1: %=============================================================================
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{epsf,epsfig,cite}
4: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}
5: \textwidth6.5in
6: \textheight8.7in
7: \oddsidemargin0.0in
8: \topmargin-0.5in
9:
10: %==================== time stamp and draft macros ======================
11: % \clock returns time in hours:minutes on a AM/PM basis
12: % \fullclock returns time in hours:minutes on a 24 hour basis
13: % \let\rel@x=\relax
14: \newcount\timecount
15: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours
16:
17: \hours = \time
18: \divide\hours by 60
19: \temp = \hours
20: \multiply\temp by 60
21: \minutes = \time
22: \advance\minutes by -\temp
23: \def\hour{\the\hours}
24: \def\minute{\ifnum\minutes<10 0\the\minutes
25: \else\the\minutes\fi}
26: \def\clock{
27: \ifnum\hours=0 12:\minute\ AM
28: \else\ifnum\hours<12 \hour:\minute\ AM
29: \else\ifnum\hours=12 12:\minute\ PM
30: \else\ifnum\hours>12
31: \pmhours=\hours
32: \advance\pmhours by -12
33: \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM
34: \fi
35: \fi
36: \fi
37: \fi
38: }
39: \def\fullclock{\hour:\minute}
40: \def\monthname{\relax\ifcase\month 0/\or January\or February\or
41: March\or April\or May\or June\or July\or August\or September\or
42: October\or November\or December\else\number\month/\fi}
43: \def\today{\monthname~\number\day, \number\year}
44:
45: % this gives you a boldface character in math mode.
46: \def\bold#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%
47: \kern-.025em\copy0\kern-\wd0
48: \kern.05em\copy0\kern-\wd0
49: \kern-.025em\raise.0433em\box0 }
50:
51: \def\draft{$\bold{
52: \hbox{\tt Draft: printed \clock, \today.}
53: }$\par\noindent}
54: %============= end of time stamp and draft macros ============
55:
56: \newcommand{\mycomm}[1]{\hfill\break{ \tt===$>$ \bf #1}\hfill\break}
57: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}
58: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
59:
60: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}
61: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
62:
63:
64: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
65: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
66: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}
67: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}
68: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
69: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
70: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
71: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}
72: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}
73: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}
74: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}
75: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}
76: \def\mpar{m_{\ss\|}^2}
77: \def\mpl{M_{\rm Pl}}
78: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}
79: \def\mcha{m_{\chi^{\pm}}}
80: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\chi} h^2}
81: \def\msn{m_{\tilde\nu}}
82: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}
83: \def\mstpl{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 1}}^2}
84: \def\mstpr{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 2}}^2}
85: \def\tb{\tan\beta}
86:
87: \def\bsg{{{\mathrm B\!\to\!X_s}\gamma}}
88: \def\Bsg{{{\cal B}_{s\gamma}}}
89: \def\Bsgth{{{\cal B}^{theor}_{s\gamma}}}
90: \def\Bsgme{{{\cal B}^{meas}_{s\gamma}}}
91: \def\Bsgmo{{{\cal B}^{model}_{s\gamma}}}
92:
93: \newcommand{\Zee}{$Z^0$}
94: \newcommand{\mh}{m_{\rm h}}
95: \newcommand{\mH}{m_{\rm H}}
96: \newcommand{\mA}{m_{\rm A}}
97: \newcommand{\mt}{m_{\rm t}}
98: \newcommand{\cp}{{\cal CP}}
99: \newcommand{\mpara}[1]{{\marginpar{{\small \hbadness10000%
100: \sloppy\hfuzz10pt\boldmath\bf#1}}%
101: \typeout{marginpar: #1}}\ignorespaces}
102:
103:
104: \begin{document}
105: \begin{titlepage}
106: \pagestyle{empty}
107: \baselineskip=21pt
108: \rightline{hep-ph/0105061}
109: \rightline{BNL--HET--01/14, CERN--TH/2001-116}
110: \rightline{DCPT/01/38, IPPP/01/19}
111: \rightline{UMN--TH--2004/01, TPI--MINN--01/18}
112: \vskip 0.05in
113: \begin{center}
114: {\large{\bf Observability of the Lightest CMSSM Higgs Boson\\
115: at Hadron Colliders}}
116: \end{center}
117: \begin{center}
118: \vskip 0.05in
119: {{\bf John Ellis}$^1$,
120: {\bf Sven Heinemeyer}$^2$,
121: {\bf Keith A.~Olive}$^{1,3}$
122: and {\bf Georg Weiglein}$^{1,4}$}\\
123: \vskip 0.05in
124: {\it
125: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\
126: $^2${High-Energy Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
127: NY~11973, USA}\\
128: $^3${Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy,\\
129: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN~55455, USA}\\
130: $^4${Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham,\\
131: Durham DH1~3LR, UK}\\
132: }
133: \vskip 0.5in
134: {\bf Abstract}
135: \end{center}
136: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent
137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
138:
139: We discuss the observability of the lightest neutral Higgs boson in the
140: constrained MSSM (CMSSM), with universal soft supersymmetry-breaking
141: parameters, at hadron colliders such as the Tevatron and the LHC. We take
142: account of the constraints on parameter space provided by LEP, the
143: measured rate of $b \to s \gamma$ decay, the cosmological relic density
144: $\ohsq$, and the recent measurement of $g_\mu - 2$. We normalize products
145: of the expected CMSSM Higgs production cross sections and decay branching
146: ratios $\sigma \times {\cal B}$ relative to those expected for a Standard
147: Model Higgs boson of the same mass. In the $h \to \gamma \gamma$ channel,
148: we find that $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
149: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} \ga 0.85 \times \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times
150: {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM}$. In the $W^\pm/ {\bar t} t
151: + h, h \to {\bar b}b$ channels, we find that $\Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm/ {\bar
152: t}t + h) \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b} b)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} \sim 1.05
153: \times \Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm/ {\bar t} t + h) \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b}
154: b)\Bigl]_{\rm SM}$. We conclude that the lightest CMSSM Higgs boson should
155: be almost as easy to see as the Standard Model Higgs boson: in particular,
156: it should be discoverable with about 15~fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity at the
157: Tevatron or 10~fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity at the LHC.
158:
159:
160:
161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
162: \vfill
163: \vskip 0.15in
164: \leftline{CERN--TH/2001-116}
165: \leftline{May 2001}
166: \end{titlepage}
167: \baselineskip=18pt
168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
169:
170: After the completion of the LEP experimental programme, which established
171: a 95\% C.L. exclusion limit for the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson of
172: $\mH > 113.5$~GeV and gave a hint of a possible signal of a Higgs boson
173: weighing 115~GeV~\cite{LEPHiggs}, the search for the Higgs boson shifts to
174: hadron colliders, first the Tevatron and subsequently the LHC. There have
175: been many studies of Higgs production and detection, both in the SM and in
176: its minimal supersymmetric extension (MSSM). It just so happens that the
177: existence of a Higgs boson with $\mH = 115$~GeV would offer the best
178: prospects for the Tevatron collider and be the most challenging for the
179: LHC. In the SM, the conclusions have been that, if the Higgs boson $H$
180: weighs 115~GeV, it might be discoverable at the 5-$\sigma$ level with 15
181: fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity at the Tevatron collider~\cite{Tevatron} (which
182: might be accumulated by 2007), whilst 10 fb$^{-1}$ at the LHC
183: (corresponding to about one year of operation) should be enough to
184: discover the Higgs boson, whatever its mass up to about
185: 1~TeV~\cite{Orsay}. In the MSSM, one expects the lightest neutral Higgs
186: boson $h$ to weigh $\lappeq 130$~GeV~\cite{MSSMhmass}, but the
187: detectability of MSSM Higgs bosons depends on other model parameters in
188: addition to their masses. A complete survey of MSSM parameter space would
189: be a very lengthy task, and attention has often focussed on particular
190: squark mixing scenarios~\cite{Elzbieta}. Again, the conclusions have been
191: encouraging for the LHC regarding the detection of at least one Higgs
192: boson, and there are also hopes of finding the lightest MSSM Higgs boson
193: $h$ at the Tevatron collider~\cite{Mrenna}.
194:
195: In this paper, we discuss Higgs observability at the Tevatron and the LHC
196: within the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), in which the soft
197: supersymmetry-breaking parameters are assumed to be universal at some high
198: GUT input scale~\footnote{An economical way to ensure this universality is
199: by gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking in a minimal supergravity
200: (mSUGRA) scenario, but there are other ways to validate the CMSSM
201: assumptions, including no-scale supergravity
202: scenarios.}. In this case, the amount of squark mixing typically does not
203: coincide with that often assumed in previous analyses of MSSM Higgs
204: detectability at the LHC or the Tevatron~\cite{Elzbieta,Mrenna}, and the
205: underlying structure of
206: the CMSSM gives rise to a correlation between the parameters $\mA$, the
207: mass of the $\cp$-odd Higgs boson, and $\tan\beta$, the ratio of the
208: vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, which in lowest order
209: determine the Higgs boson phenomenology. As a new element in the
210: discussion of the observability of the lightest $\cp$-even Higgs boson, we
211: introduce the most up-to-date set of experimental and cosmological
212: constraints on the CMSSM parameter space, including those from
213: LEP~\cite{LEPHiggs}, $b \to s \gamma$~\cite{bsgexpt,bsgtheory},
214: cosmological dark matter~\cite{EHNOS,EFGOSi} and the anomalous magnetic
215: moment of the muon~\cite{BNL,ENO}. Whilst in the unconstrained MSSM the
216: detectability of the lightest $\cp$-even Higgs boson is not guaranteed at
217: the LHC even with 300 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{Elzbieta}, both the CMSSM
218: universality assumption and the restrictions on the CMSSM parameter space
219: imposed by the above constraints reduce substantially the uncertainty in
220: the detectability of MSSM Higgs bosons at hadron colliders, as we shall
221: see.
222:
223: The principal mechanisms for light Higgs boson production at hadron
224: colliders considered in this paper are $g g \to$~Higgs~\cite{GGMN}
225: followed by Higgs~$\to \gamma \gamma$~\cite{EGN} and associated ${\bar t}
226: t$~$+$~Higgs production followed by Higgs~$\to {\bar b} b$, which are of
227: interest at the LHC~\cite{Orsay}, and $W^{\pm *} \to W^\pm
228: +$~Higgs~\cite{GNY} followed by Higgs~$\to {\bar b} b$, which is of
229: interest at the Fermilab Tevatron collider~\cite{Tevatron}.
230:
231: {\it A priori}, the $\gamma \gamma$ signal of interest to the LHC is the
232: most model-dependent, since it involves loop diagrams in both the $g
233: g$-Higgs production vertex and the Higgs-$\gamma \gamma$ decay vertex.
234: Fermion and boson loops contribute with opposite signs~\cite{EGN}, raising
235: the
236: spectre of cancellations, e.g., for particular values of the stop masses
237: and mixing parameters. The signal also depends inversely on the rate for
238: Higgs~$ \to {\bar b} b$, which is the dominant decay mode in the mass
239: range of interest. This can be enhanced in the MSSM, particularly for
240: large $\tan \beta$, offering the danger of a further suppression in ${\cal
241: B}(h \to \gamma \gamma)$. On the other hand, the Higgs-${\bar t} t$
242: vertex is relatively model-independent, since the region of very small
243: $\tan\beta$ is experimentally disfavoured. Moreover, the MSSM enhancement
244: of the $ h {\bar b} b$ vertex actually improves the branching ratio for $h
245: \to {\bar b} b$, so the ${\bar t} t + h, h \to {\bar b} b$ signal at the
246: LHC should be relatively secure.
247:
248: In the case of the $W^{\pm *} \to W^\pm +h, h \to {\bar b} b$ signature of
249: interest at the Fermilab Tevatron collider~\cite{Tevatron}, it is known
250: that the $W^\pm W^\mp h$ vertex is generically suppressed in the MSSM
251: relative to the SM by a factor $\sin^2 (\beta - \alpha)$. However, as we
252: discuss in more detail later, this suppression does not occur in the
253: CMSSM, at least in the preferred parameter range that is compatible with
254: all the experimental and cosmological constraints. This observation,
255: combined with the MSSM enhancement of the $ h {\bar b} b$ vertex, suggests
256: {\it a priori} that the prospects for $h$ detection via this signature
257: should be no worse than in the SM.
258:
259: We find in this paper that, in the allowed domain of CMSSM parameter
260: space, $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
261: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
262: \ga 0.85 \times \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
263: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM}$. Values as low as 0.5 would be allowed if one
264: relaxed the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint, in which case $\mu <
265: 0$ would be permitted, and furthermore abandoned the $b \rightarrow s
266: \gamma$ constraint, for example when $\tan \beta
267: = 35, A_0 = + m_{1/2}$ and $\mu < 0$. In the
268: $W^\pm + h, h \to {\bar b}b$ and ${\bar t} t + h, h \to {\bar b}b$
269: channels, we find the expected result that $\Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm/ {\bar t}t
270: + h)
271: \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b} b)\Bigl]_{\rm CMSSM} \sim 1.05 \times
272: \Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm/ {\bar t} t + h) \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b}
273: b)\Bigr]_{\rm
274: SM}$, because of the enhancement in the ${\cal B}( h \to {\bar b} b)$ over
275: its value in the SM.
276:
277: Before describing these results in detail, we first review our treatment
278: of the experimental and cosmological constraints on the CMSSM parameter
279: space.
280:
281: There are interesting constraints from LEP on sleptons, charginos and
282: stops, but the most relevant is that on the Higgs boson itself. In fact,
283: within the CMSSM, the $b \to s \gamma$ and $g_\mu - 2$ constraints
284: overshadow the slepton constraint, so we do not discuss it further. The
285: chargino constraint is also overshadowed, except (among the cases we
286: study) for the choice $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0$. The LEP (and Tevatron
287: collider) constraints on stops are also important in the general MSSM
288: context, but not in the CMSSM discussed here. The LEP Higgs constraint
289: within the SM is that $\mH > 113.5$~GeV, and, as is well known, there is a
290: hint of a signal with mass $115.0^{+1.3}_{-0.9}$~GeV~\cite{LEPHiggs}. In
291: contrast to the unconstrained MSSM, for which the $Z^0 Z^0 h$ coupling is
292: strongly suppressed by $\sin^2 (\beta - \alpha)$ in a significant part of
293: the parameter space, this coupling is very close to that of the SM Higgs
294: for almost all possible parameter values in the CMSSM. We find a sizeable
295: suppression of this coupling only for $\mu < 0$, an option disfavoured by
296: the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint~\cite{ENO}, in small parameter regions with
297: large $\tan\beta$ and small $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$. As a consequence, the SM
298: limit (`observed' value) can be carried over to the CMSSM for most of the
299: parameter
300: space. We allow only CMSSM parameter choices that are consistent
301: with $\mh > 113$~GeV in this case, so as to make some allowance for
302: theoretical uncertainties in the calculation of $\mh$ in the CMSSM. We
303: give special consideration to the range $\mh \sim 115$~GeV, but do not
304: impose any experimental upper limit on the CMSSM Higgs mass. For the
305: regions with a significant suppression of the $Z^0 Z^0 h$ coupling, we
306: apply the bound $\mh > 91.0$~GeV.
307:
308: The theoretical uncertainties in the CMSSM Higgs mass calculations are at
309: present dominated by the experimental error in the mass of the top quark,
310: since $\delta \mh / \delta \mt = {\cal O}(1)$. In our analysis below we
311: use as default $\mt = 175$~GeV, but also study the consequences if $\mt =
312: 170$ or $180$~GeV.
313:
314: %We have checked that, within the allowed parameter region of the CMSSM,
315: %the $Z^0 Z^0 h$ coupling is equal to that of the SM Higgs to within 5\%.
316: %Therefore, we carry the SM limit (value) over to the CMSSM. We allow only
317: %CMSSM parameter choices that are consistent with $\mh > 113.5$~GeV,
318: %taking into account theoretical uncertainties in the CMSSM Higgs mass
319: %calculations~\footnote{One of the principal uncertainties in the CMSSM
320: %Higgs mass calculations is that associated with the mass of the top
321: %quark:
322: %$\delta \mh / \delta \mt = {\cal O}(1)$. We use as default $\mt =
323: %175$~GeV, but also
324: %comment on the consequences if $\mt = 170$ or $180$~GeV.}. We give
325:
326: In the treatment of $b \to s \gamma$, we follow~\cite{EFGOSi} in our
327: implementation of NLO QCD corrections at large $\tan
328: \beta$~\cite{bsgtheory}. We assume the
329: 95\% confidence-level range $2.33 \times 10^{-4} < {\cal B}(b \to s
330: \gamma) < 4.15 \times 10^{-4}$~\cite{bsgexpt}, and we accept all CMSSM
331: parameters sets that give predictions in this range, allowing for the
332: scale and model dependences of the QCD calculations.
333:
334: We assume $R$ parity conservation, so that the lightest supersymmetric
335: particle (LSP) is stable. The LSP is expected in the CMSSM to be the
336: lightest neutralino $\chi$, and may have an interesting cosmological relic
337: density $\ohsq$. The regions of the CMSSM parameter space allowed by
338: cosmology are taken from~\cite{EFGOSi}, where up-to-date results for large
339: $\tan \beta$ are presented. We accept CMSSM parameter sets that have $0.1
340: \le \ohsq \le 0.3$. Lower values of $\ohsq$ would be allowed if not all
341: the cosmological dark matter is composed of neutralinos. However, larger
342: values of $\ohsq$ are excluded by cosmology.
343:
344: The final constraint that we implement is that on the possible
345: supersymmetric contribution $\delta a_\mu$ to the muon anomalous magnetic
346: dipole moment $g_\mu - 2 \equiv 2 a_\mu$, which we calculate as
347: in~\cite{ENO}. The signal for non-zero $\delta a_\mu = (43 \pm 16)
348: \times 10^{-10}$ is considered to be a 2.6-$\sigma$ effect~\cite{BNL}, and
349: we
350: consider as preferred the 2-$\sigma$ range
351: $11 \times 10^{-10} < \delta a_\mu < 75 \times 10^{-10}$.
352: More conservatively, one might simply require $\delta
353: a_\mu \ge 0$, which is sufficient largely to exclude the $\mu < 0$
354: scenarios we
355: discuss below, that are the only ones for which we find a substantial
356: suppression of $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
357: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}$.
358:
359: For the evaluation of the cross sections and branching ratios, we use the
360: programs {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{fh}, which contains the diagrammatic
361: results for the complete one-loop and dominant two-loop corrections to the
362: Higgs-boson propagators~\cite{higgscorr}, and {\tt HDECAY}~\cite{hdecay}.
363: The supersymmetric parameters at the weak scale have been determined from
364: the parameters at the GUT scale using the two-loop renormalization-group
365: equations of~\cite{twoloop}. Since {\tt FeynHiggs} uses internally the
366: physical (i.e.\ pole) masses of the squarks, it was necessary to convert
367: to them from the $\overline{\rm{DR}}$ parameters (see also~\cite{chhhww}).
368: This was done by running all parameters in the mass matrices of the
369: scalar top and bottom quarks down to a renormalization scale equal to the
370: largest of the soft-breaking parameters in each mass matrix (when
371: evaluated at their own scales). The mixing matrices were then diagonalized
372: at this scale to yield the squark masses and mixing angles, which were
373: then transformed into the corresponding on-shell parameters.
374:
375: We present our results in $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for the choices
376: $\tan \beta = 10, 50$ for $\mu > 0$, consistent with $g_\mu - 2$, and
377: $\tan \beta = 10, 35$ for $\mu < 0$. We do
378: not consider values of $\tan \beta$ below 10, since in the CMSSM the
379: low-$\tan \beta$ region is severely constrained by the experimental bound
380: on the Higgs-boson mass~\footnote{This is in contrast to the unconstrained
381: MSSM, where for $\mt = 174.3$~GeV values as low as $\tan \beta = 3$ are
382: allowed~\cite{lephiggsmssm}.}.
383:
384: We first consider the signal for $\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}(h \to
385: \gamma\gamma)$, starting with the default case $A_0 = 0$ and $\mt
386: =175$~GeV shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg}. Panels (a) and (b) are for
387: $\mu > 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10$ and $50$, respectively, where the $\pm 2 -
388: \sigma$ limits from $g_\mu - 2$ are shown as diagonal (red) solid lines.
389: Panels (c) and (d) are for $\mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10$ and $35$,
390: respectively, and there are no $g_\mu - 2$ contours because this sign of
391: $\mu$ is inconsistent with the measured value of $g_\mu - 2$. The
392: (near-)vertical (black) solid, dotted and dashed lines in all the panels
393: of Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg} correspond to $\mh = 113, 115, 117$~GeV, that
394: we take as the absolute lower limit, an indicative value and an indicative
395: upper limit on $\mh$, respectively~\footnote{Compared to
396: earlier analyses, such as~\cite{EFGOSi}, the $m_h$
397: contours appear at lower $m_{1/2}$ values. This is due to an improved
398: Higgs mass calculation~\cite{fh,higgscorr}, where an upward shift in
399: $m_h$ for given $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ of $\sim 1.5$ to $\sim 4$~GeV is
400: possible.}. The (pink) shaded regions are
401: excluded by $b \to s \gamma$, and the (brown) bricked regions are
402: excluded because the LSP is the lighter $\tilde \tau$ slepton. The
403: cosmological region where $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$ is divided into
404: different ranges of $\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}(h \to
405: \gamma\gamma)$, relative to the SM value, that are (coloured) shaded
406: differently as indicated in each panel.
407:
408: \begin{figure}
409:
410: \begin{center}
411: $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
412: / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
413: SM} $
414: \end{center}
415:
416: \vspace{-1em}
417:
418: \begin{minipage}{8in}
419: \hspace{4cm} (a) \hspace{7.2cm} (b)
420: \end{minipage}
421:
422: \vspace{.2em}
423:
424: \begin{minipage}{8in}
425: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.03.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
426: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
427: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.09.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
428: \end{minipage}
429:
430: \vspace{.5em}
431:
432: \begin{minipage}{8in}
433: \hspace{4cm} (c) \hspace{7.2cm} (d)
434: \end{minipage}
435:
436: \vspace{.2em}
437:
438: %\vspace*{-3in}
439: %\hspace*{-.70in}
440: \begin{minipage}{8in}
441: %\hskip -1.40in
442: %\vskip -.75in
443: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.04.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
444: %\hspace*{-0.2in}
445: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.08.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
446: \end{minipage}
447: %\end{picture}
448:
449: \caption{\it\small The cross section for production of the lightest $\cp$-even
450: CMSSM Higgs boson in gluon fusion and its decay into a photon pair,
451: $\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}(h \to \gamma\gamma)$, normalized to
452: the SM value with the same Higgs mass, is given in the
453: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\mu > 0$, $\tan\beta = 10, 50$
454: (upper row) and for $\mu < 0$, $\tan\beta = 10, 35$ (lower row).
455: In all plots $A_0 = 0$ and $\mt = 175$~GeV has been used.
456: The diagonal (red) solid lines in panels (a) and (b) are the $\pm 2 -
457: \sigma$
458: contours for $g_\mu - 2$: the whole parameter
459: space in the $\mu < 0$ plots is excluded by the $g_{\mu}-2$
460: constraint~\cite{BNL,ENO}.
461: The near-vertical solid, dotted and dashed (black) lines are the $m_h =
462: 113, 115,
463: 117$~GeV contours. The light shaded (pink) regions are excluded by $b
464: \rightarrow s \gamma$~\cite{bsgexpt,bsgtheory}. The (brown) bricked
465: regions are excluded since in these regions the LSP is the charged
466: $\tilde\tau_1$.
467: \label{fig:defaultgg}
468: }
469: \end{figure}
470:
471: We see in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg}~\footnote{The
472: irregularities in the cosmological region in panel (a) etc., and the
473: separations between the dots in panel (b) etc. are due to the finite grid
474: size used in our sampling of parameter space.} that $0.85 \le
475: \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
476: CMSSM}/ \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
477: SM} \le 1.00$ for $\mu > 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10$, once one imposes
478: $\mh \ge 113$~GeV and $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$. These same constraints
479: impose $0.90 \le \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
480: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
481: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} \le 1.00$ for $\mu > 0$ and $\tan \beta =
482: 50$, as seen in panel (b). Here the lower limit on $m_{1/2}$ from $b \to s
483: \gamma$ is stronger than that from $\mh$, but does not change the lower
484: bound on the $h \to \gamma \gamma$ signal. Note that the BNL $g_\mu - 2$
485: constraint imposes $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
486: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
487: / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
488: SM} \le 0.93 (0.96)$ for $\tan \beta = 10 (50)$.
489:
490: In panel (c), for $\mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10$, the $\mh$ constraint
491: again imposes $0.85 \le \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
492: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal
493: B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} \le 1.00$, and the $b \to s
494: \gamma$ constraint has no impact. On the other hand, in panel (d), for
495: $\mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 35$, we see that the $\mh$ lower limit would
496: allow values of $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
497: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
498: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} \sim 0.50$, but this is strengthened to
499: $\sim 0.80$ by the $b \to s \gamma$ constraint. In this case, there is
500: always some suppression of the signal, and we find $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to
501: h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
502: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h
503: \to
504: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} \le 0.90$ if we impose $\mH < 117$~GeV
505:
506: This first survey shows (i) that the feared cancellations or other sources
507: of suppression in $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
508: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
509: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} $ are relatively rare in the CMSSM, but (ii)
510: they may occur for $\mu < 0$ and large $\tan \beta$, in which case (iii)
511: they may be avoided by imposing the cosmological and experimental
512: constraints, notably (iv) $g_\mu - 2$ and (v) $b \to s \gamma$.
513:
514: We now explore the implications of varying the default parameters,
515: starting in Fig.~\ref{fig:varymtgg} with $\mt$. We display the cases
516: $\mu > 0, \tan \beta = 50$ and $\mt = 170$~GeV in panel (a) and $\mt = 180$~GeV
517: in panel (b)~\footnote{The effects of varying $\mt$ for $\tan \beta = 10$ are
518: less important, and are not discussed here.}. We see in panel (a) that $b
519: \to s \gamma$ imposes $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma
520: \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
521: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} > 0.90$, whereas the $\mh$ constraint alone would
522: have allowed this ratio to fall to 0.85. We see in panel (b) that this
523: ratio could in principle be {\it enhanced} if $\mt = 180$~GeV, although
524: this possibility is disallowed by $b \to s \gamma$.
525:
526: \begin{figure}
527:
528: \begin{center}
529: $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
530: / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
531: SM} $
532: \end{center}
533:
534: \vspace{-1em}
535:
536: \begin{minipage}{8in}
537: \hspace{4cm} (a) \hspace{7.2cm} (b)
538: \end{minipage}
539:
540: \vspace{.2em}
541:
542: \begin{minipage}{8in}
543: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.39.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
544: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
545: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.49.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
546: \end{minipage}
547:
548: \vspace{.5em}
549:
550: \begin{minipage}{8in}
551: \hspace{4cm} (c) \hspace{7.2cm} (d)
552: \end{minipage}
553:
554: \vspace{.2em}
555:
556: %\vspace*{-3in}
557: %\hspace*{-.70in}
558: \begin{minipage}{8in}
559: %\hskip -1.40in
560: %\vskip -.75in
561: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.38.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
562: %\hspace*{-0.2in}
563: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.48.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
564: \end{minipage}
565:
566: \caption{\it \small The cross section for production of the lightest $\cp$-even
567: MSSM Higgs boson in gluon fusion and its decay into a photon pair,
568: $\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}(h \to \gamma\gamma)$, normalized to
569: the SM value with the same Higgs mass, is given in the
570: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\mu > 0$, $\tan\beta = 50$ and $\mt = 170,
571: 180$~GeV (upper row) as well as for $\mu < 0$, $\tan\beta = 35$ and
572: $\mt = 170, 180$~GeV (lower row).
573: In all plots $A_0 = 0$ has been used, and the notation is the same as in
574: Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg}. The striped regions at small values of
575: $m_{1/2}/m_0$ in panels (a) and (c) are excluded by the constraint of
576: radiative electroweak symmetry breaking.
577: \label{fig:varymtgg}
578: }
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: In the cases $\mu < 0, \tan \beta = 35$ and (c) $\mt = 170$~GeV and (d)
582: $\mt = 180$~GeV, we see again that values of $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times
583: {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h)
584: \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} $ as low as 0.50 would be
585: permitted by the $\mh$ constraint, whereas the $b \to s \gamma$ constraint
586: strengthens this lower limit to 0.80 in panel (c) and 0.85 in panel (d)
587: of Fig.~\ref{fig:varymtgg}.
588:
589: We now explore in Fig.~\ref{fig:varyAgg} the implications of varying
590: another default parameter, $A_0$, considering first the cases $\mu > 0,
591: \tan \beta = 50$ and (a) $A_0 = -2 \times m_{1/2}$ and
592: (b) $A_0 = + m_{1/2}$~\footnote{The effects of varying $A_0$ for $\tan \beta =
593: 10$ are also less important.}
594: We have also considered the case $A_0 = +2 \times m_{1/2}$, but did not
595: find
596: any significant allowed region surviving the constraints from cosmology
597: and
598: $b \to s \gamma$. We see in panel (a)
599: that the $\mh$ and $b \to s \gamma$ constraints are essentially equivalent
600: for this sign of $A_0$, and each impose
601: $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to
602: \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h
603: \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM} > 0.90$. In the case of $A_0 = + m_{1/2}$,
604: shown in panel (b), there are again no cancellations.
605:
606: \begin{figure}
607:
608: \begin{center}
609: $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
610: / \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm
611: SM} $
612: \end{center}
613:
614: \vspace{-1em}
615:
616: \begin{minipage}{8in}
617: \hspace{4cm} (a) \hspace{7.2cm} (b)
618: \end{minipage}
619:
620: \vspace{.2em}
621:
622: \begin{minipage}{8in}
623: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.20.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
624: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
625: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.26.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
626: \end{minipage}
627:
628: \vspace{.5em}
629:
630: \begin{minipage}{8in}
631: \hspace{4cm} (c) \hspace{7.2cm} (d)
632: \end{minipage}
633:
634: \vspace{.2em}
635:
636: %\vspace*{-3in}
637: %\hspace*{-.70in}
638: \begin{minipage}{8in}
639: %\hskip -1.40in
640: %\vskip -.75in
641: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.18.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
642: %\hspace*{-0.2in}
643: \epsfig{file=EHOW03c.24.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
644: \end{minipage}
645:
646: \caption{\it \small The cross section for production of the lightest $\cp$-even
647: MSSM Higgs boson in gluon fusion and its decay into a photon pair,
648: $\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}(h \to \gamma\gamma)$, normalized to
649: the SM value with the same Higgs mass, is given in the
650: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\mu > 0$, $\tan\beta = 50$ and $A_0 = -2
651: m_{1/2}, + m_{1/2}$ (upper row) as well as for $\mu < 0$,
652: $\tan\beta = 35$ and $A_0 = -2 m_{1/2}, + m_{1/2}$ (lower row).
653: In all plots $\mt = 175$~GeV has been used, and the notation is the same as in
654: Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg}.
655: }
656: \label{fig:varyAgg}
657: \end{figure}
658:
659: The cases $\mu < 0, \tan \beta = 35$ and (c) $A_0 = -2 \times m_{1/2}$ and
660: (d) $A_0 = + m_{1/2}$ exhibit more variation. In the former case,
661: $\Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM}
662: /
663: \Bigl[\sigma(gg \to h) \times {\cal B}( h \to \gamma \gamma)\Bigr]_{\rm SM}
664: <
665: 0.80$ would be allowed by $\mh$ but not by $b \to s \gamma$. On the other
666: hand, in
667: panel (d) for $A_0 = +m_{1/2}$, we see that values of this ratio
668: even below 0.50 are allowed {\it a priori}.
669: However, this rises to 0.80 once we impose the $b \to s
670: \gamma$ constraint, and we recall that this and all
671: $\mu < 0$ cases
672: are excluded by the $g_\mu - 2$ measurement.
673:
674: Apart from this possibility for reducing the $h \rightarrow \gamma
675: \gamma$ signal, which involves discarding some of the
676: principal experimental constraints on the CMSSM, we conclude that the $h
677: \to \gamma \gamma$ mode should be (almost) as easy to detect at the LHC as
678: the corresponding signal for a SM Higgs boson of the same mass.
679:
680: In view of their potential interest at the Tevatron as well as at the LHC,
681: we have also considered the strengths of the signals for $W^\pm/Z^0 + h, h
682: \to {\bar b} b$ and ${\bar t} t + h, h \to {\bar b} b$. We do not
683: distinguish between the
684: results for these two channels, as we find that, within the constraints we
685: impose on the CMSSM, the $W^\pm W^\mp + h$, $Z^0 Z^0 + h$ and ${\bar t} t
686: + h$
687: couplings differ insignificantly from those in the SM. Thus the
688: differences in the signals from those in the SM are essentially controlled
689: by the differences in ${\cal B}(h \to {\bar b} b)$. It is well known that
690: this is generically enhanced in the MSSM relative to the SM, particularly
691: at large $\tan \beta$, and this is reflected in our results.
692:
693: \begin{figure}
694:
695: \begin{center}
696: $\Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm,Z^0/{\bar t} t + h) \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b}
697: b)\Bigr]_{\rm CMSSM} /
698: \Bigl[\sigma(W^\pm,Z^0/{\bar t} t + h) \times {\cal B}( h \to {\bar b}
699: b)\Bigr]_{\rm SM}$
700: \end{center}
701:
702: \vspace{-1em}
703:
704: \begin{minipage}{8in}
705: \hspace{4cm} (a) \hspace{7.2cm} (b)
706: \end{minipage}
707:
708: \vspace{.2em}
709:
710: \begin{minipage}{8in}
711: \epsfig{file=EHOW06c.03.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
712: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
713: \epsfig{file=EHOW06c.09.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
714: \end{minipage}
715:
716: \vspace{.5em}
717:
718: \begin{minipage}{8in}
719: \hspace{4cm} (c) \hspace{7.2cm} (d)
720: \end{minipage}
721:
722: \vspace{.2em}
723:
724: %\vspace*{-3in}
725: %\hspace*{-.70in}
726: \begin{minipage}{8in}
727: %\hskip -1.40in
728: %\vskip -.75in
729: \epsfig{file=EHOW06c.04.cl.eps,height=3.2in}
730: %\hspace*{-0.2in}
731: \epsfig{file=EHOW06c.08.cl.eps,height=3.2in} \hfill
732: \end{minipage}
733:
734: \caption{\it \small The cross section for production of the lightest $\cp$-even
735: MSSM Higgs boson in association with a $\bar tt$
736: pair or with $W^{\pm}/Z$, followed by decay into $\bar bb$, are given
737: normalized to the SM value with
738: the same Higgs mass. The results are displayed in the
739: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\mu > 0$, $\tan\beta = 10, 50$
740: (upper row) and for $\mu < 0$, $\tan\beta = 10, 35$ (lower row).
741: In all plots $A_0 = 0$ and $\mt = 175$~GeV has been used,
742: and the notation is the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:defaultgg}.
743: }
744: \label{fig:tthVVh}
745: \end{figure}
746:
747: In Fig.~\ref{fig:tthVVh} the results for the two channels are shown for
748: the default case $A_0 = 0$ and $\mt = 175$~GeV. Panels (a) and (b) are for
749: $\mu > 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10, 50$, respectively, while panels (c) and
750: (d) show the case $\mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 10, 35$, respectively. As
751: expected, for all parameter values in Fig.~\ref{fig:tthVVh} we find a
752: slight enhancement of up to 5\% in the $W^\pm/Z^0 + h, h \to {\bar b} b$
753: and ${\bar t} t + h, h \to {\bar b} b$ channels compared to the SM case.
754: An enhancement by up to 10\% occurs for $\mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 35$,
755: but the corresponding parameter region is disfavoured by the $b \to s
756: \gamma$ constraint, not to mention $g_\mu - 2$. We do not display results
757: for $A_0 \neq 0$ and $\mt = 170, 180$~GeV for these channels, since for
758: all parameter regions allowed by the $b \to s \gamma$ constraint we find
759: the same results as in Fig.~\ref{fig:tthVVh}, i.e.\ an enhancement
760: compared to the SM value of up to 5\%.
761:
762: Could one, in principle, distinguish a CMSSM Higgs boson from a SM Higgs
763: boson of the same mass, simply by measuring its production cross section?
764: The present LHC goal for measuring luminosity at the parton-parton level
765: is $\pm 5$\%, and the statistical precision in the $h \rightarrow \gamma
766: \gamma$ channel might approach 1\%. Thus, if the theoretical error could
767: be neglected, there could be a 2-$\sigma$ experimental difference between
768: the strengths of the CMSSM and SM signals, which might be strengthened if
769: the luminosity precision goal could be bettered. In the case of the
770: $W^\pm/Z^0 + h, h \to {\bar b} b$ and ${\bar t} t + h, h \to {\bar b} b$
771: channels, there is a further experimental error of about 5\% associated
772: with the background subtractions. Thus, distinguishing between the
773: strengths expected in the CMSSM and the SM does not appear feasible in
774: these channels.
775:
776: We conclude that the lightest CMSSM Higgs boson $h$ should be almost as
777: easy to see as the Standard Model Higgs boson, if one accepts all the
778: present experimental and cosmological constraints. In particular, the
779: previous analyses of the prospects for Higgs searches at the LHC and
780: Tevatron indicate that the $h$ boson should be discoverable with about
781: 10~fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity at the LHC~\cite{Orsay}. If its mass is about
782: 115~GeV, i.e.\ close to the current SM exclusion bound, it is likely also
783: to be discoverable with 15 fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity at the Tevatron
784: collider~\cite{Tevatron}.
785:
786: \vskip 0.5in
787: \vbox{
788: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\
789: \noindent
790: We thank
791: Geri Ganis for useful information and Fabiola Gianotti for an interesting
792: discussion. The work of K.A.O.\ was partially
793: supported by DOE grant DE--FG02--94ER--40823.}
794:
795: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
796:
797: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}
798: ALEPH collaboration, R.~Barate {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}
799: (2000) 1;\\
800: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011045;%%
801: L3 collaboration, M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}
802: (2000) 18;\\
803: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011043;%%
804: DELPHI collaboration, P. Abreu {\it et al.},
805: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 23;\\
806: OPAL collaboration, G. Abbiendi {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B499}
807: 38.\\
808: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102036;%%
809: For a preliminary compilation of the LEP data presented on Nov. 3rd, 2000,
810: see:\\
811: P. Igo-Kemenes, for the LEP Higgs working group,\\
812: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/talks/index.html}.\\
813: For a recent compilation of other LEP search data, as presented on Sept.
814: 5th, 2000, see:\\
815: T. Junk, hep-ex/0101015.
816:
817: \bibitem{Tevatron}
818: M.~Carena {\it et al.}, Report of the Tevatron Higgs working group,
819: hep-ph/0010338;
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010338;%%
821: P.~Sinervo, Talk at the Conference on Higgs and Supersymmetry, Orsay,
822: March 19-22, 2001, \\
823: {\tt
824: http://ww2.lal.in2p3.fr/actualite/conferences/higgs2001/slides/index.htm}.
825:
826: \bibitem{Orsay}
827: ATLAS Collaboration, Detector and Physics Performance
828: Technical Design Report, \\
829: {\tt http://atlasinfo.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/TDR/access.html};\\
830: CMS Collaboration, \\
831: {\tt http://cmsinfo.cern.ch/Welcome.html/CMSdocuments/CMSplots/};\\
832: F.~Gianotti, Talk at the Conference on Higgs and Supersymmetry, Orsay,
833: March 19-22, 2001, \\
834: {\tt
835: http://ww2.lal.in2p3.fr/actualite/conferences/higgs2001/slides/index.htm}.
836:
837: \bibitem{MSSMhmass}
838: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
839: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 85} (1991) 1;
840: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
841: J.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
842: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257} (1991) 83;
843: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
844: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,
845: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66} (1991) 1815;
846: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
847: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~Wagner,
848: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 355} (1995) 209;
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504316;%%
850: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~Wagner,
851: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 461} (1996) 407;
852: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508343;%%
853: H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling and A.H. Hoang,
854: Zeit.\ f\"ur Phys.\ {\bf C75} (1997) 539;
855: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
856: Eur. Phys. Jour. {\bf C9} (1999) 343;
857: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%
858: J.~R.~Espinosa and R.~Zhang,
859: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 3 (2000)
860: [hep-ph/0003246].
861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003246;%%
862:
863: \bibitem{Elzbieta}
864: E.~Richter-W\c{a}s, D.~Froidevaux, F.~Gianotti, L.~Poggioli, D.~Cavalli
865: and
866: S.~Resconi,
867: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A13} (1998) 1371.
868: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A13,1371;%%
869:
870: \bibitem{Mrenna}
871: M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna and C.~E.~Wagner,
872: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60} (1999) 075010 and
873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808312;%%
874: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 055008.
875: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907422;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{bsgexpt}
878: CLEO Collaboration,
879: M.S. Alam et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 2885 as updated in
880: S.~Ahmed et al., {CLEO CONF 99-10};
881: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
882: hep-ex/0103042.
883: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
884:
885: \bibitem{bsgtheory}
886: G. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,
887: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009; see also
888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%
889: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,
890: hep-ph/0010003.
891: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%
892:
893: \bibitem{EHNOS}
894: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive
895: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 453; see also
896: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.
897:
898: \bibitem{EFGOSi}
899: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
900: hep-ph/0102098.
901: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%
902:
903: \bibitem{BNL}
904: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}, Muon $g_\mu - 2$ Collaboration,
905: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.
906: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
907:
908: \bibitem{ENO}
909: J.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,
910: hep-ph/0102331;
911: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%
912: for other recent papers on the CMSSM interpretation of
913: $g_\mu - 2$, see
914: L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,
915: hep-ph/0102145;
916: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%
917: J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,
918: hep-ph/0102146;
919: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%
920: E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,
921: hep-ph/0102147;
922: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%
923: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
924: hep-ph/0102157;
925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%
926: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
927: hep-ph/0102204;
928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%
929: J. Hisano and K. Tobe, hep-ph/0102315.
930: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102315;%%
931: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,
932: hep-ph/0102344;
933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%
934: K.~Choi, K.~Hwang, S.~K.~Kang, K.~Y.~Lee and W.~Y.~Song,
935: hep-ph/0103048;
936: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103048;%%
937: S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells,
938: hep-ph/0103067;
939: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%
940: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
941: hep-ph/0103182;
942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103182;%%
943: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
944: hep-ph/0103280.
945: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%
946:
947: \bibitem{GGMN}
948: H.~M.~Georgi, S.~L.~Glashow, M.~E.~Machacek and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
949: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 40} (1978) 692;
950: %%CITATION = PRLTA,40,692;%%
951: S.~Dawson,
952: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B359} (1991) 283;
953: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B359,283;%%
954: A.~Djouadi, M.~Spira and P.~Zerwas,
955: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B264} (1991) 440;
956: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B264,440;%%
957: D.~Graudenz, M.~Spira and P.~Zerwas,
958: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70} (1993) 1372;
959: %%CITATION = PRLTA,70,1372;%%
960: M.~Spira, A.~Djouadi, D.~Graudenz and P.~Zerwas,
961: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B453} (1995) 17;
962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504378;%%
963: A.~Djouadi,
964: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435}, 101 (1998)
965: [hep-ph/9806315];
966: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806315;%%
967: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema and K.~Sridhar,
968: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 568}, 3 (2000)
969: [hep-ph/9904348];
970: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904348;%%
971: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, F.~Donato, R.~Godbole and S.~Rosier-Lees,
972: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 581}, 3 (2000)
973: [hep-ph/0002039];
974: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002039;%%
975: S.~Catani, D.~de~Florian and M~Grazzini,
976: hep-ph/0102227;
977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102227;%%
978: R.~Harlander and W.~Kilgore,
979: hep-ph/0102241.
980: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102241;%%
981:
982:
983: \bibitem{EGN}
984: J.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
985: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B106} (1976) 292.
986: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B106,292;%%
987:
988: \bibitem{GNY}
989: S.~L.~Glashow, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and A.~Yildiz,
990: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D18} (1978) 1724.
991: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,1724;%%
992:
993: \bibitem{fh}
994: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
995: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 124} (2000) 76; hep-ph/0002213;
996: the {\tt FeynHiggs} code is available from {\tt http://www.feynhiggs.de}.
997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002213;%%
998:
999: \bibitem{higgscorr}
1000: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1001: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 091701;
1002: Phys. Lett. {\bf B440} (1998) 296;
1003: Eur. Phys. Jour. {\bf C16} (2000) 139.
1004: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803277;%%
1005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807423;%%
1006: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003022;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{hdecay}
1009: A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,
1010: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 108} (1998) 56.
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704448;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{twoloop}
1014: S.~P.~Martin and M.~T.~Vaughn,
1015: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D50}, 2282 (1994).
1016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311340;%%
1017:
1018: \bibitem{chhhww}
1019: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1020: hep-ph/9910283;
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910283;%%
1022: J.~R.~Espinosa and R.~Zhang,
1023: JHEP {\bf 0003}, 026 (2000)
1024: [hep-ph/9912236];
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912236;%%
1026: M.~Carena, H.~Haber, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, C.~Wagner and G.~Weiglein,
1027: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B580} (2000) 29.
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001002;%%
1029:
1030: \bibitem{lephiggsmssm}
1031: The LEP working group for Higgs boson searches, LHWG Note 2001-2,\\
1032: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS}.
1033:
1034:
1035: \end{thebibliography}
1036:
1037: \end{document}
1038:
1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1040: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057: