1: \documentstyle[prl,aps,graphicx]{revtex}
2: %\documentclass{article}
3: %\usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\textwidth6.5in \textheight9in
5: %\oddsidemargin0in \topmargin0in
6: %\headheight0in \headsep0in
7: %\def\baselinestretch{1.2}
8: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}.}
9: %\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\thesection\alph{subsection}}
10: %\newcommand{\alt}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}
11: %\newcommand{\agt}{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}
12: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
13: %\def\err#1#2{\stackrel{\scriptstyle +#1}{\scriptstyle -#2}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{\bf NSC-NCTS-010219} }}
18: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
19: %@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
20:
21: \title{Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Leptoquark Solutions}
22: \author{Kingman Cheung}
23: \address{ National Center for Theoretical Science, National Tsing Hua
24: University, Hsinchu, Taiwan R.O.C.}
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: The recent measurement on the muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_\mu$ shows a
29: $2.6\sigma$ deviation from the standard model value.
30: We show that it puts an interesting bound on the mass of the second generation
31: leptoquarks. To account for the data the leptoquark must have both
32: the left- and right-handed couplings to the muon.
33: Assuming that the couplings have electromagnetic strength, the
34: mass is restricted in the range $0.7 \; {\rm TeV} < M_{\rm LQ} < 2.2$ TeV
35: at 95\% C.L.
36: We also discuss constraints coming from other low energy and high
37: energy experiments. If the first-second-generation universality is assumed,
38: constraints come from the atomic parity violation and
39: charged-current universality. We show that coexistence with other leptoquarks
40: can satisfy these additional constraints and at the same time do not
41: affect the $a_\mu$.
42: \end{abstract}
43: %\vskip 1pc]
44:
45: %\section{}
46:
47: Many Grand-Unified theories predict the existence of leptoquarks, which are
48: composite objects that carry both the lepton and quark numbers. The discovery
49: of such particles certainly affects the planning for
50: future experiments and guides the building of the theories. In fact,
51: leptoquarks have been actively searched for in many collider experiments
52: \cite{teva-lq,hera-lq}, and will still be in the future.
53: Precision measurements are also very useful in testing
54: leptoquark models and restricting the parameter space.
55: The measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of leptons \cite{lq2,equ}
56: is one of such experiments that can constrain the model.
57:
58: The recent measurement on the muon anomalous
59: magnetic moment by the experiment E821 \cite{E821}
60: at Brookhaven National Laboratory
61: has reduced the error to a substantially smaller level.
62: Combining with previous measurements the new world average is \cite{am}
63: \begin{equation}
64: a_\mu^{\rm exp} = 116\, 592 \, 023\,(151) \; \times \; 10^{-11} \;,
65: \end{equation}
66: where the standard model (SM) prediction is
67: \begin{equation}
68: a_\mu^{\rm SM} = 116\, 591 \, 597\,(67) \; \times \; 10^{-11} \;,
69: \end{equation}
70: in which the QED, hadronic, and electroweak contributions have been included.
71: Thus, the deviation from the SM value is
72: \begin{equation}
73: \Delta a_\mu \equiv
74: a_\mu^{\rm exp}- a_\mu^{\rm SM} =
75: (42.6\, \pm 16.5) \; \times \; 10^{-10} \;.
76: \end{equation}
77: This $2.6\sigma$ deviation may be a hint to new physics because the deviation
78: is beyond the uncertainties in QED, electroweak, and hadronic contributions.
79:
80: Among various extensions of the SM, namely, supersymmetry \cite{susy},
81: additional gauge bosons \cite{Z}, leptoquarks \cite{lq2,ccc,lq},
82: extra dimensions, muon substructure \cite{preon},
83: they all contribute to $a_\mu$.
84: However, not all of them can contribute in the right direction as indicated
85: by the data. Thus, the $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$ measurement can differentiate
86: among various models, and perhaps with other existing data can put very strong
87: constraints on the model under consideration.
88:
89: In this Letter, we investigate the contributions of various leptoquarks to
90: $a_\mu$. We limit to the second generation leptoquarks only without
91: considering any generation mixing in order to avoid dangerous flavor changing
92: neutral currents.
93: Our main result is summarized as follows. To account for the $a_\mu$ data
94: the solution requires a leptoquark that has both the left-handed
95: and right-handed chiral couplings and the mass is required to be about
96: 0.7 -- 2.2
97: TeV for an electromagnetic coupling strength. This solution is consistent
98: with direct and indirect experimental search.
99: The $a_\mu$ data disfavors, if not rule out, the leptoquarks that have only
100: a left- or right-handed coupling. Also,
101: coexistence with other leptoquarks can easily satisfy additional
102: constraints, e.g., atomic-parity violation (APV) and charged-current (CC)
103: universality, without affecting the $a_\mu$.
104:
105: While we are completing this work, a paper \cite{ccc}
106: appears, which describes similar solutions to $a_\mu$ including the $\mu-t$
107: leptoquarks. Although this $\mu-t$ leptoquark could imply a very large
108: contribution to $a_\mu$
109: because of the large top quark mass, it could, however,
110: give rise to flavor-changing processes such as $t \to c \gamma, c \mu^+ \mu^-$.
111: We do not consider this option.
112: Besides, we also have some sign differences in the main result.
113:
114:
115:
116: %\section{}
117: The interaction Lagrangians for the $F=0$ and $F=-2$
118: ($F$ is the fermion number) scalar leptoquarks are \cite{buch}
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: \label{9}
121: {\cal L}_{F=0} &=& \lambda_L \overline{\ell_L} u_R {\cal S}_{1/2}^L
122: + \lambda_R^* \overline{q_L} e_R (i \tau_2 {\cal S}^{R*}_{1/2} )
123: + \tilde{\lambda}_L \overline{\ell_L} d_R \tilde{{\cal S}}_{1/2}^L + h.c. \;,\\
124: %
125: \label{10}
126: {\cal L}_{F=-2} &=& g_L \overline{q_L^{(c)}} i \tau_2 \ell_L {\cal S}_0^L
127: + g_R \overline{u_R^{(c)}} e_R {\cal S}_0^R
128: + \tilde{g}_R \overline{d_R^{(c)}} e_R \tilde{{\cal S}}_0^R
129: + g_{3L}\overline{q_L^{(c)}} i \tau_2 \vec{\tau} \ell_L \cdot \vec{\cal S}_1^L
130: + h.c.
131: \end{eqnarray}
132: where $q_L,\ell_L$ denote the left-handed quark and lepton doublets,
133: $u_R,d_R,e_R$ denote the right-handed up-type quark, down-type quark, and
134: lepton singlet, and $q_L^{(c)}, u_R^{(c)}, d_R^{(c)}$ denote the
135: charge-conjugated fields.
136: The subscript on leptoquark fields denotes the weak-isospin of the leptoquark,
137: while the superscript ($L,R$) denotes the handedness of the lepton that
138: the leptoquark couples to. The color indices of the quarks and leptoquarks
139: are suppressed.
140: The components of the $F=0$ leptoquark fields are
141: \begin{equation}
142: {\cal S}_{1/2}^{L,R} = \left ( \begin{array}{c}
143: {S_{1/2}^{L,R} }^{(-2/3)} \\
144: {S_{1/2}^{L,R} }^{(-5/3)} \end{array} \right ) \;, \;\;\;\;\;
145: \tilde{{\cal S}}_{1/2}^L = \left( \begin{array}{c}
146: \tilde{S}_{1/2}^{L(1/3)} \\
147: - \tilde{S}_{1/2}^{L(-2/3)} \end{array} \right ) \;,
148: \end{equation}
149: where the electric charge of the component fields is given in the
150: parentheses, and the corresponding hypercharges are $Y({\cal S}_{1/2}^L)=
151: Y({\cal S}_{1/2}^R)=-7/3$ and $Y(\tilde{{\cal S}}_{1/2}^L)=-1/3$.
152: The $F=-2$ leptoquarks ${\cal S}_0^L, {\cal S}_0^R, \tilde{{\cal S}}_0^R$
153: are isospin singlets with hypercharges $2/3, 2/3, 8/3$, respectively, while
154: ${\cal S}_1^L$ is a triplet with hypercharge $2/3$:
155: \begin{equation}
156: {\cal S}_1^L = \left( \begin{array}{l}
157: { S_1^L }^{(4/3)} \\
158: { S_1^L }^{(1/3)} \\
159: { S_1^L }^{(-2/3)} \end{array} \right ) \;.
160: \end{equation}
161: The SU(2)$_L\times$ U(1)$_Y$ symmetry is assumed in the Lagrangians
162: of Eqs. (\ref{9}) and (\ref{10}).
163:
164: To calculate the contribution to $a_\mu$ we start with the $F=0$ leptoquark
165: ${\cal S}^{L,R}_{1/2}$ that has both the left- and right-handed couplings.
166: The other leptoquarks with either left- or right-handed
167: couplings are simply special cases of it. The Lagrangian can be rewritten as
168: \begin{equation}
169: \label{s12}
170: {\cal L}_{{\cal S}_{1/2}} = \bar \mu ( \lambda_L P_R + \lambda_R P_L ) c \,
171: {\cal S}_{1/2}^{(-5/3)} \;\; + h.c. \;,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $P_{L,R}=(1\mp \gamma^5)/2$ and
174: we explicitly write the second generation particles $\mu$ and $c$-quark.
175: The result can be easily obtained by some modifications on a $\mu\to e \gamma$
176: \cite{ott} calculation, as follows ($a_\mu$ is defined by ${\cal L}=(e/4 m_\mu)
177: a_\mu \bar \mu \sigma_{\alpha\beta} \mu F^{\alpha\beta}$)
178: \begin{equation}
179: \label{lq}
180: \Delta a_\mu( {\cal S}_{1/2} ) = - \frac{N_c}{16 \pi^2}
181: \frac{m_\mu^2}{M^2_{ {\cal S}_{1/2}} } \left \{
182: ( |\lambda_L|^2 + |\lambda_R|^2 ) ( Q_c F_5(x) - Q_S F_2(x) )
183: + \frac{m_c}{m_\mu} {\cal R}e
184: (\lambda_L \lambda_R^*) ( Q_c F_6(x) - Q_S F_3(x) )
185: \right \} \;,
186: \end{equation}
187: where
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: F_2(x) &=& \frac{1}{6 \, (1-x)^4} \, (1-6 \, x+3 \, x^2+2 \, x^3-6 \, x^2 \, \ln x) \; ,
190: \nonumber \\
191: F_3(x) &=& \frac{1}{(1-x)^3} \, (1-x^2+2 \, x \,\ln x) \; ,
192: \nonumber \\
193: F_5(x) &=&
194: \frac{1}{6 \,(1-x)^4} \, (2+3 \, x-6 \, x^2+x^3+6 \, x \, \ln x) \;,
195: \nonumber \\
196: F_6(x) &=&
197: \frac{1}{(1-x)^3} \, (-3+4 \, x-x^2-2 \, \ln x) \; .
198: \nonumber
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: In the above expression, $N_c=3, Q_c=2/3, Q_S =-5/3$, and
201: $x=m_c^2/M^2_{ {\cal S}_{1/2}}$, and we have neglected terms proportional
202: to $m_\mu^2/M^2_{ {\cal S}_{1/2}}$ in the parenthesis.
203: Our expression agrees with that in Ref. \cite{equ}.
204:
205: For the $F=-2$ leptoquarks only ${\cal S}_0^{L,R}$ has both the left- and
206: right-handed couplings. The Lagrangian can be rewritten as
207: \begin{equation}
208: \label{s0}
209: {\cal L}_{S_0}=
210: \bar \mu ( g_L^* P_R + g^*_R P_L ) \, c^{(c)} \, {{\cal S}^*_0}^{(-1/3)}
211: \;\; + h.c. \;.
212: \end{equation}
213: The contribution to $a_\mu$ can be obtained from Eq. (\ref{lq}) with
214: the following substitutions
215: \begin{equation}
216: m_c \to - m_c \;, \qquad Q_c \to Q_{c^{(c)}} \;, \qquad \lambda_{L,R} \to
217: g^*_{L,R} \;,
218: \end{equation}
219: where $Q_{c^{(c)}}=-2/3$ and $Q_S = -1/3$ for this leptoquark.
220:
221: We note that our expression for $F=-2$ leptoquark agrees with Ref. \cite{ccc},
222: but we have a different expression for $F=0$ leptoquark. Ref. \cite{ccc} does
223: not distinguish between these two types of leptoquarks.
224:
225: Next, we use our expressions to fit to $\Delta a_\mu$. The range of
226: $\Delta a_\mu$ at 95\% C.L. ($\pm 1.96\sigma$) is
227: \begin{equation}
228: \label{95}
229: 10.3\times 10^{-10} < \Delta a_\mu < 74.9 \times 10^{-10} \;.
230: \end{equation}
231: A rough estimate for the allowed range of $M_{\rm LQ}$ can be obtained by
232: realizing the dominant term in Eq. (\ref{lq}).
233: In Eq. (\ref{lq}), the term with ${\cal R}e(\lambda_L \lambda_R^*)$ dominates
234: over the term with $(|\lambda_L|^2+|\lambda_R|^2)$, because of the
235: enhancement factor of $m_c/m_\mu$. This is valid as long as $\lambda_L
236: \approx \lambda_R$. Also, the function $F_6(x) \to (-3-2 \ln x)$ and
237: $F_3(x) \to 1$ when $x\to 0$. Therefore,
238: \begin{equation}
239: \Delta a_\mu ({\cal S}_{1/2}) \simeq \frac{-1}{8\pi^2} \,
240: \frac{m_c m_\mu}{M^2_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}} \, {\cal R}e(\lambda_L \lambda_R^*) \;
241: (26) \;,
242: \end{equation}
243: where the numerical factor of 26 is estimated by varying $M_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}$
244: between $0.5-1.5$ TeV.
245: With the 95\% C.L. bound on $\Delta a_\mu$ we obtain
246: \begin{equation}
247: 2.6\;{\rm TeV} < \frac{M_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}}
248: {\sqrt{- {\cal R}e(\lambda_L \lambda_R^*)}} < 7.2 \; {\rm TeV} \;.
249: \end{equation}
250: Similarly, for the $F=-2$ leptoquark ${\cal S}_0$ we obtain
251: \begin{equation}
252: 2.5\;{\rm TeV} < \frac{M_{{\cal S}_0}}
253: {\sqrt{- {\cal R}e(g_L^* g_R)}} < 6.7 \; {\rm TeV} \;.
254: \end{equation}
255: If $\lambda_L=-\lambda_R=e$ and $g_L=-g_R=e$, where
256: $e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha_{\rm em}}$,
257: \begin{equation}
258: \label{est}
259: 0.8\;{\rm TeV} < M_{{\cal S}_{1/2}} < 2.2 \; {\rm TeV} \qquad {\rm and}
260: \qquad
261: 0.7\;{\rm TeV} < M_{{\cal S}_0} < 2.0 \; {\rm TeV} \;.
262: \end{equation}
263: We show in Fig. \ref{fig1} the contributions to $\Delta a_\mu$ from the
264: $F=0$ and $F=-2$ leptoquarks ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ and ${\cal S}_0$ respectively,
265: using the exact expression of Eq. (\ref{lq}). We have used $\lambda_L (g_L)=-
266: \lambda_R (g_R)=e$. The shaded region is the 95\% C.L. range allowed as in
267: Eq. (\ref{95}). One can see from the graph that the bounds on
268: $M_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}$ and $M_{{\cal S}_0}$ are very close to the estimate in
269: Eq. (\ref{est}).
270:
271:
272: What about the other leptoquarks that have only the left- or right-handed
273: coupling? We can use Eq. (\ref{lq}) with only $\lambda_L$ or $\lambda_R$, then
274: $\Delta a_\mu$ is given by
275: \begin{equation}
276: \Delta a_\mu = - \frac{N_c}{16 \pi^2}
277: \frac{m_\mu^2}{M^2_{\rm LQ} }
278: |\lambda_L|^2 ( Q_c F_5(x) - Q_S F_2(x) ) \;.
279: \end{equation}
280: The factor in the parenthesis is only a fraction of unity. Thus, this
281: $\Delta a_\mu$ is suppressed by about $10^{-3}$ relative to the contributions
282: from ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ or ${\cal S}_0$.
283: Hence, the mass limits are weakened by a factor of
284: $\sqrt{10^{-3}}\approx 0.03$, which means the leptoquarks are to be lighter
285: than 100 GeV in order to explain the $a_\mu^{\rm exp}$. It is obviously
286: ruled out by the Tevatron direct search limit on the second-generation
287: leptoquarks \cite{teva-lq} (see below).
288:
289: We note that these two leptoquarks also give rise to an electric dipole moment
290: (EDM) of muon, provided that ${\cal I}m(\lambda_L \lambda_R^*)$ is nonzero.
291: The contribution to EDM is given by
292: \begin{equation}
293: d_\mu = \frac{e N_c}{32 \pi^2}
294: \frac{m_c}{M^2_{\rm LQ}} \;
295: {\cal I}m (\lambda_L \lambda_R^*) ( Q_c F_6(x) - Q_S F_3(x) ) \;,
296: \end{equation}
297: where $d_f$ is defined by ${\cal L}=(-i/2) d_f \bar f \sigma_{\mu\nu}
298: \gamma_5 f F^{\mu\nu}$.
299: Note that the same large numerical factor, scaling as
300: $\ln(M^2_{\rm LQ}/m_c^2)$, is in the parenthesis.
301:
302: We also note that the self-energy diagram of the muon
303: with the leptoquark and charm quark inside
304: the loop gives a radiative correction to the muon mass. We calculated this
305: diagram and found that it has an UV divergent piece and a finite piece. While
306: the divergent piece is absorbed into the renormalization constant,
307: the finite piece
308: is given by $\delta m_\mu \sim (N_c \lambda^2/16\pi^2) m_c
309: \ln(M_{\rm LQ}^2/m_\mu^2 )$. Numerically, $\delta m_\mu$
310: is less than the observed muon mass for $\lambda \simeq e$ and
311: $M_{\rm LQ}\simeq 1-2$ TeV, such that $\delta m_\mu$
312: can be included into the definition of the pole mass without any fine tuning
313: problem, which gives the observed muon mass.
314:
315: Summarizing, only the leptoquarks ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ and
316: ${\cal S}_{0}$ that couple to both left- and right-handed muon can explain the
317: data on $\Delta a_\mu$, while the other leptoquarks alone cannot explain the
318: data.
319: In fact, it is advantageous to have the coexistence of other leptoquarks
320: because they can satisfy constraints from other experiments and at the
321: same time would not give any sizable contribution to $a_\mu$.
322:
323:
324: %\section{}
325:
326: The most obvious limits on leptoquarks are the direct search limits at the
327: Tevatron $p\bar p$ collision and at the HERA $e^\pm p$ collision, based on
328: two NLO calculations \cite{nlo}. Both
329: CDF and D\O\ searched for the first and second generation leptoquarks.
330: Their limits are independent of the leptoquark couplings
331: because the production is via the strong interaction. The lower limits
332: on the first (LQ1) and second (LQ2) generation scalar leptoquarks are given by
333: \cite{teva-lq}
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: M_{\rm LQ1} & > & 242 \; {\rm GeV} \;\; {\rm for}\;\beta=1 \qquad
336: \mbox{(CDF and D\O\ combined)} \;, \nonumber\\
337: M_{\rm LQ2} & > & 202\;(160) \; {\rm GeV} \;\; {\rm for}\;\beta=1(0.5)\qquad
338: \mbox{(CDF)} \;, \nonumber\\
339: M_{\rm LQ2} & > & 200 (180) \; {\rm GeV} \;\; {\rm for}\;\beta=1(0.5)\qquad
340: \mbox{(D\O)} \;,
341: \end{eqnarray}
342: where $\beta=B({\rm LQ} \to \ell q)$.
343: At HERA, the direct searches are limited to the first generation leptoquarks
344: and depend on the leptoquark couplings. The best limits with
345: $\lambda=e$ are \cite{hera-lq}
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: M_{\rm LQ1} & > & 280 \; {\rm GeV} \qquad \mbox{(ZEUS)} \;,\\
348: M_{\rm LQ1} & > & 275 \; {\rm GeV} \qquad \mbox{(H1)} \;.
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: The leptoquark solutions in Eq. (\ref{est}) are safe with these
351: limits.
352:
353: There are also other existing constraints. Especially, if the
354: first-second-generation universality is assumed for the leptoquarks, very
355: strong constraints come from low energy and high energy experiments
356: \cite{bc,ours}.
357: Among the constraints the APV and the
358: CC universality are the most relevant to leptoquarks.
359:
360: \noindent
361: \underline{First-second-generation universality}
362:
363: It is convenient to parameterize the effective interactions of leptoquarks
364: in terms of contact parameters $\eta^{\ell q}_{\alpha\beta}$,
365: where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the chirality of the lepton and the quark,
366: respectively, when the mass of the leptoquarks are larger than
367: the energy scale of the experiment. The contact parameters are defined by
368: \begin{equation}
369: {\cal L}_\Lambda = \sum_{\ell, q} \left \{
370: \eta_{LL}^{\ell q} \overline{\ell_L} \gamma_\mu \ell_L
371: \overline{q_L} \gamma^\mu q_L
372: +\eta_{LR}^{\ell q} \overline{\ell_L} \gamma_\mu \ell_L
373: \overline{q_R} \gamma^\mu q_R
374: +\eta_{RL}^{\ell q} \overline{\ell_R} \gamma_\mu \ell_R
375: \overline{q_L} \gamma^\mu q_L
376: +\eta_{RR}^{\ell q} \overline{\ell_R} \gamma_\mu \ell_R
377: \overline{q_R} \gamma^\mu q_R
378: \right \} \;.
379: \end{equation}
380:
381: The APV is measured in terms of weak charge $Q_W$. The updated
382: data with an improved atomic calculation \cite{apv,atomic}
383: is about $1.0 \sigma$ larger than the SM prediction, namely,
384: $\Delta Q_W \equiv Q_W({\rm Cs}) - Q_W^{\rm SM}({\rm Cs})
385: = 0.44 \pm 0.44$.
386: %
387: The contribution to $\Delta Q_W$ from the contact parameters
388: is given by \cite{bc,ours}
389: \begin{equation}
390: \label{QW}
391: \Delta Q_W = ( -11.4\; {\rm TeV}^{2} ) \left[
392: -\eta_{LL}^{eu} + \eta_{RR}^{eu} - \eta_{LR}^{eu} + \eta_{RL}^{eu} \right ]
393: +
394: ( -12.8\; {\rm TeV}^{2} ) \left[
395: -\eta_{LL}^{ed} + \eta_{RR}^{ed} - \eta_{LR}^{ed} + \eta_{RL}^{ed} \right ]
396: \;.
397: \end{equation}
398: Another important constraint is the CC universality. It is
399: expressed as $\eta_{CC} = \eta^{ed}_{LL} - \eta^{eu}_{LL} = (0.051 \pm 0.037)
400: \; {\rm TeV}^{-2}$. These $\Delta Q_W$ and $\eta_{CC}$ are the two most
401: important constraints relevant to leptoquarks.
402: With the first-second-generation universality
403: $\eta_{\alpha\beta}^{eu}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}^{\mu c}$ and
404: $\eta_{\alpha\beta}^{ed}=\eta_{\alpha\beta}^{\mu s}$.
405: %
406: We are going to analyze the
407: leptoquark solutions that we found above with respect to these
408: two constraints. Other high energy experiments such as HERA deep-inelastic
409: scattering, Drelly-Yan production, and LEPII hadronic cross sections also
410: constrained leptoquarks, but are relatively easy to satisfy with TeV mass
411: leptoquarks \cite{bc}.
412:
413:
414: For the $F=0$ leptoquark ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ with the interaction given in
415: Eq. (\ref{s12}), the contributions to $\eta$ are
416: \begin{equation}
417: \eta^{\mu c}_{LR} = - \frac{|\lambda_L|^2}{2M^2_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}}\;, \qquad
418: \eta^{\mu c}_{RL} = - \frac{|\lambda_R|^2}{2M^2_{{\cal S}_{1/2}}}\;,
419: \end{equation}
420: which are equal to $-(0.01 - 0.07) \; {\rm TeV}^{-2}$ for
421: $\lambda_L=-\lambda_R=e$ and the mass range in Eq. (\ref{est}).
422: Similarly for the $F=-2$ leptoquark ${\cal S}_{0}$ with the interaction
423: given in Eq. (\ref{s0}), the contributions to $\eta$ are
424: \begin{equation}
425: \eta^{\mu c}_{LL} = \frac{|g_L|^2}{2 M^2_{{\cal S}_{0}}}\;, \qquad
426: \eta^{\mu c}_{RR} = \frac{|g_R|^2}{2 M^2_{{\cal S}_{0}}}\;,
427: \end{equation}
428: which are equal to $0.01 - 0.08 \; {\rm TeV}^{-2}$ for $g_L=-g_R=e$
429: and the mass range in Eq. (\ref{est}).
430:
431: Both of these leptoquarks do not contribute to $\Delta Q_W$ as the
432: contributions get canceled. While ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ does not contribute to
433: $\eta_{CC}$, ${\cal S}_{0}$ contributes to $\eta_{CC}$ but in the opposite
434: direction. The lower mass range of ${\cal S}_{0}$ is then ruled out by
435: the $\eta_{CC}$ constraint.
436:
437: As mentioned above, coexistence of other leptoquarks
438: could satisfy the constraints on $\Delta Q_W$ and $\eta_{CC}$.
439: The $\Delta Q_W$ constraint can be satisfied
440: by the coexistence of either ${{\cal S}^R_{1/2}}^{(-2/3)}$ with interactions
441: $-\lambda_R\, \overline{e_R} \,d_L \, {{\cal S}^R_{1/2}}^{(-2/3)}+h.c.$, or
442: ${\vec{\cal S}^L_1}$ with interactions
443: $-g_{3L} (\overline{u_L^{(c)}}e_L \, {\cal S}_1^{L(1/3)} +
444: \sqrt{2}\; \overline{d_L^{(c)}} e_L \; {\cal S}_1^{L(4/3)} ) +h.c.$ \cite{bc}.
445: The mass required to fit to $\Delta Q_W$ is
446: $M_{{\cal S}^R_{1/2}}=1.2$ TeV or $M_{\vec{\cal S}^L_1}=2.0$ TeV %% \cite{bc}
447: with electromagnetic coupling strength. For such heavy leptoquarks
448: with only a left-handed or right-handed coupling, their
449: contributions to $\Delta a_\mu$ are certainly negligible. At the same time
450: ${\vec{\cal S}^L_1}$ contributes to $\eta_{CC}$ in the right direction, while
451: ${{\cal S}^R_{1/2}}^{(-2/3)}$ does not.
452:
453: Summarizing, we can have the following three viable
454: combinations of leptoquarks.
455: \begin{enumerate}
456: \item ${{\cal S}_{1/2}}^{(-5/3)}$ and $\vec{\cal S}^L_1$. The former
457: explains $\Delta a_\mu$ and the latter satisfies $\Delta Q_W$ and in the
458: right direction as $\eta_{CC}$. This is the best scenario.
459:
460: \item ${{\cal S}_{1/2}}^{(-5/3)}$
461: and ${{\cal S}^R_{1/2}}^{(-2/3)}$. The former
462: explains $\Delta a_\mu$ and the latter satisfies $\Delta Q_W$. They both
463: have no effect on $\eta_{CC}$, but it is fine.
464:
465: \item${\cal S}_0$ and $\vec{\cal S}^L_1$. The former
466: explains $\Delta a_\mu$ but violates $\eta_{CC}$.
467: The latter can help pulling the leptoquark solution
468: within a reasonable deviation in $\eta_{CC}$ and still partially explaining
469: $\Delta Q_W$.
470: \end{enumerate}
471:
472:
473: \noindent
474: \underline{No first-second-generation universality}
475:
476: In this case, virtually no constraints exist on the second generation
477: leptoquarks. The constraint of $D_s^+ \to \mu^+ \nu$ mentioned in
478: Ref. \cite{ccc} only applies to a very low leptoquark mass, which has
479: already been ruled out by direct search \cite{teva-lq}.
480: There was a low-energy muon deep-inelastic scattering experiment on carbon
481: \cite{cern}. An analysis \cite{cho} showed that this $\mu C$ experiment
482: results in a constraint
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: 2 \Delta C_{3u} - \Delta C_{3d} &=& -1.505 \pm 4.92 \\
485: 2 \Delta C_{2u} - \Delta C_{2d} &=& 1.74 \pm 6.31
486: \end{eqnarray}
487: where $\Delta C_{2q}=(\eta_{LL}^{\ell q} - \eta_{LR}^{\ell q}
488: + \eta_{RL}^{\ell q} - \eta_{RR}^{\ell q} )/(2\sqrt{2} G_F )$
489: and $\Delta C_{3q}=(-\eta_{LL}^{\ell q} + \eta_{LR}^{\ell q}
490: + \eta_{RL}^{\ell q} - \eta_{RR}^{\ell q} )/(2\sqrt{2} G_F )$.
491: The leptoquark solutions of ${\cal S}_{1/2}$ and ${\cal S}_0$ give $\Delta
492: C_{2q} =0$ and $\Delta C_{3q} \sim - 10^{-3}$. Therefore, the constraint
493: from the $\mu C$ scattering is too weak to affect the leptoquark solutions.
494:
495:
496: %\section{}
497: We conclude that
498: the $2.6\sigma$ deviation in the recent $a_\mu$ measurement
499: places useful constraints on leptoquark models.
500: To account for the $a_\mu$ data the leptoquark must have both
501: the left- and right-handed couplings to the muon.
502: Assuming that the couplings have electromagnetic strength, the
503: mass is restricted to be about $0.7 \; {\rm TeV} < M_{\rm LQ} < 2.2$ TeV.
504: If no first-second-generation universality is assumed, this mass range is
505: well above the direct search limit at the Tevatron.
506: On the hand, if the first-second-generation universality is assumed,
507: constraints also come from other low energy and high energy experiments,
508: among which the atomic-parity violation and charged-current universality are
509: the most important. We have shown that coexistence with other leptoquarks
510: can satisfy these additional constraints and at the same time do not
511: affect the $a_\mu$.
512: Leptoquarks in such a mass range should be produced at the LHC via the
513: strong interaction.
514:
515:
516:
517: %\section*{\bf Acknowledgments}
518: I would like to thank Otto Kong for useful discussions, Paul Langacker
519: for a correspondence, and special thanks to Stephan Narison for discussions
520: on hadronic uncertainties and renormalization.
521: This research was supported in part by the National Center for Theoretical
522: Science under a grant from the National Science Council of Taiwan R.O.C.
523:
524:
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
527:
528: \bibitem{teva-lq}
529: CDF and D\O\ Collaborations (Carla Grosso-Pilcher {\it et al.}),
530: hep-ex/9810015;
531: CDF Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4327 (1997); %%LQ1
532: {\it ibid.} {\bf 81}, 4806 (1998); %% LQ2
533: D\O\ Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4321 (1997); %%LQ1
534: {\it ibid.} {\bf 84}, 2088 (2000).
535:
536: \bibitem{hera-lq}
537: H1 Coll., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C11}, 447 (1999);
538: {\it ibid.} {\bf C14}, 553 (2000);
539: ZEUS Coll., Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C16}, 253 (2000).
540:
541: \bibitem{lq2}I. Bigi, G. Kopp, and P. Zerwas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B166},
542: 238 (1986);
543: G. Couture and H. K\"onig, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 555 (1990);
544: S. Davidson, D. Bailey, and B. Campbell, Z. Phys. {\bf C61}, 613 (1994).
545:
546: \bibitem{equ}
547: A. Djouadi, T. Kohler, M. Spira, and J. Tutas, Z. Phys. {\bf C46}, 679 (1990);
548:
549: \bibitem{E821}H.N. Brown {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0102017.
550:
551: \bibitem{am}A. Czarnecki and W. Marciano, hep-ph/0102122.
552:
553: \bibitem{susy}L. Everett, G. Kane, S. Rigolin, and L. Wang, hep-ph/0102145;
554: J. Feng and K. Matchev, hep-ph/0102146;
555: E. Baltz and P. Gondolo, hep-ph/0102147;
556: U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, hep-ph/0102157;
557: S. Komine, T. Moroi, and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph/0102204.
558:
559: \bibitem{Z}D. Choudhury, B. Mukhopadhyaya, and S. Rakshit, hep-ph/0102199;
560: T. Huang, Z. Lin, L. Shan, and X. Zhang, hep-ph/0102193.
561:
562: \bibitem{ccc}D. Chakraverty, D. Choudhury, and A. Datta, hep-ph/0102180.
563:
564: \bibitem{lq} U. Mahanta, hep-ph/0102176, hep-ph/0102211.
565:
566: \bibitem{preon}K. Lane, hep-ph/0102131.
567:
568: \bibitem{buch}
569: W. Buchm\"{u}ller, R. R\"{u}ckl, and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. {\bf B191},
570: 442 (1987);
571: J. Hewett and T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 5709 (1997).
572:
573: \bibitem{ott} K. Cheung and O. Kong, hep-ph/0101347.
574:
575:
576: \bibitem{nlo}
577: M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79},
578: 341 (1997);
579: T. Plehn, H. Spiesberger, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, Z. Phys. {\bf C74}, 611
580: (1997).
581:
582: \bibitem{bc}V. Barger and K. Cheung, Phys. Lett. {\bf B480}, 149-154 (2000).
583:
584: \bibitem{ours}V. Barger, K. Cheung, K. Hagiwara, and D. Zeppenfeld,
585: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 391 (1998);
586: K. Cheung, hep-ph/9807483; D. Zeppenfeld and K. Cheung, hep-ph/9810277.
587:
588: \bibitem{apv}
589: S.C. Bennett and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2484 (1999);
590: C.S. Wood, {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 275}, 1759 (1997).
591:
592: \bibitem{atomic}A. Derevianlo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1618 (2000);
593: P. Langacker, hep-ph/0102085.
594:
595: \bibitem{cern}A. Argento {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B120}, 245 (1983).
596:
597: \bibitem{cho}
598: G. Cho, K. Hagiwara, and S. Matsumoto, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C5}, 155 (1998).
599:
600: \end{thebibliography}
601:
602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: \begin{figure}[bh]
604: \centering
605: \includegraphics[width=6in]{fig1.eps}
606: \caption{\label{fig1}
607: Contributions to $\Delta a_\mu$ from the $F=0$ leptoquark ${\cal S}_{1/2}$
608: and the $F=-2$ leptoquark ${\cal S}_0$. The shaded region is the 95\% C.L.
609: range of $\Delta a_\mu$ given in Eq. (\ref{95}).
610: }
611: \end{figure}
612:
613:
614:
615:
616: \end{document}
617:
618:
619: