``Yukawa and tri-scalar processes in electroweak baryogenesis,''

936:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 73}, 115009 (2006)

937:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0603058].

938:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,115009;%%

939: 

940: %\cite{Fromme:2006wx}

941: \bibitem{Fromme:2006wx}

942:   L.~Fromme and S.~J.~Huber,

943:   ``Top transport in electroweak baryogenesis,''

944:   JHEP {\bf 0703}, 049 (2007)

945:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0604159].

946:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0703,049;%%

947: 

948: %EWBG in MSSM extentions

949: %-----------------------

950: 

951: %\cite{Kang:2004pp}

952: \bibitem{Kang:2004pp}

953:   J.~Kang, P.~Langacker, T.~j.~Li and T.~Liu,

954:   ``Electroweak baryogenesis in a supersymmetric U(1)' model,''

955:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94}, 061801 (2005)

956:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402086].

957:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,94,061801;%%

958: 

959: %\cite{Carena:2004ha}

960: \bibitem{Carena:2004ha}

961:   M.~S.~Carena, A.~Megevand, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

962:   ``Electroweak baryogenesis and new TeV fermions,''

963:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 716}, 319 (2005)

964:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410352].

965:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B716,319;%%

966: 

967: %\cite{Huber:2006ma}

968: \bibitem{Huber:2006ma}

969:   S.~J.~Huber, T.~Konstandin, T.~Prokopec and M.~G.~Schmidt,

970:   ``Baryogenesis in the MSSM, nMSSM and NMSSM,''

971:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 785}, 206 (2007)

972:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0608017].

973:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,A785,206;%%

974: 

975: %2HDM

976: %----

977: %\cite{Fromme:2006cm}

978: \bibitem{Fromme:2006cm}

979:   L.~Fromme, S.~J.~Huber and M.~Seniuch,

980:   ``Baryogenesis in the two-Higgs doublet model,''

981:   JHEP {\bf 0611}, 038 (2006)

982:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605242].

983:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0611,038;%%

984: 

985:   %\cite{Espinosa:2007qk}

986: \bibitem{Espinosa:2007qk}

987:   J.~R.~Espinosa and M.~Quiros,

988:   ``Novel effects in electroweak breaking from a hidden sector,''

989:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 76}, 076004 (2007)

990:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0701145].

991:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,076004;%%

992: 

993: %dim-6 low cut-off SM

994: %--------------------

995: %\cite{Bodeker:2004ws}

996: \bibitem{Bodeker:2004ws}

997:   D.~Bodeker, L.~Fromme, S.~J.~Huber and M.~Seniuch,

998:   ``The baryon asymmetry in the standard model with a low cut-off,''

999:   JHEP {\bf 0502}, 026 (2005)

1000:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0412366].

1001:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0502,026;%%

1002: 

1003: %\cite{Grojean:2004xa}

1004: \bibitem{Grojean:2004xa}

1005:   C.~Grojean, G.~Servant and J.~D.~Wells,

1006:   ``First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a  low

1007:   cutoff,''

1008:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 71}, 036001 (2005)

1009:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407019].

1010:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,036001;%%

1011: 

1012: %\cite{Delaunay:2007wb}

1013: \bibitem{Delaunay:2007wb}

1014:   C.~Delaunay, C.~Grojean and J.~D.~Wells,

1015:   ``Dynamics of Non-renormalizable Electroweak Symmetry Breaking,''

1016:   arXiv:0711.2511 [hep-ph].

1017:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0711.2511;%%

1018: 

1019: %

1020: %\cite{Espinosa:1993yi}

1021: \bibitem{Espinosa:1993yi}

1022:   J.~R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros and F.~Zwirner,

1023:   ``On the electroweak phase transition in the minimal supersymmetric Standard

1024:   Model,''

1025:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 307}, 106 (1993)

1026:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9303317].

1027:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B307,106;%%

1028: 

1029: %\cite{Espinosa:1996qw}

1030: \bibitem{Espinosa:1996qw}

1031:   J.~R.~Espinosa,

1032:   ``Dominant Two-Loop Corrections to the MSSM Finite Temperature Effective

1033:   %Potential,''

1034:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 475}, 273 (1996)

1035:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9604320].

1036:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B475,273;%%

1037: 

1038: %

1039: %2-loop MSSM BG

1040: %\cite{de Carlos:1997ru}

1041: \bibitem{de Carlos:1997ru}

1042:   B.~de Carlos and J.~R.~Espinosa,

1043:   ``The baryogenesis window in the MSSM,''

1044:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 503}, 24 (1997)

1045:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9703212].

1046:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B503,24;%%

1047: 

1048: %\cite{Bodeker:1996pc}

1049: \bibitem{Bodeker:1996pc}

1050:   D.~Bodeker, P.~John, M.~Laine and M.~G.~Schmidt,

1051:   ``The 2-loop MSSM finite temperature effective potential with stop

1052:   condensation,''

1053:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 497}, 387 (1997)

1054:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9612364].

1055:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B497,387;%%

1056: 

1057: %\cite{Cline:1998hy}

1058: \bibitem{Cline:1998hy}

1059:   J.~M.~Cline and G.~D.~Moore,

1060:   ``Supersymmetric electroweak phase transition: Baryogenesis versus

1061:   experimental constraints,''

1062:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 3315 (1998)

1063:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9806354].

1064:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,81,3315;%%

1065: 

1066: %\cite{Davidson:1999ii}

1067: \bibitem{Davidson:1999ii}

1068:   S.~Davidson, T.~Falk and M.~Losada,

1069:   ``Dark matter abundance and electroweak baryogenesis in the CMSSM,''

1070:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 463}, 214 (1999)

1071:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9907365].

1072:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B463,214;%%

1073: 

1074: %\cite{Laine:1998vn}

1075: \bibitem{Laine:1998vn}

1076:   M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen,

1077:   ``A strong electroweak phase transition up to $m_H\approx 105$ GeV,''

1078:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 80}, 5259 (1998)

1079:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9804255].

1080:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,5259;%%

1081: 

1082: %\cite{Losada:1996ju}

1083: \bibitem{Losada:1996ju}

1084:   M.~Losada,

1085:   ``High temperature dimensional reduction of the MSSM and other  multi-scalar

1086:   models,''

1087:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 56}, 2893 (1997)

1088:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9605266].

1089:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,2893;%%

1090: 

1091: %\cite{Farrar:1996cp}

1092: \bibitem{Farrar:1996cp}

1093:   G.~R.~Farrar and M.~Losada,

1094:   ``SUSY and the electroweak phase transition,''

1095:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 406}, 60 (1997)

1096:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9612346].

1097:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B406,60;%%

1098: 

1099: %non-pert'

1100: %----------

1101: %\cite{Csikor:2000sq}

1102: \bibitem{Csikor:2000sq}

1103:   F.~Csikor, Z.~Fodor, P.~Hegedus, A.~Jakovac, S.~D.~Katz and A.~Piroth,

1104:   ``Electroweak phase transition in the MSSM: 4-dimensional lattice

1105:   simulations,''

1106:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85}, 932 (2000)

1107:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0001087].

1108:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,932;%%

1109: 

1110: 

1111: %\cite{Laine:2000rm}

1112: \bibitem{Laine:2000rm}

1113:   M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen,

1114:   ``Two Higgs doublet dynamics at the electroweak phase transition: A

1115:   non-perturbative study,''

1116:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 597}, 23 (2001)

1117:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0009025].

1118:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B597,23;%%

1119: 

1120: 

1121: %\cite{Cline:2006ts}

1122: \bibitem{Cline:2006ts}

1123:   J.~M.~Cline,

1124:   ``Baryogenesis,''

1125:   arXiv:hep-ph/0609145.

1126:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0609145;%%

1127: 

1128:   %\cite{Quiros:2007zz}

1129: \bibitem{Quiros:2007zz}

1130:   M.~Quiros,

1131:   ``Electroweak baryogenesis,''

1132:   J.\ Phys.\ A  {\bf 40}, 6573 (2007).

1133:   %%CITATION = JPAGB,A40,6573;%%

1134: 

1135: %\cite{Buchmuller:2007fd}

1136: \bibitem{Buchmuller:2007fd}

1137:   W.~Buchmuller,

1138:   ``Baryogenesis -- 40 Years Later,''

1139:   arXiv:0710.5857 [hep-ph].

1140:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.5857;%%

1141: 

1142: %a great classic

1143: %-----------------

1144: %\cite{Shaposhnikov:1986jp}

1145: \bibitem{Shaposhnikov:1986jp}

1146:   M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

1147:   ``Possible Appearance of the Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in an

1148:   Electroweak Theory,''

1149:   JETP Lett.\  {\bf 44}, 465 (1986)

1150:   [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 44}, 364 (1986)].

1151:   %%CITATION = ZFPRA,44,364;%%

1152: 

1153: %review; decoupling limit

1154: %------------------------

1155: %\cite{Quiros:1999jp}

1156: \bibitem{Quiros:1999jp}

1157:   M.~Quiros,

1158:   ``Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions,''

1159:   arXiv:hep-ph/9901312.

1160:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9901312;%%

1161: 

1162: %reliefe for fine tuning

1163: %-----------------------

1164: %\cite{Casas:2004uu}

1165: \bibitem{Casas:2004uu}

1166:   J.~A.~Casas, J.~R.~Espinosa and I.~Hidalgo,

1167:   ``A relief to the supersymmetric fine tuning problem,''

1168:   arXiv:hep-ph/0402017.

1169:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0402017;%%

1170: 

1171: %spont' BG

1172: %---------

1173: %\cite{Cohen:1991iu}

1174: \bibitem{Cohen:1991iu}

1175:   A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,

1176:   ``Spontaneous baryogenesis at the weak phase transition,''

1177:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 263}, 86 (1991).

1178:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B263,86;%%

1179: 

1180: %\cite{Abel:1992za}

1181: \bibitem{Abel:1992za}

1182:   S.~A.~Abel, W.~N.~Cottingham and I.~B.~Whittingham,

1183:   ``Spontaneous baryogenesis in supersymmetric models,''

1184:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 410}, 173 (1993)

1185:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9212299].

1186:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B410,173;%%

1187: 

1188: %CPV bubble walls

1189: %----------------

1190: %\cite{Huber:1999sa}

1191: \bibitem{Huber:1999sa}

1192:   S.~J.~Huber, P.~John, M.~Laine and M.~G.~Schmidt,

1193:   ``CP violating bubble wall profiles,''

1194:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 475}, 104 (2000)

1195:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9912278].

1196:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B475,104;%%

1197: 

1198: %\cite{Comelli:1993ne}

1199: \bibitem{Comelli:1993ne}

1200:   D.~Comelli, M.~Pietroni and A.~Riotto,

1201:   ``Spontaneous CP violation and baryogenesis in the minimal supersymmetric

1202:   Standard Model,''

1203:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 412}, 441 (1994)

1204:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9304267].

1205:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B412,441;%%

1206: 

1207: %SUSY primer

1208: %\cite{Martin:1997ns}

1209: \bibitem{Martin:1997ns}

1210:   S.~P.~Martin,

1211:   ``A supersymmetry primer,''

1212:   arXiv:hep-ph/9709356.

1213:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9709356;%%

1214: 

1215: \end{thebibliography}

1216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1217: 

1218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1219: %figures

1220: 

1221: %higgs-stop mass, contours of fixed epsilon

1222: %------------------------------------------

1223: \begin{figure}[h]\center

1224: %\hspace{-1cm}

1225: \includegraphics[width=120mm]{HiggsMassStopEps.eps}

1226: \caption{The soft SUSY-breaking mass of $\widetilde{t}_L$, $m_Q$,

1227:   versus the light Higgs mass, $m_h$, for various values of

1228:   $\epsilon_1$. Other relevant parameters are fixed at $X_t=0$,

1229:   $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}=150$ GeV, $m_A=300$ GeV and $\tan\beta=4$. The

1230:   gray line marks the LEP lower bound, $m_h=114$ GeV. }

1231: \label{fig:HiggsMassStopEps}

1232: \end{figure}

1233: 

1234: %features of PT

1235: %--------------

1236: \begin{figure}[h]\center

1237: %\hspace{-1cm}

1238: \includegraphics[width=120mm]{PT_profile_FixLightStop.eps}

1239: \caption{The Higgs VEV at the lowest minimum as a function of

1240:   temperature for various values of $m_h$, $\epsilon_1$ and

1241:   $\epsilon_2$. Other relevant parameters are fixed at $X_t=0$,

1242:   $m_{\widetilde{t}_R}=150$ GeV, $m_Q=500$ GeV, $m_A=300$ GeV and

1243:   $\tan\beta=4$. The different sets of ($m_h,\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2$)

1244:   all yield the same $m_h^2(v_c/T_c)$ to within about $5\%$.}

1245: \label{fig:PT_profile_FixLightStop}

1246: \end{figure}

1247: 

1248: \end{document}

1249: