1: \documentclass[12pt]{JHEP}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{equations}
4: \newenvironment{Eqnarray}%
5: {\arraycolsep 0.14em\begin{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \def\nicefrac#1#2{\hbox{${#1\over #2}$}}
7: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
8: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
9: \def\beqa{\begin{Eqnarray}}
10:
11: \def\eeqa{\end{Eqnarray}}
12: \def\tanb{\tan\beta}
13: \def\sinb{\sin\beta}
14: \def\cosb{\cos\beta}
15: \def\sina{\sin\alpha}
16: \def\cosa{\cos\alpha}
17: \def\sinbma{\sin(\beta-\alpha)}
18: \def\cosbma{\cos(\beta-\alpha)}
19: \def\sinbmaii{\sin^2(\beta-\alpha)}
20: \def\cosbmaii{\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)}
21: \def\hsm{h_{\rm SM}}
22: \def\mhsm{m_{h_{\rm SM}}}
23: \def\hl{h}
24: \def\ha{A}
25: \def\hh{H}
26: \def\hpm{H^\pm}
27: \def\mha{m_{\ha}}
28: \def\mhl{m_{\hl}}
29: \def\mhh{m_{\hh}}
30: \def\mhpm{m_{\hpm}}
31: \def\mhmax{m_h^{\rm max}}
32: \def\mz{m_Z}
33: \def\mw{m_W}
34: \def\mww{m_W^2}
35: \def\mzz{m_Z^2}
36: \def\mt{m_t}
37: \def\mb{m_b}
38: \def\amu{\delta a_\mu^{\rm NP}}
39: \def\ifmath#1{\relax\ifmmode #1\else $#1$\fi}
40: \def\ls#1{\ifmath{_{\lower1.5pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle #1$}}}}
41: \def\half{\ifmath{{\textstyle{1 \over 2}}}}
42: \def\eq#1{eq.~(\ref{#1})}
43: \def\eqs#1#2{eqs.~(\ref{#1})--(\ref{#2})}
44: \def\Ref#1{ref.~\cite{#1}}
45: \def\Refs#1#2{refs.~\cite{#1} and \cite{#2}}
46: \def\Rref#1{Ref.~\cite{#1}}
47: \def\Rrefs#1#2{Refs.~\cite{#1} and \cite{#2}}
48:
49: \def\phm{\phantom{-}}
50: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
51: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
52: \newcommand{\mathbold}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $\bf#1$}}
53:
54: \title{Can the Higgs sector contribute significantly to the
55: muon anomalous magnetic moment?}
56:
57:
58: \author{Athanasios Dedes \\
59: Physikalisches Institut der Universit\"at Bonn,\\
60: Nu\ss allee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany\\
61: E-mail: \email{dedes@th.physik.uni-bonn.de}}
62:
63:
64: \author{Howard E. Haber \\
65: Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics\\
66: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064 USA\\
67: E-mail: \email{haber@scipp.ucsc.edu}}
68:
69:
70:
71:
72: \abstract{A light CP-even Higgs boson with $\mhl\sim 10$~GeV could
73: explain the recent BNL measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic
74: moment, in the framework of a general CP-conserving
75: two-Higgs-doublet extension of
76: the Standard Model with no tree-level flavor-changing neutral Higgs
77: couplings. However, the allowed Higgs mass window is quite
78: small and the corresponding model parameters are very constrained.
79: The Higgs sector can contribute significantly to the observed BNL
80: result for $g-2$ without violating known experimental constraints only
81: if the $\hl ZZ$ coupling (approximately) vanishes and
82: $M_{\Upsilon}\lsim\mhl\lsim 2m_B$.}
83:
84:
85:
86:
87:
88:
89: \keywords{Beyond Standard Model}
90:
91: \preprint{SCIPP-01/10 \\ hep-ph/0102297}
92:
93:
94: \begin{document}
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: A new experimental value of the muon anomalous
99: magnetic moment, $a_\mu\equiv\half(g-2)_\mu$, measured at BNL,
100: was recently reported in \Ref{Brown:2001mg}.
101: Comparing the measured value to its predicted value in the
102: Standard Model (SM), \Ref{Brown:2001mg} reported that
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: \begin{eqnarray}
105: a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}=426\pm 165 \times 10^{-11}\;.
106: \label{dev}
107: \end{eqnarray}
108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
109: Ref.~\cite{Czarnecki:2001pv} has reviewed the Standard Model
110: computation of $a_\mu$ and concluded that if the deviation
111: of \eq{dev} can be attributed to new physics effects [$\amu$],
112: then at $90\%$~CL, $\amu$ must
113: lie in the range
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: \begin{eqnarray}
116: 215 \times 10^{-11} \lsim \amu \lsim 637
117: \times 10^{-11} \;.
118: \label{newphys}
119: \end{eqnarray}
120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
121: This contribution is positive, and is of the order
122: of the electroweak corrections to $a_\mu$.
123: More precisely, the contribution needed from new physics effects has to be
124: of the order of $G_Fm_\mu^2/(4\pi^2\sqrt{2})$, where
125: $G_F=1.16637(1)\times 10^{-5}~{\rm GeV}^{-2}$ is Fermi's constant.
126: %and $m_\mu=0.105$ GeV is the mass of the muon.
127: In this paper, we consider the possibility that $\amu$
128: arises entirely from the Higgs sector. In the SM,
129: the Higgs boson contribution to $a_\mu$ is further suppressed
130: (relative to the main electroweak contribution) by a factor of
131: $m_\mu^2/\mhl^2$. In light of the recent SM Higgs mass limit,
132: $\mhl\gsim 113.5$~GeV obtained at the LEP collider \cite{higgslimit},
133: the SM Higgs contribution to $a_\mu$ is clearly negligible.
134:
135: However, the Higgs sector contribution to $a_\mu$ could be
136: considerably enhanced in a two-Higgs-doublet extension of the Standard
137: Model (2HDM). The significance of the $(g-2)_\mu$ constraint for the
138: 2HDM (in light of the LEP Higgs constraints) was emphasized in
139: \Ref{Krawczyk:1997sm}, where the constraints of the previous BNL $(g-2)_\mu$
140: measurements were analyzed and the implications of future $(g-2)_\mu$
141: measurements were considered.\footnote{In \Ref{Krawczyk:1997sm},
142: it was assumed that the Higgs--fermion interaction was not the most
143: general, but of a form that guarantees the absence of tree-level
144: flavor--changing neutral Higgs couplings. Alternatively,
145: one could assume the most general Higgs--fermion interaction
146: (thereby generating tree-level Higgs-mediated
147: flavor--changing neutral currents [FCNCs]), and
148: choose the parameters of the model to avoid conflict with experimental
149: limits on FCNCs. For example, such a model would possess a tree-level
150: $\hl \mu^\pm\tau^\mp$ coupling, which could contribute significantly
151: to $(g-2)_\mu$ \cite{sher}. We choose not to consider a 2HDM with
152: flavor-changing neutral Higgs couplings in this paper.}
153: Now that we have the first possible
154: indication of $\amu\neq 0$, it is appropriate to revisit the question
155: of the Higgs sector contribution to $a_\mu$.
156:
157: The enhancement of the Higgs sector contribution to $a_\mu$ relative to
158: the SM result can arise from two different effects.
159: First, an enhanced $\hl\mu^+\mu^-$ coupling proportional to the ratio of
160: Higgs vacuum expectation values, $\tan\beta$, yields a Higgs
161: contribution to $\amu$ proportional to $\tan^2\beta$. Second, a
162: suppressed $\hl ZZ$ coupling, proportional to $\sin(\beta-\alpha$)
163: [using notation reviewed below], can permit the existence of a CP-even
164: Higgs boson mass substantially below the LEP SM Higgs mass
165: limit. In units of $G_Fm_\mu^2/(4\pi^2\sqrt{2})$,
166: the overall enhancement is of order
167: \begin{equation}
168: \frac{m_\mu^2}{\mhl^2}\times \tan^2\beta \times
169: F\left(\frac{m_\mu^2}{m_h^2}\right)\simeq 1{\hbox{\rm---}}10 \;.
170: \end{equation}
171: $F(x)$ is a loop factor which involves logarithms
172: of the form $\ln(\mhl^2/m_\mu^2) \sim {\cal O}(10)$.
173: A light CP-even Higgs boson with $\mhl \simeq 10$ GeV
174: and $30 \lsim \tan\beta \lsim 50$, predicts a muon anomalous magnetic
175: moment to lie in the $90\%$~CL allowed range for new physics effects
176: specified in \eq{newphys}.
177:
178: A 2HDM in which the Higgs sector contribution to $\amu$ is significant
179: is not compatible with the Higgs
180: sector of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model
181: (MSSM). This is true because one cannot have a very light $\hl$ with
182: suppressed $\hl ZZ$ couplings without an observable rate for
183: $Z\to \hl\ha$, in conflict with LEP
184: data \cite{susyhiggs}.
185: %\footnote{A possible loophole arises in the
186: %MSSM when $\mha$ is large, $\tan\beta$ is large, and there exists very
187: %strong mixing in the top-squark sector (beyond so-called maximal
188: %%mixing) \cite{radcors}.
189: %In this case, radiative corrections can drive $\mhl$ very
190: %light while keeping $|\sin(\beta-\alpha)|\ll 1$. In such a model,
191: %the Model~II results of this paper apply. However, the required MSSM
192: %%parameter regime is rather fine-tuned and probably exhibits
193: %%other theoretical problems such as
194: %the existence of charge and color-breaking minima \cite{colorbreak}.}
195: Moreover, the MSSM provides additional mechanisms for generating
196: significant contributions to $\amu$. A number of recent
197: papers \cite{Everett:2001tq,Feng:2001tr,
198: Baltz:2001ts,Chattopadhyay:2001vx,Komine:2001fz} have
199: shown that the recent BNL measurement is compatible with
200: supersymmetric contributions to $\amu$ involving chargino and
201: neutralino exchange, over an interesting region of MSSM parameter space.
202:
203: % Definition of the model
204:
205: %Model I
206: % Model II
207:
208: In this paper, we focus on the possibility that the new physics
209: contribution to $a_\mu$ arises solely from the Higgs sector.
210: The two-doublet Higgs sector~\cite{Gunion:1989we} contains eight scalar
211: degrees of freedom. It is convenient to distinguish between the
212: two doublets by employing
213: one complex $Y=-1$ doublet, {\boldmath $\Phi_d$}$=(\Phi_d^0,\Phi_d^-)$
214: and one complex $Y=+1$ doublet, {\boldmath
215: $\Phi_u$}$=(\Phi_u^+,\Phi_u^0)$. To avoid tree-level Higgs-mediated flavor
216: changing neutral currents, we do not allow the most general
217: Higgs--fermion interaction \cite{glashwein}.
218: Instead, we impose discrete symmetries
219: (which may be softly-broken by mass terms), and consider two possible
220: models \cite{hallwise}.
221: In Model~I, $\Phi_d^0$ couples to both up-type and
222: down-type quark and lepton pairs, while the coupling of $\Phi_u^0$ to
223: fermion pairs is absent.\footnote{One can just as well assume that
224: $\Phi_u^0$ couples to both up-type and
225: down-type quark and lepton pairs, while the coupling of $\Phi_d^0$ to
226: fermion pairs is absent. In this case, all the results of this
227: paper would apply simply by replacing $\tan\beta$ with $\cot\beta$.}
228: In Model~II, $\Phi_d^0$
229: [$\Phi_u^0$] couples exclusively to down-type [up-type] fermion pairs.
230: When the Higgs potential is minimized, the neutral components of the
231: Higgs fields acquire vacuum expectation values:\footnote{In this
232: paper, we neglect the possibility of significant CP-violation in the
233: Higgs sector. In this case, the
234: phases of the Higgs fields can be chosen such that the vacuum
235: expectation values are real and positive.}
236: \beq
237: \langle {\mathbold{\Phi_d}} \rangle={1\over\sqrt{2}} \left(
238: \begin{array}{c} v_d\\ 0\end{array}\right), \qquad \langle
239: {\mathbold{\Phi_u}}\rangle=
240: {1\over\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_u
241:
242: \end{array}\right)\,,\label{potmin}
243: \eeq
244: where the normalization has been chosen such that
245: $v^2\equiv v_d^2+v_u^2=(246~{\rm GeV})^2$,
246: while the ratio $\tan\beta\equiv v_u/v_d$ is a free parameter of the
247: model. The physical Higgs spectrum consists of
248: a charged Higgs pair
249: %\vspace*{-1pc}
250: \beq \label{hpmstate}
251: \hpm=\Phi_d^\pm\sinb+ \Phi_u^\pm\cosb\,,
252: \eeq
253: one CP-odd scalar
254: %\vspace*{-1pc}
255: \beq \label{hastate}
256: \ha= \sqrt{2}\left({\rm Im\,}\Phi_d^0\sinb+{\rm Im\,}\Phi_u^0\cosb
257: \right)\,,
258: \eeq
259: and two CP-even scalars:
260: %\vspace*{-1pc}
261: \beqa
262: \hl &=& -(\sqrt{2}\,{\rm Re\,}\Phi_d^0-v_d)\sin\alpha+
263: (\sqrt{2}\,{\rm Re\,}\Phi_u^0-v_u)\cos\alpha\,,\nonumber\\
264: \hh &=& (\sqrt{2}\,{\rm Re\,}\Phi_d^0-v_d)\cos\alpha+
265: (\sqrt{2}\,{\rm Re\,}\Phi_u^0-v_u)\sin\alpha\,,
266: \label{scalareigenstates}
267: \eeqa
268: (with $\mhl\leq \mhh$).
269: The angle $\alpha$ arises when the CP-even Higgs
270: squared-mass matrix (in the $\Phi_d^0$---$\Phi_u^0$ basis) is
271: diagonalized to obtain the physical CP-even Higgs states.
272:
273:
274: We briefly review the Higgs couplings relevant for our
275: analysis. The tree-level $\hl$ couplings to $ZZ$ and $\ha Z$ are given by
276: \beqa
277: g\ls{\hl ZZ} &=& {g\mz\sinbma\over\cos\theta_W}\,,\label{vvcoup}\\
278: g\ls{\hl\ha Z} &=& {g\cosbma\over 2\cos\theta_W}\,.
279: \label{hvcoup}
280: \eeqa
281: For the corresponding couplings of $\hh$ to $ZZ$ and $\ha Z$,
282: one must interchange $\sinbma$ and $\cosbma$ in the above formulae.
283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
284:
285: The pattern of couplings of the Higgs bosons to fermions depends
286: on the choice of model. However, in this paper we are mainly concerned
287: with the coupling of down-type fermions to Higgs bosons, which are the
288: same in Model~I and Model~II.
289: For our analysis, the relevant
290: couplings of the neutral Higgs bosons to $b\bar b$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$
291: relative to the SM
292: value, $m_f/v$ [$f$= $b$ or $\mu$], are given by
293: \begin{eqaligntwo}
294: \label{qqcouplings}
295: \hl b\bar b \;\;\; ({\rm or}~ \hl \mu^+ \mu^-):&~~~ -
296: {\sin\alpha\over\cos\beta}=\sin(\beta-\alpha)
297: -\tan\beta\cos(\beta-\alpha)\,,\\[3pt]
298: %
299: \hh b\bar b \;\;\; ({\rm or}~ \hh \mu^+ \mu^-):&~~~
300: \phm{\cos\alpha\over\cos\beta}=
301: \cos(\beta-\alpha)
302: +\tan\beta\sin(\beta-\alpha)\,,\\[3pt]
303: %
304: \ha b \bar b \;\;\; ({\rm or}~ \ha \mu^+
305: \mu^-):&~~~\phm\gamma_5\,{\tan\beta}\,,
306: \end{eqaligntwo}
307: (the $\gamma_5$ indicates a pseudoscalar coupling), and the
308: charged Higgs boson couplings to muon pairs
309: (with all particles pointing into the vertex) is given by
310: \beq
311: \label{hpmqq}
312: g_{H^- \mu^+ \nu}= {gm_\mu\over{\sqrt{2}\mw}}\
313: \tan\beta\,P_L\,,
314: \eeq
315: where $P_L\equiv\half(1-\gamma_5)$.
316:
317: We have noted above that only light Higgs bosons with enhanced
318: couplings to down-type fermions can contribute appreciably to $\amu$.
319: To avoid the LEP SM Higgs mass limit, such a light Higgs boson should be
320: almost decoupled from $ZZ$. This implies that either $\hl$ is light,
321: with $|\sin(\beta-\alpha)|\ll 1$ [see \eq{vvcoup}] or $\ha$ is light
322: (since $\ha$ has no tree-level coupling to vector boson pairs). In
323: the next section, we will show that a light $\ha$ makes a {\it
324: negative} contribution to $\amu$ and thus is not compatible with the
325: recent BNL measurement. Hence, we focus on the 2HDM in which only
326: $\hl$ is light and $\sin(\beta-\alpha)\simeq 0$. From
327: \eq{qqcouplings}, we see that if $\sin(\beta-\alpha)\simeq 0$, then
328: the coupling of $\hl$ to down-type fermions is proportional to
329: $\tan\beta$. Thus, in the region of large $\tan\beta$ and small
330: $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$, the contribution of a light CP-even Higgs boson
331: of the 2HDM may yield a significant correction to $\amu$ without
332: being in conflict with the LEP SM Higgs search.
333:
334: Although the considerations above apply to both Model~I and Model~II,
335: it is important to note that the Higgs couplings to up-type fermions
336: differ between the two models. The Model~II
337: $\hl t\bar t$ coupling relative to its SM value, $m_t/v$,
338: is given by:
339: \beq
340: \label{ttcouplings}
341: \hl t\bar t~:~~~
342: {\cos\alpha\over\sin\beta}=\sin(\beta-\alpha)
343: +\cot\beta\cos(\beta-\alpha)\,,
344: \eeq
345: whereas the Model~I $\hl t\bar t$ coupling relative to $m_t/v$
346: is the same as the Model~II $\hl b\bar b$ coupling
347: relavive to $m_b/v$.
348: That is, for $\sinbma=0$, the Model~II
349: $\hl t \bar t$ coupling is proportional to $\cot\beta$ and is
350: therefore suppressed at large $\tanb$, while in
351: Model~I, $|g_{\hl t\bar t}|=(m_t/v)\tanb\gg 1$.
352: Thus, the $\tanb$ enhanced Model~I Higgs couplings to $t\bar t$ are
353: non-perturbative at large $\tanb$.
354: Both theoretical and experimental considerations
355: lead us to reject this possibility. Henceforth, we will assume that
356: the 2HDM contains Model~II Higgs--fermion couplings.
357:
358: Finally, we note that in the parameter region cited above, the heavier
359: Higgs bosons, $\hh$, $\ha$, $\hpm$, cannot be arbitrarily heavy. If
360: one attempts to take such a limit, one finds that there must be some
361: Higgs quartic self-couplings that become significantly larger
362: than 1 \cite{decoupling}.
363: That is, this model does not possess a decoupling limit. However,
364: the model stays weakly coupled as long as the heavier Higgs states are
365: not too much larger than $v=246$~GeV. In contrast, in the limit of
366: $\cos(\beta-\alpha)=0$, the couplings of $\hl$ reduce to those of the
367: SM Higgs boson. This decoupling limit can be formally
368: reached by taking the masses of $\hh$, $\ha$, $\hpm$ to be arbitrarily
369: large, while keeping the quartic Higgs self-couplings
370: $\lsim {\cal O}(1)$ \cite{decoupling}.
371: The resulting low-energy effective theory is just the
372: SM with one Higgs doublet. Of course, as we have noted above, the
373: contribution of SM Higgs boson to $\amu$ is negligible.
374: Thus, over an intermediate range of heavy Higgs masses, the
375: contributions of
376: $\hh$, $\ha$, $\hpm$ (which are $\tan^2\beta$ enhanced) to $\amu$
377: will be significantly larger than that of $\hl$ even though
378: $\cosbma\simeq 0$.
379:
380:
381: \section{Model~II Higgs boson corrections to the muon anomalous magnetic
382: moment}
383:
384: The first calculation of the one-loop electroweak corrections to the muon
385: anomalous magnetic moment was presented by Weinberg and
386: Jackiw~\cite{Jackiw:1972jz} and
387: by Fujikawa, Lee and Sanda~\cite{Fujikawa:1972fe}. A very useful
388: compendium of formulae for the one-loop corrections to $g-2$
389: in a general electroweak model was
390: given in \Ref{Leveille:1978rc},
391: and applied to the 2HDM in \Ref{haber}.\footnote{Here, we correct
392: a small error in the expression in the $\hpm$ contribution
393: given in \Ref{haber}.}
394: In the 2HDM, both neutral and charged Higgs bosons contribute to $g-2$.
395: A convenient list of the relevant formulae can be found in
396: \Ref{Krawczyk:1997sm}.
397:
398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
399: \begin{eqnarray}
400: \delta a_\mu^h &=& \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{2}}~
401: \biggl (\frac{\sin{\alpha}}{\cos{\beta}}\biggr )^2 ~R_h~ F_h(R_h) \; \\
402: \delta a_\mu^H &=& \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{2}}~
403: \biggl (\frac{\cos{\alpha}}{\cos{\beta}}\biggr )^2 ~R_H~ F_H(R_H) \; \\
404: \delta a_\mu^A &=& \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4 \pi^2 \sqrt{2}}~
405: \tan^2\beta ~R_A~ F_A(R_A) \; \\
406: \delta a_\mu^{H^\pm} &=& \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4 \pi^2 \sqrt{2}}~
407: \tan^2\beta ~R_{H^\pm}~ F_{H^\pm}(R_{H^\pm},R_\nu) \;
408: \label{amuch}
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411: where $R_{h,H,A,H^\pm}\equiv m_\mu^2/m_{h,H,A,H^\pm}^2$,
412: $R_\nu\equiv m_\nu^2/m_{H^\pm}^2$ and
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414: \begin{eqnarray}
415: F_{h,H}(R_{h,H}) &=& \int_0^1 dx\, \frac{x^2(2-x)}{R_{h,H} x^2-x+1}
416: \;, \\
417: F_{A}(R_{A}) &=& \int_0^1 dx\, \frac{-x^3}{R_{A} x^2-x+1}
418: \;, \\
419: F_{H^\pm}(R_{H^\pm},R_\nu) &=& \int_0^1 dx\, \frac{-x^2(1-x)}{R_{H^\pm}
420: x^2+(1-R_{H^\pm}-R_\nu) x+ R_\nu}
421: \;,
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
424: The neutrino mass is negligible, so henceforth we set $R_\nu=0$.
425: Since $R_{h,H,A,H^\pm}\ll 1$, one can easily expand the above
426: integrals in the corresponding small parameter. In the next two
427: subsections, we write out the leading terms in this expansion, which
428: are quite accurate in the Higgs mass range of interest.\footnote{The
429: plot shown in this paper is based on the exact values of the above
430: integrals.}
431:
432: \subsection{Non-decoupling limit: $\sin(\beta-\alpha)=0$}
433:
434: In section 1, we argued that the most significant Higgs contribution
435: to $\amu$ (consistent with the LEP SM Higgs search) arises in the
436: parameter regime in which $\sinbma\simeq 0$ and $\tanb\gg 1$.
437: Setting $\sinbma=0$ and keeping only the leading terms in
438: $R$ when evaluating the above integrals,
439: the total Higgs sector contribution to $a_\mu$
440: is given by:
441: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
442: \begin{eqnarray}
443: && \delta a_\mu^{\rm Higgs}= \delta a_\mu^h+\delta a_\mu^H
444: +\delta a_\mu^A+
445: \delta a_\mu^{H^\pm} \nonumber \\[5pt]
446: && \qquad\simeq\frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{2}}
447: \tan^2\beta \bigg \{
448: \frac{m_\mu^2}{\mhl^2} \biggl[\ln\left(\frac{\mhl^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)
449: -\frac{7}{6} \biggr] -\frac{m_\mu^2}{\mha^2} \biggl[
450: \ln\left(\frac{\mha^2}{m_\mu^2}\right) -\frac{11}{6}\biggr]-
451: \frac{m_\mu^2}{6m_{H^{\pm}}^2} \biggr \} \;. \nonumber \\
452: \label{hfull}
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
455: Note that the
456: logarithms appearing in \eq{hfull} always dominate the corresponding
457: constant terms when the Higgs masses are larger than 1 GeV.
458: It is then clear that $\ha$ and $\hpm$ exchange contribute a
459: negative value to $\amu$. Since our goal is to explain the BNL $g-2$
460: measurement which suggests a positive value for $\amu$, we should take
461: $\mha$ and $\mhpm$ large (masses above 100~GeV are sufficient)
462: in order that the corresponding
463: $\ha$ and $\hpm$ negative contributions are
464: neglibly small.\footnote{Grifols
465: and Pascual~\cite{Grifols:1980yk}
466: found that for a very light charged Higgs boson,
467: the two-loop contribution to $a_\mu$ is positive and
468: can be larger in magnitude than the one-loop
469: result given in \eq{amuch}:
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: \delta
473: a_\mu^{H^\pm}=a_\mu^{H^\pm}\hbox{\rm {(1--loop)}}+
474: \frac{1}{180}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2
475: \left(\frac{m_\mu}{m_{H^\pm}}\right)^2+{\cal
476: O}\biggl [\left(\frac{m_\mu}{m_{H^\pm}}\right)^4
477: \ln\left(\frac {m_\mu}{m_{H^\pm}}\right)
478: \biggr ] \;.
479: \end{eqnarray}
480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
481: However, the LEP bound
482: on the charged Higgs mass \Ref{tomjunk},
483: $\mhpm>78.7$~GeV, implies that both the one and two-loop charged Higgs
484: contribution to $\amu$ are negligible.}
485: If $\amu$ is to be a consequence of the Higgs sector, it must be entirely
486: due to the contribution of the light CP-even Higgs boson.
487: Note that the heavier
488: CP-even Higgs, $\hh$, does not give a contribution proportional to
489: $\tan\beta$ (as shown in section 1); hence its contribution
490: to $\amu$ can be neglected in \eq{hfull}.
491: Thus, to a good approximation,
492:
493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
494: \FIGURE[t]{\centerline{\epsfig{figure=non_decoup.ps,height=4in,angle=90}}
495: \caption{Contours of the predicted one-loop Higgs sector contribution
496: to the muon anomalous magnetic moment,
497: $\delta \alpha_\mu^{\rm Higgs}$ (in units of $10^{-11}$)
498: in the 2HDM, assuming that $\sin(\beta-\alpha)=0$,
499: and $\mhh=\mha=\mhpm=200$~GeV
500: (there is little sensitivity to the heavier Higgs masses).
501: The dashed line contour corresponds to the central value of
502: $\delta a_\mu\equiv a_\mu^{\rm exp}-a_\mu^{\rm SM}$, as reported
503: in \Ref{Brown:2001mg}.
504: The contour lines marked 215 and 637 correspond to 90\%~CL limits
505: for the contribution of new physics to $a_\mu$ [\eq{newphys}].
506: The dark-shaded (red) region is excluded
507: by the CUSB Collaboration search for $\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma$
508: at CESR~\cite{CUSB}. The light-shaded (yellow) region
509: is excluded at $95\%$~CL by the ALEPH and DELPHI searches
510: for $e^+e^-\to \hl f\bar f$ ($f=b$ or $\tau$) at LEP~\cite{Aleph,Delphi}.
511: In the small hatched region (green) nestled between the
512: two experimentally excluded
513: shaded regions, above the 215 contour line and
514: centered around $\mhl\simeq 10$~GeV, the Higgs sector
515: contribution to $\amu$ lies within the $90\%$~CL allowed range
516: [\eq{newphys}].}}
517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
518:
519:
520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
521: \beq
522: \delta a_{\mu}^{\rm Higgs}\simeq
523: \delta a_\mu^{{\hl}} \simeq \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{2}}
524: \left(\frac{m_\mu^2}{\mhl^2}\right) \tan^2\beta
525: \bigg[
526: \ln\left(\frac{\mhl^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)-\frac{7}{6} \biggr ] \;.
527: \label{app1}
528: \eeq
529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
530:
531: One can check that a light Higgs boson with a mass of
532: around 10 GeV and with $\tan\beta=35$ gives $\delta a_{\mu}^{\rm
533: Higgs}\simeq 280 \times 10^{-11}$, which is within the
534: 90\%~CL allowed range for $\amu$ quoted in \eq{newphys}.
535: Contour lines corresponding to a full numerical
536: evaluation of the Higgs sector one-loop
537: contribution to $\delta
538: a_\mu^{\rm Higgs}$ [in units of $10^{-11}$] are exhibited
539: in fig.~1, for $\sinbma=0$ and $\mhh=\mha=\mhpm=200$~GeV.\footnote{%
540: The results are insensitive to the values of the heavy Higgs masses
541: above 100~GeV.}
542: The relevant experimental bounds are also displayed
543: in fig.~1; these limits are reviewed in section 3.
544: A careful inspection of the excluded region in the $\mhl$ {\it vs.}
545: $\tanb$ parameter space shows that a light
546: Higgs boson of around 10 GeV mass and $30\lsim \tan\beta \lsim 35$
547: is permitted. In this parameter regime, we obtain
548: a value for $\amu$ within the $90\%$~CL allowed range of
549: \eq{newphys}. However, the central value of $\amu$ given
550: in \eq{newphys} lies within the excluded regions of fig.~1.
551:
552:
553:
554: \subsection{Decoupling limit: $\cos(\beta-\alpha)=0$}
555:
556: In the decoupling limit, where $\cosbma\simeq 0$ and $\mha\gg\mz$,
557: the couplings of the light Higgs boson,
558: $\hl$, are (nearly) identical to those of the SM Higgs boson.
559: As a result, the LEP SM Higgs mass bound of $\mhl\gsim 113.5$~GeV applies.
560: For $\cosbma=0$, the $\hh$ couplings to down-type fermion pairs are
561: enhanced by $\tanb$ [see \eq{qqcouplings}].
562: Thus, the Higgs sector contribution to $\amu$ is given by
563: \eq{hfull}, with $\mhl$ replaced by $\mhh$. In the decoupling limit,
564: $\mhh\simeq\mha\simeq \mhpm$ [the mass differences are of ${\cal
565: O}(\mz^2/\mha)$]. Setting $\cosbma=0$ and $\mhh=\mha=\mhpm$, we find
566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
567: \beq
568: \delta a_\mu^{\rm Higgs} \simeq \frac{G_Fm_\mu^2}{4 \pi^2\sqrt{2}}
569: \left(\frac{m_\mu^2}{\mha^2}\right)\tan^2\beta \biggl[
570: \frac{1}{2}-\left(\frac{2m_\mu^2}{\mha^2}\right)
571: \ln\left(\frac{\mha^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)
572: \biggr ]\;.
573: \label{app2}
574: \eeq
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576: The contribution of $\hl$ is not $\tanb$--enhanced and is thus
577: negligible. In is interesting to note that for values of
578: $\mha\lsim\mhl\tanb$, the heavier (``decoupled'')
579: Higgs bosons actually dominate in the Higgs sector contribution
580: to $\amu$.\footnote{If we formally take $\mha\to\infty$, we recover
581: the Standard Model Higgs contribution to $a_\mu$.}
582: However, for 100~GeV $<\mha< 1000$~GeV, and $30<\tanb<100$,
583: the Higgs sector contribution to $a_\mu$ ranges from about $5\times
584: 10^{-12}$ to $5\times 10^{-14}$, which is
585: three to five orders of magnitude below what
586: is needed to explain the BNL measurement of $a_\mu$.
587:
588:
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: %\FIGURE[t]{\centerline{\epsfig{figure=decoup.ps,height=4in,angle=90}}
592: %\caption{Contour plot of the predicted one-loop Higgs sector contribution
593: %to the muon anomalous magnetic moment,
594: %$\delta \alpha_\mu^{\rm Higgs}$ (in units of $10^{-14}$).
595: %
596: %Contour plot of the Higgs 1-loop contributions
597: %to the muon $g-2$ anomalous magnetic moment $\delta_{\alpha_\mu}$(higgs)
598: %(in units of $10^{-14}$), on a plane $M_A-\tan\beta$,
599: %in the decoupling limit, {\it i.e.,} $\cos(\beta-\alpha)=0$..
600: %The light Higgs boson mass has been fixed to its current experimental
601: %bound, $M_h=115$ GeV. The heavy CP-even and the charged Higgses are
602: %taken to be equal to $M_A$. Note the residual enhancement with the
603: %$\tan\beta$ even in the region of large $M_A$.}}
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610:
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIG 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
612: %\FIGURE[t]{\centerline{\epsfig{figure=decoup_app.ps,height=5in,angle=90}}
613: %\caption{Contour plot of the 1-loop Higgs contributions
614: %to the muon g-2 anomalous magnetic moment in the decoupling limit.
615: % We use the approximation of
616: %eq.(\ref{app2}).}}
617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
618:
619:
620:
621: \section{CESR and LEP constraints on a light Higgs boson}
622:
623: Let us consider the 2HDM in which $\sinbma=0$, $\tanb\gg 1$
624: and $\mhl\sim {\cal O}(10$~GeV), which are necessary conditions
625: if the Higgs sector is to be the source for $\amu$ in the range
626: given by \eq{newphys}.
627: The $\hl\ha Z$ coupling is maximal [\eq{hvcoup}], so we
628: must assume that $\mha$ is large enough so that
629: $e^+e^-\to \hl\ha$ is not observed at LEP.
630: The tree-level $\hl ZZ$ coupling is absent, which implies that
631: the LEP SM Higgs search based on $e^+e^-\to Z\to Z\hl$ does not impose
632: any significant constraints on $\mhl$.\footnote{Presumably,
633: radiative corrections would lead to a small effective value for
634: $\sinbma$. The LEP Higgs search yields an excluded region in the
635: $\sinbma$ {\it vs.} $\mhl$ plane, and implies that for $\mhl\sim 10$~GeV,
636: $|\sinbma|\lsim 0.06$ is not excluded
637: at 95\%~CL~\cite{Janot,Sopczak:1995zy}.}
638: However, there are a number of constraints on light Higgs masses
639: that do not rely on the $\hl ZZ$ coupling. For Higgs bosons with
640: $\mhl\lsim 5$~GeV, the SM Higgs boson was ruled out by a
641: variety of arguments that were summarized in \Ref{Gunion:1989we}. For
642: 5~GeV $\lsim\mhl\lsim 10$~GeV, the relevant
643: Higgs boson constraint can be derived
644: from the absence of Higgs production in $\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma$.
645:
646: An experimental search for $\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma$ by the
647: CUSB Collaboration at CESR~\cite{CUSB}
648: found no candidates. The Higgs mass
649: limit obtained from this result depends on the theoretical
650: prediction. In addition to the non-relativistic,
651: tree-level prediction of \Ref{wil},
652: there are three classes of corrections that have been explored in the
653: literature: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ hard QCD
654: corrections~\cite{vys,nason}, relativistic corrections to the
655: non-relativistic treatment of the $b\bar b$ bound state
656: \cite{biswas,azn}, and bound state threshold corrections \cite{wu}.
657: The theoretical picture that emerges is uncertain. The hard QCD
658: corrections are large and suggest that ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$
659: corrections could be significant. In addition, relativistic effects
660: enter at the same order as the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections; both
661: are of ${\cal O}(v^2/c^2)$ and the two must be treated
662: consistently. Finally, \Ref{wu} argued that
663: strong cancellations can occur among various contributions in the
664: threshold region, leading to an additional suppression in rate of
665: about 14 for $\mhl=8.5$~GeV (and even a larger suppression
666: as $\mhl\to M_{\Upsilon}$). The application of the theoretical
667: analysis of $\Gamma(\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma)$ to the CUSB data suggests
668: that values of $\mhl\lsim 5$---7~GeV can be ruled out
669: at $95\%$~CL, although a
670: precise upper limit cannot be obtained due to
671: the theoretical uncertainties outlined above.
672:
673: The above discussion was relevant for obtaining a limit on the mass of
674: the SM Higgs boson. In the 2HDM considered here, $\tanb\gg 1$, and
675: the prediction for $\Gamma(\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma)$ is enhanced by a
676: factor of $\tan^2\beta$. For values of $\tanb\gsim 10$, the CUSB data
677: can reliably rule out Higgs masses up to about 8~GeV. As $\mhl\to
678: M_\Upsilon$, the precise experimental limit is not very well known
679: due to the theoretical uncertainties
680: near threshold mentioned above. Our estimate
681: for the excluded region for $\mhl\lsim M_\Upsilon$ is
682: indicated by the dark (red) shaded region in fig.~1. Note that
683: for Higgs masses above 8~GeV, $\tanb\gsim 30$ if the Higgs
684: sector contribution to $\amu$ lies in the $90\%$~CL range specified in
685: \eq{newphys}. For such large values of $\tanb$, the predicted rate
686: for $\Upsilon\to\hl\gamma$ is increased by at least three orders of
687: magnitude relative to the SM. This factor should dwarf the theoretical
688: uncertainties discussed above except for values of $\mhl$ very close
689: to $M_\Upsilon$. Thus, in the 2HDM parameter regime of interest,
690: we obtain a lower bound of $\mhl\gsim M_\Upsilon$.
691:
692: A second bound on $\mhl$ can be derived from the non-observation of
693: Higgs bosons at LEP via the process $e^+e^-\to \hl f\bar f$ ($f=b$, $\tau$).
694: The cross-section for this process depends on the $\hl$ Yukawa
695: couplings to down-type fermions.
696: In the 2HDM with $\sin(\beta-\alpha)=0$, these Yukawa couplings are
697: enhanced (relative to the corresponding SM value) by
698: $\tanb$. Preliminary analyses
699: by the ALEPH and DELPHI Collaborations at LEP
700: based on the search for $e^+e^-\to \hl f\bar f$ ($f=b$, $\tau$),
701: where $\hl\to
702: \tau^+\tau^-$, $b\bar b$, find no evidence for
703: light Higgs boson production~\cite{Aleph,Delphi}.
704: Combining the two analyses, we
705: exclude at 95\%~CL the light-shaded (yellow) region of fig.~1.
706: Note that the lower limit on $\tanb$ changes discontinuously at
707: $2m_B$, where $B$ is the lightest $B$-meson [$m_B=5.279$~GeV].
708: For Higgs masses that lie in the range $2m_\tau\lsim\mhl\lsim 2m_B$,
709: the dominant Higgs decay mode is $\hl\to\tau^+\tau^-$.\footnote{By
710: assumption, $\tanb\gg 1$ and the rate for $\hl\to c\bar c$ is
711: suppressed by a factor of $\cot^2\beta$.} In this mass range, the
712: ALEPH limit on $\tan\beta$ is better than the corresponding DELPHI
713: limit. In
714: particular, for $M_{\Upsilon}\lsim\mhl\lsim 2m_B$, the ALEPH excluded
715: region implies that $\tanb\lsim 35$. For values of
716: $\mhl>2m_B$, the Higgs decays primarily into $b\bar b$, and the DELPHI
717: limit (which is more powerful than the ALEPH limit in this mass range)
718: completely excludes the region of parameter space in which the
719: Higgs sector contribution to $\amu$ lies in the $90\%$~CL range
720: specified in \eq{newphys}.
721:
722: One other light Higgs process observable at LEP that is sensitive to
723: the Higgs--fermion Yukawa couplings, even in the absence of the $ZZ\hl$
724: and $W^+W^-\hl$
725: couplings, is the one-loop process $Z\to\hl\gamma$. Both up-type and
726: down-type fermions contribute in the loop, so the decay rate
727: in Model~I and Model~II differs. Ref.~\cite{Krawczyk:1999kk} analyzes
728: the implication of this process for the general 2HDM with Model~II
729: couplings and shows that the LEP experimental constraints in the
730: $\mhl$ {\it vs.} $\tanb$ plane for $\tanb>1$ are weaker than the ones
731: obtained from $e^+e^-\to\hl f\bar f$ discussed above. In Model~I, we
732: can can use the results of \Ref{Krawczyk:1999kk} simply by
733: interchanging $\tanb$ and $\cot\beta$. For $\mhl\sim 10$~GeV, the LEP
734: experimental constraints imply that $\tanb<10$. Thus, we have an
735: independent reason to conclude that the Model~I 2HDM cannot provide an
736: explanation for the BNL measurement of $a_\mu$.
737:
738: Finally, one must check the implications of the precision electroweak
739: data for constraining the Type~II 2HDM with a light Higgs boson.
740: This data is known to provide an excellent fit to the Standard Model
741: with one Higgs doublet and $\mhl=86^{+48}_{-32}$~GeV \cite{erler}.
742: Nevertheless,
743: \Ref{Chankowski:1999ta} demonstrates that even with a light
744: Higgs mass below 20~GeV, the CP-conserving Type~II
745: 2HDM provides an equally good fit to
746: the precision electroweak data.
747:
748: One byproduct of this analysis is the potential for an improved
749: exclusion limit on the CP-odd Higgs boson mass in the region of light
750: $\mha$. In the $\mha$ {\it vs.} $\tanb$ plane, the
751: experimentally excluded region in a general 2HDM is essentially the
752: same as the shaded regions of fig.~1, based on the absence of
753: $e^+e^-\to \ha f\bar f$ ($f=b$ or $\tau$) and $\Upsilon\to\ha\gamma$.
754: If $\mha\ll\mhl$, $\mhh$, $\mhpm$, then \eq{app1} is replaced by:
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756: \beq
757: \delta a_{\mu}^{\rm Higgs}\simeq
758: \delta a_\mu^{{\ha}} \simeq \frac{-G_Fm_\mu^2}{4\pi^2 \sqrt{2}}
759: \left(\frac{m_\mu^2}{\mha^2}\right) \tan^2\beta
760: \bigg[
761: \ln\left(\frac{\mha^2}{m_\mu^2}\right)-\frac{11}{6} \biggr ] \;.
762: \label{app1a}
763: \eeq
764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
765: The $\delta a_{\mu}^{\rm Higgs}$ contours shown in fig.~1 would apply
766: in this case [independent of the value of $\sinbma$] if each number
767: accompanying the contours is multiplied by $-0.9$ (approximately).
768: Technically, one cannot use this to exclude
769: any region of $\mha$ {\it vs.} $\tanb$ parameter space, since the
770: negative contribution of \eq{app1a}
771: can be canceled by some positive contribution
772: (which by the assumption of \eq{newphys} must exist). However, if a
773: future measurement were to establish that $\amu\simeq 0$, then barring
774: an accidental cancellation from more than one source of new physics,
775: it would be possible to significantly extend the present excluded region
776: in the $\mha$ {\it vs.} $\tanb$ plane.
777:
778: \section{Final Results and Conclusions}
779:
780: If we combine the experimental bounds on the Higgs mass discussed in
781: section 3,
782: we conclude that a light Higgs boson
783: can be responsible for the observed
784: $2.6\sigma$ deviation of the BNL measurement of the muon
785: anomalous magnetic moment at the 90\%~CL in the framework of a
786: two-Higgs-doublet model with Model~II Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings
787: only if the model parameters satisfy the
788: following requirements:
789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
790: \beqa
791: && m_{\Upsilon}\lsim \mhl \lsim 2 m_B \;, \nonumber \\
792: && \sinbma\simeq 0 \;, \nonumber \\
793: && 30\lsim\tanb\lsim 35 \;.
794: \label{result}
795: \eeqa
796: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
797: In addition, $\hh$, $\ha$ and $\hpm$ must be sufficiently heavy to
798: satisfy the LEP experimental constraints. In the model specified above,
799: the SM Higgs mass bound applies to $\hh$ so that $\mhh\gsim
800: 113.5$~GeV. The constraint on $\mha$ is deduced from the absence of
801: $Z\to\hl\ha$ (either by direct observation or as inferred from the
802: measured width of the $Z$), which implies that
803: $\mha\gsim 80$~GeV.\footnote{With
804: further LEP analysis, it might be possible to push the limit on
805: $\mha$ higher.
806: The large $\tanb$ MSSM Higgs analysis implies that $\mhl+\mha\gsim
807: 180$~GeV due to the non-observation of $e^+e^-\to\hl\ha$. However,
808: this analysis, which searches for $\hl\ha$ via a four jet
809: topology, is highly inefficient for a very light $\hl$ and is thus
810: not applicable to the present model.}
811: Finally, in a general 2HDM, $\mhpm\gsim 78.7$~GeV \cite{tomjunk}.
812:
813: One noteworthy consequence of $\mhl\sim 10$~GeV is
814: the possibility of mixing
815: between the $\hl$ and the $0^{++}$ $b\bar b$ bound states
816: $\chi\ls{b0}(1P)$ and $\chi\ls{b0}(2P)$, as
817: discussed in \Refs{haber}{egns}. As a result, the decay
818: $\chi\ls{b0}\to\tau^+\tau^-$ should be prominent. The predicted
819: rate is roughly
820: \beq
821: {\Gamma(\chi\ls{b0}\to\tau^+\tau^-)\over\Gamma(\chi\ls{b0}\to~{\rm hadrons})}
822: \simeq {2.5\times 10^{-7}~{\rm GeV}^2\over
823: (m_\chi-\mhl)^2}\tan^4\beta\:,
824: \eeq
825: which is valid for $\mhl$ near $m_\chi$ but separated by a few Higgs
826: widths.\footnote{%
827: If the two masses are within a Higgs width, then the mixing
828: of the two states will be close to maximal \cite{egns},
829: and the corresponding $\tau^+\tau^-$ branching ratio of both
830: eigenstates would be close to
831: 100\% due to the large $\tan^4\beta$ enhancement.}
832: Due to the large $\tan^4\beta$ enhancement, the predicted branching ratio for
833: $\chi\ls{b0}\to\tau^+\tau^-$ can be substantial. Remarkably, the
834: Particle Data Group \cite{pdg} provides no data on possible
835: decay modes of the $\chi\ls{b0}$ other than the radiative decays,
836: $\chi\ls{b0}\to\Upsilon\gamma$, $\Upsilon'\gamma$.
837:
838: Apart from a careful study of $\chi\ls{b0}$ decays, the 2HDM specified
839: by \eq{result} could be confirmed or ruled out by a more complete
840: analysis by the LEP Collaborations of their data in search of
841: $e^+e^-\to \hl f\bar f$ ($f=b$ or $\tau$). We note that the ALEPH and
842: DELPHI exclusion plots used in fig.~1 are based on a preliminary
843: analyses and have not formally appeared in the literature. Without
844: employing these LEP limits, the allowed 2HDM parameter space in which
845: $\hl$ contributes significantly to $\amu$ is substantially larger. As
846: advocated in \Ref{kk}, the $\tanb$ exclusion limit could be lowered if
847: a complete analysis were performed using all of the LEP data. The
848: potential significance of such a result should be clear from fig.~1.
849:
850: In the absence of additional information from the LEP collider, one must
851: wait for a further improvement of the BNL measurement of the muon
852: anomalous magnetic moment. A factor of four increase in data is
853: expected when the data sets from the 2000 and 2001 runs are fully
854: analyzed .
855: If the significance of a nonzero result for $\amu$ increases, it will
856: be crucial to discover the source of the new physics.
857: To further constrain the Higgs sector contribution to $\amu$,
858: a high energy
859: $e^+e^-$ linear collider that can perform precision studies of
860: Higgs processes is required~\cite{Krawczyk:2000kf}.
861: One must either discover a light
862: Higgs boson with $\mhl\sim 10$~GeV or improve the
863: present constraints in the $\mhl$ {\it vs.} $\tanb$ plane.
864:
865:
866: \vspace*{1cm}
867: \noindent {\bf \large Acknowledgments}
868: \vspace{0.5cm}
869:
870: {\it We gratefully acknowledge Patrick Janot and Michael Kobel
871: for useful discussions
872: concerning the LEP Higgs search. We also thank Herbi Dreiner for
873: his careful reading of the manuscript and a number of useful suggestions.
874: A.D. would like to acknowledge financial support from the
875: Network RTN European Program HPRN-CT-2000-0014
876: ``Physics Across the Present Energy Frontier: Probing the Origin of
877: Mass.'' H.E.H. is supported in part by a grant from the
878: U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG03-92ER40689. Finally,
879: H.E.H. would like to thank H.P. Nilles and H.K. Dreiner for
880: their hospitality during his visit to the Physikalisches Institut der
881: Universit\"at Bonn, where this work was done.
882: }
883: %\newpage
884:
885: \vspace{0.5cm}
886: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
887:
888: \bibitem{Brown:2001mg}
889: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.} [Muon $g-2$ Collaboration],
890: ``Precise measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment,''
891: hep-ex/0102017.
892: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
893:
894:
895: %\cite{Czarnecki:2001pv}
896: \bibitem{Czarnecki:2001pv}
897: A.~Czarnecki and W.~J.~Marciano,
898: ``The muon anomalous magnetic moment: A harbinger for new physics,''
899: hep-ph/0102122, and references therein.
900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102122;%%
901:
902: \bibitem{higgslimit}
903: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
904: ``Observation of an excess in the search for the standard model Higgs
905: boson at ALEPH,''
906: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 1
907: [hep-ex/0011045];
908: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011045;%%
909: P.~Abreu {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
910: ``Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson at LEP in the year 2000,''
911: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 23
912: [hep-ex/0102036];
913: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102036;%%
914: M.~Acciarri {\it et al.} [L3 Collaboration],
915: ``Search for the standard model Higgs boson in $e^+e^-$ collisions at
916: $\sqrt{s}$ up to 202~GeV,''
917: hep-ex/0012019;
918: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012019;%%
919: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
920: ``Search for the standard model Higgs boson in $e^+e^-$
921: collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 192$~GeV---209~GeV,''
922: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 38
923: [hep-ex/0101014].
924: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0101014;%%
925:
926:
927: \bibitem{Krawczyk:1997sm}
928: M.~Krawczyk and J.~Zochowski,
929: ``Constraining the two Higgs doublet model
930: by present and future $(g-2)_\mu$ data,''
931: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 6968
932: [hep-ph/9608321].
933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608321;%%
934:
935: \bibitem{sher}
936: S.~Nie and M.~Sher,
937: ``The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and Higgs-mediated flavor
938: changing neutral currents,''
939: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 097701
940: [hep-ph/9805376].
941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805376;%%
942:
943: \bibitem{susyhiggs}
944: A.~Sopczak, ``Higgs Physics at LEP-1'', in preparation.
945: %R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
946: %``Searches for neutral higgs bosons in e+ e- collisions at
947: %centre-of-mass
948: %energies from 192-GeV to 202-GeV,''
949: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 53
950: %[hep-ex/0010062];
951: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010062;%%
952:
953:
954: %\cite{Everett:2001tq}
955: \bibitem{Everett:2001tq}
956: L.~Everett, G.L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,
957: ``Implications of muon $g-2$ for supersymmetry and for discovering
958: superpartners directly,''
959: hep-ph/010245.
960: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%
961:
962: %\cite{Feng:2001tr}
963: \bibitem{Feng:2001tr}
964: J.L.~Feng and K.T.~Matchev,
965: ``Supersymmetry and the anomalous anomalous magnetic moment of the
966: muon,''
967: hep-ph/0102146.
968: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%
969:
970:
971: %\cite{Baltz:2001ts}
972: \bibitem{Baltz:2001ts}
973: E.A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,
974: ``Implications of muon anomalous magnetic moment for supersymmetric
975: dark matter,''
976: hep-ph/0102147.
977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%
978:
979:
980: %\cite{Chattopadhyay:2001vx}
981: \bibitem{Chattopadhyay:2001vx}
982: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
983: ``Upper limits on sparticle masses from $g-2$ and the possibility for
984: discovery
985: of SUSY at colliders and in dark matter searches,''
986: hep-ph/0102157.
987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%
988:
989:
990: %\cite{Komine:2001fz}
991: \bibitem{Komine:2001fz}
992: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
993: ``Recent Result from E821 Experiment on Muon $g-2$ and Unconstrained
994: Minimal Supersymemtric Standard Model,''
995: hep-ph/0102204.
996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%
997:
998:
999:
1000:
1001: \bibitem{Gunion:1989we}
1002: J.F.~Gunion, H.E.~Haber, G.L.~Kane and S.~Dawson,
1003: {\it The Higgs Hunter's Guide} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990).
1004:
1005: \bibitem{glashwein}
1006: S.L.~Glashow and S.~Weinberg,
1007: ``Natural Conservation Laws For Neutral Currents,''
1008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15} (1977) 1958;
1009: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,1958;%%
1010: E.A~ Paschos,
1011: ``Diagonal Neutral Currents,''
1012: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15} (1977) 1966.
1013: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,1966;%%
1014:
1015: \bibitem{hallwise}
1016: L.J.~Hall and M.B.~Wise,
1017: ``Flavor Changing Higgs Boson Couplings,''
1018: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 187} (1981) 397.
1019: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B187,397;%%
1020:
1021: \bibitem{decoupling}
1022: H.E.~Haber and Y.~Nir,
1023: ``Multiscalar Models With A High-Energy Scale,''
1024: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 335} (1990) 363;
1025: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B335,363;%%
1026: H.E.~Haber,
1027: ``Nonminimal
1028: Higgs sectors: The Decoupling limit and its phenomenological implications,''
1029: hep-ph/9501320,
1030: in Proceedings of the US--Polish Workshop, Warsaw,
1031: Poland, September 21--24, 1994, edited by P. Nath, T. Taylor, and
1032: S. Pokorski (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995) pp.~49--63;
1033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501320;%%
1034: H.E.~Haber and J.F.~Gunion,
1035: ``The CP-conserving two-Higgs-doublet model
1036: and its decoupling limit,'' in preparation.
1037:
1038:
1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%chapter 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1040: \bibitem{Jackiw:1972jz}
1041: R.~Jackiw and S.~Weinberg,
1042: ``Weak Interaction Corrections to the Muon Magnetic Moment and to Muonic Atom Energy Levels,''
1043: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 5} (1972) 2396.
1044: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D5,2396;%%
1045:
1046: %\cite{Fujikawa:1972fe}
1047: \bibitem{Fujikawa:1972fe}
1048: K.~Fujikawa, B.W.~Lee and A.I.~Sanda,
1049: ``Generalized Renormalizable Gauge Formulation of Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories,''
1050: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 6} (1972) 2923.
1051: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D6,2923;%%
1052:
1053: \bibitem{Leveille:1978rc}
1054: J.P.~Leveille,
1055: ``The Second Order Weak Correction to $g-2$ of the Muon in Arbitrary Gauge Models,''
1056: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 137} (1978) 63.
1057: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B137,63;%%
1058:
1059:
1060: \bibitem{haber}
1061: H.E.~Haber, G.L.~Kane and T.Sterling,
1062: ``The Fermion Mass Scale and Possible Effects of Higgs Bosons on Experimental Observables,''
1063: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 161} (1979) 493.
1064: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B161,493;%%
1065:
1066:
1067: \bibitem{Grifols:1980yk}
1068: J.A.~Grifols and R.~Pascual,
1069: ``Contribution of Charged Higgs Bosons to the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon,''
1070: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 21} (1980) 2672.
1071: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D21,2672;%%
1072:
1073: \bibitem{tomjunk}
1074: T.~Junk [reporting for the LEP Collaborations], ``Searches at LEP,''
1075: presented at the 5th
1076: International Symposisum on Radiative Corrections (RADCOR-2000),
1077: Carmel, CA, USA, 11--15, September, 2000,
1078: hep-ex/0101015.
1079: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0101015;%%
1080:
1081:
1082: %%%%%%%%chapter 3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1083: \bibitem{CUSB}
1084: P.~Franzini et.al [CUSB Collaboration],
1085: ``Limits On Higgs Bosons, Scalar Quarkonia,
1086: and Eta (B)'S From Radiative Upsilon Decays,''
1087: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35} (1987) 2883.
1088: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,2883;%%
1089: J.~Lee-Franzini, in {\it Proceedings of the XXIV International Conference
1090: on High Energy Physics}, Munich, Germany, 1988, edited by R.~Koffhaus
1091: and J.H.~K\"uhn (springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989) p.~1432.
1092:
1093: \bibitem{Aleph}
1094: J.B.~de Vivie and P.~Janot [ALEPH Collaboration], ``Search for a Light
1095: Higgs Boson in the Yukawa Process,'' PA13-027 contribution to the
1096: International Conference on High Energy Physics, Warsaw, Poland,
1097: 25--31 July 1996.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{Delphi}
1100: J.~Kurowska, O.~Grajek and P.~Zalewski [DELPHI Collaboration],
1101: ``Search for Yukawa production of a light neutral Higgs at LEP 1,''
1102: CERN-OPEN-99-385.
1103:
1104: \bibitem{Janot} P.~Janot, private communication. Previous bounds have
1105: been reported in \Ref{Sopczak:1995zy}.
1106:
1107: \bibitem{Sopczak:1995zy}
1108: A.~Sopczak,
1109: ``Status of Higgs hunting at LEP: Five years of progress,''
1110: hep-ph/9504300.
1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504300;%%
1112:
1113:
1114: \bibitem{wil}
1115: F.~Wilczek,
1116: ``Decays of Heavy Vector Mesons into Higgs Particles,''
1117: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 39} (1977) 1304.
1118: %%CITATION = PRLTA,39,1304;%%
1119:
1120:
1121: \bibitem{vys}
1122: M.I.~Vysotsky,
1123: ``Strong Interaction Corrections to Semiweak Decays: Calculation of
1124: the $V\to H \gamma$ Decay Rate with $\alpha_s$ Accuracy,''
1125: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 97} (1980) 159.
1126: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B97,159;%%
1127:
1128:
1129: \bibitem{nason}
1130: P.~Nason,
1131: ``QCD Radiative Corrections to Upsilon Decay into Scalar Plus Gamma and Pseudoscalar Plus Gamma,''
1132: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 175} (1986) 223.
1133: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B175,223;%%
1134:
1135: \bibitem{biswas}
1136: S.N.~Biswas, A.~Goyal and J.~Pasupathy,
1137: ``Radiative Decay of Quarkonium Into Higgs Scalar,''
1138: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32} (1985) 1844.
1139: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D32,1844;%%
1140:
1141: \bibitem{azn}
1142: I.~Aznauryan, S.~Grigoryan, and S.~Matinyan, JETP~Lett. {\bf 43}
1143: (1986) 646.
1144:
1145: \bibitem{wu}
1146: G.~Faldt, P.~Osland and T.T.~Wu,
1147: ``Relativistic Theory of The Decay of Upsilon Into Higgs + Photon,''
1148: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 38} (1988) 164.
1149: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D38,164;%%
1150:
1151: \bibitem{Krawczyk:1999kk}
1152: M.~Krawczyk, J.~Zochowski and P.~Mattig,
1153: ``Process $Z \rightarrow h(A) + \gamma$ in
1154: the two Higgs doublet model and the experimental
1155: constraints from LEP,''
1156: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 8} (1999) 495
1157: [hep-ph/9811256].
1158: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811256;%%
1159:
1160:
1161: \bibitem{erler}
1162: J.~Erler,
1163: ``Fundamental parameters from precision tests,''
1164: hep-ph/0102143.
1165: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102143;%%
1166:
1167:
1168: \bibitem{Chankowski:1999ta}
1169: P.H.~Chankowski, M.~Krawczyk and J.~Zochowski,
1170: ``Implications of the precision data for very light Higgs boson
1171: scenario in 2HDM(II),''
1172: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 11} (1999) 661
1173: [hep-ph/9905436].
1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905436;%%
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178:
1179: \bibitem{egns}
1180: J.~Ellis, M.K.~Gaillard, D.V.~Nanopoulos and C.T.~Sachrajda,
1181: ``Is the Mass of the Higgs Boson about 10~GeV?,''
1182: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 83} (1979) 339.
1183: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B83,339;%%
1184:
1185:
1186: \bibitem{pdg}
1187: D.E.~Groom {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1188: ``Review of particle physics,''
1189: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15} (2000) 1.
1190: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
1191:
1192: \bibitem{kk}
1193: J.~Kalinowski and M.~Krawczyk,
1194: ``Two-Higgs-doublet models and the Yukawa process at LEP1,''
1195: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 27} (1996) 961
1196: [hep-ph/9602292].
1197: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602292;%%
1198:
1199: \bibitem{Krawczyk:2000kf}
1200: M.~Krawczyk, P.~Mattig and J.~Zochowski,
1201: ``The light Higgs window in the 2HDM at GigaZ,''
1202: hep-ph/0009201.
1203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009201;%%
1204:
1205:
1206:
1207: \end{thebibliography}
1208:
1209: \end{document}
1210:
1211: