1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \voffset0cm
4: \hoffset0cm
5: \oddsidemargin0cm
6: \evensidemargin0cm
7: \topmargin0cm
8: \textwidth16.cm
9: \textheight22.cm
10: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
11:
12: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
13: \hbox {$>$}\,}
14: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
15: \hbox {$<$}\,}
16:
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
19:
20: \catcode`@=11
21: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
22: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
23: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
24: \newcount\@tempcntc
25: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
26: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
27: {\@ifundefined
28: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
29: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
30: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
31: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
32: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
33: \else
34: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
35: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
36: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
37: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
38: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
39: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
40: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
41: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
42: \catcode`@=12
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \title{\vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
48: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 01-015\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
49: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0103018\hfill}
50: \centerline{\normalsize February 2001\hfill}
51: }
52: \vskip1.5cm
53: Pair production of neutral Higgs bosons at the CERN Large Hadron Collider}
54: \author{A. A. Barrientos Bendez\'u and B. A. Kniehl\\
55: {\normalsize II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,}\\
56: {\normalsize Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}}
57:
58: \date{}
59:
60: \maketitle
61:
62: \thispagestyle{empty}
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65: We study the hadroproduction of two neutral Higgs bosons in the minimal
66: supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM), which provides a handle
67: on the trilinear Higgs couplings.
68: We include the contributions from quark-antiquark annihilation at the tree
69: level and those from gluon-gluon fusion, which proceeds via quark and squark
70: loops.
71: We list compact results for the tree-level partonic cross sections and the
72: squark loop amplitudes, and we confirm previous results for the quark loop
73: amplitudes.
74: We quantitatively analyze the hadronic cross sections at the CERN Large Hadron
75: Collider assuming a favorable supergravity-inspired MSSM scenario.
76:
77: \medskip
78:
79: \noindent
80: PACS numbers: 12.60.Fr, 12.60.Jv, 13.85.-t
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \newpage
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: The search for Higgs bosons will be among the prime tasks of the CERN Large
88: Hadron Collider (LHC) \cite{kun}.
89: While the standard model (SM) of elementary-particle physics contains one
90: complex Higgs doublet, from which one neutral $CP$-even Higgs boson $H$
91: emerges in the physical particle spectrum after the spontaneous breakdown of
92: the electroweak symmetry, the Higgs sector of the minimal supersymmetric
93: extension of the SM (MSSM) consists of a two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) and
94: accommodates five physical Higgs bosons: the neutral $CP$-even $h^0$ and $H^0$
95: bosons, the neutral $CP$-odd $A^0$ boson, and the charged $H^\pm$-boson pair.
96: At the tree level, the MSSM Higgs sector has two free parameters, which are
97: usually taken to be the mass $m_{A^0}$ of the $A^0$ boson and the ratio
98: $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs
99: doublets.
100:
101: In the SM, the trilinear and quartic Higgs-boson couplings are proportional to
102: the square of the Higgs-boson mass, and they are uniquely fixed once the
103: latter is known.
104: In the MSSM, the various Higgs-boson self-couplings are determined by the
105: gauge couplings multiplied with trigonometric factors that depend on $\alpha$,
106: the mixing angle that rotates the weak $CP$-even Higgs eigenstates into the
107: mass eigenstates $h^0$ and $H^0$, and $\beta$ \cite{hab} [see
108: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hhh})].
109:
110: At the LHC, the trilinear Higgs-boson couplings may be probed by studying the
111: inclusive hadroproduction of Higgs-boson pairs.
112: These couplings enter the stage via the Feynman diagrams where a virtual
113: neutral Higgs boson is produced in the $s$ channel through $q\bar q$
114: annihilation or $gg$ fusion and in turn decays into a pair of neutral or
115: charged Higgs bosons.
116: Specifically, the partonic subprocesses include $q\bar q\to HH$ and $gg\to HH$
117: in the SM, and $q\bar q\to\phi_1\phi_2,H^+H^-$ and $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2,H^+H^-$
118: in the MSSM, where $\phi_i=h^0,H^0,A^0$.
119: At the tree level, there are two mechanisms of $q\bar q$ annihilation.
120: On the one hand, it can proceed via a $Z$ boson (Drell-Yan process) if an
121: appropriate Higgs-Higgs-$Z$ coupling exists.
122: On the other hand, the Higgs bosons can be radiated off the $q$-quark line if
123: the relevant Yukawa couplings are sufficiently strong.
124: In the SM, $q\bar q$ annihilation is greatly suppressed due to the absence
125: of a $HHZ$ coupling and the smallness of the $Hq\bar q$ couplings for the
126: active quarks contained inside the proton, $q=u,d,s,c,b$.
127: In the MSSM, however, we have $h^0A^0Z$ and $H^0A^0Z$ couplings at the tree
128: level [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:hAZ})], and the $\phi_ib\bar b$ couplings are
129: generally strong if $\tan\beta$ is large [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqq})].
130: In the SM, $gg$ fusion is mediated via heavy-quark loops.
131: In the MSSM, there are additional contributions from squark loops.
132: The SM case was studied in Ref.~\cite{dic}.
133: As for $H^+H^-$ pair production, $q\bar q$ annihilation was investigated in
134: Refs.~\cite{eic,hh}, the quark loop contribution to $gg$ fusion in
135: Refs.~\cite{hh,wil,bre}, and the squark loop one in Refs.~\cite{hh,bre}.
136: As for the pair production of neutral Higgs bosons in the MSSM, $q\bar q$
137: annihilation via a $Z$ boson was analyzed in Ref.~\cite{daw} and the quark and
138: squark loop contributions to $gg$ fusion in Refs.~\cite{ple} and \cite{bel},
139: respectively.
140: In Ref.~\cite{daw}, also the QCD corrections to $q\bar q$ annihilation via a
141: $Z$ boson and to $gg$ fusion via an infinitely heavy top quark were
142: considered.
143: The processes of associated production of a neutral Higgs-boson pair with a
144: dijet (in addition to the remnant jets), an intermediate boson, or another
145: neutral Higgs boson were found to have cross sections that are greatly
146: suppressed, by more than an order of magnitude, compared to those of the
147: respective processes without those additional final-state particles \cite{kil}.
148:
149: The purpose of this paper is to reanalyze the pair production of neutral Higgs
150: bosons in the MSSM, both via $q\bar q$ annihilation and $gg$ fusion.
151: In the case of $q\bar q$ annihilation, we also allow for $q=b$.
152: This makes it necessary to include a new class of diagrams involving $b$-quark
153: Yukawa couplings, which are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}(a) and the second
154: and third lines of Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}(b).
155: These come in addition to the Drell-Yan diagram, shown in the first line of
156: Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}(b), which is already present for $q=u,d,s,c$.
157: For final states with an even number of $CP$-even Higgs bosons,
158: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0$, $b\bar b$ annihilation is the only
159: production mechanism at the tree level.
160: As we shall see, its cross section is comparable to --- and in certain areas
161: of the MSSM parameter space even in excess of --- the one of $gg$ fusion.
162: For final states with an odd number of $CP$-even Higgs bosons,
163: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0A^0,H^0A^0$, $b\bar b$ annihilation significantly enhances
164: the Drell-Yan contribution for large values of $\tan\beta$.
165: As for $gg$ fusion, we reproduce the analytical and numerical results for the
166: quark loop contributions of Ref.~\cite{ple}.
167: Apart from obvious typographical errors, we also agree with the formulas for
168: the squark loop contributions listed in Ref.~\cite{bel}.
169: However, we find their numerical size to be considerably smaller than what was
170: found in Ref.~\cite{bel}.
171:
172: As for $b\bar b$ annihilation, it should be noted that the treatment of bottom
173: as an active flavor inside the colliding hadrons leads to an effective
174: description, which comprises contributions from the higher-order subprocesses
175: $gb\to\phi_1\phi_2b$, $g\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2\bar b$, and
176: $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2b\bar b$.
177: If all these subprocesses are to be explicitly included along with
178: $b\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2$, then it is necessary to employ a judiciously
179: subtracted parton density function (PDF) for the $b$ quark in order to avoid
180: double counting \cite{gun}.
181: The evaluation of $b\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2$ with an unsubtracted $b$-quark PDF
182: is expected to slightly overestimate the true cross section \cite{gun}.
183: For simplicity, we shall nevertheless adopt this effective approach in our
184: analysis, keeping in mind that a QCD-correction factor below unity is to be
185: applied.
186:
187: In order to reduce the number of unknown supersymmetric input parameters, we
188: adopt a scenario where the MSSM is embedded in a grand unified theory (GUT)
189: involving supergravity (SUGRA) \cite{kal}.
190: The MSSM thus constrained is characterized by the following parameters at the
191: GUT scale, which come in addition to $\tan\beta$ and $m_{A^0}$: the universal
192: scalar mass $m_0$, the universal gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$, the trilinear
193: Higgs-sfermion coupling $A$, the bilinear Higgs coupling $B$, and the
194: Higgs-higgsino mass parameter $\mu$.
195: Notice that $m_{A^0}$ is then not an independent parameter anymore, but it is
196: fixed through the renormalization group equation.
197: The number of parameters can be further reduced by making additional
198: assumptions.
199: Unification of the $\tau$-lepton and $b$-quark Yukawa couplings at the GUT
200: scale leads to a correlation between $m_t$ and $\tan\beta$.
201: Furthermore, if the electroweak symmetry is broken radiatively, then $B$ and
202: $\mu$ are determined up to the sign of $\mu$.
203: Finally, it turns out that the MSSM parameters are nearly independent of the
204: value of $A$, as long as $|A|\alt500$~GeV at the GUT scale.
205:
206: This paper is organized as follows.
207: In Sec.~\ref{sec:two}, we list analytic results for the tree-level cross
208: sections of $q\bar q\to\phi_1\phi_2$, including the Yukawa-enhanced
209: contributions for $q=b$, and the squark loop contributions to the
210: $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$ amplitudes in the MSSM.
211: The relevant MSSM coupling constants and the squark loop form factors are
212: relegated to Appendices~A and B, respectively.
213: In Sec.~\ref{sec:three}, we present quantitative predictions for the inclusive
214: cross section of $pp\to\phi_1\phi_2+X$ at the LHC adopting a favorable
215: SUGRA-inspired MSSM scenario.
216: Sec.~\ref{sec:four} contains our conclusions.
217:
218: \section{\label{sec:two}Analytic Results}
219:
220: In this section, we present the tree-level cross sections of the partonic
221: subprocesses $q\bar q\to\phi_1\phi_2$, where $\phi_i=h^0,H^0,A^0$, and the
222: transition ($T$) matrix elements of $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$ arising from squark
223: triangle and box diagrams.
224:
225: We work in the parton model of QCD with $n_f=5$ active quark flavors, which we
226: take to be massless.
227: However, we retain the $b$-quark Yukawa couplings at their finite values, in
228: order not to suppress possibly sizeable contributions.
229: We adopt the MSSM Feynman rules from Ref.~\cite{hab}.
230: In Appendix~A, we list the trilinear self-couplings of the neutral Higgs
231: bosons and their couplings to gauge bosons and quarks.
232: For each quark flavor $q$ there is a corresponding squark flavor $\tilde q$,
233: which comes in two mass eigenstates $i=1,2$.
234: The masses $m_{\tilde q_i}$ of the squarks and their trilinear couplings to
235: the $h^0$ and $H^0$ bosons are listed in Eq.~(A.5) of
236: Ref.~\cite{hem}\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{hem}, $m_{\tilde q_i}$ is called
237: $M_{\tilde Qa}$.} and Eq.~(A.2) of Ref.~\cite{hh}, respectively.
238: Their trilinear couplings to the $A^0$ boson and their quartic couplings to
239: the $h^0$, $H^0$, and $A^0$ bosons may be found in Appendix~A.
240:
241: Considering the generic partonic subprocess $ab\to\phi_1\phi_2$, we denote the
242: four-momenta of the incoming partons, $a$ and $b$, and the outgoing Higgs
243: bosons, $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, by $p_a$, $p_b$, $p_1$, and $p_2$,
244: respectively, and define the partonic Mandelstam variables as $s=(p_a+p_b)^2$,
245: $t=(p_a-p_1)^2$, and $u=(p_b-p_1)^2$.
246: The on-shell conditions read $p_a^2=p_b^2=0$ and $p_i^2=h_i$, where $h_i$
247: denotes the square of the $\phi_i$-boson mass.
248: Four-momentum conservation implies that $s+t+u=h_1+h_2$.
249: Furthermore, we have $sp_T^2=tu-h_1h_2$, where $p_T$ is the absolute value of
250: transverse momentum common to $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ in the center-of-mass
251: (c.m.) frame.
252:
253: The tree-level diagrams for $b\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2$, with
254: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0$ and $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0A^0,H^0A^0$,
255: are depicted in Figs.~\ref{fig:tree}(a) and (b), respectively.
256: The cross sections for the first class of partonic subprocesses may be
257: generically written as
258: \begin{equation}
259: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}(b\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2)=\frac{1}{1+\delta_{\phi_1\phi_2}}\,
260: \frac{G_F^2m_W^4}{3\pi s}\left(|S|^2+p_T^2T_-^2\right),
261: \label{eq:hh}
262: \end{equation}
263: where the prefactor accounts for identical-particle symmetrization if
264: $\phi_1=\phi_2$, $G_F$ is Fermi's constant, $m_W$ is the $W$-boson mass,
265: \begin{eqnarray}
266: S&=&g_{\phi_1\phi_2h^0}g_{h^0bb}{\cal P}_{h^0}(s)
267: +g_{\phi_1\phi_2H^0}g_{H^0bb}{\cal P}_{H^0}(s),
268: \nonumber\\
269: T_\pm&=&g_{\phi_1bb}g_{\phi_2bb}\left(\frac{1}{t}\pm\frac{1}{u}\right).
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: Here,
272: \begin{equation}
273: {\cal P}_{X}(s)=\frac{1}{s-m_X^2+im_X\Gamma_X}
274: \end{equation}
275: is the propagator function of particle $X$, with mass $m_X$ and total decay
276: width $\Gamma_X$.
277: For the second class of partonic subprocesses, we have
278: \begin{equation}
279: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}(b\bar b\to\phi_1\phi_2)=
280: \frac{G_F^2m_W^4}{3\pi s}\left[|P|^2+p_T^2(|V|^2+|A-T_+|^2)\right],
281: \label{eq:hA}
282: \end{equation}
283: where
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: P&=&g_{\phi_1\phi_2A^0}g_{A^0bb}{\cal P}_{A^0}(s),
286: \nonumber\\
287: V&=&2g_{\phi_1\phi_2Z}v_{Zbb}{\cal P}_{Z}(s),\nonumber\\
288: A&=&2g_{\phi_1\phi_2Z}a_{Zbb}{\cal P}_{Z}(s).
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: Here, $v_{Zbb}=-\left(I_b-2s_w^2Q_b\right)/(2c_w)$ and $a_{Zbb}=-I_b/(2c_w)$,
291: with $c_w^2=1-s_w^2=m_W^2/m_Z^2$, are the vector and axial-vector couplings of
292: the $b$ quark, with weak isospin $I_b=-1/2$ and electric charge $Q_b=-1/3$, to
293: the $Z$ boson.
294: As for $h^0A^0$ and $H^0A^0$ production, there are also sizeable contributions
295: from $q\bar q$ annihilation via a $Z$ boson for the quarks of the first and
296: second generations, $q=u,d,s,c$.
297: The corresponding Drell-Yan cross sections are obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:hA})
298: by putting $P=T_+=0$ and substituting $b\to q$.
299: The resulting expression agrees with Eq.~(36) of Ref.~\cite{daw}.
300: The full tree-level cross sections are then obtained by complementing the
301: $b\bar b$-initiated cross sections of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hA}) with the Drell-Yan
302: cross sections for $q=u,d,s,c$.
303:
304: The one-loop diagrams for $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$, with
305: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0$ and $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0A^0,H^0A^0$,
306: are depicted in Figs.~\ref{fig:loop}(a) and (b), respectively.
307: As for the quark loops, our analytical results fully agree with those listed
308: in Ref.~\cite{ple}, and there is no need to repeat them here.
309: For the partonic subprocesses of class two, the squark loop contributions are
310: zero \cite{bel}.
311: This may be understood as follows.
312: (i) The $g_{g\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$ and $g_{Z\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$ couplings
313: are linear in the squark four-momenta, while the $g_{gg\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$
314: couplings are momentum independent.
315: Thus, the diagrams in the third line of Fig.~\ref{fig:loop}(b) each vanish
316: upon adding their counterparts with the loop-momentum flows reversed.
317: (ii) The $g_{g\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$, $g_{gg\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$,
318: $g_{h^0\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$, and $g_{H^0\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$ couplings are
319: symmetric in $i$ and $j$, while the $g_{A^0\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}$ coupling is
320: antisymmetric.
321: Thus, the diagrams in the last line of Fig.~\ref{fig:loop}(b) vanish upon
322: summation over $i$ and $j$.
323: For the partonic subprocesses of class one, the $T$-matrix elements
324: corresponding to the squark triangle and box diagrams are found to be
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: \tilde{\cal T}_\triangle&=&\frac{G_Fm_W^2}{\sqrt2}\,
327: \frac{\alpha_s(\mu_r)}{\pi}
328: \varepsilon_\mu^c(p_a)\varepsilon_\nu^c(p_b)A_1^{\mu\nu}\tilde F_\triangle,
329: \nonumber\\
330: \tilde{\cal T}_\Box&=&\frac{G_Fm_W^2}{\sqrt2}\,\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_r)}{\pi}
331: \varepsilon_\mu^c(p_a)\varepsilon_\nu^c(p_b)
332: \left(A_1^{\mu\nu}\tilde F_\Box+A_2^{\mu\nu}\tilde G_\Box\right),
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: respectively, where $\alpha_s(\mu_r)$ is the strong-coupling constant at
335: renormalization scale $\mu_r$, $\varepsilon_\mu^c(p_a)$ is the polarization
336: four-vector of gluon $a$ and similarly for gluon $b$, it is summed over the
337: color index $c=1,\ldots,8$,
338: \begin{eqnarray}
339: A_1^{\mu\nu}&=&g^{\mu\nu}-\frac{2}{s}p_b^\mu p_a^\nu,
340: \nonumber\\
341: A_2^{\mu\nu}&=&g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{2}{p_T^2}\left(\frac{h_1}{s}p_b^\mu p_a^\nu
342: +\frac{u-h_1}{s}p_1^\mu p_a^\nu+\frac{t-h_1}{s}p_b^\mu p_1^\nu
343: +p_1^\mu p_1^\nu\right),
344: \end{eqnarray}
345: and the form factors $\tilde F_\triangle$, $\tilde F_\Box$, and
346: $\tilde G_\Box$ are listed in Appendix~B.
347: Due to Bose symmetry, $\tilde{\cal T}_\triangle$ and $\tilde{\cal T}_\Box$ are
348: invariant under the simultaneous replacements $\mu\leftrightarrow\nu$ and
349: $p_a\leftrightarrow p_b$.
350: Consequently, $\tilde F_\triangle$, $\tilde F_\Box$, and $\tilde G_\Box$ are
351: symmetric in $t$ and $u$.
352: Our analytic results for the squark loop contributions agree with those given
353: in Eqs.~(8)--(10) of Ref.~\cite{bel}, which are expressed in terms of helicity
354: amplitudes.\footnote{There are two obvious typographical errors on the
355: right-hand side of Eq.~(10e) in Ref.~\cite{bel}: There should be an overall
356: minus sign, and $V_{H_{(i,j)}\tilde q_k\tilde q_k}$ should be replaced by
357: $V_{H_{(i,j)}\tilde q_k\tilde q_l}$.}
358:
359: The parton-level cross section of $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$ including both quark and
360: squark contributions is then given by
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: \frac{d\sigma}{dt}(gg\to\phi_1\phi_2)&=&\frac{1}{1+\delta_{\phi_1\phi_2}}\,
363: \frac{G_F^2\alpha_s^2(\mu_r)}{256(2\pi)^3}
364: \left[\left|\sum_{Q=t,b}C_\triangle^QF_\triangle^Q+F_\Box
365: -\frac{2m_W^2}{s}\left(\tilde F_\triangle+\tilde F_\Box\right)\right|^2
366: \right.\nonumber\\
367: &&{}+\left.\left|G_\Box-\frac{2m_W^2}{s}\tilde G_\Box\right|^2
368: +\left|H_\Box\right|^2\right],
369: \end{eqnarray}
370: where the generalized couplings $C_\triangle^Q$ and $C_\Box^Q$ and the form
371: factors $F_\triangle^Q$, $F_\Box$, and $G_\Box$ may be found in Eq.~(16)--(18)
372: and Appendix~A of Ref.~\cite{ple}, respectively.
373:
374: The kinematics of the inclusive reaction $AB\to CD+X$, where $A$ and
375: $B$ are hadrons, which are taken to be massless, and $C$ and $D$ are massive
376: particles, is described in Sec.~II of Ref.~\cite{wh}.
377: Its double-differential cross section $d^2\sigma/dy\,dp_T$, where $y$ and
378: $p_T$ are the rapidity and transverse momentum of particle $C$ in the c.m.\
379: frame of the hadronic collision, may be evaluated from Eq.~(2.1) of
380: Ref.~\cite{wh}.
381:
382: \section{\label{sec:three}Phenomenological Implications}
383:
384: We are now in a position to explore the phenomenological implications of our
385: results.
386: The SM input parameters for our numerical analysis are taken to be
387: $G_F=1.16639\times10^{-5}$~GeV$^{-2}$, $m_W=80.419$~GeV, $m_Z=91.1882$~GeV,
388: $m_t=174.3$~GeV , and $m_b=4.6$~GeV \cite{pdg}.
389: We adopt the lowest-order (LO) proton PDF set CTEQ5L \cite{lai}.
390: We evaluate $\alpha_s(\mu_r)$ from the LO formula \cite{pdg} with
391: $n_f=5$ quark flavors and asymptotic scale parameter
392: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(5)}=146$~MeV \cite{lai}.
393: We identify the renormalization and factorization scales with the
394: $\phi_1\phi_2$ invariant mass $\sqrt s$, $M=\mu_r=\sqrt s$.
395: We vary $\tan\beta$ and $m_{A^0}$ in the ranges
396: $3<\tan\beta<38\approx m_t/m_b$ and 90~GeV${}<m_{A^0}<1$~TeV, respectively.
397: As for the GUT parameters, we choose $m_{1/2}=150$~GeV, $A=0$, and $\mu<0$,
398: and tune $m_0$ so as to be consistent with the desired value of $m_{A^0}$.
399: All other MSSM parameters are then determined according to the SUGRA-inspired
400: scenario as implemented in the program package SUSPECT \cite{djo}.
401: For the typical example of $\tan\beta=3$ and $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV, the residual
402: masses and total decay widths of the $\phi_i$ bosons are
403: $m_{h^0}=90$~GeV, $m_{H^0}=306$~GeV,
404: $\Gamma_{h^0}=3$~MeV, $\Gamma_{H^0}=186$~MeV, and $\Gamma_{A^0}=72$~MeV,
405: and the squark masses are
406: $m_{\tilde u_1}=m_{\tilde c_1}=412$~GeV,
407: $m_{\tilde u_2}=m_{\tilde c_2}=422$~GeV,
408: $m_{\tilde d_1}=m_{\tilde s_1}=413$~GeV,
409: $m_{\tilde d_2}=m_{\tilde s_2}=428$~GeV,
410: $m_{\tilde t_1}=317$~GeV, $m_{\tilde t_2}=443$~GeV,
411: $m_{\tilde b_1}=384$~GeV, and $m_{\tilde b_2}=413$~GeV,
412: We do not impose the unification of the $\tau$-lepton and $b$-quark Yukawa
413: couplings at the GUT scale, which would just constrain the allowed $\tan\beta$
414: range without any visible effect on the results for these values of
415: $\tan\beta$.
416: We exclude solutions which do not comply with the present experimental lower
417: mass bounds of the sfermions, charginos, neutralinos, and Higgs bosons
418: \cite{ruh}.
419: In our analysis, an $s$-channel resonance only occurs in the process
420: $pp\to h^0h^0+X$ if $m_{H^0}>2m_{h^0}$.
421:
422: We now study the fully integrated cross sections of $pp\to\phi_1\phi_2+X$ at
423: the LHC, with c.m.\ energy $\sqrt S=14$~TeV.
424: Figures~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:HA} refer to the cases
425: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0,$ $h^0A^0,H^0A^0$, respectively.
426: In part (a) of each figure, the $m_{A^0}$ dependence is studied for
427: $\tan\beta=3$ and 30 while, in part~(b), the $\tan\beta$ dependence is studied
428: for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
429: We note that the SUGRA-inspired MSSM with our choice of input parameters does
430: not permit $\tan\beta$ and $m_{A^0}$ to be simultaneously small, due to the
431: experimental lower bound on the selectron mass \cite{ruh}.
432: This explains why the curves for $\tan\beta=3$ in
433: Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:HA}(a) only start at $m_{A^0}\approx240$~GeV,
434: while those for $\tan\beta=30$ already start at $m_{A^0}\approx90$~GeV.
435: On the other hand, $\tan\beta$ and $m_{A^0}$ cannot be simultaneously large
436: either, due to the experimental lower bounds on the chargino and neutralino
437: masses \cite{ruh}.
438: For this reason, the curves for $\tan\beta=30$ in
439: Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:HA}(a) already end at $m_{A^0}\approx560$~GeV.
440: Finally, the experimental $m_{h^0}$ lower bound \cite{ruh} enforces
441: $\tan\beta\agt3$ if $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV, which is reflected in
442: Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:HA}(b).
443:
444: In Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:AA}, the $b\bar b$-annihilation contributions
445: (dashed lines), which originate from Yukawa-enhanced amplitudes, and the total
446: $gg$-fusion contributions (solid lines), corresponding to the coherent
447: superposition of quark and squark loop amplitudes, are presented separately.
448: For a comparison with future experimental data, they should be added.
449: For comparison, also the $gg$-fusion contributions due to quark loops only
450: (dotted lines) are shown.
451: We first assess the relative importance of the $b\bar b$-annihilation and
452: $gg$-fusion contributions.
453: In the case of $h^0h^0$ production, $b\bar b$ annihilation is more important
454: than $gg$ fusion for intermediate values of $m_{A^0}$, around 300~GeV, except
455: at the edges of the allowed $\tan\beta$ range, while it is greatly suppressed
456: for large values of $m_{A^0}$, independent of $\tan\beta$ (see
457: Fig.~\ref{fig:hh}).
458: In the case of $h^0H^0$ production, $b\bar b$ annihilation dominates for
459: intermediate to large values of $m_{A^0}$ and large values of $\tan\beta$,
460: while it yields an insignificant contribution for small values of $\tan\beta$,
461: independent of $m_{A^0}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:hH}).
462: As for $H^0H^0$ and $A^0A^0$ production, $b\bar b$ annihilation is suppressed
463: compared to $gg$ fusion.
464: For $\tan\beta\agt8$, the suppression factor is modest, ranging between 2 and
465: 3, but it dramatically increases as $\tan\beta$ becomes smaller (see
466: Figs.~\ref{fig:HH} and \ref{fig:AA}).
467: In order to avoid confusion, we should mention that the $b\bar b$-annihilation
468: contribution for $\tan\beta=3$ is too small to be visible in
469: Figs.~\ref{fig:hH}--\ref{fig:AA}(a).
470: We now investigate the size of the supersymmetric corrections to $gg$ fusion,
471: {\it i.e.}, the effect of including the squark loops.
472: We observe that these corrections can be of either sign and reach a magnitude
473: of up to 90\%.
474: Specifically, for $h^0h^0$, $h^0H^0$, $H^0H^0$, and $A^0A^0$ production, they
475: vary within the ranges $-10\%$ to $+3\%$, $-16\%$ to $+32\%$, $-32\%$ to
476: $+24\%$, and $0\%$ to $+90\%$, respectively, for the values of $m_{A^0}$ and
477: $\tan\beta$ considered in Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:AA}(a).
478: The fact that they are relatively modest in most cases is characteristic for
479: our SUGRA-inspired MSSM scenario.
480: This is partly due to the destructive interference of quark and squark loop
481: amplitudes and to the suppression of the latter by heavy-squark propagators.
482: By contrast, in Ref.~\cite{bel}, the supersymmetric corrections were found
483: reach values in excess of 100.
484: Since the authors of Ref.~\cite{bel} did not specify all their input
485: parameters, we could not reproduce their numerical results for the squark loop
486: contributions.
487:
488: In Figs.~\ref{fig:hA} and \ref{fig:HA}, the total $q\bar q$-annihilation
489: contributions (dashed lines), corresponding to the coherent superposition of
490: Drell-Yan and Yukawa-enhanced amplitudes, and the $gg$-fusion contributions
491: (solid lines), which now only receive contributions from quark loops, are
492: given separately.
493: For comparison, also the pure Drell-Yan contributions (dotted lines) are
494: shown.
495: Again, we first compare the total $q\bar q$-annihilation contributions with
496: the $gg$-fusion ones.
497: In the case of $h^0A^0$ production, $q\bar q$ annihilation dominates for large
498: values of $\tan\beta$, independent of $m_{A^0}$, while, at the lower end of
499: the allowed $\tan\beta$ range, it is suppressed by a factor of 40 and more,
500: depending on the value of $m_{A^0}$.
501: On the other hand, in the case of $H^0A^0$ production, the
502: $q\bar q$-annihilation contribution always overshoots the $gg$-fusion one by
503: at least one order of magnitude.
504: We then examine the effect of including the Yukawa-enhanced amplitudes in the
505: evaluation of the $q\bar q$-annihilation cross section.
506: In the case of $h^0A^0$ production, there is a dramatic enhancement for large
507: values of $\tan\beta$, which may reach several orders of magnitude for large
508: values of $m_{A^0}$.
509: In the case of $H^0A^0$ production, there is also an enhancement for large
510: values of $\tan\beta$, but it is much more moderate, less than a factor of
511: three.
512: It is interesting to observe that the Drell-Yan cross section of $H^0A^0$
513: production is fairly independent of $\tan\beta$ unless $m_{A^0}$ is close to
514: its lower bound.
515: This may be understood by observing that $\sin(\alpha-\beta)$, which governs
516: the $H^0A^0Z$ coupling $g_{H^0A^0Z}$, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hAZ}), is then
517: always very close to $-1$.
518: This is also apparent from Fig.~2 of Ref.~\cite{spi}.
519:
520: At this point, we should estimate the theoretical uncertainties in our
521: predictions.
522: As a typical example, we consider the cross section of $pp\to h^0h^0+X$ for
523: $\tan\beta=3$ and $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
524: In order to obtain a hint on the size of the as-yet unknown
525: next-to-leading-order (NLO) corrections, we define the renormalization and
526: factorization scales as $M=\mu_r=\xi\sqrt s$ and vary the scale parameter
527: $\xi$ in the range $1/2<\xi<2$.
528: The resulting variation in cross section amounts to $\pm8\%$
529: in the case of $b\bar b$ annihilation and to $\pm11\%$ in the case of $gg$
530: fusion.
531: At NLO, one also needs to specify a renormalization scheme for the definition
532: of the $b$-quark mass, which enters our analysis through the $b$-quark Yukawa
533: coupling.
534: Our LO analysis is appropriate for the on-mass-shell scheme, which uses pole
535: masses as basic parameters.
536: The modified minimal-subtraction ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme \cite{bar}
537: provides a popular alternative.
538: For example, a pole mass of $m_b=4.6$~GeV \cite{pdg} corresponds to an
539: $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass of $\overline{m}_b^{(5)}(\mu_r)=2.7$~GeV for the
540: typical choice of renormalization scale $\mu_r=\sqrt s=300$~GeV.
541: Recalling that the leading behaviour of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hh}) in $m_b$ is
542: quadratic, switching to the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme would thus, at first
543: sight, lead to a suppression of the cross section by a factor of approximately
544: 1/3.
545: However, we must keep in mind that this reduction should be largely cancelled,
546: up to terms that are formally beyond NLO, by a respective shift in the NLO
547: correction.
548: Another source of uncertainty is related to the choice of PDF's.
549: In fact, there exist significant differences in the extraction of the
550: $b$-quark PDF among different PDF sets, which are related to the threshold
551: treatment of the $g\to b\bar b$ splitting, the choice of the $b$-quark mass,
552: the dependence of the evolution on the latter, {\it etc.}
553: In the case of a LO analysis with $n_f=5$ massless quark favours, which is
554: considered here, the use of CTEQ5L \cite{lai} together with the scale choice
555: $M=\mu_r=\sqrt s$ should be appropriate in the sense that these issues can
556: largely be bypassed.
557: If we employ the LO PDF set by Martin, Roberts, Stirling, and Thorne (MRST)
558: \cite{mar}, with $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(5)}=132$~MeV, then the
559: $b\bar b$-annihilation and $gg$-fusion cross sections increase by $10\%$ and
560: $4\%$, respectively, relative to their default values.
561:
562: \section{\label{sec:four}Conclusions}
563:
564: We analytically calculated the cross sections of the partonic subprocesses
565: $q\bar q\to\phi_1\phi_2$ and $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$, where $\phi_i=h^0,H^0,A^0$,
566: to LO in the MSSM.
567: We included the Drell-Yan and Yukawa-enhanced contributions to $q\bar q$
568: annihilation (see Fig.~\ref{fig:tree}) and the quark and squark loop
569: contributions to $gg$ fusion (see Fig.~\ref{fig:loop}).
570: We listed our formulas for the $q\bar q$-annihilation cross sections and the
571: squark loop amplitudes, for which we found rather compact expressions.
572: As for the quark loop contributions, we found complete agreement with
573: Ref.~\cite{ple}.
574:
575: We then quantitatively investigated the inclusive cross sections of
576: $pp\to\phi_1\phi_2+X$ at the LHC adopting a favorable SUGRA-inspired MSSM
577: scenario, varying the input parameters $m_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$.
578: The results are presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:hh}--\ref{fig:HA}.
579: We found that the Yukawa-enhanced $q\bar q$-annihilation contribution, which
580: had previously been neglected, can play a leading role, especially for
581: $h^0h^0$ production if $m_{A^0}$ is of order 300~GeV and for $h^0H^0$,
582: $h^0A^0$, and $H^0A^0$ production if $\tan\beta$ is large.
583: The supersymmetric corrections to $gg$ fusion, which are present for $h^0h^0$,
584: $h^0H^0$, $H^0H^0$, and $A^0A^0$ production, can be of either sign and reach
585: a magnitude of up to 90\%.
586: Our numerical results for these corrections disagree with those presented in
587: Ref.~\cite{bel}.
588: For each process $pp\to\phi_1\phi_2+X$, the combined cross section,
589: {\it i.e.}, the sum of the full $q\bar q$-annihilation and $gg$-fusion
590: contributions, varies by several orders of magnitude as the values of
591: $m_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$ are changed within their allowed ranges, and its
592: maximum value is typically between $10^2$~fb$^{-1}$ and $10^3$~fb$^{-1}$.
593: If we assume the integrated luminosity per year to be at its design value of
594: $L=100$~fb$^{-1}$ for each of the two LHC experiments, ATLAS and CMS, then
595: this translates into a maximum of 20.000 to 200.000 events per year for each
596: of these signal processes.
597:
598: A comprehensive discussion of the background processes competing with the
599: $pp\to\phi_1\phi_2+X$ signals at the LHC lies beyond the scope of our study.
600: However, we should briefly mention them and quote the relevant literature.
601: Without specifying the decay channels of the $\phi_i$ bosons, one expects the
602: major backgrounds to arise from the pair production of neutral gauge bosons,
603: the associate production of a neutral gauge boson and a neutral Higgs boson,
604: and the continuum production of the respective $\phi_1\phi_2$ decay products.
605: Published signal-to-background analyses \cite{dai} have concentrated on the
606: $\phi_1\phi_2\to b\bar bb\bar b$ signals and their irreducible continuum
607: backgrounds, due to the partonic subprocesses $gg,q\bar q\to b\bar bb\bar b$,
608: which are dominantly of pure QCD origin.
609: It has been demonstrated that, after optimizing the acceptance cuts, the LHC
610: experiments might discover a signal, with experimental significance in excess
611: of 5, if $\tan\beta\alt3$ or $\tan\beta\agt50$.
612:
613: \vspace{1cm}
614: \noindent
615: {\bf Acknowledgements}
616: \smallskip
617:
618: We thank S. Moretti for drawing our attention to Ref.~\cite{dai}.
619: The work of A.A.B.B. was supported by the Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron
620: DESY.
621: The work of B.A.K. was supported in part by the Deutsche
622: Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No.\ KN~365/1-1, by the
623: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung through Grant No.\ 05~HT9GUA~3,
624: and by the European Commission through the Research Training Network
625: {\it Quantum Chromodynamics and the Deep Structure of Elementary Particles}
626: under Contract No.\ ERBFMRX-CT98-0194.
627:
628: \def\theequation{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}
629: \begin{appendix}
630: \setcounter{equation}{0}
631: \section{Relevant Higgs and squark couplings}
632:
633: In this appendix, we list the trilinear self-couplings of the $h^0$, $H^0$,
634: and $A^0$ bosons as well as their couplings to the $Z$ boson and the $t$ and
635: $b$ quarks.
636: Furthermore, we collect the couplings of these Higgs bosons to the squarks
637: $\tilde q_i$, with $q=t,b$ and $i=1,2$, which are not contained in Appendix~A
638: of Ref.~\cite{hh}.
639: For convenience, we introduce the short-hand notations
640: $s_\alpha=\sin\alpha$, $c_\alpha=\cos\alpha$,
641: $s_\beta=\sin\beta$, $c_\beta=\cos\beta$,
642: $s_{2\beta}=\sin(2\beta)$, $c_{2\beta}=\cos(2\beta)$,
643: $s_\pm=\sin(\alpha\pm\beta)$, and $c_\pm=\cos(\alpha\pm\beta)$.
644:
645: The trilinear self-couplings of the $h^0$, $H^0$, and $A^0$ bosons are given
646: by \cite{hab}
647: \begin{eqnarray}
648: g_{h^0h^0h^0}&=&-\frac{3m_Z}{2c_w}c_{2\alpha}s_+,\qquad
649: g_{h^0h^0H^0}=-\frac{m_Z}{2c_w}(2s_{2\alpha}s_+-c_{2\alpha}c_+),\nonumber\\
650: g_{h^0H^0H^0}&=&\frac{m_Z}{2c_w}(2s_{2\alpha}c_++c_{2\alpha}s_+),\qquad
651: g_{H^0H^0H^0}=-\frac{3m_Z}{2c_w}c_{2\alpha}c_+,\nonumber\\
652: g_{h^0A^0A^0}&=&-\frac{m_Z}{2c_w}c_{2\beta}s_+,\qquad
653: g_{H^0A^0A^0}=\frac{m_Z}{2c_w}c_{2\beta}c_+.
654: \label{eq:hhh}
655: \end{eqnarray}
656: Their couplings to the $Z$ boson are given by \cite{hab}
657: \begin{equation}
658: g_{h^0A^0Z}=\frac{c_-}{2c_w},\qquad
659: g_{H^0A^0Z}=\frac{s_-}{2c_w}.
660: \label{eq:hAZ}
661: \end{equation}
662: Their couplings to the $t$ and $b$ quarks are given by \cite{hab}
663: \begin{eqnarray}
664: g_{h^0tt}&=&-\frac{m_tc_\alpha}{2m_Ws_\beta},\qquad
665: g_{h^0bb}=\frac{m_bs_\alpha}{2m_Wc_\beta},\nonumber\\
666: g_{H^0tt}&=&-\frac{m_ts_\alpha}{2m_Ws_\beta},\qquad
667: g_{H^0bb}=-\frac{m_bc_\alpha}{2m_Wc_\beta},\nonumber\\
668: g_{A^0tt}&=&-\frac{m_t\cot\beta}{2m_W},\qquad
669: g_{A^0bb}=-\frac{m_b\tan\beta}{2m_W}.
670: \label{eq:hqq}
671: \end{eqnarray}
672: The missing couplings of these Higgs bosons to the squarks are given by
673: \cite{hab}
674: \begin{eqnarray}
675: \left(
676: \begin{array}{cc}
677: g_{A^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_1} & g_{A^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_2} \\
678: g_{A^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_1} & g_{A^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_2} \\
679: \end{array}
680: \right)
681: &=&\frac{m_t(\mu+A_t\cot\beta)}{2m_W}\left(
682: \begin{array}{cc}
683: 0 & 1 \\
684: -1 & 0 \\
685: \end{array}
686: \right),
687: %&=&{\cal M}^{\tilde t}\left(
688: %\begin{array}{cc}
689: %0 & \frac{m_t(\mu+A_t\cot\beta)}{2m_W} \\
690: %-\frac{m_t(\mu+A_t\cot\beta)}{2m_W} & 0 \\
691: %\end{array}
692: %\right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde t}\right)^T,
693: \nonumber\\
694: \left(
695: \begin{array}{cc}
696: g_{A^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_1} & g_{A^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_2} \\
697: g_{A^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_1} & g_{A^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_2} \\
698: \end{array}
699: \right)
700: &=&\frac{m_b(\mu+A_b\tan\beta)}{2m_W}\left(
701: \begin{array}{cc}
702: 0 & 1 \\
703: -1 & 0 \\
704: \end{array}
705: \right),
706: %&=&{\cal M}^{\tilde b}\left(
707: %\begin{array}{cc}
708: %0 & \frac{m_b(\mu+A_b\tan\beta)}{2m_W} \\
709: %-\frac{m_b(\mu+A_b\tan\beta)}{2m_W} & 0 \\
710: %\end{array}
711: %\right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde b}\right)^T,
712: \nonumber\\
713: \left(
714: \begin{array}{cc}
715: g_{h^0h^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_1} & g_{h^0h^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_2} \\
716: g_{h^0h^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_1} & g_{h^0h^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_2} \\
717: \end{array}
718: \right)
719: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde t}\left(
720: \begin{array}{cc}
721: \frac{c_{2\alpha}\left(I_t-s_w^2Q_t\right)}{2c_w^2}
722: -\frac{m_t^2c_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
723: 0 & \frac{c_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_t}{2c_w^2}
724: -\frac{m_t^2c_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} \\
725: \end{array}
726: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde t}\right)^T,
727: \nonumber\\
728: \left(
729: \begin{array}{cc}
730: g_{h^0h^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_1} & g_{h^0h^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_2} \\
731: g_{h^0h^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_1} & g_{h^0h^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_2} \\
732: \end{array}
733: \right)
734: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde b}\left(
735: \begin{array}{cc}
736: \frac{c_{2\alpha}(I_b-s_w^2Q_b)}{2c_w^2}
737: -\frac{m_b^2s_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
738: 0 & \frac{c_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_b}{2c_w^2}
739: -\frac{m_b^2s_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} \\
740: \end{array}
741: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde b}\right)^T,
742: \nonumber\\
743: \left(
744: \begin{array}{cc}
745: g_{h^0H^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_1} & g_{h^0H^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_2} \\
746: g_{h^0H^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_1} & g_{h^0H^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_2} \\
747: \end{array}
748: \right)
749: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde t}\left(
750: \begin{array}{cc}
751: \frac{s_{2\alpha}\left(I_t-s_w^2Q_t\right)}{2c_w^2}
752: -\frac{m_t^2s_{2\alpha}}{4m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
753: 0 & \frac{s_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_t}{2c_w^2}
754: -\frac{m_t^2s_{2\alpha}}{4m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} \\
755: \end{array}
756: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde t}\right)^T,
757: \nonumber\\
758: \left(
759: \begin{array}{cc}
760: g_{h^0H^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_1} & g_{h^0H^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_2} \\
761: g_{h^0H^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_1} & g_{h^0H^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_2} \\
762: \end{array}
763: \right)
764: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde b}\left(
765: \begin{array}{cc}
766: \frac{s_{2\alpha}(I_b-s_w^2Q_b)}{2c_w^2}
767: +\frac{m_b^2s_{2\alpha}}{4m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
768: 0 & \frac{s_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_b}{2c_w^2}
769: +\frac{m_b^2s_{2\alpha}}{4m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} \\
770: \end{array}
771: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde b}\right)^T,
772: \nonumber\\
773: \left(
774: \begin{array}{cc}
775: g_{H^0H^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_1} & g_{H^0H^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_2} \\
776: g_{H^0H^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_1} & g_{H^0H^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_2} \\
777: \end{array}
778: \right)
779: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde t}\left(
780: \begin{array}{cc}
781: -\frac{c_{2\alpha}\left(I_t-s_w^2Q_t\right)}{2c_w^2}
782: -\frac{m_t^2s_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
783: 0 & -\frac{c_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_t}{2c_w^2}
784: -\frac{m_t^2s_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2s_{\beta}^2} \\
785: \end{array}
786: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde t}\right)^T,
787: \nonumber\\
788: \left(
789: \begin{array}{cc}
790: g_{H^0H^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_1} & g_{H^0H^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_2} \\
791: g_{H^0H^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_1} & g_{H^0H^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_2} \\
792: \end{array}
793: \right)
794: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde b}\left(
795: \begin{array}{cc}
796: -\frac{c_{2\alpha}(I_b-s_w^2Q_b)}{2c_w^2}
797: -\frac{m_b^2c_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} & 0 \\
798: 0 & -\frac{c_{2\alpha}s_w^2Q_b}{2c_w^2}
799: -\frac{m_b^2c_{\alpha}^2}{2m_W^2c_{\beta}^2} \\
800: \end{array}
801: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde b}\right)^T,
802: \nonumber\\
803: \left(
804: \begin{array}{cc}
805: g_{A^0A^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_1} & g_{A^0A^0\tilde t_1\tilde t_2} \\
806: g_{A^0A^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_1} & g_{A^0A^0\tilde t_2\tilde t_2} \\
807: \end{array}
808: \right)
809: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde t}\left(
810: \begin{array}{cc}
811: \frac{c_{2\beta}\left(I_t-s_w^2Q_t\right)}{2c_w^2}
812: -\frac{m_t^2\cot^2\beta}{2m_W^2} & 0 \\
813: 0 & \frac{c_{2\beta}s_w^2Q_t}{2c_w^2}-\frac{m_t^2\cot^2\beta}{2m_W^2} \\
814: \end{array}
815: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde t}\right)^T,
816: \nonumber\\
817: \left(
818: \begin{array}{cc}
819: g_{A^0A^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_1} & g_{A^0A^0\tilde b_1\tilde b_2} \\
820: g_{A^0A^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_1} & g_{A^0A^0\tilde b_2\tilde b_2} \\
821: \end{array}
822: \right)
823: &=&{\cal M}^{\tilde b}\left(
824: \begin{array}{cc}
825: \frac{c_{2\beta}(I_b-s_w^2Q_b)}{2c_w^2}-\frac{m_b^2\tan^2\beta}{2m_W^2} &
826: 0 \\
827: 0 & \frac{c_{2\beta}s_w^2Q_b}{2c_w^2}-\frac{m_b^2\tan^2\beta}{2m_W^2} \\
828: \end{array}
829: \right)\left({\cal M}^{\tilde b}\right)^T.
830: \label{eq:hss}
831: \end{eqnarray}
832: Here, ${\cal M}^{\tilde q}$ denotes the mixing matrix which rotates the left-
833: and right-handed squark fields, $\tilde q_L$ and $\tilde q_R$, into the mass
834: eigenstates $\tilde q_i$.
835: Its definition may be found in Eq.~(A.1) of Ref.~\cite{hh}.
836: Relations similar to Eq.~(\ref{eq:hss}) are valid for the squarks of the first
837: and second generations, which are also included in our analysis.
838: However, in these cases, we neglect terms which are suppressed by the
839: smallness of the corresponding light-quark masses.
840:
841: \setcounter{equation}{0}
842: \section{Squark loop form factors}
843:
844: In this appendix, we express the squark triangle and box form factors,
845: $\tilde F_\triangle$, $\tilde F_\Box$, and $\tilde G_\Box$, in terms of the
846: standard scalar three- and four-point functions, which we abbreviate as
847: $C_{ijk}^{ab}(c)=C_0\left(a,b,c,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2,
848: m_{\tilde q_k}^2\right)$ and
849: $D_{ijkl}^{abcd}(e,f)=D_0\left(a,b,c,d,e,f,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2,
850: m_{\tilde q_k}^2,m_{\tilde q_l}^2\right)$, respectively.
851: The definitions of the latter may be found in Eq.~(5) of Ref.~\cite{wh1}.
852:
853: We have
854: \begin{eqnarray}
855: \tilde F_{\triangle}&=&\sum_{\tilde q}\sum_{i=1}^2
856: \left(g_{\phi_1\phi_2h^0}g_{h^0\tilde q_i\tilde q_i}{\cal P}_{h^0}(s)
857: +g_{\phi_1\phi_2H^0}g_{H^0\tilde q_i\tilde q_i}{\cal P}_{H^0}(s)
858: -g_{\phi_1\phi_2\tilde q_i\tilde q_i}\right)F_1\left(s,m_{\tilde q_i}^2\right),
859: \nonumber\\
860: \tilde F_{\Box}&=&\frac{2}{s}\sum_{\tilde q}\sum_{i,j=1}^2
861: g_{\phi_1\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}g_{\phi_2\tilde q_j\tilde q_i}
862: F_2\left(s,t,h_1,h_2,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right),
863: \nonumber\\
864: \tilde G_{\Box}&=&\frac{2}{sp_T^2}\sum_{\tilde q}\sum_{i,j=1}^2
865: g_{\phi_1\tilde q_i\tilde q_j}g_{\phi_2\tilde q_j\tilde q_i}
866: F_3\left(s,t,h_1,h_2,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right).
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: Here, we have introduced the auxiliary functions
869: \begin{eqnarray}
870: F_1\left(s,m_{\tilde q_i}^2\right)
871: &=&2+4m_{\tilde q_i}^2C^{00}_{iii}(s),
872: \nonumber\\
873: F_2\left(s,t,h_1,h_2,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right)
874: &=&-t_1C^{h_10}_{ijj}(t)-t_2C^{h_20}_{ijj}(t)
875: +2sm_{\tilde q_i}^2D^{h_1h_200}_{ijii}(s,t)
876: +s\left(\frac{p_T^2}{2}+m_{\tilde q_i}^2\right)
877: \nonumber\\
878: &&{}\times D^{h_10h_20}_{ijji}(t,u)
879: +(t\leftrightarrow u),
880: \nonumber\\
881: F_3\left(s,t,h_1,h_2,m_{\tilde q_i}^2,m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right)
882: &=&-s\left(t+m_{\tilde q_i}^2\right)C^{000}_{iii}(s)
883: +sm_{\tilde q_i}^2C^{000}_{jjj}(s)
884: -tt_1C^{h_10}_{ijj}(t)
885: -tt_2C^{h_20}_{ijj}(t)
886: \nonumber\\
887: &&{}+(t^2-h_1h_2)C^{h_1h_2}_{iji}(s)
888: +\left[st^2-2t_1t_2m_{\tilde q_i}^2
889: +2sm_{\tilde q_i}^2\left(m_{\tilde q_i}^2-m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right)\right]
890: \nonumber\\
891: &&{}\times D^{h_1h_200}_{ijii}(s,t)
892: -2stm_{\tilde q_i}^2D^{h_1h_200}_{jijj}(s,t)
893: +sm_{\tilde q_i}^2\left(p_T^2+m_{\tilde q_i}^2-m_{\tilde q_j}^2\right)
894: \nonumber\\
895: &&{}\times D^{h_10h_20}_{ijji}(t,u)+(t\leftrightarrow u),
896: \end{eqnarray}
897: where $t_i=t-h_i$.
898:
899: \end{appendix}
900:
901: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
902:
903: \bibitem{kun} Z. Kunszt and F. Zwirner,
904: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B385}, 3 (1992), and references cited therein.
905:
906: \bibitem{hab} H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane,
907: Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf117}, 75 (1985);
908: J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber,
909: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B272}, 1 (1986); {\bf B402}, 567(E) (1993);
910: {\bf B278}, 449 (1986); {\bf B402}, 569(E) (1993);
911: {\bf B307}, 445 (1988); {\bf B402}, 569(E) (1993);
912: J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. Kane, and S. Dawson,
913: {\it The Higgs Hunter's Guide} (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990).
914:
915: \bibitem{dic} D. A. Dicus, C. Kao, and S. S. D. Willenbrock,
916: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf203}, 457 (1988);
917: E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van der Bij,
918: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B309}, 282 (1988).
919:
920: \bibitem{eic} E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. Lane, and C. Quigg,
921: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf56}, 579 (1984); {\bf58}, 1065(E) (1986);
922: N. G. Deshpande, X. Tata, and D. A. Dicus,
923: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf29}, 1527 (1984).
924:
925: \bibitem{hh} A. A. Barrientos Bendez\'u and B. A. Kniehl,
926: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B568}, 305 (2000).
927:
928: \bibitem{wil} S. S. D. Willenbrock,
929: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf35}, 173 (1987);
930: J. Yi, H. Liang, M. Wen-Gan, Y. Zeng-Hui, and H. Meng,
931: J. Phys.\ G {\bf23}, 385 (1997); {\bf23}, 1151(E) (1997);
932: J. Yi, M. Wen-Gan, H. Liang, H. Meng, and Y. Zeng-Hui,
933: J. Phys.\ G {\bf24}, 83 (1998);
934: A. Krause, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
935: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B519}, 85 (1998).
936:
937: \bibitem{bre} O. Brein and W. Hollik,
938: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf13}, 175 (2000).
939:
940: \bibitem{daw} S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira,
941: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf58}, 115012 (1998).
942:
943: \bibitem{ple} T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas,
944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B479}, 46 (1996); {\bf B531}, 655(E) (1998).
945:
946: \bibitem{bel} A. Belyaev, M. Drees, O. J. P. \'Eboli, J. K. Mizukoshi, and S.
947: F. Novaes,
948: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf60}, 075008 (1999);
949: M. Drees, private communication.
950:
951: \bibitem{kil} A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. M\"uhlleitner, and P. M. Zerwas,
952: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf10}, 45 (1999).
953:
954: \bibitem{gun} J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, F. E. Paige, W.-K. Tung, and S. S. D.
955: Willenbrock,
956: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B294}, 621 (1987);
957: R. M. Barnett, H. E. Haber, and D. E. Soper,
958: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B306}, 697 (1988);
959: F. I. Olness and W.-K. Tung,
960: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B308}, 813 (1988);
961: D. A. Dicus and S. Willenbrock,
962: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf39}, 751 (1989);
963: D. A. Dicus and C. Kao,
964: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf41}, 832 (1990);
965: V. Barger, R. J. N. Phillips, and D. P. Roy,
966: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf324}, 236 (1994).
967:
968: \bibitem{kal} A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, P. Ohmann, and P. M. Zerwas,
969: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf74}, 93 (1997), and references cited therein.
970:
971: \bibitem{hem} R. Hempfling and B. Kniehl,
972: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf59}, 263 (1993).
973:
974: \bibitem{wh} A. A. Barrientos Bendez\'u and B. A. Kniehl,
975: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf59}, 015009 (1998).
976:
977: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom {\it et al.},
978: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf15}, 1 (2000).
979:
980: \bibitem{lai} CTEQ Collaboration, H. L. Lai {\it et al.},
981: Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf12}, 375 (2000).
982:
983: \bibitem{djo} A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur, and G. Moultaka,
984: Report No.\ PM/98-27 and GDR-S-017 (1998).
985:
986: \bibitem{ruh} V. Ruhlmann-Kleider,
987: in proceedings of XIX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon
988: Interactions at High Energies (Lepton-Photon 99), Stanford, California,
989: 9--14 August 1999, edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific,
990: Singapore, 2000), p.~416.
991:
992: \bibitem{spi} M. Spira,
993: Fortschr.\ Phys.\ {\bf46}, 203 (1998).
994:
995: \bibitem{bar} W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras, D. W. Duke, and T. Muta,
996: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf18}, 3998 (1978).
997:
998: \bibitem{mar} A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne,
999: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf443}, 301 (1998).
1000:
1001: \bibitem{dai} J. Dai, J. F. Gunion, and R. Vega,
1002: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf371}, 71 (1996); {\bf387}, 801 (1996);
1003: E. Richter-W\c as and D. Froidevaux,
1004: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf76}, 665 (1997);
1005: ATLAS Collaboration, A. Airapetian {\it et al.},
1006: ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance: Technical Design Report, Vol.~II,
1007: Report No.\ CERN/LHCC/99-15 and ATLAS TDR 15 (25 May 1999), p.~754;
1008: A. Belyaev, M. Drees, and J. K. Mizukoshi,
1009: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf17}, 337 (2000);
1010: R. Lafaye, D. J. Miller, M. M\"uhlleitner, and S. Moretti,
1011: Report No.\ DESY 99-192, RAL-TR-99-083, and hep-ph/0002238, to appear in
1012: {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders}, Les Houches,
1013: France, 7--18 June 1999.
1014:
1015: \bibitem{wh1} A. A. Barrientos Bendez\'u and B. A. Kniehl,
1016: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf61}, 097701 (2000).
1017:
1018: \end{thebibliography}
1019:
1020: \newpage
1021: \begin{figure}[ht]
1022: \begin{center}
1023: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1024: \parbox{8cm}{\epsfig{figure=n1.eps,width=8cm}} &
1025: \parbox{8cm}{\epsfig{figure=n2.eps,width=8cm}}\\
1026: (a) & (b)
1027: \end{tabular}
1028: \caption{Tree-level Feynman diagrams for $q\bar q\to\phi_1\phi_2$, with (a)
1029: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0$ and (b)
1030: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0A^0,H^0A^0$, in the MSSM.}
1031: \label{fig:tree}
1032: \end{center}
1033: \end{figure}
1034:
1035: \newpage
1036: \begin{figure}[ht]
1037: \begin{center}
1038: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1039: \parbox{8cm}{\epsfig{figure=n3.eps,width=8cm}} &
1040: \parbox{8cm}{\epsfig{figure=n4.eps,width=8cm}} \\
1041: (a) & (b)
1042: \end{tabular}
1043: \caption{One-loop Feynman diagrams for $gg\to\phi_1\phi_2$, with (a)
1044: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0h^0,h^0H^0,H^0H^0,A^0A^0$ and (b)
1045: $\phi_1\phi_2=h^0A^0,H^0A^0$, due to virtual quarks and squarks in the MSSM.}
1046: \label{fig:loop}
1047: \end{center}
1048: \end{figure}
1049:
1050: \newpage
1051: \begin{figure}[ht]
1052: \begin{center}
1053: \begin{tabular}{c}
1054: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n5.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1055: (a) \\
1056: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n6.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1057: (b)
1058: \end{tabular}
1059: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to h^0h^0+X$ via
1060: $b\bar b$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1061: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1062: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1063: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1064: For comparison, also the quark loop contribution to $gg$ fusion (dotted lines)
1065: is shown.}
1066: \label{fig:hh}
1067: \end{center}
1068: \end{figure}
1069:
1070: \newpage
1071: \begin{figure}[ht]
1072: \begin{center}
1073: \begin{tabular}{c}
1074: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n7.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1075: (a) \\
1076: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n8.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1077: (b)
1078: \end{tabular}
1079: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to h^0H^0+X$ via
1080: $b\bar b$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1081: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1082: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1083: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1084: For comparison, also the quark loop contribution to $gg$ fusion (dotted lines)
1085: is shown.}
1086: \label{fig:hH}
1087: \end{center}
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090: \newpage
1091: \begin{figure}[ht]
1092: \begin{center}
1093: \begin{tabular}{c}
1094: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n9.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1095: (a) \\
1096: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n10.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1097: (b)
1098: \end{tabular}
1099: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to H^0H^0+X$ via
1100: $b\bar b$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1101: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1102: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1103: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1104: For comparison, also the quark loop contribution to $gg$ fusion (dotted lines)
1105: is shown.}
1106: \label{fig:HH}
1107: \end{center}
1108: \end{figure}
1109:
1110: \newpage
1111: \begin{figure}[ht]
1112: \begin{center}
1113: \begin{tabular}{c}
1114: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n11.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1115: (a) \\
1116: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n12.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1117: (b)
1118: \end{tabular}
1119: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to A^0A^0+X$ via
1120: $b\bar b$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1121: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1122: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1123: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1124: For comparison, also the quark loop contribution to $gg$ fusion (dotted lines)
1125: is shown.}
1126: \label{fig:AA}
1127: \end{center}
1128: \end{figure}
1129:
1130: \newpage
1131: \begin{figure}[ht]
1132: \begin{center}
1133: \begin{tabular}{c}
1134: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n13.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1135: (a) \\
1136: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n14.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1137: (b)
1138: \end{tabular}
1139: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to h^0A^0+X$ via
1140: $q\bar q$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1141: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1142: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1143: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1144: For comparison, also the Drell-Yan contribution to $q\bar q$ annihilation
1145: (dotted lines) is shown.}
1146: \label{fig:hA}
1147: \end{center}
1148: \end{figure}
1149:
1150: \newpage
1151: \begin{figure}[ht]
1152: \begin{center}
1153: \begin{tabular}{c}
1154: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n15.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1155: (a) \\
1156: \parbox{12cm}{\epsfig{figure=n16.eps,width=12cm}} \\
1157: (b)
1158: \end{tabular}
1159: \caption{Total cross sections $\sigma$ (in fb) of $pp\to H^0A^0+X$ via
1160: $q\bar q$ annihilation (dashed lines) and $gg$ fusion (solid lines) at the LHC
1161: (a) as functions of $m_{A^0}$ for $\tan\beta=3$ (starting at
1162: $m_{A^0}=240$~GeV) and 30 (starting at $m_{A^0}=90$~GeV); and (b) as functions
1163: of $\tan\beta$ for $m_{A^0}=300$~GeV.
1164: For comparison, also the Drell-Yan contribution to $q\bar q$ annihilation
1165: (dotted lines) is shown.}
1166: \label{fig:HA}
1167: \end{center}
1168: \end{figure}
1169:
1170: \end{document}
1171: