1: %\documentclass[a4paper,dvips,12pt]{article}

2: \documentclass[dvips,12pt]{article}

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,exscale}   

4: \usepackage{array,multicol}

5: \usepackage{afterpage,float,flafter}   

6: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating,pifont,fancybox}   

7: %\usepackage{showkeys}   

8: %\usepackage{draftcopy}   

9: \textheight=232mm   

10: \textwidth=160mm   

11: \setlength{\hoffset}{-1in}   

12: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{2cm}   

13: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{2cm}   

14: \setlength{\voffset}{-.5in}   

15: \setlength{\headheight}{0cm}   

16: \setlength{\headsep}{0cm}   

17: \setlength{\topmargin}{2cm} 

18: %\setlength{\topmargin}{1cm}

19: \setlength{\columnseprule}{0pt}     

20: \makeatletter   

21: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}   

22: \makeatother   

23: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}   

24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

25: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}

26: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}

27: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}   

28: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}   

29: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}   

30: \newcommand{\NPB}[3]{\emph{ Nucl.~Phys.} \textbf{B#1} (#2) #3}   

31: \newcommand{\PLB}[3]{\emph{ Phys.~Lett.} \textbf{B#1} (#2) #3}   

32: \newcommand{\PRD}[3]{\emph{ Phys.~Rev.} \textbf{D#1} (#2) #3}   

33: \newcommand{\PRL}[3]{\emph{ Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}   

34: \newcommand{\ZPC}[3]{\emph{ Z.~Phys.} \textbf{C#1} (#2) #3}   

35: \newcommand{\PTP}[3]{\emph{ Prog.~Theor.~Phys.} \textbf{#1}  (#2) #3}   

36: \newcommand{\MPL}[3]{\emph{ Mod.~Phys.~Lett.} \textbf{A#1} (#2) #3}   

37: \newcommand{\PR}[3]{\emph{ Phys.~Rep.} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}   

38: \newcommand{\RMP}[3]{\emph{ Rev.~Mod.~Phys.} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}   

39: \newcommand{\HPA}[3]{\emph{ Helv.~Phys.~Acta} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}   

40: \newcommand{\AP}[3]{\emph{ Ann.~Phys.} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3} 

41: \newcommand{\EPJC}[3]{\emph{ Eur.~Phys.~J.} \textbf{C#1} (#2) #3}  

42: \newcommand{\JHEP}[3]{\emph{ JHEP} \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}  

43: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mathop{\rm Tr}}   

44: \newcommand{\und}{\underline}   

45: \newcommand{\dalpha}{{\dot\alpha}}   

46: \newcommand{\dbeta}{{\dot\beta}}   

47: \newcommand{\drho}{{\dot\rho}}   

48: \newcommand{\dsigma}{{\dot\sigma}}   

49: \newcommand{\crbig}{\\\noalign{\vspace {3mm}}}   

50: \newcommand{\bigint}{{\displaystyle\int}}   

51: \newcommand{\Fcomp}{{\theta\theta}}   

52: \newcommand{\Fbarcomp}{\ov{\theta\theta}}   

53: \newcommand{\Dcomp}{{\theta\theta\ov{\theta\theta}}}   

54: \newcommand{\Dint}{{\bigint d^2\theta d^2\ov\theta\,}}   

55: \newcommand{\Fint}{{\bigint d^2\theta\,}}   

56: \newcommand{\Fbarint}{{\bigint d^2\ov\theta\,}}   

57: \newcommand{\ex}{{\rm exp}}   

58: \newcommand{\tR}{\tilde{t}_R}

59: \newcommand{\hS}{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}}

60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

61: \title{   

62: \vspace*{-1.3cm}   

63: \begin{flushright}   

64: \normalsize{

65: LPTENS-00/20\\      

66: IEM-FT-204/00\\

67: IFT-UAM/CSIC-00-31\\

68: FERMILAB-PUB-00/240-T \\

69: ANL-HEP-PR-00-101 \\

70: EFI-2000-030  \\

71: %\textsf{hep-ph/0011055}

72: }

73: %\\ 

74: \end{flushright}    

75: %\normalsize

76: \vspace{.5cm}

77: %

78: \Large

79: \textbf{Supersymmetric CP-violating Currents and\\

80: Electroweak Baryogenesis}

81: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}

82: \vspace*{.2cm}

83: \author{\large\textbf

84: {M.~Carena$^a$, J.M.~Moreno$^b$, M.~Quir\'os$^{a,b}$}\\ \\

85: \textbf{

86: M.~Seco$^{b,\dagger}$} and \textbf{C.E.M.~Wagner$^{c,d}$}\\ \\

87: $^a$\normalsize\emph{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,

88: P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA }\\

89: $^b$\normalsize\emph{Instituto de Estructura de la Materia (CSIC),

90: Serrano 123, 

91: E-28006 Madrid, Spain}\\

92: $^c$\normalsize\emph{HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory,

93: 9700 Cass Ave.,

94: Argonne, IL 60439, USA} \\

95: $^d$\normalsize\emph{Enrico Fermi Institute, Univ. of Chicago, 5640

96: Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637, USA}}}

97: \date{}   

98: \begin{document}

99: \maketitle

100: 

101: %\vspace*{2cm}

102: 

103: \begin{abstract}

104: In this work we compute the CP-violating

105: currents of the right-handed stops and Higgsinos,

106: induced by the presence of non-trivial vacuum expectation

107: values of the Higgs fields within the context of the

108: minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) 

109: with explicit CP-violating phases. Using the Keldysh formalism,

110: we perform  the computation of the currents

111: at finite temperature,

112: in an expansion of derivatives of the Higgs fields. 

113: Contrary to previous works, we implement a resummation

114: of the Higgs mass insertion effects to all orders in 

115: perturbation theory. While the components of the

116: right-handed stop current $j^\mu_{\widetilde t_R}$  

117: become proportional to the difference  

118: $H_2 \partial^{\mu}H_1-H_1 \partial^{\mu} H_2$

119: (suppressed by $\Delta\beta$), the Higgsino

120: currents, $j^\mu_{\widetilde{H}_i},$  

121: present contributions proportional to both 

122: $H_2 \partial^{\mu}H_1\pm H_1 \partial^{\mu} H_2$. 

123: For large values of the charged Higgs mass and

124: moderate values of $\tan\beta$ the contribution to the source

125: proportional to $H_2 \partial^{\mu}H_1+H_1 \partial^{\mu} H_2$

126: in the diffusion equations become sizeable,

127: although it is suppressed by  the Higgsino number

128: violating interaction rate $\Gamma_\mu^{-1/2}$.

129: For small values of the wall velocity,

130: $0.04\simlt v_\omega \simlt 0.1$, 

131: the total contribution leads to acceptable values

132: of the baryon asymmetry for values of the CP-violating phases $\varphi_{CP}$  

133: in the range $0.04\simlt|\sin\varphi_{CP}|\simlt 1$. Finally, we

134: comment on the relevance of the latest results of Higgs searches at LEP2

135: for the mechanism of electroweak baryogenesis within the MSSM. 

136: \end{abstract}

137: \vspace{.5cm}   

138: 

139: \hrule\vspace{1mm}

140: $^\dagger$\normalsize\emph{Present address: Department of Physics, 

141: University of Virginia, 382 McCormick Road, 

142: P.O. Box 400714, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4714.} 

143: %\begin{flushleft}   

144: %May 2000 \\   

145: %\end{flushleft}   

146: 

147: \thispagestyle{empty}

148: \newpage

149: 

150: %\begin{multicols}{2}

151: \section{Introduction} 

152: \label{introduction}

153: The origin of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe is one of the most

154: important open questions in cosmology and particle physics. It has

155: been long understood that, in order to generate the observed 

156: baryon asymmetry, three requirements~\cite{baryogenesis} 

157: need to be fulfilled: the 

158: non-conservation of baryon number, CP-violation and the existence

159: of non-equilibrium processes~\cite{reviews}. 

160: Interestingly enough, at temperatures

161: above the electroweak phase transition temperature, $T_c$, the Standard 

162: Model fulfills

163: these requirements. Baryon number violation is induced

164: by anomalous~\cite{anomaly} sphaleron processes~\cite{sphalerons}, 

165: which are suppressed

166: at zero temperature, but whose rate grows linearly with the

167: temperature above $T_c~\cite{sphalT}$. 

168: The non-conservation of CP is an essential property of the Standard 

169: Model, and non-equilibrium processes may be obtained through

170: the expansion of bubbles of true vacuum, which occurs after the 

171: electroweak phase transition.

172: 

173: In spite of fulfilling all the desired properties, the 

174: rate of the CP-violating processes in the Standard Model (SM)

175: is too small to induce the required baryon asymmetry~\cite{fs,huet}.

176: Moreover, the preservation of the generated baryon asymmetry

177: after the electroweak phase transition requires a strongly

178: first order phase 

179: transition~\footnote{An alternative dynamics for preserving the

180: generated baryon asymmetry has been explored in Ref.~\cite{marcelo}.}, 

181: with $v(T_c)/T_c \simgt 1$,

182: where $v(T_c)$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value at

183: the critical temperature $T_c$. For the experimentally allowed

184: values of the Higgs mass, this requirement is not

185: fulfilled in the Standard Model~\cite{SMpt}. 

186: 

187: Supersymmetric particles lead to new radiative corrections

188: to the Higgs effective potential at finite 

189: temperature~\cite{early}-\cite{mariano2}. Light

190: boson fields with relevant couplings to the Higgs field may induce

191: a stronger first order electroweak phase 

192: transition~\cite{CQW}-\cite{LR}. The

193: supersymmetric partners of the top quark are the only new

194: bosons which couple in a relevant way to the Higgs boson

195: which acquire vacuum expectation value and hence play a relevant

196: role in defining the strength of the phase transition~\footnote{

197: Although bottom and tau Yukawa couplings become large  

198: for large values of $\tan\beta$, the bottom and tau superfield

199: couplings to the Higgs boson combination which acquires vacuum 

200: expectation value, $\Phi = H_1^0 \cos\beta + H_2^0 \sin\beta$, 

201: remains small, apart from an enhancement of the $\Phi$-trilinear coupling

202: to left and right sbottoms and staus, 

203: which increases the corresponding mixings, but does not

204: lead to an enhancement of the phase transition strength.}.

205: For sufficiently small values of the stop masses the strength

206: of the phase transition is enhanced~\cite{CQW,CQW2}. 

207: In order to get values

208: of $v(T_c)/T_c \geq 1$, however, the right handed stop 

209: soft supersymmetry breaking squared mass

210: parameter, $m_U^2$, should be small or even slightly negative and the

211: stop mixing mass parameter $X_t = |A_t - \mu_c/\tan\beta|$ must

212: be smaller than $\sim$ 0.6 $m_Q$, with $m_Q$ the left-handed stop supersymmetry

213: breaking mass parameter.  Under these conditions, and for 

214: $m_Q \simlt $1--3 TeV, a strongly 

215: first order phase transition may be obtained up to values of the 

216: lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass as high as 

217: $\sim$ 110--115 GeV~\cite{CQW2,LR}.

218: 

219: Moreover, supersymmetric particles lead to new, relevant

220: CP-violating sources for the generation 

221: of the baryon asymmetry~\cite{CPviol}.

222: Several computations have been performed~\cite{hn}-\cite{plus} 

223: in recent years, showing

224: that if the CP-violating phases associated with the chargino

225: mass parameters are not too small, these sources may lead to 

226: acceptable values of the baryon asymmetry. In this

227: work, we shall perform a computation of these

228: new CP-violating sources in an

229: expansion in derivatives of the Higgs background fields. 

230: Similarly to Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}, we shall use the Keldysh 

231: formalism~\cite{keldysh} for the computation of the CP-violating currents

232: at finite temperature. We improve the computation of 

233: Ref.~\cite{CQRVW} in two main aspects. On the one hand, 

234: instead of computing the temporal

235: component of the current in the lowest order of Higgs 

236: background insertions, we compute all current components by 

237: performing a resummation of the 

238: Higgs mass insertion contributions to all order in perturbation

239: theory. The resummation is essential since it leads to a

240: proper regularization of the resonant contribution to the

241: temporal component of the current found in Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}

242: and leads to contributions which are not suppressed for

243: large values of the charged Higgs mass. On the other hand, we consider, in

244: the diffusion equations, the contribution of Higgsino number violating

245: interaction rate~\cite{plus} from the Higgsino $\mu$ term in the lagrangian, 

246: $\Gamma_\mu$, that was considered in our previous calculations in the limit

247: $\Gamma_\mu/T\to\infty$. 

248: 

249: This article is organized as follows. In sections 

250: \ref{squark} and \ref{chargino} 

251: we present the detailed derivation of the CP-violating currents 

252: for the cases of right-handed top squarks ($j^\mu_{\tR}$) and charginos

253: ($j^\mu_{\hS}$), respectively, 

254: by making use of the Keldysh formalism and resumming to all order 

255: in Higgs background insertions. These two sections deal with all the technical

256: details of the computation, with the main results

257: given in

258: Eqs.~(\ref{corrf}), (\ref{jota+}) and (\ref{jota-}).

259: In section \ref{bau} we present explicit, analytical, solutions to the

260: diffusion equations and an explicit expression for the baryon asymmetry in

261: the broken phase after the phase transition in the MSSM. 

262: In section~\ref{numerical} we exhibit the results of a numerical analysis of

263: our solutions. A discussion of present Higgs mass constraints is made

264: in section~\ref{higgs}, and in section \ref{conclusion} we present our 

265: conclusions and outlook.

266: 

267: 

268: 

269: 

270: \section{The squark sector}

271: \label{squark}

272: 

273: 

274: Our aim in this section is to compute the 

275: Green functions for left-handed 

276: ($\widetilde t_L(x)$) and 

277: right-handed ($\widetilde t_R(x)$) stop fields,

278: describing the propagation of these scalars in the presence

279: of a bubble wall. The bubble wall is assumed to be located at the

280: space-time point $z$, where there is a non-trivial 

281: background of the MSSM Higgs fields, $H_i(z)$, which carries

282: dimensionful CP-violating couplings to the left- and

283: right-handed stops. We shall use these Green functions to

284: compute the right-handed and left-handed stop currents at the point $z$.

285: The starting point is the lagrangian for the stop system:

286: %

287: \begin{equation}

288: \label{lagstop}

289: {\cal L}(x)=\left|\partial_\mu \widetilde t_L(x)\right|^2+

290: \left|\partial_\mu \widetilde t_R(x)\right|^2+\left(

291: \begin{array}{ll}

292: \widetilde t^{\, *}_L(x) & \widetilde t^{\, *}_R(x)

293: \end{array}

294: \right)

295: {\cal M}(x)\left(

296: \begin{array}{l}\widetilde t_L(x)\\ 

297: \widetilde t_R(x)

298: \end{array}\right) \ ,

299: \end{equation}

300: %

301: where ${\cal M}$ is the stop squared mass matrix which depends, 

302: through the Higgs

303: background, on the space-time point.

304: 

305: Clearly this is not a free lagrangian, since the mass matrix depends on the 

306: space-time coordinates, and we must identify the free and perturbative parts

307: out of it. 

308: In order to make such a selection we will expand the mass matrix around the

309: point $z^\mu\equiv (\vec{r},t)$ (the point where we are calculating the 

310: currents in the plasma frame) up to first order 

311: in derivatives as,

312: %

313: \begin{equation}

314: \label{Mexp}

315: {\cal M}(x)={\cal M}(z)+(x-z)^\mu {\cal M}_\mu(z) \ ,

316: \end{equation}

317: %

318: where we use the notation ${\cal M}_\mu(z)\equiv\partial {\cal M}(z)/\partial z^\mu$, 

319: and we can split the initial Lagrangian as:

320: %

321: \begin{eqnarray}

322: \label{lagdec}

323: {\cal L}_0(x)&=&\left|\partial_\mu \widetilde t_L(x)\right|^2+

324: \left|\partial_\mu \widetilde t_R(x)\right|^2+\left(

325: \begin{array}{ll}

326: \widetilde t^{\, *}_L(x) & \widetilde t^{\, *}_R(x)

327: \end{array}

328: \right)

329: {\cal M}(z)\left(

330: \begin{array}{l}\widetilde t_L(x)\\ 

331: \widetilde t_R(x)

332: \end{array}\right)

333: \nonumber\\

334: {\cal L}_{\rm int}&=&(x-z)^\mu\left(

335: \begin{array}{ll}

336: \widetilde t^{\, *}_L(x) & \widetilde t^{\, *}_R(x)

337: \end{array}

338: \right)

339: {\cal M}_\mu (z)\left(

340: \begin{array}{l}\widetilde t_L(x)\\ 

341: \widetilde t_R(x)

342: \end{array}

343: \right)\ .

344: \end{eqnarray}

345: 

346: Let ${\cal U}(z)\in SU(2)$ be the matrix that diagonalizes 

347: ${\cal M}(z)$. We can then rewrite ${\cal L}_0$ and ${\cal L}_{\rm int}$ as:

348: %

349: \begin{eqnarray}

350: \label{lagdec2}

351: {\cal L}_0&=&\sum_{i=1}^2\left\{\left|\partial_\mu \chi_i(x)\right|^2

352: +m_i^2(z)\left|\chi_i(x)\right|^2 \right\}\ ,\nonumber\\

353: {\cal L}_{\rm int}&=&(x-z)^\mu\left(

354: \begin{array}{ll}

355: \widetilde t^{\, *}_L(x) & \widetilde t^{\, *}_R(x)

356: \end{array}

357: \right)

358: {\cal U}(z){\cal M}_\mu (z)\ {\cal U}^\dagger(z)

359: \left(

360: \begin{array}{l}\widetilde t_L(x)\\ 

361: \widetilde t_R(x)

362: \end{array}

363: \right)\ ,

364: \end{eqnarray}

365: %

366: where $m^2_i(z)$, $\chi_i(z)$ $(i=1,2)$ are the eigenvalues 

367: and eigenvectors of $M(z)$. Note that the description in 

368: terms of the mass eigenstates $\chi_i(z)$ is useful so far

369: the Higgs field variations are small for propagation lengths

370: of the order of the inverse of the width of the stop fields, $\Gamma^{-1}$. 

371: Under  these conditions, namely $L_w \Gamma/v_w \simgt 1$, with

372: $L_w$ and $v_w$ being the bubble wall width and velocity, respectively, 

373: an expansion in derivatives is justified~\cite{CQRVW}. 

374: 

375: Now we can write down the two point Green function for the field 

376: $\left(\chi_1(x)\ \chi_2(x)\right)^T$ in matrix form:

377: %

378: \begin{equation}

379: \label{green}

380: G^{\chi}(x,y;z)=G(x,y;z)+\int{d^4w\ (w-z)^\mu G(x,w;z)\

381: {\cal U}(z)\, {\cal M}_\mu (z)\, {\cal U}^\dagger(z)\ G(w,y;z)

382: }+\ldots

383: \end{equation}

384: %

385: where  $x$ and $y$ are assumed to be close to $z$,

386: the point at which the current is being evaluated and around

387: which the expansion is being performed

388: ($|x -z|,|y-z| \ll \Gamma^{-1}$), 

389: $G(x,y;z)$ is the two by two diagonal free Green function 

390: of the stop mass eigenstates with masses $m_i(z)$, the trace 

391: over internal ($a=1,2$) indices being understood in Eq.~(\ref{green}). 

392: Explicitly, the free Green functions for each of the two stop

393: eigenstates can be written as~\cite{keldysh}:

394: %

395: \begin{eqnarray}

396: \label{prop}

397: G_i^{11}&=&P_i^+ +f_B \left(P_i^+ -P_i^-\right)\nonumber\\

398: G_i^{12}&=&\left[\theta(p^0)+f_B\right] \left(P_i^+ -P_i^-\right)\nonumber\\

399: G_i^{21}&=&\left[\theta(-p^0)+f_B\right] \left(P_i^+ -P_i^-\right)\nonumber\\

400: G_i^{22}&=&-P_i^- +f_B \left(P_i^+ -P_i^-\right)\ ,

401: \end{eqnarray}

402: %

403: where $f_B\equiv n_B(|p^0|)$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function, 

404: which contains the dependence on the temperature $T$, 

405: %

406: \begin{equation}

407: \label{pes}

408: P_i^{\pm}=\frac{1}{p_0^2-\vec{p}^2-m_i^2(z)\pm 2 i\Gamma_{\widetilde t}|p^0|}

409: \ ,

410: \end{equation}

411: %

412: and $\Gamma_{\widetilde t}$ is the stop width which can be taken to be 

413: $\Gamma_{\widetilde t}\,\sim \alpha_s\, T$ independently of the stop mass eigenstate. 

414: 

415: Since we need to calculate the CP-violating currents induced by

416: the right-handed stop states, we should first go to the weak

417: eigenstate basis. The Green functions in the weak eigenstate basis

418: can be obtained from the ones given above, which were computed in the

419: basis of mass eigenstates, by the following expression

420: $$G^{\widetilde t}(x,y;z)={\cal U}^\dagger(z)G^{\chi}(x,y;z){\cal U}(z)

421: \ .$$

422: 

423: Therefore, the current for right-handed stops takes 

424: the form:

425: %

426: \begin{equation}

427: \label{corriente}

428: j_{\tR}^\mu(z)=\lim_{x,y\to z}{\rm Tr}\left[P_2 \frac{\partial G^{\widetilde t}(x,y;z)}

429: {\partial (x-y)_\mu}\right] \ ,

430: \end{equation}

431: %

432: where $P_2 =(\sigma_0-\sigma_3)/2$, 

433: $\sigma_i$ being the two by two Pauli matrices and $\sigma_0$ 

434: the two by two identity matrix,

435: is a projection matrix which 

436: allows to separate the current induced by the right-handed stops

437: from the one induced by the left-handed stops. Nevertheless, 

438: since baryon number is conserved at this point, the total CP-violating

439: currents induced by left- and right-handed top squarks must be zero,

440: ${\rm Tr}[\partial^\mu G^{\widetilde t}(x,y)]=0$, and therefore 

441: %

442: \begin{equation}

443: \label{current}

444: j_{\tR}^\mu(z)=-\frac12\lim_{x,y\to z}{\rm Tr}\left[\sigma_3

445: \frac{\partial G^{\widetilde t}(x,y;z)}

446: {\partial (x-y)_\mu}\right] \ .

447: \end{equation}

448: %

449: After integrating over the $w$ space-time variable, and going to momentum

450: space, we can write 

451: the current in terms of free Green functions of the mass eigenstates

452: at the point $z$:

453: %

454: \begin{eqnarray}

455: \label{corr2}

456: j_{\tR}^\mu(z)&=&\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}p^\mu{\rm Tr}

457: \left[\sigma_3\,

458: {\cal U}^\dagger(z)\,G^{\nu}(p;z)\,

459: {\cal U}(z)\,{\cal M}_\nu(z)\,

460: {\cal U}^\dagger(z)\,G(p;z){\cal U}(z)\right.\nonumber\\

461: &-&\left.\sigma_3\,{\cal U}^\dagger(z)\,G(p;z)\,{\cal U}(z)\,

462: {\cal M}_\nu (z)\,

463: {\cal U}^\dagger(z)\, G^{\nu}(p;z)\,

464: {\cal U}(z)\right]

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: %

467: since the contribution induced by the linear term in $z$ in Eq. (\ref{green})

468: trivially vanishes because $G(p;z)$ only depends on 

469: $|{\bf p}|$ and $p^0$. We are using the notation $G^\nu(p;z)=\partial

470: G(p;z)/\partial p_\nu$.

471: Note that in the above expression only off-diagonal terms of the

472: derivatives of the mass matrix ${\cal M}_\nu(z)$ at the point $z$

473: give a non-vanishing contribution. We shall denote by 

474: $\widetilde{{\cal M}}_\nu(z)$,

475: the matrix containing only the derivative of the off-diagonal terms

476: of the matrix ${\cal M}(z)$. 

477: 

478: 

479: The current could be simplified a little bit more by using:

480: %

481: \begin{equation}

482: \label{identity}

483: {\cal U}^{\dagger}(z)D\,{\cal U}(z)=\sigma_1D

484: \sigma_1+\frac12{\rm Tr}[{\cal U}(z)]

485: {\rm Tr}[D\sigma_3]{\cal U}^{\dagger}(z)\sigma_3

486: \end{equation}

487: %

488: where $D$ is a diagonal matrix. Then $j_{\widetilde t_R}^\mu(z)$ can be written as:

489: %

490: \begin{align}

491: \label{simcurr}

492: j_{\tR}^\mu(z)=&-\frac{i}{4}{\rm Tr}[{\cal U}(z)]{\rm Tr}

493: \left[\widetilde{{\cal M}}_\nu (z)

494: {\cal U}(z)\right]\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}p^\mu

495: {\rm Tr}\left[\sigma_1G(p;z)\sigma_2

496: G^{\nu}(p;z)\right]\nonumber\\

497: =&\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}[{\cal U}(z)]{\rm Tr}

498: \left[\widetilde{{\cal M}}_\nu (z)

499: {\cal U}(z)\right]\int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}p^\mu\epsilon^{ij}

500: G_i(p;z)\ G^{\nu}_j(p;z)\ .

501: \end{align}

502: %

503: %

504: Expanding $G_i$ in terms of $P^\pm_i$ one gets:

505: %

506: \begin{align}

507: \label{currexp}

508: j_{\tR}^i(z)=&\frac{8\,C^i}{3\pi}{\rm Im}\left\{

509: \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{dp^0}{2\pi}

510: (1+2f_B)\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d{\bf p}}{2\pi}~{\bf p}^4

511: (P_1^+(p;z)P_2^+(p;z))^2\right\}

512: \nonumber\\

513: j_{\tR}^0(z)=&-\frac{2\,C^0}{\pi}

514: {\rm Im}\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{dp^0}{2\pi}|p^0|\left[(1+2f_B)

515: \left(|p^0|+i\Gamma_{\widetilde t}\right)\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d{\bf p}}{2\pi}

516: \left(P_1^+(p;z)P_2^+(p;z)\right)^2\right.

517: \right.\nonumber\\

518: -&\left.\left.\int_0^\infty\frac{d{\bf p}}{2\pi}\,  

519: \frac{f'_B}{m_1^2\,(z)-m_2^2\,(z)}

520: \,P_1^+(p;z)P_2^-(p;z)\vphantom{{P^+}^2}\right]

521: \vphantom{\frac12}\right\}

522: \end{align}

523: %

524: where $f'_B$ is the derivative of $f_B$ with respect to its argument

525: and $C_\mu$ is given by

526: %

527: \begin{equation}

528: \label{constant}

529: C_\mu=(m_1^2\,(z)-m_2^2\,(z))\,{\rm Tr}[{\cal U}(z)]{\rm Tr}

530: \left[\widetilde{{\cal M}}_\mu(z)\,

531: {\cal U}(z)\right]\ .

532: \end{equation}

533: %

534: 

535: Using now the particular value of the squared mass matrix ${\cal M}$ for the stop 

536: system, 

537: %

538: \begin{equation}

539: {\cal M}(z)=\left(

540: \begin{array}{cc}

541: m_Q^2+h_t^2\,H_2^2(z) & h_t\left( A_t H_2(z)-\mu^*_c H_1(z)\right) \\

542: h_t\left( A_t^* H_2(z)-\mu_c H_1(z)\right) & m_U^2+h_t^2\,H_2^2(z)

543: \end{array}

544: \right)\ ,

545: \end{equation}

546: %

547: where $h_t$ is the top-quark Yukawa coupling, $A_t$ the left-right stop mixing

548: parameter, and $\mu_c$

549: the complex Higgsino mass parameter,

550: defined as $\mu_c\equiv \mu\exp(i\varphi_\mu)$, 

551: with $\mu$ real (positive or negative). 

552: % $\mu$ the supersymmetric Higgsino mass and 

553: In the above, we have neglected 

554: corrections $\mathcal{O}(g^2)$. In this approximation, 

555: the above constant vector $C_\mu$, Eq.~(\ref{constant}), 

556: can be written as:

557: %

558: \begin{equation}

559: \label{Csquark}

560: C^\mu=2\, h_t^2\ {\rm Im}(A_t\,\mu_c)\,\left\{H_2(z) H^\mu_1(z)-

561: H_1(z) H^\mu_2(z)\right\}\, .

562: \end{equation}

563: %

564: 

565: Hence, in order to compute the CP-violating currents induced by the

566: stop fields, the momentum integrals should be performed. Due to the

567: form of the free Green functions, Eq.~(\ref{prop}), the 

568: integral over the temporal component of the momentum cannot be

569: performed by standard integration methods in the complex plane.

570: It is therefore better to perform the integration over the spatial

571: components of the momentum and express the results as an integral

572: function over $p^0$, which admits a simple physical interpretation.

573: In order to perform the integrals of the spatial components of the

574: momentum, one should note that all functions depend only on $|{\bf p}|^2$.

575: Therefore, the angular integration can be trivially performed and

576: the integral over the modulus $|p|$ of a function ${\cal F}(|p|)$ can 

577: be written as half 

578: the integral on the whole real plane of the function ${\cal F}(x)$,

579: with ${\cal F}(x) = {\cal F}(-x)$. Doing this, we can perform the

580: spatial momentum integrals

581: in Eq.~(\ref{currexp}) by means of standard

582: techniques of integration in the complex plane and the residues theorem,

583: and we can cast the resulting currents as:

584: %

585: \begin{equation}

586: \label{corrf}

587: j_{\tR}^\mu(z)=h_t^2\ {\rm Im}(A_t\,\mu_c)\,\left\{H_2(z)H^\mu_1(z)-

588: H_1(z)H^\mu_2(z)\right\}

589: \left\{ {\cal F}_B(z)+\delta^{\mu\,0}{\cal G}_B(z)\right\}

590: \end{equation}

591: %

592: where 

593: %

594: \begin{align}

595: \label{integrales}

596: {\cal F}_B(z)=&\frac{1}{6\pi^2}{\rm Re}\int_0^\infty dp^0\,(1+2\, f_B)

597: \left(\frac{1}{z_1+z_2}\right)^3

598: \nonumber\\

599: {\cal G}_B(z)=&\frac{1}{3\pi^2}{\rm Re}\int_0^\infty\,dp^0\,  p^0 f'_B

600: \left\{\left(\frac{1}{z_1+z_2}\right)^3\right.\nonumber\\

601: -&\left.\frac{3}{m_1^2\,(z)-m_2^2\,(z)}

602: \left[\frac{z_1}{m_1^2-m_2^2-4 i \Gamma_{\widetilde t}\ p^0}+

603: \frac{z_2}{m_1^2-m_2^2+4 i \Gamma_{\widetilde t}\ p^0}\right]\right\}

604: \end{align}

605: %

606: and $z_i$ is defined as the pole of $P_i^+$, i.e.

607: %

608: \begin{equation}

609: \label{zetas}

610: z_i(p^0)=\sqrt{p^0\left(p^0+2\, i \Gamma_{\widetilde t}\right)-m_i^2(z)}

611: \end{equation}

612: %

613: with positive real and imaginary parts satisfying ${\rm Re}(z_i)

614: =\Gamma_{\widetilde t}\ p^0/{\rm Im}(z_i)$. 

615: 

616: \section{The chargino sector}

617: \label{chargino}

618: 

619: For the case of the charged gaugino-Higgsino system

620: we will follow similar steps as the ones we performed before to

621: compute the stop current.

622: In this case the role of right-handed stops is played by the 

623: (left- and right-handed) Higgsinos. The starting point is the lagrangian:

624: 

625: \begin{equation}

626: \label{charlag}

627: \mathcal{L}(x)=\overline{\widetilde{h}}_c(x)\partial_\mu\gamma^\mu

628: \widetilde{h}{}_c(x)+

629: \overline{\widetilde{W}}_c(x)\partial_\mu\gamma^\mu\widetilde{W}_c(x)+

630: \begin{pmatrix}

631: \overline{\widetilde{W}}_c(x) & \overline{\widetilde{h}}_c(x)

632: \end{pmatrix}

633: M(x)

634: \begin{pmatrix}

635: \widetilde{W}_c(x) \\ 

636: \widetilde{h}_c(x)

637: \end{pmatrix}

638: \end{equation}

639: %

640: where

641: %

642: \begin{align}

643: \widetilde{h}_c=

644: \begin{pmatrix}

645: \widetilde{h}_2^+ \\

646: {\widetilde{h}{}_1^-}^*

647: \end{pmatrix},\qquad &

648: \widetilde{W}_c=

649: \begin{pmatrix}

650: \widetilde{W}^+ \\

651: {\widetilde{W}{}^-}^*

652: \end{pmatrix}\notag \ .

653: \end{align}

654: %

655: From the structure of the chargino mass matrix we can write the lagrangian in 

656: the following form:

657: %

658: \begin{align}

659: \label{psilag}

660: \mathcal{L}(x)=&\psi_R(x)^\dagger\sigma_\mu\partial^\mu\psi_R(x)+

661: \psi_L(x)^\dagger\overline{\sigma}_\mu\partial^\mu\psi_L(x)\nonumber\\

662: +&

663: \psi_R(x)^\dagger M(x)\psi_L(x)+\psi_L(x)^\dagger M^{\dagger}(x)\psi_R(x)

664: \end{align}

665: %

666: where in this expression we have used

667: %

668: \begin{align}

669: \psi_R(x)=

670: \begin{pmatrix}

671: \widetilde{W}^+\\\widetilde{h}_2^+

672: \end{pmatrix},

673: &\qquad

674: \psi_L(x)=

675: \begin{pmatrix}

676: \widetilde{W}^-\\\widetilde{h}_1^-

677: \end{pmatrix}\notag \ .

678: \end{align}

679: 

680: Expanding the masses around the point $z$ and splitting the 

681: lagrangian into a free and a 

682: perturbative part, we can write, to first order in derivatives:

683: %

684: \begin{align}

685: \label{splitlag}

686: \mathcal{L}_0(x)=&\psi_R(x)^{\dagger}\sigma_\mu\partial^\mu\psi_R(x)+

687: \psi_L(x)^{\dagger}\overline{\sigma}_\mu\partial^\mu\psi_L(x)\nonumber\\

688: +&

689: \psi_R(x)^{\dagger}M(z)\psi_L(x)+\psi_L(x)^{\dagger}M^{\dagger}(z)\psi_R(x)

690: \nonumber\\

691: &\nonumber\\

692: \mathcal{L}_{int}(x)=&(x-z)^\mu\left\{

693: \psi_R(x)^{\dagger}M_\mu(z)\psi_L(x)+

694: \psi_L(x)^{\dagger}M_\mu^{\dagger}(z)\psi_R(x)\right\} \ .

695: \end{align}

696: 

697: Like for the scalar case we will diagonalize $M(z)$ by means of the matrices 

698: $\mathcal{U}(z)$, $\mathcal{V}(z)\in SU(2)$. Additional phase

699: redefinition can be performed in order to bring the mass eigenstates

700: to be real and positive. In general, the 

701: lagrangian can be written as:

702: %

703: \begin{align}

704: \label{philag}

705: \mathcal{L}_0(x)=&\varphi_R(x)^{\dagger}\sigma_\mu\partial^\mu\varphi_R(x)+

706: \varphi_L(x)^{\dagger}\overline{\sigma}_\mu\partial^\mu\varphi_L(x)\notag\\

707: +&\varphi_R(x)^{\dagger}\begin{pmatrix}

708: m_1(z)&0\\

709: 0&m_2(z)

710: \end{pmatrix}

711: \varphi_L(x)+\varphi_L(x)^{\dagger}\begin{pmatrix}

712: m^*_1(z)&0\\

713: 0&m^*_2(z)

714: \end{pmatrix}

715: \varphi_R(x)\nonumber\\

716: &\nonumber\\

717: \mathcal{L}_{int}(x)=&(x-z)^\mu \left\{

718: \varphi_R(x)^{\dagger}\mathcal{U}(z) M_\mu(z)

719: \mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)

720: \varphi_L(x)+\varphi_L(x)^{\dagger}\mathcal{V}(z) 

721: M^{\dagger}_\mu(z)\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)

722: \varphi_R(x) \right\}

723: \end{align}

724: %

725: where $m_i(z)$ are the eigenvalues of $M(z)$ and

726: %

727: \begin{align}

728: \varphi_R(x)=\mathcal{U}(z)\psi_R(x),&\qquad

729: \varphi_L(x)=\mathcal{V}(z)\psi_L(x)\notag

730: \end{align}

731: %

732: are the mass eigenstates at the point $z$.

733: 

734: At this point we can write the  Green functions describing the 

735: propagation of the right- and left-handed fermion 

736: $\varphi$ fields, $S_\varphi^{RR}$ and $S_\varphi^{LL}$,

737: respectively, as

738: %

739: \begin{align}

740: \label{cgreen}

741: S_\varphi^{RR}(x,y;z)=&S^{RR}(x,y;z)\notag\\

742: +&\int{d^4w(w-z)^\mu S^{RR}(x,w;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)\, M_{\mu}(z)

743: \mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)\,S^{LR}(w,y;z)}\notag\\

744: +&\int{d^4w(w-z)^\mu S^{RL}(x,w;z)\mathcal{V}(z)\,

745: M^{\dagger}_{\mu}(z)\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)S^{RR}(w,y;z)}

746: \notag\\

747: S_\varphi^{LL}(x,y;z)=&S^{LL}(x,y;z)\notag\\

748: +&\int{d^4w(w-z)^\mu S^{LL}(x,w;z)\mathcal{V}(z)\, 

749: M^{\dagger}_{\mu}(z)\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)S^{RL}(w,y;z)}\notag\\

750: +&\int{d^4w(w-z)^\mu S^{LR}(x,w;z)\mathcal{U}(z)\, M_{\mu}(z)

751: \mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)\,S^{LL}(w,y;z)}

752: \end{align}

753: %

754: where $S^{LL}$, $S^{RR}$, $S^{LR}$ and $S^{RL}$ denote the left-left,

755: right-right, left-right and right-left Green functions of free 

756: fermions with mass $m_i(z)$.

757: In the approximation where both fermionic widths are equal,

758: we can rewrite the free

759: fermionic Green functions in terms of bosonic ones as:

760: %

761: \begin{xalignat}{2}

762: \label{relations}

763: S^{RR}(p;z)=&\sigma_\mu p^\mu G(p;z)&\qquad 

764: S^{RL}(p;z)=&\begin{pmatrix}m_1(z)&0\\0&m_2(z)\end{pmatrix} G(p;z)

765: \notag\\

766: S^{LR}(p;z)=&\begin{pmatrix}m^*_1(z)&0\\0&m^*_2(z)\end{pmatrix} G(p;z)

767: &\qquad S^{LL}(p;z)=&\overline{\sigma}_\mu p^\mu G(p;z)

768: \end{xalignat}

769: %

770: where the free Green functions $G(p;z)$ are given by (\ref{prop}) with 

771: $f_B\to f_F\equiv -n_F(|p^0|)$, $n_F$ being the Fermi-Dirac distribution 

772: function, $m_i(z)\to \left|m_i(z)\right|$, and

773: $\Gamma_{\widetilde{t}}\,\to\Gamma_{\widetilde{H}}\,\sim \alpha_W\, T$. 

774: Using the relations between  Green 

775: functions in the mass and weak eigenstate basis, as we did in the stop 

776: case, we obtain in the weak eigenstates basis,

777: %

778: \begin{xalignat}{2}

779: \label{psi-phi}

780: S_\psi^{RR}(p;z)=&\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)S_\varphi^{RR}(p;z)\,

781: \mathcal{U}(z)&\qquad 

782: S_\psi^{RL}(p;z)=&\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)S_\varphi^{RL}(p;z)\,\mathcal{V}(z)

783: \notag\\

784: S_\psi^{LR}(p;z)=&\,\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)S_\varphi^{LR}(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)

785: &\qquad S_\psi^{LL}(p;z)=&\,\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)S_\varphi^{LL}(p;z)\,

786: \mathcal{V}(z)\ .

787: \end{xalignat}

788: %

789: The Higgsino currents can now be defined as:

790: %

791: \begin{equation}

792: \label{chcurr}

793: j_{\hS_{\pm}}^\mu(z)=\lim_{x,y\to z}\left\{\Tr\left[P_2\sigma^\mu 

794: S_\psi^{RR}(x,y;z)]

795: \right]\pm\Tr\left[P_2\overline{\sigma}^\mu S_\psi^{LL}(x,y;z)]\right]\right\}

796: \end{equation}

797: %

798: where $P_2$ is the projection operator used in Eq.~(\ref{corriente}).

799: 

800: 

801: By replacing (\ref{relations}) and (\ref{psi-phi}) in these currents, 

802: and taking into account that, as happened in the stop case,  

803: the contribution of the linear term in $z$ in Eq.~(\ref{cgreen})

804: is zero by symmetry reasons, one gets~\footnote{Notice that the phases

805: $\varphi_i$ of the mass eigenvalues, $m_i(z)=|m_i(z)|\exp\{i\varphi_i(z)\}$

806: can be absorbed in a redefinition of the matrix

807: $\mathcal{V}(z)$, as $\mathcal{V}(z)\to {\rm diag}(\exp\{i\varphi_1(z)\},

808: \exp\{i\varphi_2(z)\})\mathcal{V}(z)$. As required, the currents

809: (\ref{cor}) do not depend on this phase redefinition.} 

810: %

811: \begin{align}

812: j_{\hS_{\pm}}^\mu(z)=&\frac12

813: \int\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi)^4}\left\{p^\mu\Tr

814: \left[\sigma_3\left(\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)

815: G(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z) M_\rho(z)M^{\dagger}(z)

816: \mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)G^\rho(p;z)\,

817: \mathcal{U}(z)\right.\right.\right.\notag\\

818: -&\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)G^\rho(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)M(z) 

819: M_\rho^{\dagger}(z)\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)\notag\\

820: \pm &\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)\mathcal{V}(z) M_\rho^{\dagger}(z)M(z)

821: \mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G^\rho(p;z)\mathcal{V}(z))\notag\\

822: \mp &\left.\left.\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G^\rho(p;z)\mathcal{V}(z)

823: M^{\dagger}(z) M_\rho(z)\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)

824: \mathcal{V}(z)\right)\right]\nonumber\\

825: +&\Tr\left[\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)(

826: M^\mu(z)M^{\dagger}(z)-M(z) M^{\mu\,\dagger}(z))\,\mathcal{U}^{\dagger}(z)

827: G(p;z)\,\mathcal{U}(z)\right.\nonumber\\

828: \pm&\left.\left.\mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)\mathcal{V}(z)

829: (M^{\mu\,\dagger}(z)M(z)-M^{\dagger}(z) M^\mu(z))

830: \mathcal{V}^{\dagger}(z)G(p;z)\mathcal{V}(z)\right]\right\}\ .

831: \label{cor}

832: \end{align}

833: 

834: The chargino mass matrix is given by

835: %

836: \begin{equation}

837: \label{masach}

838: M(z)=\left(

839: \begin{array}{cc}

840: M_2 & u_2(z) \\

841: u_1(z) & \mu_c

842: \end{array}

843: \right)

844: \end{equation}

845: %

846: where we have defined $u_i(z)\equiv g H_i(z)$. 

847: The diagonalizing matrices are~\cite{CJK}

848: %

849: \begin{align}

850: \label{UV}

851: \mathcal{U}=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\, \Lambda(\Delta+\Lambda)}}

852: \left(

853: \begin{array}{cc}

854: \Delta+\Lambda & M_2\, u_1+\mu^*_c\, u_2 \\

855: -\left( M_2\, u_1+\mu_c\, u_2 \right) & \Delta+\Lambda

856: \end{array}

857: \right)

858: \nonumber\\

859: \mathcal{V}=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\, \Lambda(\bar\Delta+\Lambda)}}

860: \left(

861: \begin{array}{cc}

862: \bar\Delta+\Lambda & M_2\, u_2+\mu_c\, u_1 \\

863: -\left( M_2\, u_2+\mu^*_c\, u_1 \right) & \bar\Delta+\Lambda

864: \end{array}

865: \right)\ ,

866: \end{align}

867: %

868: where field redefinitions have been made in order to make

869: the Higgs vacuum expectation values, as well as the weak gaugino

870: mass $M_2$, real, 

871: %

872: \begin{align}

873: \label{defin}

874: \Delta=&(M_2^2-|\mu_c|^2-u_1^2+u_2^2)/2 \nonumber\\

875: \bar\Delta=&(M_2^2-|\mu_c|^2-u_2^2+u_1^2)/2 \nonumber\\

876: \Lambda=&\left(\Delta^2+\left|M_2\,u_1+\mu^*_c\, u_2 \right|^2\right)^{1/2}\ ,

877: \end{align}

878: %

879: and the mass eigenvalues are given by

880: %

881: \begin{align}

882: \label{eigenval}

883: m_1(z)=& \frac{\left(\Delta+\Lambda+u_1^2(z)\right)M_2+u_1(z) u_2(z)\mu^*_c}

884: {\sqrt{(\Delta+\Lambda)(\bar\Delta+\Lambda)}}

885: \nonumber\\

886: m_2(z)=& \frac{\left(\Delta+\Lambda-u_2^2(z)\right)\mu_c-u_1(z) u_2(z)M_2}

887: {\sqrt{(\Delta+\Lambda)(\bar\Delta+\Lambda)}} \ .

888: \end{align}

889: 

890: Using these expressions, and the property $2\,\Lambda=|m_1(z)|^2-|m_2(z)|^2$, 

891: we can cast the Higgsino currents in the following general form:

892: %

893: \begin{align}

894: \label{j+}

895: j^\mu_{\hS_{+}}=& \frac{{\rm Im}(M_2\, \mu_c)}{\Lambda}

896: \left\{\left[ u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)-

897: u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)\right]\int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,p^\mu\, G_i(p;z)

898: \epsilon^{ij}G_j^\nu(p;z) \right.\\

899: +& \left.\frac{u_2^2(z)-u_1^2(z)}

900: {2\,\Lambda}\left[ u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)+

901: u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)\right]\int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,p^\mu\, G_i(p;z)

902: \left(\delta^{ij}-\sigma_1^{ij}\right)G_j^\nu(p;z)\right\}\nonumber

903: \end{align}

904: %

905: where $\epsilon^{12}=+1$, and 

906: %

907: \begin{align}

908: \label{j-}

909: j^\mu_{\hS_{-}}=& \frac{{\rm Im}(M_2\, \mu_c)}{2\,\Lambda}

910: \left[ u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)+u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)\right]

911: \int\frac{d^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\,p^\mu\,\nonumber\\

912: \times &\left\{ \left[(G_2+G_1)(G_2-G_1)\right]^\nu +\left(

913: \frac{\Delta+\bar\Delta}{\Lambda}\right)\left(G_2-G_1\right)

914: \left(G_2^\nu-G_1^\nu\right)\right\}\ .

915: \end{align}

916: 

917: Notice that while the first term in $j_{\hS_{+}}^\mu$ 

918: is similar to the squark current 

919: $j_{\tR}^\mu$ (it is proportional to  $u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)-u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)$), 

920: the second term in $j_{\hS_{+}}^\mu$ and the current $j_{\hS_{-}}^\mu$  

921: have no counterpart in the scalar sector. The contribution 

922: proportional to $u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)-u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)$

923: is proportional to the variation $\Delta\beta$

924: of the angle $\beta$ along the bubble wall. Since $\Delta\beta\simlt 10^{-2}$,

925: the corresponding contribution is suppressed. The contribution

926: proportional to $u_2(z) u_1^\nu(z)+u_1(z) u_2^\nu(z)$, 

927: instead, is not affected by this suppression factor, although it is suppressed,

928: for large values of $\tan\beta$, as $1/\tan\beta$.

929: 

930: Now the integration over the spatial components of the momentum

931: can be performed as in the previous section and the final

932: currents can be cast as follows. For the current $j_{\hS_{+}}^\mu$ one obtains,

933: %

934: \begin{align}

935: \label{jota+}

936: j_{\hS_{+}}^\mu(z)=& 2\,{\rm Im}(M_2\, \mu_c)\left\{

937: \left[u_2(z) u_1^\mu(z)-u_1(z) u_2^\mu(z)\right]\left\{\mathcal{F}_F(z)

938: +\delta^{\mu\,0}\mathcal{G}_F(z)\right\}\right.\nonumber\\

939: +&\left.\left[u_2^2(z)-u_1^2(z)\right]\left[u_2(z) u_1^\mu(z)+

940: u_1(z) u_2^\mu(z)\right]\mathcal{H}_F(z)\right\}

941: \end{align}

942: %

943: where the functions $\mathcal{F}_F,\ \mathcal{G}_F$ are defined in 

944: (\ref{integrales}) after changing $f_B\to f_F$, 

945: $m_i(z)\to \left|m_i(z)\right|$ and $\Gamma_{\widetilde{t}}

946: \to\Gamma_{\widetilde{H}}$, and

947: %

948: \begin{equation}

949: \label{hF}

950: \mathcal{H}_F(z)=\frac{1}{8\pi^2}{\rm Re}\int_0^\infty dp^0\,(1+2\, f_F)

951: \frac{1}{z_1\, z_2}\left(\frac{1}{z_1+z_2}\right)^3

952: \end{equation}

953: %

954: with $z_i(z)$  defined in (\ref{zetas}), after changing $m_i(z)\to

955: \left|m_i(z)\right|$ and $\Gamma_{\widetilde{t}}

956: \to\Gamma_{\widetilde{H}}$. 

957: Note that, being proportional to 

958: $u_2^2(z)-u_1^2(z)\equiv -u^2(z)\cos 2\beta(z)$, the second term of

959: $j^{\mu}_{\hS_{+}}$ vanishes at the lowest order in the Higgs field

960: insertions, in agreement with our previous results~\cite{CQRVW}, 

961: and it also vanishes in the case $\tan\beta=1$.

962: 

963: For the current $j_{\hS_{-}}^\mu$ one obtains,

964: %

965: \begin{equation}

966: \label{jota-}

967: j_{\hS_{-}}^\mu(z)=\,2\, {\rm Im}(M_2\, \mu_c)

968: \left[u_2(z) u_1^\mu(z)+u_1(z) u_2^\mu(z)\right]

969: \left\{\mathcal{K}_F(z)

970: +2\,\left[\Delta+\bar\Delta\right]\, \mathcal{H}_F(z)

971: \right\}

972: \end{equation}

973: %

974: where the function $\mathcal{K}_F$ is defined as,

975: %

976: \begin{equation}

977: \label{hK}

978: \mathcal{K}_F(z)=-\,\frac{1}{4\,\pi^2}{\rm Re}\int_0^\infty dp^0\,(1+2\, f_F)

979: \frac{1}{z_1\,z_2}\left(\frac{1}{z_1+z_2}\right)\ .

980: \end{equation}

981: %

982: Note that the current (\ref{jota-}) appears to leading order in the Higgs 

983: mass insertion and it is not suppressed by $\Delta\beta$. However, 

984: $j_{\hS_{-}}^\mu$ is suppressed for large values of $\tan\beta$ (which

985: are needed to push the Higgs mass beyond the most recent LEP bounds, as we

986: will discuss in section~\ref{higgs}) and, moreover, its effects on

987: the corresponding Higgs density are damped by the presence of

988: the Higgsino number violating interaction rate $\Gamma_\mu$. Accordingly,

989: its contribution to the BAU is small.

990: 

991: A similar calculation for the neutral gaugino-Higgsino system would involve

992: diagonalization of the four-by-four neutralino mass matrix, making the

993: analytic resummation treatment much more involved than for the chargino case.

994: The analysis performed in Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}, to lowest order in the Higgs

995: mass insertions, showed, as expected from a naive counting of degrees of

996: freedom, that the neutralinos contribute to the Higgsino current as

997: half the chargino contribution, with a total effect given by 3/2 

998: that of the chargino. After resummation of the neutralino sector it would be 

999: reasonable to expect a total contribution to the Higgsino current equal to

1000: $\sim$ 3/2 that of the chargino sector. However, and to be as conservative as

1001: possible in our calculation of the baryon asymmetry, we would just consider as

1002: source of baryon number the chargino current (remember that left-handed

1003: squarks are assumed very heavy and decouple from the thermal bath) that was

1004: computed in this section, keeping in mind that an enhancement factor 

1005: $\sim$ 3/2 might appear after a rigorous calculation of the currents in the 

1006: neutralino sector. 

1007: 

1008: \section{The baryon asymmetry}

1009: \label{bau}

1010: 

1011: To evaluate the baryon asymmetry generated in the broken phase we need

1012: to first compute the density of left-handed quarks and leptons, $n_L$,

1013: in front of the

1014: bubble wall (in the symmetric phase). These chiral densities are

1015: the ones that induce

1016: weak sphalerons to produce a net

1017: baryon number. Since, in the present scenario, there is essentially no lepton

1018: asymmetry, the density to be computed in the symmetric 

1019: phase~\footnote{We use, for the third

1020: family, the notation $Q\equiv Q_3,\ T\equiv T_3$.} is 

1021: $n_L=n_{Q}+\sum_{i=1}^2 n_{Q_i}$

1022: where the density of a chiral supermultiplet 

1023: $Q \equiv (q,\tilde q)$ 

1024: is understood as the sum of densities of particle

1025: components, assuming the supergauge interactions to be in thermal 

1026: equilibrium, $n_Q=n_q+n_{\tilde q}$. If the system is near thermal equilibrium,

1027: particle densities, $n_i$, are related to the local chemical potential,

1028: $\mu_i$ by the relation $n_i=k_i \mu_i T^2/6$, where $k_i$ are statistical 

1029: factors equal to 2 (1) for bosons (fermions) and exponentially suppressed

1030: for particle masses $m_i$ much larger than $T$. For the calculation of

1031: the density $n_L$ we will use the formalism described in 

1032: Refs.~\cite{hn,CQRVW}.

1033: 

1034: We will consider those particle species that participate in fast particle 

1035: number changing transitions, neglecting all Yukawa couplings except those

1036: corresponding to the top quark. In this approximation, there is 

1037: no left-handed lepton

1038: number contribution to $n_L$. By introducing strong sphaleron effects, first

1039: and second family quark number is generated. Assuming 

1040: that all quarks have nearly

1041: the same diffusion constant it turns out that~\cite{hn},

1042: $n_{Q_1}=n_{Q_2}=2(n_{Q}+n_{T})$, and then,

1043: %

1044: \begin{equation}

1045: \label{dobletes}

1046: n_L=5\, n_Q+\, 4\, n_T \ .

1047: \end{equation}

1048: %

1049: 

1050: In general we will relate particle number changing, or fermion number

1051: violating, rates $\Gamma_X$ with the corresponding rates per unit volume

1052: $\gamma_X$, as,

1053: %

1054: \begin{equation}

1055: \label{rates}

1056: \Gamma_X=\frac{6\, \gamma_X}{T^3}\ .

1057: \end{equation}

1058: %

1059: The involved weak and strong sphaleron rates are:

1060: %

1061: \begin{equation}

1062: \Gamma_{ws}=\ 6\,\kappa_{ws}\, \alpha_w^5 T, \quad

1063: \Gamma_{ss}=\ 6\,\kappa_{ss}\,\frac{8}{3}\, \alpha_s^4 T \ ,

1064: \end{equation}

1065: %

1066: respectively,

1067: where $\kappa_{ws}= 20\pm 2$~\cite{mr} and $\kappa_{ss}=\mathcal{O}(1)$.

1068: The particle number changing rates that will be considered 

1069: both in the symmetric and in the broken phase are: 

1070: $\Gamma_{Y_2}$, corresponding to all supersymmetric and soft breaking

1071: trilinear interactions arising from the $h_t H_2 Q T$ term in the 

1072: superpotential, $\Gamma_{Y_1}$, which corresponds to the supersymmetric

1073: trilinear scalar interaction in the Lagrangian involving the third generation

1074: squarks and the Higgs $H_1$, and $\Gamma_\mu$, which corresponds to the 

1075: $\mu_c \tilde{H}_1 \tilde{H_2}$ term in the Lagrangian. 

1076: There are also the Higgs number

1077: violating and axial top number violation processes, induced by the 

1078: Higgs self interactions and by top quark mass effects,

1079: with rates $\Gamma_h$

1080: and $\Gamma_m$, respectively, that are only active in the broken phase.

1081: 

1082: We will write now a set of diffusion equations involving $n_Q$, $n_T$, 

1083: $n_{H_1}$ (the density of $H_1\equiv(h_1,\tilde h_1)$) and $n_{H_2}$ 

1084: (the density of $\bar H_2\equiv(\bar h_2,\tilde{\bar h}_2)$), and

1085: the particle number changing rates and CP-violating source terms

1086: discussed above.

1087: In the bubble wall frame, and ignoring the curvature of the bubble wall,

1088: all quantities become functions of $z\equiv r+ v_\omega t$, where $v_\omega$

1089: is the bubble wall velocity. The diffusion equations are:

1090: %

1091: \begin{align}

1092: \label{nQ}

1093: v_\omega n'_Q= & D_q n''_Q-

1094: \Gamma_Y\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}-

1095: \frac{n_H+\rho\, n_h}{k_H} \right]

1096: -\Gamma_m\left[ \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T} \right]\nonumber\\

1097: -& 6 \Gamma_{ss} \left[2\,\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}+

1098: 9\,\frac{n_Q+n_T}{k_B} \right]+\tilde{\gamma}_Q

1099: \end{align}

1100: %

1101: \begin{align}

1102: \label{nT}

1103: v_\omega n'_T= & D_q n''_T+

1104: \Gamma_Y\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}-

1105: \frac{n_H+\rho\, n_h}{k_H} \right]

1106: +\Gamma_m\left[ \frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T} \right]\nonumber\\

1107: +& 3 \Gamma_{ss} \left[2\,\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}+

1108: 9\,\frac{n_Q+n_T}{k_B} \right]-\tilde{\gamma}_Q

1109: \end{align}

1110: %

1111: \begin{align}

1112: \label{nH}

1113: v_\omega n'_H= & D_h n''_H+

1114: \Gamma_Y\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}-

1115: \frac{n_H+\rho\, n_h}{k_H} \right]

1116: -\Gamma_h\,\frac{n_H}{k_H}+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde H_+}\\

1117: \label{nh}

1118: v_\omega n'_h= & D_h n''_h+

1119: \rho\,\Gamma_Y\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T}-

1120: \frac{n_H+\, n_h/\rho}{k_H} \right]

1121: -\left(\Gamma_h+4\, \Gamma_\mu\right)\,

1122: \frac{n_h}{k_H}+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde H_-}

1123: \end{align}

1124: %

1125: where all derivatives are with respect to $z$, 

1126: $D_q\sim 6/T$ and $D_h\sim 110/T$ are the corresponding diffusion constants

1127: in the quark and Higgs sectors~\cite{turok},

1128: $n_H\equiv n_{H_2}+n_{H_1}$, $n_h\equiv n_{H_2}-n_{H_1}$,

1129: $k_H\equiv k_{H_1}+k_{H_2}$, $\Gamma_Y\equiv \Gamma_{Y_2}+\Gamma_{Y_1}$

1130: and $\rho\,\Gamma_Y\equiv \Gamma_{Y_2}-\Gamma_{Y_1}$. The parameter $\rho$ is

1131: in the range $0\le\rho\le 1$. In previous analyses~\cite{hn,CQRVW,nuria} 

1132: the limit $\Gamma_\mu\to\infty$ was implicitly considered, leading to the 

1133: solution $n_h\to 0$. However, as we will see, for finite values of

1134: $\Gamma_\mu$ we obtain non-vanishing values of the density $n_h$.

1135: 

1136: 

1137: For the sources $\tilde{\gamma}_{Q,\hS_{\pm}}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{nQ})-(\ref{nh})

1138: we will follow the formalism of Refs.~\cite{hn,Toni2} where $\tilde{\gamma}_X

1139: \simeq j_X^0/\tau_X$, $\tau_X$ being the corresponding typical 

1140: thermalization time. Thus we will use as sources of our diffusion equations,

1141: %

1142: \begin{align}

1143: \label{sources}

1144: \tilde{\gamma}_Q\simeq &-\, v_\omega\, h_t^2\, \Gamma_{\widetilde{t}}\ 

1145: {\rm Im}(A_t\mu_c)\ H^2(z)\, \beta'(z)\,

1146: \left\{ \mathcal{F}_B(z)+\mathcal{G}_B(z)

1147: \right\}\nonumber\\

1148: \tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde H_+ }\simeq &-\, 2\, v_\omega\, g^2\, 

1149: \Gamma_{\hS} \, {\rm Im}(M_2\mu_c)\left\{ H^2(z)\, \beta'(z)\,

1150: \left[ \mathcal{F}_F(z)+\mathcal{G}_F(z)

1151: \right]\right.\nonumber\\

1152: +&\ \left. g^2\, H^2(z)\cos 2\beta(z)\left[

1153: H(z) H'(z)\sin 2\beta(z)+H^2(z)\cos 2\beta(z) \beta'(z)

1154: \right] \mathcal{H}_F(z) \right\}\nonumber\\

1155: \tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde H_-}\simeq &\ 2\, v_\omega\, g^2\, 

1156: \Gamma_{\hS} \, {\rm Im}(M_2\mu_c)\left[

1157: H(z) H'(z)\sin 2\beta(z)+H^2(z)\cos 2\beta(z) \beta'(z)

1158: \right]\nonumber\\

1159: &\left\{ \mathcal{K}_F(z)

1160: +2\left(\Delta+\bar\Delta\right)\mathcal{H}_F(z)\right\} \ .

1161: \end{align}

1162: %

1163: Notice that our sources, Eq.~(\ref{sources}), are proportional to the wall

1164: velocity $v_\omega$, and so die when the latter goes to zero, which is

1165: a physical requirement. 

1166: 

1167: We can find an approximate solution for $n_Q$ and $n_T$ by assuming that

1168: $\Gamma_Y$ and $\Gamma_{ss}$ are fast so that 

1169: $n_Q/k_Q-n_T/k_T-(n_H+\rho\, n_h)/k_H=\mathcal{O}

1170: (1/\Gamma_Y)$ and $2\,n_Q/k_Q-n_T/k_T+

1171: 9\,(n_Q+n_T)/k_B=\mathcal{O} (1/\Gamma_{ss})$. In this case we can write

1172: %

1173: \begin{align}

1174: \label{QT}

1175: n_Q=&\ \frac{k_Q\left(9 k_T-k_B\right)}{k_H\left(k_B+9 k_Q

1176: +9 k_T\right)}\

1177: (n_H+\, \rho\, n_h)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\Gamma_{ss}}\, ,

1178: \frac{1}{\Gamma_Y}\right)\nonumber\\ 

1179: n_T=&-\ \frac{k_T\left(9 k_Q+2 k_B\right)}{k_H\left(k_B+9 k_Q

1180: +9 k_T\right)}\

1181: (n_H+\, \rho\, n_h)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\Gamma_{ss}}\, ,

1182: \frac{1}{\Gamma_Y}\right)\ .

1183: \end{align}

1184: %

1185: If the left-handed third generation squarks were light

1186: ($m_Q\sim T$) we could expect that 

1187: all supersymmetric and supersymmetry breaking interactions arising 

1188: from the $h_t\, H_2\, Q\, T$ term in

1189: the superpotential are in thermal equilibrium and similar in size, so that

1190: $\Gamma_{Y_1}\simeq \Gamma_{Y_2}$, or $\rho\ll 1$. In such case, which

1191: was considered in Ref.~\cite{plus},  the influence

1192: of $n_h$ in the quark densities $n_Q$ and $n_T$, 

1193: through Eqs.~(\ref{QT}), is $\rho$-suppressed although 

1194: this suppression can be arguably mild 

1195: depending on the particularly chosen value of $\rho$.

1196: However, in the case where left-handed squarks are heavy

1197: ($m_Q\gg T$), as preferred to get a good agreement of the MSSM 

1198: with electroweak precision measurements, their corresponding 

1199: interactions decouple, 

1200: $\Gamma_{Y_1}\simeq0$ and $\rho\simeq 1$. 

1201: This is the case we will consider from here on.

1202: 

1203: We now take (for $\rho=1$) 

1204: the linear combinations of Eqs.~(\ref{nQ}), (\ref{nT}),  

1205: (\ref{nH}) and (\ref{nh}) which are independent of $\Gamma_Y$ and 

1206: $\Gamma_{ss}$. They are given by,

1207: %

1208: \begin{align}

1209: \label{nH2}

1210: v_\omega\left[n'_Q+2\, n'_T-n'_H\right]=& D_q\left[n''_Q+2\,n''_T\right]

1211: -D_h\, n''_H

1212: +\Gamma_m\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T} \right]\nonumber\\

1213: +&\, \Gamma_h

1214: \frac{n_H}{k_H}-\left(\tilde{\gamma}_Q+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{+}}

1215: \right)\\

1216: \label{nh2}

1217: v_\omega\left[n'_Q+2\, n'_T-n'_h\right]=& D_q\left[n''_Q+2\,n''_T\right]

1218: -D_h\, n''_h

1219: +\Gamma_m\left[\frac{n_Q}{k_Q}-\frac{n_T}{k_T} \right]\nonumber\\

1220: +&\,

1221: \left[\Gamma_h+4\, \Gamma_\mu\right] 

1222: \frac{n_h}{k_H}-\left(\tilde{\gamma}_Q+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}

1223: \right)\ .

1224: \end{align}

1225: %

1226: When $n_Q$ and $n_T$ are replaced by the explicit solutions of Eqs.~(\ref{QT}),

1227: as functions of $n_H$ and $n_h$, Eqs.~(\ref{nH2}) and (\ref{nh2}) yield 

1228: the system of coupled equations for $n_H$ and $n_h$:

1229: %

1230: \begin{equation}

1231: \label{sistema}

1232: v_\omega\, \mathcal{A}

1233: \left(

1234: \begin{array}{c}

1235: n'_H \\

1236: n'_h

1237: \end{array}

1238: \right)= \mathcal{D}

1239: \left(

1240: \begin{array}{c}

1241: n''_H \\

1242: n''_h

1243: \end{array}

1244: \right)-\mathcal{G}

1245: \left(

1246: \begin{array}{c}

1247: n_H \\

1248: n_h

1249: \end{array}

1250: \right)+\left(

1251: \begin{array}{c}

1252:  f_{+}\\

1253: f_{-}

1254: \end{array}

1255: \right)

1256: \end{equation}

1257: %

1258: where the sources are

1259: %

1260: \begin{equation}

1261:  f_{\pm}=\frac{G}{F+G}\,\left(

1262: \tilde{\gamma}_Q+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{\pm}}\right)\ , 

1263: \label{fuentes}

1264: \end{equation}

1265: %

1266: with

1267: %

1268: \begin{align}

1269: F\equiv&\ 9 k_Q k_T+k_Q k_B+ 4 k_T k_B\nonumber\\

1270: G\equiv&\ k_H(9 k_Q+9 k_T+k_B)\ ,

1271: \label{FG}

1272: \end{align}

1273: %

1274: and $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ are the $2\times 2$ 

1275: matrices,

1276: \begin{align}

1277: \mathcal{A}=&\left(

1278: \begin{array}{cc}

1279: 1 & \frac{F}{F+G}\\

1280: \frac{F}{F+G} & 1

1281: \end{array}\right) 

1282: %\nonumber\\

1283: \ ,\ \mathcal{D}=\left(

1284: \begin{array}{cc}

1285: \overline{D}_q+\overline{D}_h &\overline{D}_q \\

1286: \overline{D}_q & \overline{D}_q+\overline{D}_h

1287: \end{array}\right) \nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\

1288: \mathcal{G}=&\left(

1289: \begin{array}{cc}

1290: \overline{\Gamma}_m+\overline{\Gamma}_h &\overline{\Gamma}_h \\

1291: \overline{\Gamma}_m & \overline{\Gamma}_m+\overline{\Gamma}_h

1292: +4\, \overline{\Gamma}_\mu

1293: \end{array}\right) \ ,

1294: \label{matrices}

1295: \end{align}

1296: %

1297: with

1298: %

1299: \begin{align}

1300: \overline{D}_q\equiv & \frac{F}{F+G}\ D_q, \quad 

1301: \overline{D}_h\equiv \frac{G}{F+G}\ D_h\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\

1302: \overline{\Gamma}_i\equiv & \frac{G}{F+G}\ \frac{\Gamma_i}{k_H},\quad

1303: (i=m,\ h,\ \mu)\ .

1304: \label{barras}

1305: \end{align}

1306: %

1307: 

1308: The system (\ref{sistema}) amounts to equations for $n_H$ and $n_h$, 

1309: with  sources induced by

1310: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{Q}}$ and 

1311: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{\pm}}$, and by the same 

1312: densities $n_{H,h}$ and

1313: their derivatives. It can be re-written as,

1314: %

1315: \begin{align}

1316: \label{nHfin}

1317: v_\omega\, n'_H=& \overline D\, n''_H-\overline \Gamma\, n_H+f_{+}+\Delta f_+

1318: \\

1319: \label{nh3}

1320: v_\omega\, n'_h=& D_h\, n''_h-\left[\Gamma_h+4 \Gamma_\mu\right]

1321: \frac{n_h }{k_H}

1322: +v_\omega\, n'_H- D_h\, n''_H+\Gamma_h\frac{n_H}{k_H}

1323: +\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}

1324: -\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{+}}

1325: \end{align}

1326: %

1327: where

1328: %

1329: \begin{align}

1330: \label{Dbar}

1331: \overline D=& \overline D_q+\overline D_h,\quad

1332: \overline\Gamma= \overline\Gamma_m+\overline\Gamma_h\\

1333: \label{deltaf}

1334: \Delta f_+=& -\frac{F}{F+G}\, v_\omega n'_h+\overline D_q\, n''_h

1335: -\overline\Gamma_m\, n_h \ .

1336: \end{align}

1337: %

1338: We have solved the system (\ref{sistema}) numerically and the results are

1339: presented in section~\ref{numerical}. However a very useful analytical

1340: approximation can be worked out as follows. Using Eq.~(\ref{nH}) and the

1341: approximate relations (\ref{QT}) we can

1342: write for $n_h$ the following equation,

1343: %

1344: \begin{equation}

1345: \label{nhfin}

1346: v_\omega\, n'_h= D_h\, n''_h-\left[\Gamma_h+4 \Gamma_\mu\right]

1347: \frac{n_h }{k_H}+\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}\ .

1348: \end{equation}

1349: %

1350: In this way the equation for $n_h$ has been decoupled

1351: from the other equations and can be easily solved. On the other hand, from

1352: (\ref{nHfin}) and the expression for $\Delta f_+$, Eq.~(\ref{deltaf}), we see

1353: that $n_h$ acts as a source for $n_H$, and the equations (\ref{nHfin})

1354: and (\ref{nhfin}) can be solved analytically. 

1355: 

1356: We will only quote the solutions in the symmetric

1357: phase ($z<0$) since that would be needed to compute the baryon asymmetry from

1358: $n_L(z)$, as we will see. Finally we will impose boundary conditions

1359: $n_h(\pm\infty)$ and $n_H(\pm\infty)$ and continuity of the functions and

1360: first derivatives at $z=0$.

1361: 

1362: From Eq.~(\ref{nhfin}) we obtain the solution for $n_h(z)$, for $z\leq 0$ as,

1363: %

1364: \begin{equation}

1365: \label{nhsol}

1366: n_h(z)=\, \mathcal{A}_h\ e^{z\alpha_+}

1367: \end{equation}

1368: %

1369: where

1370: %

1371: \begin{align}

1372: \label{Ah}

1373: \mathcal{A}_h=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{v_\omega^2+4\Gamma_1 D_h}

1374: +\sqrt{v_\omega^2+4\Gamma_2 D_h}}

1375: \int_0^\infty d\zeta\ \tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}(\zeta)\,e^{-\zeta \beta_+}

1376: \end{align}

1377: %

1378: and

1379: %

1380: \begin{align}

1381: \label{alpha}

1382: \alpha_{\pm}=& \frac{1}{2 D_h}\left\{v_\omega\pm

1383: \sqrt{v_\omega^2+ 4\Gamma_1 D_h} \right\}\nonumber \\

1384: \beta_\pm=& \frac{1}{2 D_h}\left\{v_\omega\pm

1385: \sqrt{v_\omega^2+ 4\Gamma_2 D_h} \right\}\nonumber \\

1386: \Gamma_2=&\frac{ \Gamma_h+4\Gamma_\mu}{k_H}\nonumber \\ 

1387: \Gamma_1=& \frac{4\Gamma_\mu}{k_H}\ .

1388: \end{align}

1389: %

1390: Note that, from expression (\ref{alpha}), the coefficient $\mathcal{A}_h$ 

1391: behaves as $\Gamma_\mu^{-1/2}$, in the limit of large $\Gamma_\mu$, 

1392: and so the $n_h$ density tends to zero when

1393: $\Gamma_\mu$ tends to infinity, as anticipated.

1394: 

1395: From Eq.~(\ref{nHfin}), the solution for $n_H(z)$, for $z\leq 0$ is given by

1396: %

1397: \begin{equation}

1398: \label{nHsol}

1399: n_H(z)=\ \mathcal{A}_H\ e^{z\,\alpha_+}+ \mathcal{B}_H\ 

1400: e^{z\,v_\omega/\overline D}

1401: \end{equation}

1402: %

1403: where

1404: %

1405: \begin{align}

1406: \label{BH}

1407: \mathcal{B}_H=& \mathcal{A}_0+\, \mathcal{A}_h\frac{F}{F+G}\left\{

1408: \frac{D_q\alpha_+ -v_\omega}{\overline D}

1409: \left[\frac{1}{\lambda_+}+\frac{1}{\alpha_+ -v_\omega/\overline D}\right]

1410: \right.\nonumber\\

1411: +&\left.\ \frac{1}{\overline D \lambda_+}\left[

1412: v_\omega-D_q(\alpha_+ +\lambda_+)+

1413: \frac{\lambda_+ -\alpha_-}{\lambda_+ -\beta_+}\

1414: \frac{F\lambda_+ (-v_\omega+D_q \lambda_+)-G\,\Gamma_m/k_H}

1415: {F(\lambda_+-\beta_-)}

1416: \right]\right\}\nonumber\\

1417: -&\ \frac{1}{\overline D \lambda_+}\ \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}\ \frac{1}{F+G}

1418: \ \frac{\alpha_+ -\beta_-}{(\lambda_+ -\beta_+)(\lambda_+ -\beta_-)}\

1419: \left[F\lambda_+ (-v_\omega+D_q \lambda_+)-G\Gamma_m/k_H \right]

1420: \end{align}

1421: %

1422: and

1423: %

1424: \begin{equation}

1425: \label{AH}

1426: \mathcal{A}_H=-\ \mathcal{A}_h\ \frac{F}{F+G}\

1427: \frac{D_q\, \alpha_+ -v_\omega}{\overline D \alpha_+ -v_\omega}

1428: \end{equation}

1429: %

1430: with

1431: %

1432: \begin{align}

1433: \label{Alambda}

1434: \mathcal{A}_\lambda=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{v_\omega^2+4\Gamma_1 D_h}

1435: +\sqrt{v_\omega^2+4\Gamma_2 D_h}}

1436: \int_0^\infty d\zeta\ \tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}

1437: (\zeta)\,e^{-\zeta \lambda_+}

1438: \nonumber\\

1439: \mathcal{A}_0=& \frac{1}{\overline D \lambda_+}\

1440: \int_0^\infty d\zeta\ f_+(z)\ e^{-\zeta \lambda_+}

1441: \end{align}

1442: %

1443: and

1444: %

1445: \begin{equation}

1446: \label{lambda}

1447: \lambda_\pm= \frac{1}{2\overline D}\left\{v_\omega\pm

1448: \sqrt{v_\omega^2+4 \overline \Gamma\ \overline D} \right\}\ .

1449: \end{equation}

1450: %

1451: 

1452: Since we assume the sphalerons are inactive inside the bubbles, the

1453: baryon density is constant in the broken phase and satisfies,  

1454: in the symmetric phase, an equation where $n_L$ acts as a 

1455: source~\cite{hn} and there is an explicit sphaleron-induced relaxation 

1456: term~\cite{Shapo,plus}

1457: %

1458: \begin{equation}

1459: \label{ecbaryon}

1460: v_\omega n'_B(z)=-\theta(-z)\left[n_F \Gamma_{ws} n_L(z)

1461: + \mathcal{R}n_B(z)\right]

1462: \end{equation}

1463: %

1464: where $n_F=3$ is the number of families and $\mathcal{R}$ is the relaxation

1465: coefficient~\cite{Shapo},

1466: %

1467: \begin{equation}

1468: \label{rel}

1469: \mathcal{R}=\,\frac{5}{4}\, n_F\, \Gamma_{ws}\ .

1470: \end{equation}

1471: %

1472: Eq.~(\ref{ecbaryon}) can be solved analytically and gives, in the broken

1473: phase $z\ge 0$, a constant baryon asymmetry,

1474: %

1475: \begin{equation}

1476: \label{nBsol}

1477: n_B=-\,\frac{n_F \Gamma_{ws}}{v_\omega} \int_{-\infty}^0

1478: dz\, n_L(z)\ e^{z\mathcal{R}/v_\omega}\ .

1479: \end{equation}

1480: %

1481: 

1482: Using now the explicit solutions for $n_H$ and $n_h$ given in 

1483: Eqs.~(\ref{nHsol}) and (\ref{nhsol}), we can cast the explicit solution for

1484: the baryon asymmetry as,

1485: %

1486: \begin{equation}

1487: \label{nBfin}

1488: n_B=\, n_F\, \Gamma_{ws}\ \frac{5 k_Q k_B+8 k_T k_B-9k_Q k_T}

1489: {k_H \left( k_B+9 k_Q+9 k_T \right)}

1490: \left\{\frac{\mathcal{A}_H + \mathcal{A}_h}{\mathcal{R}+v_\omega \alpha_+}

1491: +\frac{\overline D \mathcal{B}_H}{\overline D \mathcal{R}+v_\omega^2}

1492: \right\}

1493: \end{equation}

1494: %

1495: where all symbols used in Eq.~(\ref{nBfin}) have been previously defined. 

1496: 

1497: The validity of our analytical approximation is guaranteed by the

1498: dominance of $n_H$

1499: over $n_h$, which in turn is related to

1500: the $\tan\beta$ suppression of $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}$

1501: and the presence of $\Gamma_\mu$. In fact were we working in the limit

1502: $\Gamma_\mu\to\infty$ we would find that the density $n_h$ is negligible. 

1503: On the other hand, in the limit 

1504: $\Gamma_\mu\to 0$ and $\tan\beta\simeq 1$ we would really

1505: expect $n_h> n_H$, due to the dominance of 

1506: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{-}}$ over $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{+}}$,

1507: at least for large values of $m_A$ where the $\Delta\beta$ suppression of 

1508: $\tilde{\gamma}_{\widetilde{H}_{+}}$ is more severe. However 

1509: small values of $\tan\beta$,

1510: as we noticed earlier in this paper, are strongly disfavored 

1511: in our scenario by recent LEP bounds on the Higgs mass.

1512: Hence, we have found that the

1513: analytical approximation is accurate with an error which depends on the

1514: chosen values of the supersymmetric parameters, but it is always much

1515: smaller than the other uncertainties involved in the final calculation. In

1516: section~\ref{numerical} we will provide explicit comparison with the

1517: numerical result, while all plots will be done using the numerical solution

1518: of system~(\ref{sistema}).

1519: 

1520: 

1521: 

1522: \section{Numerical results}

1523: \label{numerical}

1524: In this section we present the numerical results for the baryon asymmetry

1525: computed in section~\ref{bau} and, in particular, of the baryon-to-entropy

1526: ratio $\eta\equiv n_B/s$, where the entropy density is given by,

1527: %

1528: \begin{equation}

1529: \label{entropia}

1530: s=\frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_{eff}\, T^3

1531: \end{equation}

1532: %

1533: with

1534: $g_{eff}$ being the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom.

1535: The profiles $H(z)$, $\beta(z)$ have been accurately computed in the 

1536: literature~\cite{MOQ,last}. For the sake

1537: of simplicity, in this paper we will use a kink

1538: approximation~\cite{CQRVW} 

1539: %

1540: \begin{align}

1541: \label{profiles}

1542: H(z)= & \frac{1}{2}\, v(T)\,\left(1-\tanh\left[\alpha\left(1-

1543: \frac{2\, z}{L_\omega}\right)\right]\right)\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\

1544: \beta(z)= &\beta-\frac{1}{2}\, \Delta\beta\,\left(1+\tanh\left[\alpha\left(1-

1545: \frac{2\, z}{L_\omega}\right)\right]\right)\ .

1546: \end{align}

1547: %

1548: This approximation has been checked

1549: to reproduce the exact calculation of the Higgs profiles within a few percent

1550: accuracy~\cite{mqs}, 

1551: provided that we borrow from the exact calculation the values of the

1552: thickness $L_\omega/2\alpha$ and the variation of the angle 

1553: $\beta(z)$ along the

1554: bubble wall, $\Delta\beta$, as we will do. In particular we will take

1555: $\alpha\simeq 3/2$, $L_\omega=20/T$, and we have checked that 

1556: the result varies

1557: only very slowly with those parameters,

1558: while we are taking the values of $\Delta\beta$ which are obtained

1559: from the two-loop effective potential used in 

1560: our calculation.

1561: %

1562: 

1563: %~\\

1564: \begin{figure}[htb]

1565: \vspace{.75cm}

1566: \centering

1567: \epsfig{file=m2mu.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}

1568: \caption{Plot of $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ as a function of $\mu$ for $M_2=|\mu|$,

1569: $m_A=100$ GeV (thick solid curve), $m_A=150$ GeV (dashed curve) and 

1570: $m_A=200$ GeV (dash-dotted curve), and the rest of parameters as

1571: indicated in the text. The thin solid curve corresponds to the case 

1572: $m_A=100$ GeV when the approximate analytical solution in (\ref{nBfin})

1573: is used.}     

1574: \label{figm2mu}

1575: \end{figure}

1576: %

1577: The calculation of the wall velocity $v_\omega$

1578: is a very complicated phenomenon involving

1579: the hydrodynamics of the bubble interacting with the 

1580: surrounding plasma. Some progress has

1581: been recently reported in this direction~\cite{vw} indicating that, in 

1582: the case of the MSSM, the wall is extremely non-relativistic, 

1583: $v_\omega\ll 1$, and can be as slow as $v_\omega=0.01$. 

1584: Unless explicitly stated, 

1585: in the numerical analysis of this section, 

1586: we adopt the 

1587: value $v_\omega=0.05$, although the variation of the baryon asymmetry 

1588: with respect to $v_\omega$ will also be analyzed. 

1589: The widths, $\Gamma_m$, $\Gamma_h$ and $\Gamma_Y$ are

1590: as in Refs.~\cite{hn,CQRVW}, while we are taking 

1591: $\Gamma_\mu\simeq 0.1\, T$ and $\rho= 1$, in agreement with the large

1592: value we use for the left-handed third-generation squark masses, 

1593: $m_Q\simgt 1$ TeV, 

1594: which makes them decoupling from the thermal bath. On the other

1595: hand, and consistently with the latter assumption (which is required 

1596: to render the MSSM in agreement with the Higgs mass bounds

1597: coming from LEP), the contribution to

1598: $n_B$ from the squark source, $\tilde{\gamma}_Q$, is negligible.

1599: The ``observable'' value for $\eta$ consistent with 

1600: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) has been considered to be  

1601: $\eta_{\rm BBN}\sim 4\times 10^{-11}$~\cite{BBN}.

1602: Finally we will consider the third generation squark 

1603: mass and mixing parameters, $m_Q=1.5$ TeV and $A_t=0.5$ TeV,

1604: and $\tan\beta=20$ and have checked that, for all 

1605: plots in this section, the phase transition is strong enough first order,

1606: $v(T_c)/T_c\simgt 1$, and the Higgs mass is, within the accuracy of

1607: our calculations,  $m_h \simeq 110$--115 GeV.

1608: These values are in rough agreement with present 95 \% C.L. bounds on the

1609: Higgs mass coming from LEP, or even with 

1610: the present excess of events observed at LEP, consistent with 

1611: the detection of a SM-like Higgs at the runs with the highest

1612: center of mass energies, $\sqrt{s}> 206$ GeV.

1613: We will comment more about the LEP constraints in the next section. 

1614: 

1615: 

1616: 

1617: In Fig.~\ref{figm2mu} we plot the ratio $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ for the 

1618: values of the supersymmetric parameters that have just been described, 

1619: $M_2=|\mu|$, $\sin\varphi_\mu = 1$

1620: and several values of the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$. 

1621: Therefore, 

1622: since $\eta$ is (almost) linear in $\sin\varphi_\mu$, one

1623: can read from Fig.~\ref{figm2mu} the value of $1/\sin\varphi_\mu$ that

1624: would reproduce $\eta_{\rm BBN}$. This observation applies to all plots

1625: presented in this section, where we have fixed $\sin\varphi_\mu=1$. 

1626: It follows that the region of parameters where we find

1627: $|\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}|<1$, is forbidden in all plots.

1628: For the value $m_A=100$ GeV, we have presented both the

1629: exact result (thick solid curve), based on the numerical solution of 

1630: Eqs.~(\ref{sistema}), and the approximate result (thin solid curve), based on

1631: the approximate analytical 

1632: solution (\ref{nBfin}). We see that for values where

1633: $n_B/s$ is sizeable the discrepancy between the analytical and the numerical

1634: result is $\simlt$ 30 \%. 

1635: For the other curves in Fig.~\ref{figm2mu}, as well as

1636: for the rest of plots in this paper, 

1637: we will use the (exact) numerical solution of Eqs.~(\ref{sistema}).

1638: %

1639: 

1640: %~\\

1641: \begin{figure}[htb]

1642: \vspace{.75cm}

1643: \centering

1644: \epsfig{file=mu.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}

1645: \caption{Plot of $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ as a function of 

1646: $\mu$ for $M_2=200$ GeV and $m_A=150$ GeV.}     

1647: \label{figmu}

1648: \end{figure}

1649: %

1650: We are, in Fig.~\ref{figm2mu}, close to the resonance region

1651: discussed in Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}, which is smoothed

1652: by the all order resummation in Higgs mass insertions. The departure from the

1653: resonance is exemplified in Fig.~\ref{figmu}, where we plot 

1654: $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ as a function of $\mu$ for $M_2=200$ GeV, 

1655: $m_A=150$ GeV and the other supersymmetric parameters as in 

1656: Fig.~\ref{figm2mu}.

1657: %

1658: 

1659: In Fig.~\ref{figma} we plot $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$

1660: as a function of $m_A$ for $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV (solid curve) and 

1661: $M_2=200$ GeV,

1662: $\mu=300$ GeV (dashed curve), and other supersymmetric parameters as in 

1663: Fig.~\ref{figm2mu}.

1664: Finally in Fig.~\ref{figvw} we plot $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ as a function of

1665: $v_w$ for $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV, $m_A=150$ GeV and the other parameters as in 

1666: Fig.~\ref{figm2mu}. The maximum of this curve comes from the interplay between

1667: the relaxation and source terms in the equation for $n_B$, 

1668: Eq.~(\ref{ecbaryon}).

1669: 

1670: 

1671: %~\\

1672: \begin{figure}[htb]

1673: \vspace{.75cm}

1674: \centering

1675: \epsfig{file=ma.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}

1676: \caption{Plot of $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$

1677: as a function of $m_A$ for $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV (solid curve)

1678: and $M_2=200,\,\mu=300$ GeV (dashed curve).}  

1679: \label{figma}

1680: \end{figure}

1681: %

1682: 

1683: %~\\

1684: \begin{figure}[htb]

1685: \vspace{.75cm}

1686: \centering

1687: \epsfig{file=vw.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}

1688: \caption{Plot of $\eta/\eta_{\rm BBN}$ as a function of

1689: $v_w$ for $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV and $m_A=150$ GeV.}     

1690: \label{figvw}

1691: \end{figure}

1692: %

1693: 

1694: 

1695: The numerical results exhibited in the plots of this section are an 

1696: improvement of our previous results, Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}, and include the

1697: all order resummation of the Higgs mass insertions in the current

1698: determination, as well as inclusion of finite $\Gamma_\mu$-effects in the

1699: diffusion equations. Since the first of these effects smooths out the

1700: resonant behaviour, which enhances the determination of $n_B$ for 

1701: $M_2=|\mu|$, while the second one slightly enhances $n_B$, our present

1702: numerical results are in rough agreement with those of Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}.

1703: On the other hand if we compare our numerical results with the recent ones

1704: of Ref.~\cite{plus}, that use WKB methods  and values of

1705: $\rho < 1$ to deduce the source terms in the

1706: diffusion equations, we observe a discrepancy of a few orders of

1707: magnitude. However, we have been communicated~\cite{Kimmo} by the authors

1708: of Ref.~\cite{plus} to have detected a problem in their numerical codes which

1709: enhances their numerical results by some orders of magnitude and that might 

1710: explain part of this discrepancy. As explained above, large values of

1711: $m_Q$, implying $\rho = 1$, are necessary in order to fulfill the present

1712: experimental Higgs mass bounds.

1713: 

1714: 

1715: \section{Higgs mass constraints}

1716: \label{higgs}

1717: 

1718:    In this section, we shall comment on the constraints coming from

1719: Higgs searches at LEP. The LEP experiments at CERN have

1720: collected data during the year 1999 at various energies

1721: between 192 GeV and 202 GeV, for a total integrated luminosity

1722: of about 900 $pb^{-1}$. A combined limit on the Standard Model Higgs

1723: mass of about 108 GeV at the 95 $\%$ C.L. was obtained, due

1724: to the absence of any significant 

1725: Higgs signal in the LEP data~\cite{lephiggs}. 

1726: Preliminary results

1727: of this year run~\cite{lepchiggs} show that this limit

1728: moved up by a few GeV (up to about 113.2 GeV). More interesting,

1729: a slight excess of events, about 3 standard deviations above

1730: the SM predictions, has been observed, consistent with 

1731: a SM like Higgs in the range of masses of about 113--116 GeV. 

1732: 

1733:    The present Higgs mass constraints become particularly relevant for small

1734: values of $\tan\beta$, $\tan\beta <$~5. In this case, due to the

1735: behaviour of the Higgs boson couplings to fermions and

1736: gauge bosons, the SM Higgs mass constraints translate 

1737: with almost no variations into a bound on the lightest CP-even

1738: Higgs boson mass~\footnote{In the presence of CP-violation,

1739: the Higgs mass eigenstates will not be CP-eigenstates. In our analysis

1740: we have used the CP conserving structure for the Higgs sector. This 

1741: should lead to a good approximation if 

1742: CP-violating effects in the Higgs potential are small,

1743: as happens when arg$(\mu_c A_t) \simeq 0$. 

1744: A more general analysis,

1745: similar to the one performed in Refs.~\cite{CEPW,CEPW2} 

1746: would be appropriate to consider more general CP-violating effects.}. 

1747: For values of $v(T_c)/T_c \simgt 1$ and $\tan\beta < 5$, 

1748: and for left-handed stop masses smaller than $\sim$ 3 TeV, 

1749: the lightest CP-even 

1750: Higgs mass never exceeds 105 GeV. Therefore, the mechanism

1751: of electroweak baryogenesis demands either values of $\tan\beta >5$

1752: or unnaturally large values of $m_Q$~\footnote{

1753: We have checked that, for the values of

1754: the stop mixing

1755: parameters consistent with electroweak baryogenesis, no significant

1756: modification of these bounds is obtained after considering CP-violating

1757: effects in the Higgs potential~\cite{CEPW}.}.  

1758: 

1759: 

1760: Large values of $\tan\beta$ move

1761: the value of the  Higgs boson mass, with relevant

1762: couplings to the gauge bosons, to larger values.

1763: However, if the values of the left-handed stop parameters

1764: are restricted to be below 3 TeV, for $v(T_c)/T_c \simgt 1$, the

1765: Higgs mass cannot exceed 115 GeV. Observe that these

1766: values are a few GeV higher than those obtained previously

1767: in Ref.~\cite{CQW2}, since in that reference we restricted ourselves

1768: to the case of left-handed stop masses below 1 TeV. The observed 

1769: excess of events, with $b\bar{b}$ invariant 

1770: masses of about 114 GeV, would be consistent

1771: with electroweak baryogenesis for large values of $\tan\beta$ and

1772: large values of the left-handed stop mass parameters $m_Q \simgt 1 $ TeV,

1773: as the ones considered in the previous section. 

1774: 

1775: 

1776: What would happen if the excess of events present at LEP would not

1777: correspond to a Higgs signal, but would turn out to be a statistical

1778: fluctuation with the final outcome of an ultimate exclusion limit

1779: for a SM-like Higgs with mass below 115 GeV? 

1780: To analyze this, let us stress that

1781: at large values of $\tan\beta$

1782: the coupling of this Higgs boson to bottom quarks 

1783: can be  significantly lower than in the SM~\cite{CMW,CEPW}

1784: with a corresponding reduction of the Higgs mass bound.

1785: These variations can only occur for small values of the CP-odd

1786: Higgs mass $m_A$, of order of the lightest CP-even 

1787: Higgs boson mass. Unlike the case of

1788: small values of $\tan\beta$, 

1789: for values of $\tan\beta > 10$,

1790: the values of $v(T_c)/T_c$ are only weakly dependent

1791: on the exact value of $m_A$. Intuitively, this can be understood by

1792: the fact that for large values of $\tan\beta$, the CP-odd Higgs

1793: can be approximately identified with the imaginary part of the 

1794: neutral component of the Higgs doublet $H_1$, while the Higgs

1795: doublet which acquires vacuum expectation value is mainly

1796: $H_2$ ($v_2 \gg v_1)$. 

1797: 

1798: 

1799: For the values of $A_t$ and $\mu$ consistent with electroweak baryogenesis,

1800: a reduction of the coupling of the CP-even Higgs boson to

1801: the bottom quark would demand not only small values

1802: of $m_A \simeq 100$--150 GeV, but also large values

1803: of $\tan\beta > 10$ and of $|\mu A_t|/m_Q^2 > 0.1$

1804: (the larger $\tan\beta$, the easier 

1805: suppressed values of the bottom quark coupling are obtained).

1806: We have checked that, assuming small CP-violating effects

1807: in the Higgs potential and in the Higgs-fermion couplings,

1808: and for values of $m_Q \simeq 1$ TeV, $v(T_c)/T_c \simgt 1$ 

1809: and $|\mu| < 500$ GeV, a significant reduction of the coupling

1810: of the Higgs to bottom quarks only occur for $\tan\beta \simgt 30$.

1811: Therefore, if the excess of events observed at LEP is not

1812: associated with a Higgs signal,

1813: strong constraints on the electroweak baryogenesis scenario within

1814: the MSSM will be obtained. 

1815: %A dedicated analysis, including CP-violation

1816: %effects in the Higgs sector~\cite{CEPW} will be necessary in order

1817: %to determine the allowed supersymmetric parameter space and

1818: %to get a conclusive test of the scenario of electroweak baryogenesis

1819: %in the MSSM.

1820: 

1821: 

1822: \section{Conclusions}

1823: \label{conclusion}

1824: 

1825:       In this article, we have performed a computation of the

1826: scalar- and fermion- CP-violating currents induced by the 

1827: expansion of a true-vacuum bubble in the false vacuum plasma,

1828: within the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard

1829: model. We made use of the Keldysh formalism and we have

1830: defined a systematic way of obtaining the currents in an

1831: expansion of derivatives of the Higgs fields, to all orders

1832: of the Higgs background insertions. 

1833: 

1834:       Although our method is similar to the one 

1835: previously used by some of us in Ref.~\cite{CQRVW},

1836: our results differ from those presented in our previous work 

1837: in several respects.

1838: First of all, they include a resummation of corrections

1839: associated with higher order of the Higgs background

1840: insertions. These corrections have two important

1841: effects. The first one is to 

1842: dilute the resonant behaviour obtained in Ref.~\cite{CQRVW}

1843: for values of $|\mu| = M_2$. The second one is the 

1844: appearance of a contribution proportional to $H_2\partial^{\mu} H_1

1845: + H_1 \partial^{\mu} H_2$ to the vector Higgsino current

1846: $j_{\hS_{+}}^\mu(z)$. This

1847: means that, as first observed in Refs.~\cite{hn,nuria}, the

1848: vector Higgsino current does not vanish for large values

1849: of the CP-odd Higgs mass. Our method provides a  

1850: way of obtaining the value of this non-vanishing

1851: contribution in a self-consistent way.

1852: In addition, we have also computed 

1853: the axial Higgsino current $j_{\hS_{-}}^\mu(z)$, whose

1854: components are proportional to

1855: $H_2 \partial^\mu H_1 + H_1 \partial^\mu H_2$.

1856: Therefore, as first observed in Ref.~\cite{plus}, 

1857: the chiral current is not suppressed for large values

1858: of the CP-odd Higgs mass and hence may become

1859: relevant in this regime.

1860: 

1861: The vector and axial Higgsino currents, $j_{\hS_{\pm}}^\mu(z)$,

1862: were used to determine

1863: the baryon asymmetry of the Universe, $n_B/s$. The

1864: computation of $n_B$ demands the solution of diffusion

1865: equations, with sources determined through $j_{\hS_{\pm}}^\mu(z)$.

1866: %In this article, we have not attempted to 

1867: %provide a derivation of the diffusion equations. 

1868: Following the method developed in Refs.~\cite{hn,Toni2}, 

1869: we assumed that 

1870: the sources are proportional 

1871: to the temporal component of the currents, with a constant of 

1872: proportionality given by the Higgsino width. Within this

1873: approximation, we computed

1874: the functional dependence of $n_B$ on the soft

1875: supersymmetry breaking parameters and on the bubble wall 

1876: parameters. The most important parameters turn out to 

1877: be the gaugino and Higgsino mass parameters, $|\mu_c|$ and

1878: $M_2$, their relative phase arg$(\mu_c M_2)$, (equal to $\varphi_{\mu}$

1879: in the basis in which $M_2$ is real) as well as

1880: the CP-odd Higgs mass $m_A$ and $\tan\beta$. We have also

1881: required that the condition of preservation of the baryon

1882: asymmetry $v(T_c)/T_c \simgt 1$ is fulfilled, what

1883: demands a light right-handed

1884: stop and, due to the present Higgs mass

1885: constraints coming from LEP (see section \ref{higgs}), also large

1886: values of the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values,

1887: $\tan\beta > 5$.

1888: 

1889:    Under the above conditions, we have determined the value

1890: of $n_B$, compared to the value predicted by Big Bang 

1891: Nucleosynthesis, for a value of $\sin \varphi_{\mu} =$ 1. The

1892: ratio of the theoretically obtained to the BBN 

1893: predicted baryon asymmetry

1894: can be reinterpreted as the inverse of the value of 

1895: $\sin\varphi_{\mu}$ needed to obtain a value of $n_B$ 

1896: in agreement with the

1897: BBN predictions. We conclude that,

1898: for small values of $m_A \simeq 100$ GeV and $|\mu| \simeq M_2$,

1899: values as low as $\varphi_{\mu} \simeq 0.04$ can lead to

1900: acceptable values of $n_B$. The predicted

1901: value of the phase $\varphi_{\mu}$

1902: increases for larger

1903: values of $m_A$ and/or for $|\mu| \neq M_2$, but still there

1904: is a large fraction of parameter space in which the computed

1905: baryon number is in good agreement with BBN predictions, for

1906: phases such that $\sin\varphi_{\mu} \simeq 0.04$--1. 

1907: 

1908: Values of 

1909: $\varphi_{\mu} \simgt 0.04$ can  lead to acceptable phenomenology

1910: if either peculiar cancellations in the squark and slepton 

1911: contributions to the neutron and electron electric dipole moments (EDM) 

1912: occur~\cite{cancelacion}, and/or if the first 

1913: and second generation of squarks are heavy~\cite{Alex}. This second

1914: possibility is quite appealing and, as has been recently

1915: demonstrated~\cite{DarkM}, 

1916: leads to acceptable phenomenology, including

1917: the dark matter constraints~\footnote{Third generation squarks would still

1918: contribute to the neutron and electron EDM, 

1919: via two loop diagrams

1920: involving the would-be CP-odd Higgs boson~\cite{CKP}. These

1921: contributions can become sizeable at large values of $\tan\beta$,

1922: although they tend to be suppressed for small values of the mixing in

1923: the stop sector, as the ones required for electroweak baryogenesis.}.

1924: 

1925: Another important observable which, similarly to the

1926: value of the baryon number, depends on the precise

1927: value of the mass parameters in the gaugino, Higgsino and

1928: third generation squark sectors, as well as on the charged Higgs mass,

1929: is the rate of the rare decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$~\cite{BBMR}. 

1930: For small values of the charged Higgs and stop masses, and

1931: for moderate values of $A_t/m_Q$ and $|\mu|/m_Q$,

1932: the chargino-stop contribution, as well as the charged

1933: Higgs contribution, may become large for large values of

1934: $\tan\beta$~\cite{Riccardo,Gambino,CGNW}. 

1935: In scenarios with heavy first and second generation squarks,

1936: however, flavor violation couplings involving the third

1937: generation squarks could be non-negligible~\cite{Alex} and therefore

1938: the gluino-sbottom contributions to this rare decay rate may be 

1939: enhanced~\cite{Borzumati}.

1940: Since these last contributions are strongly model dependent,

1941: and may be larger than the charged Higgs and chargino-stop

1942: ones, we have not imposed the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$

1943: constraints in our analysis.

1944: 

1945: 

1946:   Finally, we have discussed the effect of the Higgs mass constraints 

1947: coming from LEP. The preliminary data coming from the LEP experiments

1948: imply a lower bound on the mass of a SM-like Higgs boson of about 113 GeV. A

1949: small excess, consistent with a SM-like Higgs boson with a mass

1950: slightly above that value has also been observed. These relatively large

1951: values of the Higgs mass are consistent with electroweak baryogenesis

1952: within the MSSM if the value of $\tan\beta$ is large, $\tan\beta >5$,

1953: if the  left-handed stops are heavy $m_Q \simgt 1$ TeV, and if the stop

1954: mixing parameter is not small, $A_t \simgt 0.25 \; m_Q$. On the other hand,

1955: for these values of the Higgs mass, values of $A_t \simgt 0.4 \; m_Q$ make

1956: the phase transition weaker, leading to values of $v(T_c)/T_c$ that are in

1957: conflict with the condition of preservation of the baryon asymmetry.

1958: It is important to emphasize, however, that

1959: even if the CP-even Higgs

1960: boson coupling to the gauge boson is SM like, it can

1961: evade the LEP bounds if its coupling to the bottom quark is strongly

1962: suppressed, what can occur for very large values of $\tan\beta$,

1963: $\tan\beta \simgt 30$. More relevantly, if the excess of events

1964: at LEP has its origins in the presence of a SM-like Higgs boson

1965: of mass of about 113--115 GeV, one of the predictions of electroweak

1966: baryogenesis, namely the presence of a light neutral Higgs boson with

1967: SM-like couplings to the gauge bosons and a 

1968: mass not larger than 115 GeV would have been fulfilled.

1969: 

1970: 

1971: 

1972: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1973: 

1974: M.Q. would like to thank the Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique,

1975: Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure (Paris), where part of this work has been done,

1976: and Kimmo Kainulainen for discussions and correspondence concerning

1977: Ref.~\cite{plus}. M.C. and C.E.M.W. would like to thank the Aspen Center

1978: for Physics and the Physics Department of the University of California,

1979: Santa Cruz, where part of this work has been done.  This work 

1980: has been supported

1981: in part by the US Department of Energy, High Energy Physics Division,

1982: under Contracts DE-AC02-76CHO3000 and W-31-109-Eng-38, 

1983: by CICYT, Spain, under contract AEN98-0816, and by EU under TMR contract

1984: ERBFMRX-CT96-0045 and RTN contract HPRN-CT-2000-00152.

1985: 

1986: \newpage

1987: 

1988: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1989: %

1990: \bibitem{baryogenesis} A.D.~Sakharov, {\it JETPL} {\bf 91B} (1967)(24).

1991: %

1992: \bibitem{reviews} For reviews, see:

1993: A.G.~Cohen, D.B.~Kaplan and A.E.~Nelson,

1994: {\it Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.} {\bf 43} (1993) 27;

1995: M.~Quir\'os, \HPA{67}{1994}{451}; V.A.~Rubakov and

1996: M.E.~Shaposhnikov, {\it Phys. Usp.} {\bf 39} (1996) 461;

1997: M.~Carena and C.E.M.~Wagner, hep-ph/9704347;

1998: A.~Riotto, M.~Trodden, {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.} {\bf 49}

1999: (1999) 35; M.~Quir\'os and M.~Seco, 

2000: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B Proc. Suppl. 81} (2000) 63,

2001: hep-ph/9703274.

2002: %

2003: \bibitem{anomaly}G.~t'Hooft, \PRL{37}{1976}{8}; \PRD{14}{1976}{3432}.

2004: %

2005: \bibitem{sphalerons}

2006: N.S.~Manton, \PRD{28}{1983}{2019};

2007: F.R.~Klinkhamer and N.S.~Manton, \PRD{30}{1984}{2212}.

2008: %

2009: \bibitem{sphalT} P.~Arnold and L.G.~Yaffe, hep-ph/9912306; 

2010: P.~Arnold, \PRD{62}{2000}{036003};

2011: G.D.~Moore and K.~Rummukainen, \PRD{61}{2000}{105008};

2012: G.D.~Moore, \PRD{62}{2000}{085011}.

2013: % 

2014: \bibitem{fs} G.R.~Farrar and M.E.~Shaposhnikov,

2015: \PRL{70}{1993}{2833},

2016: ({\bf E}): {\bf 71} (1993) 210 and \PRD{50}{1994}{774}.

2017: %

2018: \bibitem{huet}

2019: M.B.~Gavela. P.~Hern\'andez, J.~Orloff,

2020: O.~P\`ene and C.~Quimbay, \NPB{430}{1994}{382}; 

2021: P.~Huet and E.~Sather, \PRD{51}{1995}{379}.

2022: %

2023: \bibitem{marcelo} M.~Gleiser and M.~Trodden, hep-ph/9911380.

2024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911380;%%

2025: %

2026: \bibitem{SMpt} 

2027: K.~Jansen, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B Proc. Suppl. 47} (1996) 196,

2028: hep-lat/9509018; 

2029: K.~Rummukainen, M.~Tsypin, K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine and 

2030: M.~Shaposhnikov, \NPB{532}{1998}{283};

2031: K.~Rummukainen, K.~Kajantie, M.~Laine, M.~Shaposhnikov and

2032: M.~Tsypin, hep-ph/9809435. 

2033: %

2034: \bibitem{early} G.F.~Giudice, \PRD{45}{1992}{3177};

2035: S.~Myint, \PLB{287}{1992}{325}.

2036: %

2037: \bibitem{mariano1} J.R.~Espinosa, M.~Quir{\'o}s and F.~Zwirner,

2038: \PLB{307}{1993}{106}.

2039: %

2040: \bibitem{mariano2} A.~Brignole, J.R.~Espinosa, M.~Quir{\'o}s and F.~Zwirner,

2041: \PLB{324}{1994}{181}.

2042: %

2043: \bibitem{CQW} M.~Carena, M.~Quir{\'o}s and C.E.M.~Wagner,

2044: \PLB{380}{1996}{81}.

2045: %

2046: \bibitem{Delepine} D.~Delepine, J.M.~G\'erard, R.~Gonz\'alez Felipe

2047: and J.~Weyers, \PLB{386}{1996}{183}.

2048: %

2049: \bibitem{MOQ} J.M.~Moreno, D.H.~Oaknin and M.~Quir{\'o}s, 

2050: \NPB{483}{1997}{267}; \PLB{395}{1997}{234}.

2051: %

2052: \bibitem{CK} J.~Cline and K.~Kainulainen, \NPB{482}{1996}{73};

2053: \NPB{510}{1998}{88}. 

2054: %

2055: \bibitem{FL} M.~Laine, \NPB{481}{1996}{43};

2056: M.~Losada, \PRD{56}{1997}{2893};

2057: G.~Farrar and M.~Losada, \PLB{406}{1997}{60}.

2058: %

2059: \bibitem{JoseR} J.R.~Espinosa, \NPB{475}{1996}{273}.

2060: %

2061: \bibitem{JRB} B. de Carlos and J.R.~Espinosa, 

2062: \NPB{503}{1997}{24.}

2063: %

2064: \bibitem{Schmidt} D.~Bodeker, P.~John, M.~Laine and M.G.~Schmidt,

2065: \NPB{497}{1997}{387}.

2066: %

2067: \bibitem{CQW2} M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os and C.E.M.~Wagner, 

2068: \NPB{524}{1998}{3}.

2069: %

2070: \bibitem{lainerum} M.~Laine, K.~Rummukainen,

2071: \NPB{535}{1998}{423}.

2072: % 

2073: \bibitem{mqs} J.M.~Moreno, M.~Quir{\'o}s and M.~Seco, \NPB{526}{1998}{489}.

2074: %

2075: \bibitem{clinem} J.M.~Cline and G.D.~Moore \PRL{81}{1998}{3315}.

2076: % 

2077: %

2078: \bibitem{pj} P.~John, \PLB{452}{1999}{221}; 

2079: S.J.~Huber, P.~John, M.~Laine and M.G.~Schmidt, \PLB{475}{2000}{104}. 

2080: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912278;%%

2081: % 

2082: \bibitem{los} M.~Losada, \NPB{537}{1999}{3} and 

2083: \NPB{569}{2000}{125};

2084: M.~Laine and M.~Losada, \NPB{582}{2000}{277}.

2085: %

2086: \bibitem{last} F.~Csikor, Z.~Fodor, P.~Hegedus, A.~Jakovac, S.D.~Katz

2087: and A.~Piroth, \PRL{85}{2000}{932}.

2088: %

2089: \bibitem{LR} M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen, hep-lat/0009025.

2090: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0009025;%%

2091: %

2092: \bibitem{CPviol} M.~Dine, P.~Huet, R.~Singleton Jr. and L.~Susskind,

2093: \PLB{257}{1991}{351}; A.~Cohen and A.E.~Nelson, \PLB{297}{1992}{111}.

2094: %

2095: \bibitem{hn} P.~Huet and A.E.~Nelson, \PLB{355}{1995}{229};

2096: \PRD{53}{1996}{4578}.

2097: %

2098: \bibitem{CQRVW} M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os, A.~Riotto, I.~Vilja

2099: and C.E.M.~Wagner, \NPB{503}{1997}{387}.

2100: %

2101: \bibitem{CJK} J.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen, \PLB{417}{1998}{79}.

2102: %

2103: \bibitem{Iiro2} T.~Multamaki, I.~Vilja, \PLB{411}{1997}{301}.

2104: %

2105: \bibitem{Toni2} A.~Riotto, {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf D7} (1998) 815, 

2106: \NPB{518}{1998}{339} and \PRD{58}{1998}{095009}. 

2107: %

2108: \bibitem{Worah} M.P.~Worah, \PRD{56}{1997}{2010} and

2109: \PRL{79}{1997}{3810}.

2110: %

2111: \bibitem{DRW} H.~Davoudiasl, K.~Rajagopal and E.~Westphal, 

2112: \NPB{515}{1998}{384}.

2113: %

2114: \bibitem{joyce}J.M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen, 

2115: \PLB{417}{1998}{79}.

2116: %

2117: \bibitem{vilja} K.~Enqvist, A.~Riotto and I.~Vilja,

2118: \PLB{438}{1998}{273}. 

2119: %

2120: \bibitem{trodden} M.~Trodden, \RMP{71}{1999}{1463}.

2121: %

2122: \bibitem{nuria} N.~Rius and V.~Sanz, \NPB{570}{2000}{155}.

2123: %

2124: \bibitem{gordy} M.~Brhlik, G.J.~Good and G.L.~Kane, hep-ph/9911243.

2125: % 

2126: \bibitem{plus} J.M.~Cline and K.~Kainulainen, hep-ph/0002272;

2127:  J.M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen, \JHEP{07}{2000}{018}.

2128: % 

2129: \bibitem{keldysh} N.P.~Landsmann and Ch.G. van Weert,

2130: {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 145} (1987) 141;

2131: P.~Henning, \PR{253}{1995}{235}.

2132: %

2133: \bibitem{mr} G.D.~Moore and K.~Rummukainen, \PRD {61}{2000}{105008}.

2134: %

2135: \bibitem{Shapo} M.E.~Shaposhnikov, \NPB{287}{1987}{757};

2136: \NPB{299}{1988}{797}; A.I.~Bochkarev and 

2137: M.E.~Shaposhnikov \MPL{2}{1987}{417}.

2138: %

2139: \bibitem{turok} M.~Joyce, T.~Prokopec and N.~Turok, \PLB{338}{1994}{269}.

2140: %

2141: \bibitem{vw} G.D.~Moore, \JHEP{03}{2000}{006};

2142: P.~John and M.G.~Schmidt, hep-ph/0002050.

2143: %

2144: \bibitem{BBN} K.A.~Olive, G.~Steigman and T.P.~Walker,

2145: \PR{333-334}{2000}{389}.

2146: %

2147: \bibitem{Kimmo} J.M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen, 

2148: private communication.

2149: %

2150: \bibitem{lephiggs} P.~Bock et al., 

2151:                    {\em Searches for Higgs Bosons: Preliminary

2152:     Combined Results using LEP Data Collected at Energies up to

2153:     202 GeV}, 

2154:                    CERN-EP-2000-055.

2155: %

2156: \bibitem{lepchiggs}

2157: See the following presentations at the special LEPC seminar on Sept. 5th,

2158: 2000:\\

2159: W.-D. Schlatter, for the ALEPH Collaboration,\\

2160: {\tt http://alephwww.cern.ch/};\\

2161: T. Camporesi, for the DELPHI Collaboration,\\

2162: {\tt http://delphiwww.cern.ch/\~{}offline/physics{\_}links/lepc.html};\\

2163: J.-J. Blaising, for the L3 Collaboration,\\

2164: {\tt http://l3www.cern.ch/analysis/latestresults.html};\\

2165: C. Rembser, for the OPAL Collaboration,\\

2166: {\tt http://opal.web.cern.ch/Opal/PPwelcome.html};\\

2167: C. Tully, for the LEP Working Group for Higgs boson 

2168: searches,\\

2169: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/talks/index.html}.

2170: %

2171: \bibitem{CEPW}

2172: A.~Pilaftsis and C.E.M.~Wagner, \NPB{553}{1999}{3};

2173: M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner, 

2174: hep-ph/0003180.

2175: \bibitem{CEPW2} M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner, 

2176: hep-ph/0009212.

2177: %

2178: \bibitem{CMW} M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna and C.E.M.~Wagner,

2179: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 075010;

2180: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 055008.

2181: %

2182: \bibitem{cancelacion}T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath, \PLB{418}{1998}{98}; 

2183: \PRD{57}{1998}{478}; Erratum ibid. {\bf D58} (1998) 019901; 

2184: \PRD{58}{1998}{111301}; Erratum ibid. {\bf D60} (1999) 099902; 

2185: M.~Brhlik, G.J.~Good and G.L.~Kane, \PRD{59}{1999}{115004}.

2186: %

2187: \bibitem{Alex}

2188: A.~Pomarol and D.~Tommasini, \NPB{466}{1996}{3}; 

2189: A.G.~Cohen, D.B.~Kaplan and A.E.~Nelson, \PLB{388}{1996}{588}. 

2190: %

2191: \bibitem{DarkM} See J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

2192: \PLB{482}{2000}{388} and references therein.

2193: %

2194: \bibitem{CKP} D.  Chang, W.-Y.  Keung and A.  Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ 

2195:   Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 900; A.  Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B471}

2196:   (1999) 174; D. Chang, W.-F.  Chang and W.-Y. Keung, 

2197:   Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B478} (2000) 239;

2198: A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62} (2000) 016007.

2199: %

2200: \bibitem{BBMR} S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,

2201: \NPB{353}{1991}{591}.

2202: %

2203: \bibitem{Riccardo} R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid, \NPB{501}{1997}{297};

2204: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \PRD{58}{1998}{ 015007}; 

2205: T.~Blazek and S.~Raby, \PRD{59}{1999}{095002}.

2206: %

2207: \bibitem{Gambino} G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.F.~Giudice, 

2208: hep-ph/0009337

2209: %

2210: \bibitem{CGNW} M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.E.M.~Wagner,

2211: hep-ph/0010003.

2212: %

2213: \bibitem{Borzumati} F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler, 

2214: hep-ph/9911245.

2215: %

2216: \end{thebibliography}

2217: %

2218: \end{document}

2219: 

2220: 

2221: 

2222: 

2223: