1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Muon g-2
3: % T.Blazek,S.F.King
4: %
5: % Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton
6: % Southampton, SO9 5NH, U.K.
7: %
8: %
9: %
10: %
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
13: \textwidth 6.0in
14: \textheight 9.0in
15: \topmargin 0.0in
16: \oddsidemargin 0.5in
17: \evensidemargin 0.5in
18: \parskip 0.08in
19:
20: \hfuzz=9mm
21: \input epsf
22:
23: \def\rulerheight{0.5pt}
24: \def\hc{{\dagger}}
25: \def\tp{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}
26: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}}
27: \def\U1{$U(1)$}
28: \def\SU5{$SU(5)$}
29: \def\SO10{$SO(10)$}
30: \def\422{$SU(4)\otimes SU(2)_L \otimes SU(2)_R$}
31: \def\MX{$M_X$}
32: \def\diag.{\hbox{diag.}}
33: \def\muegamma{\hbox{$\mu\to e+\gamma$\ }}
34: \def\taumugamma{\hbox{$\tau\to\mu+\gamma$\ }}
35: \def\refeqn#1{(\ref{#1})}
36: \def\M_U{\hbox{$M_U$}\ }
37: \def\M_P{\hbox{$M_P$}\ }
38: \def\SM{{SM}}
39: \def\tanb{\hbox{$\tan \beta$}}
40: \def\GeV{{GeV}}
41: \def\MSSM+N{\hbox{MSSM+$\nu$}}
42: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
43: \def\bigsim{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle >} \over {\scriptstyle \sim} }\>}}
44: \def\smlsim{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle <} \over {\scriptstyle \sim} }\>}}
45: \def\bigsml{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle >} \over {\scriptstyle <}}\>}}
46: \def\smlbig{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle <} \over {\scriptstyle >}}\>}}
47: \def\ssstyle{\scriptscriptstyle}
48: \def\MBsl{M_{\rm B \!\!\!\!\!\> /}}
49:
50: \def\ibid{{\it ibid.}}
51: \def\ie{{\it i.e.~}}
52:
53:
54: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
55: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
56: \newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
57: \newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
58: \newcommand\ba{\begin{array}}
59: \newcommand\ea{\end{array}}
60:
61: \begin{document}
62: \baselineskip 24pt
63: \newcommand{\sheptitle}
64: {Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma $ \\
65: in a
66: Realistic String-Inspired Model of Neutrino Masses}
67:
68: \newcommand{\shepauthor}
69: {T. Bla\v{z}ek$^*$ and S. F. King}
70:
71: \newcommand{\shepaddress}
72: {Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton \\
73: Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K}
74:
75: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
76: % ABSTRACT
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \newcommand{\shepabstract}
79: {We discuss the lepton sector of
80: a realistic string-inspired model
81: based on the Pati-Salam $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$
82: gauge group supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry.
83: The model involves third family Yukawa unification, predicts
84: large $\tan \beta\sim 50$, and describes all fermion masses and
85: mixing angles, including approximate bi-maximal mixing in the neutrino
86: sector. Atmospheric neutrino mixing is achieved via a large
87: 23 entry in the neutrino Yukawa matrix which can have important
88: phenomenological effects.
89: We find that the recent
90: BNL result on the muon ($g-2$) can be easily accommodated
91: in a large portion of the SUSY parameter space of this model.
92: Over this region of parameter space the model predicts
93: a CP-even Higgs mass
94: near 115 GeV, and a rate for \taumugamma which is close
95: to its current experimental limit.
96: %
97: % We concentrate on the lepton sector of this model,
98: % emphasising the relation between the muon ($g-2$),
99: % neutrino masses and mixing angles
100: % and lepton flavour violation, especially \taumugamma.
101: %
102: }
103:
104: \begin{titlepage}
105: \begin{flushright}
106: hep-ph/0105005
107: \end{flushright}
108: \begin{center}
109: {\large{\bf \sheptitle}}
110: \\ \shepauthor \\ \mbox{} \\ {\it \shepaddress} \\
111: {\bf Abstract} \bigskip \end{center} \setcounter{page}{0}
112: \shepabstract
113: \begin{flushleft}
114: \today
115: \end{flushleft}
116:
117: \vskip 0.1in
118: \noindent
119: $^*${\footnotesize On leave of absence from
120: the Dept. of Theoretical Physics, Comenius Univ., Bratislava, Slovakia}
121:
122: \end{titlepage}
123:
124: \newpage
125:
126: Recently the BNL E821 Muon g-2 Collaboration has reported a precise
127: measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment \cite{muon}
128: $a_{\mu}(exp)=(g-2)/2$,
129: \beq
130: a_{\mu}(exp)=(11,659,202 \pm 15)\times 10^{-10}.
131: \eeq
132: When combined with the other four most recent measurements
133: the world average of $a_\mu$ is now higher than
134: the Standard Model (SM) prediction,
135: \beq
136: a_{\mu}(SM)=(11,659,160 \pm 7)\times 10^{-10}
137: \eeq
138: by $(43\pm16)\times 10^{-10}$ which corresponds to a discrepancy of
139: $2.6\sigma$.
140: It is well known that Supersymmetry (SUSY) gives an additional contribution
141: to $a_{\mu}(SM)$ which is dominated by the chargino exchange diagram and
142: approximately given by
143: \beq
144: \Delta a_{\mu}(SUSY)\sim \frac{\alpha_2}{4\pi}
145: \left(\frac{\mu M_2m_{\mu}^2}{M_{SUSY}^4}\right) \tan \beta
146: \eeq
147: where $\alpha_2$ is the $SU(2)$ gauge coupling,
148: $\mu$ is the SUSY Higgs mass parameter,
149: $M_2$ is $SU(2)$ gaugino mass,
150: $m_{\mu}$ is the muon mass,
151: $M_{SUSY}$ represents the
152: %chargino or sneutrino mass,
153: heaviest sparticle mass in the loop,
154: and $\tan \beta$ is the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values (VEVs).
155: Note that the sign of $\Delta a_{\mu}(SUSY)$
156: depends on the sign of $\mu$ (relative to $M_2$).
157:
158: Well before the experimental result from BNL was published,
159: it was realised that the additional SUSY contribution $\Delta a_{\mu}(SUSY)$
160: could be of the correct order of magnitude to be observed
161: by E821 providing that $\tan \beta$ is
162: sufficiently large, and the relevant superpartner masses $M_{SUSY}$ are
163: not too large \cite{old_amu_SUSY}.
164: Since the reported result, there has been a blizzard of theoretical
165: papers, showing how the result may be accomodated within
166: SUSY in detail and for various models \cite{blizzard}.
167: The general concensus of these recent studies is that
168: numerically the additional SUSY contribution is sufficient
169: to account for the discrepancy between the SM value
170: and the experimental value, providing that $\tan \beta \bigsim 10$ and
171: $M_{SUSY}\smlsim 500$ GeV, and of course that the sign of $\mu$ is positive.
172:
173: Large $\tan \beta$ is also required in order to
174: have a Higgs boson of mass 115 GeV \cite{115}
175: (where the LEP signal has a significance of $2.9\sigma$)
176: and it is encouraging that both signals point in the same
177: direction of large $\tan \beta$. It is even more encouraging
178: that some well motivated unified models have long predicted that
179: $\tan \beta$ is large. In particular models based on the gauge groups
180: \SO10 or the Pati-Salam group \422 predict Yukawa unification
181: which in turn implies $\tanb \sim 50$
182: \cite{KiSh,KiOl2}. Is experiment
183: giving us a hint that Nature favours one of these Yukawa unification
184: models which predict large \tanb?
185:
186: There is a further piece of experimental evidence in favour of
187: these models, namely that they both contain gauged $SU(2)_R$
188: symmetry and hence they both predict three right-handed neutrinos
189: and hence non-zero neutrino masses. Thus in these models neutrino
190: masses are compulsory, and not optional as in $SU(5)$ for
191: example. SuperKamiokande evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations
192: \cite{SKamiokandeColl} has taught us that
193: neutrino masses are non-zero and furthermore that the 23 mixing angle
194: is almost maximal. The evidence for solar neutrino oscillations
195: is almost as strong, although the conclusions are more ambiguous
196: \cite{GoPe}. A minimal interpretation of the atmospheric and solar
197: data is to have a three neutrino hierarchy. A simple
198: and natural interpretation of the data is
199: single right-handed neutrino dominance (SRHND) \cite{SRHND}.
200: In a large class of models, including those with SRHND,
201: the large atmospheric mixing angle is due to large and
202: equal couplings in the 23 and 33 entries of the Dirac neutrino
203: Yukawa matrix (in the LR basis)
204: \beq
205: Y_{\nu}
206: \sim
207: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
208: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
209: 0 & 0 & 1 \\
210: 0 & 0 & 1
211: \end{array}
212: \right)
213: \label{Yuk}
214: \eeq
215: corresponding to the dominant third right-handed neutrino coupling
216: equally to the second and third lepton doublets.
217: The see-saw mechanism yields a physical neutrino with a mass
218: about $5\times 10^{-2}$ eV consistent with the SuperKamiokande
219: observation providing the third right-handed neutrino mass is
220: $M_{R3} \approx 3\times 10^{14}$ GeV \cite{KiOl2}.
221:
222: The large off-diagonal Yukawa coupling in Eq.\ref{Yuk} will have
223: an important effect on the 23 block of the slepton doublet soft mass squared
224: matrix $m_L^2$, when the renormalisation group equations (RGEs)
225: are run down from $M_{GUT}$ to the mass scale of the
226: third right-handed neutrino $M_{R3}$. In order to see this it is
227: instructive to examine the RGEs for $m_L^2$,
228: \bea
229: \frac{d m_L^2}{dt} & = & \left(\frac{d m_L^2}{dt}\right)_{Y_{\nu}=0}
230: \nonumber \\
231: & - & \frac{1}{32\pi^2}\left[
232: Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger m_L^2+m_L^2Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger
233: +2Y_{\nu}m_N^2Y_{\nu}^\dagger+2(m_{H_u}^2)Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger
234: +2\tilde{A}_{\nu}\tilde{A}_{\nu}^\dagger
235: \right]
236: \eea
237: where $m_N^2$, $m_{H_u}^2$ are the soft mass squareds of the
238: right-handed sneutrinos and up-type Higgs doublet,
239: $\tilde{A}_{\nu}$ is the soft trilinear mass parameter associated
240: with the neutrino Yukawa coupling, and $t=\ln (M_{GUT}^2/\mu^2)$,
241: where $\mu $ is the $\bar{MS}$ scale.
242: The first term on the right-hand side represents
243: terms which do not depend on the neutrino Yukawa coupling.
244: Assuming universal soft parameters at $M_{GUT}$,
245: $m_L^2(0)=m_N^2(0)=m_0^2I$, where $I$ is the
246: unit matrix, and $\tilde{A}_{\nu}(0)=A Y_{\nu}$, we have
247: \beq
248: \frac{d m_L^2}{dt} = \left(\frac{d m_L^2}{dt}\right)_{Y_{\nu}=0}
249: - \frac{(3m_0^2+A^2)}{16\pi^2}\left[ Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger \right]
250: \eeq
251: where in the basis in which the charged lepton Yukawa couplings
252: are diagonal, the first term on the right-hand side
253: is diagonal. In running the RGEs between $M_{GUT}$ and $M_{R3}$ the neutrino
254: Yukawa couplings lead to an approximate contribution to the
255: slepton mass squared matrix of
256: \beq
257: \delta m_L^2 \approx -\frac{1}{16\pi^2}
258: \ln \left(\frac{M_{GUT}^2}{M_{R3}^2}\right)
259: (3m_0^2+A^2)
260: \left[ Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger \right]
261: \approx -0.1(3m_0^2+A^2)\left[ Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger \right]
262: \label{delta}
263: \eeq
264:
265: Using the SRHND form of the neutrino Yukawa matrix
266: in Eq.\ref{Yuk} we find
267: \beq
268: Y_{\nu}Y_{\nu}^\dagger
269: \sim
270: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
271: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
272: 0 & 1 & 1 \\
273: 0 & 1 & 1
274: \end{array}
275: \right)
276: \label{Yuksq}
277: \eeq
278: and according to Eq.\ref{delta} the large neutrino Yukawa coupling
279: in the 23 position will imply an off-diagonal
280: 23 flavour violation in the slepton mass squared matrix which
281: will be of order 5-10\% of the diagonal soft mass squareds,
282: and will be observable in the lepton flavour violating (LFV)
283: process \taumugamma.
284: In addition the 22 entry of the slepton mass squared matrix will
285: receive a 5-10\% correction which again is due to the large 23 neutrino
286: Yukawa coupling, and is much larger than the usual correction
287: due to the diagonal muon Yukawa coupling which is very small.
288: The large 22 entry in Eq.\ref{Yuksq} will thus
289: give a significant correction to the
290: relation between the GUT scale soft mass parameters and
291: the muon (g-2) estimates. The main purpose of the present paper
292: is to explore these observable effects in the framework of
293: a particular model which predicts Yukawa unification,
294: and hence large \tanb, namely the string-inspired Pati-Salam model
295: based on the gauge group \422 \cite{PaSa}.
296:
297: For completeness we briefly review the string-inspired Pati-Salam model.
298: As in $SO(10)$ the presence of the gauged $SU(2)_R$ predicts the
299: existence of three right-handed neutrinos.
300: However, unlike $SO(10)$, there is no Higgs doublet-triplet
301: splitting problem since
302: both Higgs doublets are unified into
303: a single multiplet $h$.
304: Heavy Higgs $H,\bar{H}$ are introduced
305: in order to break the symmetry.
306: The model leads to third family
307: Yukawa unification, as in minimal $SO(10)$, and the phenomenology
308: of this was recently discusssed \cite{KiOl2}.
309: Although the Pati-Salam gauge group is not unified at the
310: field theory level, it readily emerges from string constructions
311: either in the perturbative fermionic constructions \cite{AnLe},
312: or in the more recent type I string constructions \cite{ShTy},
313: unlike $SO(10)$ which typically requires large Higgs representations
314: which do not arise from the simplest string constructions.
315:
316: The Pati-Salam gauge group \cite{PaSa},
317: supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry, is
318: \begin{equation}
319: SU(4) \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes SU(2)_R\otimes U(1)
320: \end{equation}
321: with left (L) and right (R) handed
322: fermions transforming as $F_L\sim (4,2,1)$
323: and $F_R\sim ({4},1,2)$
324: in the superfield multiplets
325: \begin{equation}
326: {F^i_{L,R}}=
327: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
328: {u} & {u} & {u} & {\nu} \\
329: {d} & {d} & {d} & {e^-}
330: \end{array} \right)_{L,R}^i
331: \end{equation}
332: The Higgs $h$ contains the two MSSM Higgs doublets
333: and transforms as $h\sim (1,2,2)$
334: \begin{equation}
335: h=
336: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
337: {h_1}^0 & {h_2}^+ \\
338: {h_1}^- & {h_2}^0
339: \end{array} \right)
340: \end{equation}
341: The Higgs $H,\bar{H}$ transform as
342: $H\sim (4,1,2)$, $\bar{H}\sim (\bar{4},1,2)$
343: and develop VEVs which break the Pati-Salam group,
344: while $\theta, \bar{\theta}$ are Pati-Salam singlets
345: and develop VEVs which break the $U(1)$ family symmetry.
346: \begin{equation}
347: {H},\bar{H} =
348: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
349: {u_H} & { u_H} & { u_H} & { \nu_H} \\
350: { d_H} & { d_H} & { d_H} & { e_H^-}
351: \end{array} \right),\cdots
352: \end{equation}
353: We assume for convenience that all symmetry breaking
354: scales are at the GUT scale,
355: \begin{equation}
356: <H>=<\bar{H}>=<{ \nu_H}>\sim M \sim 10^{16}GeV
357: \end{equation}
358: \begin{equation}
359: <\theta>=<\bar{\theta}>\sim M \sim 10^{16}GeV
360: \end{equation}
361:
362: The fermion mass operators (responsible for Yukawa
363: matrices $Y_u$,$Y_d$,$Y_e$,$Y_{\nu}$) are \cite{Ops}:
364: \begin{equation}
365: (F^i_L \bar{F}^j_R )h\left(\frac{H\bar{H}}{M^2}\right)^n
366: \left(\frac{\theta}{M}\right)^p
367: \end{equation}
368: The third family is assumed to have zero $U(1)$ charge,
369: and the 33 operator is assumed to be the renormalisable operator with $n=p=0$
370: leading to Yukawa unification.
371: The remaining operators have $n>0$ with varying group contractions
372: involving $H\bar{H}$ leading to different Clebsch factors. The latter
373: are responsible for vertical mass splittings within a generation.
374: The mass splittings between different generations are
375: described by operators with $p>0$ arising from different
376: $U(1)$ charge assignments to the different families.
377: The Majorana mass operators (responsible for $M_{RR}$) are \cite{Ops}:
378: \begin{equation}
379: (\bar{F}^i_R\bar{F}^j_R )\left(\frac{HH}{M^2}\right)
380: \left(\frac{H\bar{H}}{M^2}\right) ^m
381: \left(\frac{\theta}{M}\right) ^q.
382: \end{equation}
383:
384: We recently discussed \cite{KO} neutrino masses
385: and mixing angles in the above string-inspired Pati-Salam model
386: supplemented by a $U(1)$ flavour symmetry.
387: We used the SRHND mechanism, which
388: may be implemented in the 422 model by having a 23 operator with
389: $p=0$ and $n=1$ where the Clebsch is non-zero in the neutrino
390: direction, but zero for charged fermions. This results
391: in a natural explanation for atmospheric neutrinos
392: via a hierarchical mass spectrum. We specifically
393: focused on the LMA MSW solution since this is slightly preferred by the
394: most recent fits, and assuming this
395: a particular model of high energy
396: Yukawa matrices which gave a good fit to all quark and lepton masses
397: and mixing angles was discussed \cite{KO}.
398: The numerical values
399: of the high energy Yukawa matrices
400: in this example are reproduced
401: in Table I.
402: To study lepton flavour violation focusing on
403: the effects of the large off-diagonal 23 entry
404: in $Y_\nu$, in this study we have further suppressed
405: the tiny entries ${Y_e}_{12}$,
406: ${Y_e}_{13}$, and ${Y_\nu}_{13}$ compared to the values quoted in
407: \cite{KO}.
408: Note that with the suppression above
409: the branching ratio $BR($\muegamma$)$ stays well below the
410: experimental limit, without substantially changing the predictions of
411: fermion masses and mixing angles. This
412: demonstrates that this channel is more
413: model dependent than \taumugamma which is our main focus in this paper.
414:
415: The neutrino Yukawa matrix in Table I has a similar structure to that
416: discussed in Eq.\ref{Yuk} and has large approximately equal
417: 23 and 33 elements. Thus the Yukawa matrices in Table I are examples
418: of the effect that leads to 5-10\% corrections to the 23 block
419: of the slepton mass squared matrix $m_L$ that we discussed previously.
420: We now turn to a numerical discussion of these effects.
421:
422:
423: \vbox{
424: \vbox{
425: \begin{center}
426: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
427: \noalign{\medskip}
428: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
429: \noalign{\smallskip}
430: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
431: \noalign{\medskip}
432: $
433: Y_u(M_X) $ & $=$ & $\left(\matrix{
434: \phantom{-}
435: 7.034\times 10^{-6} &
436: \phantom{-}
437: 4.079\times 10^{-4} &
438: \phantom{-}
439: 4.324\times 10^{-3} \cr
440: \phantom{-}
441: 3.991\times 10^{-5} &
442: \phantom{-}
443: 1.466\times 10^{-3} &
444: \phantom{-}
445: 0.000 \cr
446: \phantom{-}
447: 3.528\times 10^{-5} &
448: -
449: 3.748\times 10^{-3} &
450: \phantom{-}
451: 0.677 }\right)
452: $ \\
453: \noalign{\smallskip}
454: $
455: Y_d(M_X)$ & $=$ & $\left(\matrix{
456: -
457: 2.331\times 10^{-4} &
458: -
459: 4.079\times 10^{-4} &
460: \phantom{-}
461: 8.648\times 10^{-3} \cr
462: \phantom{-}
463: 4.609\times 10^{-4} &
464: -
465: 8.827\times 10^{-3} &
466: \phantom{-}
467: 2.157\times 10^{-2} \cr
468: -
469: 8.246\times 10^{-4} &
470: \phantom{-}
471: 1.506\times 10^{-2} &
472: \phantom{-}
473: 0.677 }\right)
474: $ \\
475: \noalign{\smallskip}
476: $
477: Y_e(M_X)$ & $=$ & $\left(\matrix{
478: -
479: 1.748\times 10^{-4} &
480: \phantom{-}
481: 3.884\times 10^{-5} &
482: \phantom{-}
483: 8.574\times 10^{-4} \cr
484: \phantom{-}
485: 9.219\times 10^{-4} &
486: \phantom{-}
487: 3.015\times 10^{-2} &
488: -
489: 6.472\times 10^{-2} \cr
490: -
491: 6.184\times 10^{-4} &
492: \phantom{-}
493: 1.501\times 10^{-2} &
494: \phantom{-}
495: 0.677}\right)
496: $ \\
497: \noalign{\smallskip}
498: $
499: Y_\nu(M_X)$ & $=$ & $\left(\matrix{
500: \phantom{-}
501: 7.034\times 10^{-6} &
502: \phantom{-}
503: 2.401\times 10^{-3} &
504: \phantom{-}
505: 7.710\times 10^{-4} \cr
506: \phantom{-}
507: 2.993\times 10^{-5} &
508: \phantom{-}
509: 2.932\times 10^{-3} &
510: \phantom{-}
511: 0.440 \cr
512: \phantom{-}
513: 3.528\times 10^{-5} &
514: -
515: 2.811\times 10^{-3} &
516: \phantom{-}
517: 0.677}\right)
518: $ \\
519: \noalign{\smallskip}
520: $
521: M_{RR}(M_X)$ & $=$ & $\left(\matrix{
522: \phantom{-}
523: 3.991 \times 10^{ 8}\phantom{^1} &
524: \phantom{-}
525: 5.652 \times 10^{ 9}\phantom{^1} &
526: \phantom{-}
527: 1.040 \times 10^{11} \cr
528: \phantom{-}
529: 5.652 \times 10^{ 9}\phantom{^1} &
530: \phantom{-}
531: 1.706 \times 10^{11} &
532: \phantom{-}
533: 1.866 \times 10^{12} \cr
534: \phantom{-}
535: 1.040 \times 10^{11} &
536: \phantom{-}
537: 1.866 \times 10^{12} &
538: \phantom{-}
539: 3.090 \times 10^{14} \cr
540: }\right)
541: $ \\
542: \noalign{\medskip}
543: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
544: \noalign{\smallskip}
545: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
546: \end{tabular}
547: \end{center}
548: {\footnotesize Table I. Yukawa matrices at $M_{GUT}$ (from
549: ref.\cite{KO}) where the matrix elements of $M_{RR}$ are in GeV.}
550: }}
551:
552:
553: In our numerical analysis we have adopted a complete top-down approach
554: \cite{BCRW}.
555: At the GUT scale we kept $1/\alpha_{GUT}=24.5223$,
556: $ M_{GUT}=3.0278\times 10^{16}$GeV,
557: $\epsilon_3\equiv (\alpha_3(M_{GUT})-\alpha_{GUT})/\alpha_{GUT} =
558: -4.0568\%$, and the matrices in table I as fixed.
559: Here $\alpha_{GUT} = \alpha_{2L} = \alpha_1$, and
560: $\alpha_3 = \alpha_4$.
561: For simplicity, the soft scalar masses of the MSSM superfields
562: were introduced at the same scale. Including the $D$ terms from the
563: breaking of the Pati-Salam gauge group they read \cite{KiOl2}
564: \begin{equation}
565: \begin{array}{lcl}
566: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
567: m_Q^2 &=& m_{F_L}^2 + g_4^2\,D^2 \\
568: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
569: m_{u_R}^2 &=& m_{F_R}^2 - (g_4^2-2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \\
570: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
571: m_{d_R}^2 &=& m_{F_R}^2 - (g_4^2+2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \\
572: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
573: m_L^2 &=& m_{F_L}^2 - 3g_4^2\,D^2 \\
574: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
575: m_{e_R}^2 &=& m_{F_R}^2 +(3g_4^2-2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \\
576: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
577: m_{\nu_R}^2 &=& m_{F_R}^2 +(3g_4^2+2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \\
578: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
579: m_{H_u}^2 &=& m_{h }^2 - 2g_{2R}^2 \, D^2 \\
580: \mbox{\rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.5cm}}
581: m_{H_d}^2 &=& m_{h }^2 + 2g_{2R}^2 \, D^2.
582: \end{array}
583: \label{eq:D}
584: \end{equation}
585: In the numerical analysis we kept the equality between the two
586: soft SUSY breaking scalar masses $m_{F_L}=m_{F_R}\equiv m_{F}$.
587: Two-loop RGEs for the dimensionless couplings and
588: one-loop RGEs for the dimensionful couplings were used to
589: run all couplings down to the scale $M_{3R}$ where the heaviest
590: right-handed neutrino decoupled from the RGEs. Similar steps
591: were taken for the lighter $M_{2R}$ and $M_{1R}$ scales,
592: and finally with all three right-handed neutrinos decoupled
593: the solutions for the MSSM couplings were computed at the $Z$ scale.
594: $m_h$ and $D$ in Eqs.\ref{eq:D}
595: were varied to optimize radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB),
596: which was checked at one loop
597: following the effective potential method in \cite{EPM}.
598: As $\tan\beta$ determines the Higgs bilinear parameter $B\mu$,
599: there is a redundancy in our procedure since two input parameters,
600: $m_h$ and $D$, determine one condition for the Higgs VEV of $246\,$GeV.
601: This freedom was removed by favouring solutions with low
602: $CP$ odd Higgs mass $m_{A^0}$ as a result of the observation
603: that values of $m_{A^0}$ at the upper end of the range
604: allowed by REWSB at a given $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ point
605: are correlated, through the choice of the $D$, with low
606: values for the stau mass which then in turn push the branching ratio
607: $BR($\taumugamma$)$ above the experimental limit. For this reason
608: we introduced a mild penalty $\chi^2$ into our analysis to favour
609: REWSB solutions with low values of $m_{A^0}$.
610: This top-down approach enabled us to control the $\mu$ parameter
611: as well as $\tan\beta$. We explored regions with $\mu$ low
612: ($\mu = 120$GeV) and high ($\mu = 300$GeV) \footnote
613: {
614: For $\tan\beta$ as large as 50, $\mu\gg 300$GeV
615: leads to too large SUSY threshold corrections to the
616: masses of the third generation fermions $\tau$ and $b$
617: unless the sparticles in the loop have masses well above
618: the $1$ TeV region.
619: \cite{large_mb,BCRW}
620: }.
621: As a reference point we kept $\tan\beta=50$, and
622: the universal trilinear coupling $A=0$.
623: An experimental lower bound on each sparticle mass was imposed.
624: In particular,
625: the most constraining are: the LEP limits on the charged SUSY masses
626: ($m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm},m_{\tilde{\tau}}>105$GeV), the CDF limit
627: on the mass of the $CP$ odd Higgs state
628: ($m_{A^0}>105$-$110\,$GeV, valid for $\tan\beta\approx 50$) \cite{Tevatron},
629: and the requirement that the lightest SUSY particle should be neutral.
630: \footnote
631: {
632: Note that in this study we are primarily concerned with the
633: lepton sector of the model and the effects of the large
634: 23 element of the $Y_\nu$ in Eq.4. For this reason we drop
635: two important constraints in the quark sector from the
636: analysis. In particular, we do not consider the constraints
637: imposed by the $BR(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ and accept the
638: $b$ quark mass heavier than the value in \cite{PDG}
639: by about 15\%. We assume that the complete theory at the high
640: energy scale will induce additional corrections to the quark yukawa
641: couplings possibly through a set of higher dimensional operators
642: of the form (15) modifying the quark input parameters in table I.
643: }
644:
645: The results are presented as plots in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane.
646: In figure \ref{f:mh_and_D} we show the best fit values for
647: the quantities at the GUT scale which were varied to obtain the
648: electroweak symmetry breaking.
649: As explained in the previous paragraph these values are not unique,
650: but preferred. We note that,
651: clearly, the $D$ terms in Eqs.\ref{eq:D} are just a fraction
652: of the scalar mass $m_F$ while the scalar higgs mass parameter $m_h$ is
653: generally found to be greater than $m_F$.
654: The sharp turns in the contour
655: lines of constant $D$ below $M_{1/2}\approx400 GeV$ result from
656: the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_{A^0}$ reaching the
657: experimental lower bound, as demonstrated on plots (c) and (d)
658: in figure 2.
659: The parameters $m_h$ and $D$ can still adapt to this change
660: for $M_{1/2} < 400 GeV$.
661: The allowed
662: $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ region is finally bounded from below
663: because of the too low chargino mass. This bound is
664: at $M_{1/2}\approx 280$GeV for $\mu=120$GeV, and
665: $M_{1/2}\approx 140$GeV for $\mu=300$GeV.
666: The region to the left of the contour lines is disallowed
667: due to the stau lighter than any neutral SUSY particle.
668:
669: In figure \ref{f:mh0_and_mA0} we plot the spectrum of the two neutral
670: Higgs bosons $h^0$ and $A^0$.
671: For low $M_{1/2}$ their masses are degenerate while
672: for higher values of $M_{1/2}$ the pseudoscalar Higgs becomes degenerate
673: with the heavier of the two $CP$ even Higgs states. Our analysis shows
674: that the mass of
675: the lighter $CP$ even state is preferred to be in the range $112$--$117$GeV
676: for soft SUSY masses below $1\,$TeV.
677: The pseudoscalar mass is quite sensitive to the
678: magnitude of the $D$ terms and, as was explained earlier, it was
679: mildly pushed towards lower values as an additional condition
680: on top of the REWSB conditions.
681:
682: Figure \ref{f:amu_and_tmg} represents the main results of this study.
683: It shows that the constraints from the recent BNL experiment are
684: consistent with all other constraints imposed on the model.
685: In fact, as shown in plots (a) and (b) the BNL $2\sigma$ region
686: practically overlaps with the
687: portion of the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane below $1\,$TeV
688: allowed by the direct sparticle searches.
689: As promised in the text after Eq.\ref{Yuksq} we also focused
690: on the contribution to $a_\mu$ from the 22 entry in the slepton
691: matrix in (\ref{delta})
692: generated by the large 23 entry in (\ref{Yuk}). In our numerical
693: analysis the $\chi^2$ minimization procedure was extended to maximise
694: this contribution. Nevertheless the maximum enhancement we found
695: was on the level of 6\%.
696:
697: The large 23 entry in (\ref{Yuk})
698: makes an important contribution to the lepton flavour violating decay
699: \taumugamma. Plots (c) and (d) present the contour lines obtained
700: in the same analysis. The computed values should be compared to the
701: experimental
702: upper limit $BR($\taumugamma$) < 1.1\times 10^{-6}$ at $90$\% C.L..
703: These predictions are quite robust. In order to reduce this branching
704: ratio below the experimental limit over the entire plane we
705: found we had to vary all initial parameters to rather extreme values,
706: including lowering
707: $\tan\beta$ as much as by 10 and increasing the trilinear parameter
708: $A$ into the TeV range.
709:
710:
711:
712:
713: In conclusion, we have discussed the lepton sector of
714: a realistic string-inspired model
715: based on the Pati-Salam $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$
716: gauge group supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry.
717: The model involves third family Yukawa unification, predicts
718: large $\tan \beta\sim 50$, and describes all fermion masses and
719: mixing angles, including approximate bi-maximal mixing in the neutrino sector.
720: In particular atmospheric neutrino mixing is achieved via a large
721: 23 entry in the neutrino Yukawa matrix which we have shown to have important
722: phenomenological effects.
723: We find that the recent
724: BNL result on the muon ($g-2$) can be easily accommodated
725: in a large portion of the SUSY parameter space of the model.
726: Over this region of parameter space
727: the model predicts a
728: CP-even Higgs boson mass near 115 GeV,
729: and a rate for \taumugamma
730: which is close to the current experimental limit.
731: We find it encouraging that
732: all of these phenomenological features
733: can be simultaneously
734: accomodated within a simple string-inspired model
735: such as the one considered in this study.
736:
737:
738: \vskip 0.1in
739: \noindent
740: {\large {\bf Acknowledgments}}\\
741: T.B. would like to thank
742: R.~Derm\'{\i}\v{s}ek
743: for his help regarding the numerical procedure
744: used in this analysis.
745: S.K. thanks PPARC for a Senior Fellowship.
746:
747:
748:
749:
750:
751:
752:
753:
754: \newpage
755:
756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
757: % REFERENCES
758: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
759:
760: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
761:
762: \bibitem{muon}
763: Muon g-2 Collaboration, H.N.Brown \etal, hep-ex/0102017.
764:
765: \bibitem{old_amu_SUSY} J.~Lopez, D.V.~Nanopoulos, and X.~Wang,
766: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 49}, 366 (1991);
767: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
768: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}, 1648 (1996);
769: T.~Moroi,
770: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}, 6565 (1996);
771: M.~Carena, G.F.~Giudice, and C.E.M.~Wagner,
772: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 390}, 234 (1997);
773: T.Bla\v{z}ek, hep-ph/9912460.
774:
775: \bibitem{blizzard}
776: L. Everett, G.L.Kane, S.Rigolin and L.Wang, hep-ph/0102145;\\
777: J.L.Feng and K.T.Matchev, hep-ph/0102146;\\
778: E.A.Baltz and P.Gondolo, hep-ph/0102147;\\
779: U.Chattopadhyay and P.Nath, hep-ph/0102157;\\
780: S.Komine, T.Moroi and M.Yamaguchi, hep-ph/0102204;\\
781: J.Hisano and K.Tobe, hep-ph/0102315;\\
782: J.Ellis, D.V.Nanopoulos and K.A.Olive, hep-ph/0102331;\\
783: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu, and Y.~Santoso, hep-ph/0102344.
784: % Phys. Lett. B{\bf 505}, 177 (2001),
785:
786: \bibitem{115}
787: G.L.Kane, S.F.King and L.Wang, hep-ph/0010312.
788:
789: \bibitem{KiSh}
790: S. F. King and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. {\bf B422}, 135 (1998);
791: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, S.~Raby, and K.~Tobe,
792: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}:055001 (2000).
793:
794: \bibitem{KiOl2}
795: S. F. King, M. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}:015010 (2001),
796: hep-ph/0008183.
797:
798: \bibitem{SKamiokandeColl}
799: Y. Fukuda \etal, Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
800: Phys. Lett. {\bf B433}, 9 (1998);
801: \ibid\ Phys. Lett. {\bf B436}, 33 (1998);
802: \ibid\ Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998).
803:
804: \bibitem{GoPe}
805: % GLOBAL AND UNIFIED ANALYSIS OF SOLAR NEUTRINO DATA.
806: % By M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay (Valencia U., IFIC).
807: %IFIC-00-50, Sep 2000. 18pp.
808: % e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0009041
809: M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pe\~na-Garay, hep-ph/0009041.
810:
811: \bibitem{SRHND}
812: S. F. King, Phys. Lett. {\bf B439}, 350 (1998);
813: S. F. King, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B562}, 57 (1999);
814: S. F. King, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B576}, 85 (2000).
815:
816:
817:
818: %---- Refs. for Pati-Salam Model. --------------------
819:
820: \bibitem{PaSa}
821: J. C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 275 (1974).
822:
823: \bibitem{AnLe}
824: I. Antoniadis and G. K. Leontaris, Phys. Lett. {\bf B216}, 333 (1989);
825: I. Antoniadis and G. K. Leontaris, and J. Rizos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B245}, 161 (1990).
826:
827: %-------
828:
829: \bibitem{ShTy}
830: % TEV SCALE SUPERSTRING AND EXTRA DIMENSIONS.
831: G. Shiu, S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 106007 (1998).
832:
833: %----- King operators in the 422 model
834: \bibitem{Ops}
835: S. F. King, Phys. Lett. {\bf B325}, 129 (1994);\\
836: B. C. Allanach, S.F. King, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B456}, 57 (1995);\\
837: B. C. Allanach, S. F. King, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B459}, 75 (1996);\\
838: B. C. Allanach, S. F. King, G. K. Leontaris, S. Lola,
839: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 2632 (1997);
840:
841:
842: \bibitem{KO}
843: S.F.King and M.Oliveira, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}:095004 (2001),
844: hep-ph/0009287.
845:
846: \bibitem{BCRW} T.~Bla\v{z}ek, M.~Carena, S.~Raby and C.E.M.~Wagner,
847: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56}, 6919 (1997).
848:
849: \bibitem{EPM} M.Carena, J.R.~Espinosa, M.Quiros and C.~Wagner,
850: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 355}, 209 (1995);
851: M.Carena, M.Quiros and C.~Wagner,
852: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 461}, 407 (1996);
853: J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros and A.~Riotto,
854: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 436}, 3 (1995).
855:
856: \bibitem{Tevatron} CDF coll., ``Search for Neutral Supersymmetric
857: Higgs Bosons in $p\bar{p}$ Collisions
858: at $\sqrt{s}=1.8$ TeV'', hep-ex/0010052.
859:
860:
861: \bibitem{large_mb} R.~Hempfling,
862: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 49}, 6168 (1994).
863: L.~Hall, R.~Ratazzi and U.~Sarid,
864: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 50}, 7048 (1994).
865: M.~Carena, M.~Olechowski, S.~Pokorski and C.~Wagner,
866: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 426}, 269 (1994).
867: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, S.~Raby, and S.~Pokorski,
868: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 52}, 4151 (1995).
869:
870: \bibitem{PDG} J.~Bartels \etal\ (Particle Data Group),
871: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15}, 1 (2000).
872:
873:
874:
875: \end{thebibliography}
876:
877: \newpage
878:
879:
880: \begin{figure}[p]
881: \epsfysize=6.5truein
882: \epsffile{mh_and_D.eps}
883: \caption{
884: Contour lines of GUT scale parameters $m_h$ and $D$
885: determined by the condition of the radiative electroweak
886: symmetry breaking, for two different values of $\mu$.
887: (a) $m_h$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
888: (b) $m_h$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
889: (c) $D$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
890: (d) $D$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
891: Values in the plots are in GeV. In all plots
892: $\tan\beta=50$, $A=0$, and $m_F=m_{F_L}=m_{F_R}$.
893: }
894: \label{f:mh_and_D}
895: \end{figure}
896:
897:
898: \begin{figure}[p]
899: \epsfysize=6.5truein
900: \epsffile{mh0_and_mA0.eps}
901: \caption{
902: Contour lines of the light $CP$ even Higgs mass
903: $m_{h^0}$ and pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_{A^0}$,
904: for two different values of $\mu$.
905: (a) $m_{h^0}$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
906: (b) $m_{h^0}$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
907: (c) $m_{A^0}$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
908: (d) $m_{A^0}$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
909: Values in the plots are in GeV. In all plots
910: $\tan\beta=50$, $A=0$, and $m_F=m_{F_L}=m_{F_R}$.
911: }
912: \label{f:mh0_and_mA0}
913: \end{figure}
914:
915:
916: \begin{figure}[p]
917: \epsfysize=6.5truein
918: \epsffile{amu_and_tmg.eps}
919: \caption{
920: Contour lines of $\:\delta a_\mu({SUSY})\times 10^{10}$
921: and $\:BR$(\taumugamma)$\times 10^{6}$,
922: for two different values of $\mu$.
923: (a) $\delta a_\mu({SUSY})\times 10^{10}$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
924: (b) $\delta a_\mu({SUSY})\times 10^{10}$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
925: (c) $BR$(\taumugamma)$\times 10^{6}$, for $\mu=120$GeV. $\;$
926: (d) $BR$(\taumugamma)$\times 10^{6}$, for $\mu=300$GeV. $\;$
927: In (a) and (b) the long-dashed curve marks the central value for
928: $a_\mu$ not accounted for by the Standard Model, while the short-dashed
929: curves mark the 2$\sigma$ limits of this quantity.
930: The experimental upper limit on $\:BR$(\taumugamma)
931: is $1.1\times 10^{6}$ \cite{PDG}.
932: In all plots
933: $\tan\beta=50$, $A=0$, and $m_F=m_{F_L}=m_{F_R}$.
934: }
935: \label{f:amu_and_tmg}
936: \end{figure}
937:
938:
939:
940:
941:
942:
943:
944:
945:
946:
947:
948: \end{document}
949:
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951: % END OF DOCUMENT
952: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
953:
954: