1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \textwidth=17cm \textheight=22.5cm
4: \topmargin -1.5cm \oddsidemargin -0.3cm %\evensidemargin -0.8cm
5: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}
6: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}
7: \def\NPB#1#2#3{{\it Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf{B#1}} (#2) #3}
8: \def\PLB#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Lett.} {\bf{B#1}} (#2) #3}
9: \def\PRD#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.} {\bf{D#1}} (#2) #3}
10: \def\PRL#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf{#1}} (#2) #3}
11: \def\ZPC#1#2#3{{\it Z.~Phys.} {\bf C#1} (#2) #3}
12: \def\PTP#1#2#3{{\it Prog.~Theor.~Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
13: \def\MPLA#1#2#3{{\it Mod.~Phys.~Lett.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
14: \def\PR#1#2#3{{\it Phys.~Rep.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
15: \def\AP#1#2#3{{\it Ann.~Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
16: \def\RMP#1#2#3{{\it Rev.~Mod.~Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
17: \def\HPA#1#2#3{{\it Helv.~Phys.~Acta} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
18: \def\JETPL#1#2#3{{\it JETP~Lett.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
19:
20: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
21: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
22: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
25: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
26: \def\bq{\begin{quote}}
27: \def\eq{\end{quote}}
28: \def\neath#1#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#1}\limits_{#2}}}
29: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
30: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
31: \def\viz{{\it viz.}}
32: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
33: \def\rhs{right hand side}
34: \def\lhs{left hand side}
35: \def\toinf#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\sim}
36: \limits_{\scriptscriptstyle {#1\rightarrow\infty }}}}
37: \def\tozero#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\sim}
38: \limits_{\scriptscriptstyle {#1\rightarrow0 }}}}
39: \def\frac#1#2{{{#1}\over {#2}}}
40: \def\half{\hbox{${1\over 2}$}}\def\third{\hbox{${1\over 3}$}}
41: \def\quarter{\hbox{${1\over 4}$}}
42: \def\smallfrac#1#2{\hbox{${{#1}\over {#2}}$}}
43: \def\pbp{\bar{\psi }\psi }
44: \def\vevpbp{\langle 0|\pbp |0\rangle }
45: \def\as{\alpha_s}
46: \def\tr{{\rm tr}}\def\Tr{{\rm Tr}}
47: \def\eV{{\rm eV}}\def\keV{{\rm keV}}
48: \def\MeV{{\rm MeV}}\def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}\def\TeV{{\rm TeV}}
49: \def\MS{\hbox{$\overline{\rm MS}$}}
50: \def\blackbox{\vrule height7pt width5pt depth2pt}
51: \def\matele#1#2#3{\langle {#1} \vert {#2} \vert {#3} \rangle }
52: \def\VertL{\Vert_{\Lambda}}\def\VertR{\Vert_{\Lambda_R}}
53: \def\Real{\Re e}\def\Imag{\Im m}
54: \def\bp{\bar{p}}\def\bq{\bar{q}}\def\br{\bar{r}}
55: \catcode`@=11
56: %This allows us to modify plain macros
57: %\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}
58: % {-3.5ex plus -1ex minus -.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\bf}}
59: %\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection {subsection}{1}{\z@}
60: % {-3.5ex plus -1ex minus -.2ex}{2.3ex plus .2ex}{\it}}
61: %\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}
62: % {2\@bls plus 0.5\@bls}{1\@bls}{\small\bf}}
63: %\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection {subsection}{1}{\z@}
64: % {2\@bls plus 0.5\@bls}{1\@bls}{\small\it}}
65: \def\slash#1{\mathord{\mathpalette\c@ncel#1}}
66: \def\c@ncel#1#2{\ooalign{$\hfil#1\mkern1mu/\hfil$\crcr$#1#2$}}
67: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<}}
68: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim>}}
69: \def\@versim#1#2{\lower0.2ex\vbox{\baselineskip\z@skip\lineskip\z@skip
70: \lineskiplimit\z@\ialign{$\m@th#1\hfil##$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
71: \catcode`@=12 %at signs are no longer letters
72: \def\twiddles#1{\mathrel{\mathop{\sim}\limits_
73: {\scriptscriptstyle {#1\rightarrow \infty }}}}
74: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
75: \setcounter{page}{0}
76: \newpage
77: \baselineskip=18pt
78:
79: \begin{document}
80: \pagestyle{empty}
81: \begin{flushright}
82: {\tt hep-ph/0106029}\\
83: CERN-TH/2001-145\\
84: GeF/TH/8-01\\
85: IFUM-689-FT
86: \end{flushright}
87: \vspace*{5mm}
88: \begin{center}
89: {\large\bf Indication for Light Sneutrinos and Gauginos from Precision
90: Electroweak Data}\\
91: \vspace*{0.8cm} {\bf G.~Altarelli,$^a$
92: F.~Caravaglios,$^b$ G.F.~Giudice,$^a$\\
93: P.~Gambino,$^a$ G.~Ridolfi$^{a,c}$}
94: \\
95: \vspace{0.6cm}
96: $^a$ Theoretical Physics Division, CERN, CH--1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland. \\
97: $^b$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Milano, Via Celoria 16,
98: I--20133 Milan, Italy.\\
99: $^c$ On leave from INFN, Sezione di Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, I--16146 Genoa,
100: Italy.
101:
102: \vspace*{0.9cm} {\bf Abstract}
103: \end{center}
104: \noindent
105: The present Standard Model fit of precision data has a low confidence
106: level, and is characterized by a few inconsistencies. We look for
107: supersymmetric effects that could improve the agreement among the
108: electroweak precision measurements and with the direct lower bound on
109: the Higgs mass. We find that this is the case particularly if the
110: $3.6~\sigma$ discrepancy between $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from
111: leptonic and hadronic asymmetries is finally settled more on the side
112: of the leptonic ones. After the inclusion of all experimental
113: constraints, our analysis selects light sneutrinos, with masses in the
114: range $55-80$~GeV, and charged sleptons with masses just above their
115: experimental limit, possibly with additional effects from light
116: gauginos. The phenomenological implications of this scenario are
117: discussed.
118:
119: \vfill
120: \begin{flushleft} CERN-TH/2001-145\\ June 2001 \end{flushleft}
121: \eject
122:
123: \setcounter{page}{1} \pagestyle{plain}
124: \section{Introduction}
125: The results of the electroweak precision tests as well as of the
126: searches for the Higgs boson and for new particles performed at LEP
127: and SLC have now been presented in a close to final form. Taken
128: together with the measurements of $m_t$, $m_W$ and the searches for
129: new physics at the Tevatron, and with some other data from low energy
130: experiments, they form a very stringent set of precise constraints to
131: compare with the Standard Model (SM) or with any of its conceivable
132: extensions. When confronted with these results, on the whole the SM
133: performs rather well, so that it is fair to say that no clear
134: indication for new physics emerges from the data. However, if we look
135: at the results in detail, there are a number of features that are
136: either not satisfactory or could indicate the presence of small new
137: physics effects. We will describe in quantitative terms the
138: experimental results and their consistency among themselves and with
139: the SM in the next section. Here we anticipate a qualitative
140: discussion.
141:
142: One problem is that the two most precise measurements of
143: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from $A_{LR}$ and $A^b_{FB}$ differ by
144: $3.5~\sigma$~\cite{EWWG}. More in general, there appears to be a
145: discrepancy between $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ measured from leptonic
146: asymmetries and from hadronic asymmetries. The result from $A_{LR}$ is
147: actually in good agreement with the leptonic asymmetries measured at
148: LEP, while all hadronic asymmetries are better compatible with the
149: result of $A^b_{FB}$. It is well known that this discrepancy is not
150: likely to be explained by some new physics effect in the $b \bar b Z$
151: vertex. In fact $A^b_{FB}$ is the product of lepton- and $b$-asymmetry
152: factors: $A^b_{FB}\propto A_\ell A_b$, where
153: $A_f=2g^f_Ag^f_V/({g^f_A}^2+{g^f_V}^2)$. The sensitivity of
154: $A^b_{FB}$ to $A_b$ is limited, because the $A_\ell$ factor is small,
155: so that, in order to reproduce the measured
156: discrepancy, the new effect should induce a large change of the $b$
157: couplings with respect to the SM.
158: But then this effect should be clearly visible in the
159: direct measurement of $A_b$ performed at SLD using the LR polarized
160: $b$ asymmetry, even within the moderate precision of this result, and
161: it should also appear in the accurate measurement of $R_b\propto
162: {g^{b}_A}^2+{g^{b}_V}^2$. Neither $A_b$ nor $R_b$ show deviations of
163: the expected size. One concludes that most probably the observed
164: discrepancy is due to a large statistical fluctuation and/or to an
165: experimental problem. Indeed, the measurement of $A^b_{FB}$ not only
166: requires $b$ identification, but also distinguishing $b$ from
167: $\bar{b}$, and therefore the systematics involved are different than
168: in the measurement of $R_b$. At any rate, the disagreement between
169: $A^b_{FB}$ and $A_{LR}$ implies that the ambiguity in the measured
170: value of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ is larger than the nominal error
171: obtained from averaging all the existing determinations.
172:
173: Another point of focus is the relation between the fitted Higgs mass
174: and the lower limit on this mass from direct searches, $m_H >
175: 113$~GeV, as it was recently stressed in ref.~\cite{cha}. The central
176: value of the fitted mass is systematically below the limit. In
177: particular, given the experimental value of the top mass, the measured
178: results for $m_W$ (with perfect agreement between LEP and the
179: Tevatron) and $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ measured from leptonic
180: asymmetries, taken together with the results on the $Z_0$ partial
181: widths, push the central value of $m_H$ very much down. In fact, if
182: one arbitrarily excludes $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ measured from the
183: hadronic asymmetries, the fitted value of $m_H$ becomes only
184: marginally consistent with the direct limit, to a level that depends
185: on the adopted value and the error for $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$.
186: Consistency is reinstated if the results from hadronic asymmetries are
187: also included, because they drive the fitted $m_H$ value towards
188: somewhat larger values.
189:
190: In conclusion, if one takes all available measurements into account
191: the $\chi^2$ of the SM fit is not good, with a probability of about
192: $4\%$, partly because the measurements of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ are
193: not in good agreement among them. If, on the other hand, one only
194: takes the results on $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from the leptonic
195: asymmetries, then the $\chi^2$ of the SM fit considerably improves,
196: but the consistency with the direct limit on $m_H$ becomes marginal.
197:
198: In this article we enlarge the discussion of the data from the SM to
199: the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). We look for regions
200: of the MSSM parameter space where the corrections are sufficiently large
201: and act in the direction of improving
202: the quality of the fit and the
203: consistency with the direct limit on $m_H$ with respect to the
204: SM, especially in the most unfavourable case for the SM that the
205: results on $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from the hadronic asymmetries are
206: discarded. We will show that, if sleptons (and, to a lesser extent,
207: charginos and neutralinos) have masses close to their present
208: experimental limits, it is possible to considerably improve the overall
209: picture. In particular the possible MSSM effects become sizeable if we
210: allow the sneutrino masses to be as small as allowed by the direct
211: limits on $m^2_{\tilde{\nu}}$ and by those on charged slepton masses,
212: which are related by $m^2_{\tilde{\ell}^\pm_L}=m^2_{\tilde\nu}+m^2_W|\cos
213: 2\beta|$. At moderately large values of $\tan\beta$ (\ie\ for $|\cos
214: 2\beta|\sim 1$), light sneutrinos with masses as low as $55$~GeV
215: are not excluded by present limits, while charged sleptons must be
216: heavier than $96$~GeV. These low values of the sneutrino mass
217: can still be compatible with the neutralino being the lightest
218: supersymmetric particle. This region of parameter space was not
219: emphasized in some past analyses~\cite{MSSMstudies,Pierce,Erler}.
220: We recall that $\tan\beta\simgt 2-3$ is
221: required by LEP, and large $\tan\beta$ and light sleptons are
222: indicated by the possible deviation observed by the recent Brookhaven
223: result~\cite{gminustwo} on the muon $g-2$, if this discrepancy is to be
224: explained by a MSSM effect. We find it interesting that, by taking
225: seriously the small hints that appear in the present data, one can
226: pinpoint a region of the MSSM which match the data better than the SM,
227: and is likely to be within reach of the present run of the Tevatron and, of
228: course, of the LHC.
229:
230: For this analysis in the MSSM we use the technique of the epsilon
231: parameters $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, $\epsilon_3$ and $\epsilon_b$,
232: introduced in ref.~\cite{epsilon}. The variations of $\epsilon_1$,
233: $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ due to new physics contributions are
234: proportional to the shifts in the $T$, $U$, and $S$
235: parameters~\cite{Peskin}, respectively, if one keeps only oblique
236: contributions (\ie\ terms arising from vacuum polarization diagrams),
237: expanded up to the first power in the external momentum squared. But
238: in the MSSM not all important contributions are of this
239: kind~\cite{Erler}. We recall that the starting point of the epsilon
240: analysis is the unambiguous definition of the $\epsilon_i$ in terms of
241: four basic observables that were chosen to be $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$
242: from $A^\mu_{FB}$, $\Gamma_\mu$, $m_W$ and $R_b$. Given the
243: experimental values of these quantities, the corresponding
244: experimental values of the $\epsilon_i$ follow, independent of $m_t$
245: and $m_H$, with an error that, in addition to the propagation of the
246: experimental errors, also includes the effect of the present
247: ambiguities in $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ and $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$.
248:
249: If one assumes lepton universality, which is well supported by the
250: data within the present accuracy, then the combined results on
251: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all leptonic asymmetries can be adopted
252: together with the combined leptonic partial width $\Gamma_\ell$. At
253: this level the epsilon analysis is model-independent within the stated
254: lepton universality assumption. As a further step we can observe that
255: by including the information on the hadronic widths arising from
256: $\Gamma_Z$, $\sigma_h$, $R_\ell$, the central values of the
257: $\epsilon_i$ are not much changed (with respect to the error size) and
258: the errors are slightly decreased. Thus one may decide of including
259: or not including these data in the determination of the $\epsilon_i$,
260: without affecting the results.
261:
262: Different is the case of including the results from the hadronic
263: asymmetries in the combined value of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$. In this
264: case, obviously, the determination of $\epsilon_i$ is sizeably
265: affected and one remains with the alternative between an experimental
266: problem or a bizarre effect of some new physics in the $b$ coupling
267: (not present in the MSSM). But if we remain within the first stage of
268: purely leptonic measurements plus $m_W$ and $R_b$, the $\epsilon_i$
269: analysis is quite general and, in particular, is independent of an
270: assumption of oblique correction dominance.
271:
272: The comparison with the SM can be repeated in the context of the
273: $\epsilon_i$. The predicted theoretical values of the $\epsilon_i$ in
274: the SM depend on $m_H$ and $m_t$, while they are practically
275: independent of $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ and $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$. If we only
276: take the leptonic measurements of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$, for
277: $m_H=113$~GeV and $m_t=174.3$~GeV one finds that the experimental value
278: of $\epsilon_1$ agrees within the error with the prediction, while
279: both $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ are below the theoretical
280: expectation by about $1~\sigma$. We recall that $m_W$ is
281: related to $\epsilon_2$ and the fact that the experimental value is
282: below the prediction for this quantity corresponds to the statement
283: that $m_W$ would prefer a value of $m_H$ much smaller than
284: $m_H=113$~GeV. Similarly the smallness of the fitted value of
285: $\epsilon_3$ with respect to the prediction has to do with the marked
286: preference for a light $m_H$ of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all
287: leptonic asymmetries. The agreement between fitted value and
288: prediction for $\epsilon_1$, which, contrary to $\epsilon_2$ and
289: $\epsilon_3$, contains a quadratic dependence on $m_t$, reflects the
290: fact that the fitted value of $m_t$ is in agreement with the
291: measured value. The other variable that depends quadratically on $m_t$
292: is $\epsilon_b$. The agreement of the fitted and predicted values of
293: $\epsilon_b$ reflects the corresponding present normality of the
294: results for $R_b$.
295:
296: \section{The data and their comparison with the Standard Model}
297: We start by summarising the different existing determinations of
298: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ and their mutual consistency. The two most
299: precise measurements from $A_{LR}$ by SLD and $A^b_{FB}$ by LEP lead
300: to
301: \bea
302: &&\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}~=~0.23098 \pm 0.00026\qquad\rm{(A_{LR})}\label{alr}
303: \\
304: &&\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}~=~0.23240 \pm 0.00031\qquad\rm{(A^b_{FB})}.
305: \label{abfb}
306: \eea
307: As already mentioned these two measurements differ by $3.5\sigma$. If
308: we take $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from the combined LEP/SLD leptonic or
309: hadronic asymmetries we have
310: \bea
311: &&\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}~=~0.23114\pm0.00020\qquad
312: \rm{(all~leptonic~asymmetries)}\label{alep}\\
313: &&\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}~=~0.23240\pm0.00029\qquad
314: \rm{(all~hadronic~asymmetries)}.
315: \label{ahad}
316: \eea
317: The resulting discrepancy is at $3.6~\sigma$, thus at about the same
318: level. By combining all the above measurements one obtains
319: \beq
320: \sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}~=~0.23156\pm0.00017\qquad
321: \rm{(all~asymmetries)}.\label{aall}
322: \eeq
323: We see that the dispersion between the results from leptonic and
324: hadronic asymmetries is much larger than the nominal error in the
325: combination.
326:
327: The experimental values~\cite{EWWG} of the most important electroweak
328: observables which are used in our analysis are collected in table~\ref{tab1}.
329:
330: \begin{table}[t]
331: \begin{center}
332: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
333: \hline Quantity&Data (March 2001) \\
334: \hline
335: $m_Z$ (GeV) & 91.1875(21) \\
336: $\Gamma_Z$ (GeV) & 2.4952(23) \\
337: $\sigma_h$ (nb) & 41.540(37) \\
338: $R_\ell$ & 20.767(25) \\
339: $R_b$ & 0.21664(68) \\
340: % $R_c$ & 0.1729(32) \\
341: $\Gamma_\ell$ (MeV) & 83.984(86) \\
342: $A^\ell_{FB}$ & 0.01714(95) \\
343: $A_\tau$ & 0.1439(41) \\
344: $A_e$ & 0.1498(48) \\
345: $A^b_{FB}$ & 0.0982(17) \\
346: $A^c_{FB}$ & 0.0689(35) \\
347: $A_b$ (SLD direct) & 0.921(20) \\
348: % $A_c$ (SLD direct) & 0.667(26) \\
349: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ (all lept. asym.) & 0.23114(20) \\
350: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ (all hadr. asym.) & 0.23240(29) \\
351: $m_W$ (GeV) (LEP2+$p\bar p$) & 80.448(34) \\
352: % $1-\frac{m^2_W}{m^2_Z}$ ($\nu$N) & 0.2255(21) \\
353: $m_t$ (GeV) & 174.3(5.1) \\
354: $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ & 0.119(3) \\
355: \hline
356: \end{tabular}
357: \caption{\label{tab1}\it Observables included in our global fit.}
358: \end{center}
359: \end{table}
360: A quantity which plays a very important role in the interpretation of
361: the electroweak precision tests is the value of $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$,
362: the QED coupling at the scale $m_Z$ or, equivalently,
363: $\Delta\alpha_h$, the hadronic contribution to the shift
364: $\Delta\alpha$, with $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)=\alpha/(1-\Delta\alpha)$. We
365: adopt here as our main reference values those recently derived in
366: ref.~\cite{BP01}:
367: \beq
368: \Delta\alpha_h=0.02761\pm 0.00036,
369: \qquad\alpha^{-1}_{QED}(m_Z)=128.936\pm0.049
370: \qquad\rm{(BP01)}.\label{bp}
371: \eeq
372: A larger set of recent determinations of $\Delta\alpha_h$ will also be
373: used for comparison (see table~\ref{tab2}).
374:
375: We consider now different SM fits to the observables $m_t$, $m_W$,
376: $\Gamma_\ell$, $R_b$, $\alpha_s(m_Z)$, $\alpha_{QED}$, with
377: different assumptions on the input value of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$.
378: These fits are based on up-to-date theoretical calculations~\cite{degrassi}.
379: We start by considering $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all leptonic asymmetries,
380: eq.~(\ref{alep}),
381: and $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all hadronic asymmetries, eq.~(\ref{ahad}),
382: as two distinct inputs in the same fit. In this case,
383: we find $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=18.4/4$, corresponding to
384: C.L.=$0.001$. When a more complete analysis is performed, including
385: all 20 observables in the global fit,
386: the situation is still not satisfying, although less dramatic:
387: ref.~\cite{EWWG} reports $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=26/15$,
388: with C.L.=$0.04$. If we now exclude $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$
389: from all hadronic asymmetries, the quality of the fit
390: of our seven observables significantly improves, giving
391: $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=2.5/3$, C.L.=$0.48$,
392: while the fit to all observables except $A^b_{FB}$ gives~\cite{cha}
393: $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=15.8/14$, C.L.=$0.33$.
394: Finally, if we instead exclude $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all leptonic
395: asymmetries, we find $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=15.3/3$, C.L.=$0.0016$. Thus it
396: appears that the leptonic value of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$
397: leads to the best overall consistency in terms of C.L..
398:
399: We now consider the corresponding fitted values of the Higgs mass, and
400: the 95\% C.L. upper limits. In the first case studied above, namely
401: when $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from both hadronic and leptonic
402: asymmetries are included, with $\Delta\alpha_h^{\rm BP01}$ given in
403: eq.~(\ref{bp}), we obtain a central value for the Higgs mass of
404: $m_H=100$~GeV, with a $95\%$ C.L. limit $m_H\simlt 212$~GeV. These
405: values are indeed in complete agreement with the SM fit results
406: presented by the LEP Electroweak Group~\cite{EWWG},
407: based on the complete set of observables:
408: $m_H=98$~GeV and $m_H\simlt 212$~GeV. Neglecting the fact that the
409: dispersion of the various measurements corresponds to a very poor
410: $\chi^2$, there is no significant contradiction with the direct limit
411: on $m_H$. However, it is well known and was recently emphasized in
412: ref.~\cite{cha} that, if instead we use $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$
413: measured from leptonic asymmetries only, see eq.~(\ref{alep}), which leads
414: to the best value of $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$, then the fitted value of
415: $m_H$ markedly drops and the consistency with the direct limit becomes
416: marginal. In fact, in this case, all other inputs being the same, we
417: find $m_H=42$~GeV and $m_H\simlt 109$~GeV. In table~\ref{tab2} we
418: report the corresponding results for some other determinations of
419: $\Delta\alpha_h$. We see that, while there is some sensitivity to this
420: choice, the conclusion that the compatibility of the fitted value of
421: $m_H$ with the direct limit becomes marginal is quite stable.
422: Similarly, we believe that uncalculated higher order effects cannot
423: have a serious impact, as they can be estimated~\cite{barcelona} to
424: shift the 95\% C.L. up by at most 10-15 GeV.
425:
426: It must however be recalled that the level of compatibility is
427: sensitive to the top mass, and is increased if $m_t$ is moved up within
428: its error bar: for a shift up by $1\sigma$ we find, using
429: $\Delta\alpha_h^{\rm BP01}$, $m_H=58$~GeV and $m_H\simlt 156$~GeV.
430:
431: \begin{table}
432: \begin{center}
433: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
434: \hline Ref. & $\Delta\alpha_h$ & $m_H$ (GeV) & $95\%$ C.L. limit (GeV) \\
435: \hline
436: BP01 \cite{BP01} & 0.02761(36) & 42 & 109 \\
437: J01 \cite{J01} & 0.027896(395) & 34 & 91 \\
438: Jeucl01 \cite{J01} & 0.027730(209) & 40 & 98 \\
439: MOR00 \cite{MOR00} & 0.02738(20) & 52 & 124 \\
440: DH98 \cite{DH98} & 0.02763(16) & 42 & 104 \\
441: KS98 \cite{KS98} & 0.02775(17) & 38 & 96 \\
442: EJ95 \cite{EJ95} & 0.02804(65) & 28 & 90 \\
443: \hline
444: \end{tabular}
445: \caption{\label{tab2}\it Different determinations of $\Delta\alpha_h$ and their
446: influence on the fitted Higgs mass.}
447: \end{center}
448: \end{table}
449:
450: We now consider the epsilon analysis. As already mentioned,
451: the predicted values of the epsilon variables in the SM depend on $m_t$ and
452: $m_H$, while they are practically insensitive to small variations of
453: $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ and $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$. We report here the values of
454: $\epsilon_i$ for $m_H=113$~GeV and $m_t=174.3-5.1, 174.3,
455: 174.3+5.1$~GeV, respectively:
456: \be
457: \begin{array}{cccc}
458: \epsilon_1= &~~5.1\times 10^{-3}, &~~5.6\times 10^{-3}, &~~6.0\times 10^{-3} \\
459: \epsilon_2= & -7.2\times 10^{-3}, & -7.4\times 10^{-3}, & -7.6\times 10^{-3} \\
460: \epsilon_3= &~~5.4\times 10^{-3}, &~~5.4\times 10^{-3}, &~~5.3\times 10^{-3} \\
461: \epsilon_b= & -6.2\times 10^{-3}, & -6.6\times 10^{-3}, & -7.1\times 10^{-3}.\\
462: \end{array}
463: \ee
464: We first consider the
465: observables $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ measured from leptonic
466: asymmetries, see eq.~(\ref{alep}), $\Gamma_\ell$, $m_W$, and $R_b$. From
467: these observables we obtain the following values of the $\epsilon_i$:
468: \be
469: \begin{array}{c}
470: \epsilon_1=~~(5.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-3}\\
471: \epsilon_2=(-9.0\pm 1.2)\times 10^{-3}\\
472: \epsilon_3=~~(4.2\pm 1.0)\times 10^{-3}\\
473: \epsilon_b=(-4.2\pm 1.8)\times 10^{-3}.\label{epsa}
474: \end{array}
475: \ee
476: (in this last fit, the value of $\alpha_s$ was kept fixed).
477: The errors also include the effect of the quoted errors on
478: $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ and $\alpha_{QED}(m_Z)$. At this stage we have only
479: assumed lepton universality and the derivation of the $\epsilon_i$ is
480: otherwise completely model independent. For example, no assumption of
481: oblique corrections dominance is to be made. It is interesting to
482: observe that if we add to the previous set of observables the
483: information on the hadronic widths arising from $\Gamma_Z$,
484: $\sigma_h$, $R_\ell$ we obtain for the $\epsilon_i$
485: \be
486: \begin{array}{c}
487: \epsilon_1=~~(5.0\pm1.0)\times 10^{-3}\\
488: \epsilon_2=(-9.1\pm1.2)\times 10^{-3}\\
489: \epsilon_3=~~(4.2\pm1.0)\times 10^{-3}\\
490: \epsilon_b=(-5.7\pm1.6)\times 10^{-3}.\label{epsb}
491: \end{array}
492: \ee
493: The central values are only changed by a small amount (in comparison
494: with the error size) with respect to the previous fit. We interpret
495: this result by concluding that the hadronic $Z_0$ widths are perfectly
496: compatible with the leptonic widths. Thus, if there are new physics
497: corrections in the widths, these must be mostly of universal type like
498: from vacuum polarization diagrams. A posteriori we can add this
499: information in the epsilon analysis which allows to slightly reduce
500: the errors on the individual $\epsilon_i$.
501:
502: We can now consider the sensitivity of the $\epsilon_i$ to the
503: different determinations of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$. We take the same
504: set of observables as in the previous fit in eqs.~(\ref{epsb}), but
505: replace $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from leptonic asymmetries with that
506: obtained from all combined measurements, as given in eq.~(\ref{aall}).
507: The corresponding values of the $\epsilon_i$ are given by
508: \be
509: \begin{array}{c}
510: \epsilon_1=~~(5.4\pm1.0)\times 10^{-3}\\
511: \epsilon_2=(-9.7\pm1.2)\times 10^{-3}\\
512: \epsilon_3=~~(5.4\pm0.9)\times 10^{-3}\\
513: \epsilon_b=(-5.5\pm1.6)\times 10^{-3}.\label{epsc}
514: \end{array}
515: \ee
516: We see that the most sensitive variable to $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ is
517: $\epsilon_3$ that changes by more than $1\sigma$ in the direction of a
518: better agreement with the SM prediction for $m_H=113$~GeV, but the
519: value of $\epsilon_2$ is even further away from the SM prediction.
520: This is in agreement with the results obtained in the direct analysis
521: of the data in the SM.
522:
523: The results of the above fits of the $\epsilon_i$, including the error
524: correlations among different variables, are shown in
525: fig.~\ref{fig1}. In these figures we display the $1\sigma$ ellipses
526: in the $\epsilon_i$-$\epsilon_j$ plane that correspond to the fits in
527: eqs.~(\ref{epsa},\ref{epsb},\ref{epsc}). Note that these ellipses
528: project $\pm 1\sigma$ errors on either axis. As such the probability
529: for both $\epsilon_i$ and $\epsilon_j$ to fall inside the ellipse is
530: only about $39\%$. The ellipses that correspond to other significance
531: levels can be obtained by scaling the ellipse axes by suitable well
532: known factors. We note the following salient features. The fitted
533: values of $\epsilon_1$ are in all cases perfectly compatible with the
534: predicted value in the SM. This corresponds to the fact that the
535: fitted and the measured values of $m_t$ coincide. The fitted values of
536: $\epsilon_2$ are always below the prediction, reflecting the fact that
537: the measured value of $m_W$ would prefer smaller $m_H$ and/or larger
538: $m_t$. The $\epsilon_2$ deviation is larger when also the measurement
539: of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from the hadronic asymmetries is included.
540: The fitted values of $\epsilon_3$ are below the prediction if the
541: value of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from leptonic asymmetries is used,
542: while the agreement is restored if the measurement of
543: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from the hadronic asymmetries is included.
544:
545: In conclusion, the epsilon analysis reproduces the results obtained
546: from the direct comparison of the data with the SM. The most important
547: features are that both $m_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from
548: leptonic asymmetries appear to favour small $m_H$ and/or large $m_t$.
549: In the following we will discuss the effect of supersymmetry and the
550: choice of MSSM parameters that this trend suggests.
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: \begin{figure}[htb]
553: \begin{center}
554: \epsfig{file=fig1-l.ps,width=0.45\textwidth}
555: \epsfig{file=fig1-r.ps,width=0.45\textwidth}
556: \caption{\label{fig1}\it
557: One-sigma ellipses in the $\epsilon_3-\epsilon_2$ (left)
558: and in the $\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3$ (right) planes obtained from:
559: {\rm a}.~$m_W$, $\Gamma_\ell$, $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ from all leptonic
560: asymmetries, and $R_b$; {\rm b}.~the same observables, plus the hadronic
561: partial widths derived from $\Gamma_Z$, $\sigma_h$ and $R_\ell$;
562: {\rm c}.~as in {\rm b}.,
563: but with $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ also including the hadronic
564: asymmetry results. The solid straight lines represent
565: the SM predictions for $m_H=113$~{\rm GeV}
566: and $m_t$ in the range $174.3\pm 5.1$~{\rm GeV}. The dotted curves represent
567: the SM predictions for $m_t=174.3$~{\rm GeV} and $m_H$ in the range $113$ to
568: $500$~{\rm GeV}.}
569: \end{center}
570: \end{figure}
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572:
573: \section{Supersymmetric contributions}
574: Now we want to investigate whether low-energy supersymmetry can
575: reconcile a Higgs mass above the direct experimental limit with a good
576: $\chi^2$ fit of the electroweak data, in the case of
577: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ near the value obtained from leptonic
578: asymmetries. Our approach is to discard the measurement of $A^b_{FB}$,
579: which cannot be reproduced by conventional new physics effects, fix
580: the Higgs mass above its present limit, and look for supersymmetric
581: corrections that can fake a very light SM Higgs boson.
582: As we have discussed in the previous section and as
583: summarized in fig.~\ref{fig1}, this can be achieved if
584: the new physics contributions to the $\epsilon$ parameters amount to
585: shifting $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ down by slightly
586: more than $1~\sigma$, while leaving $\epsilon_1$ essentially
587: unchanged.
588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
589: \begin{figure}
590: \begin{center}
591: \epsfig{file=fig2-l.ps,width=0.45\textwidth}
592: \epsfig{file=fig2-r.ps,width=0.45\textwidth}
593: \caption{\label{fig2}\it
594: Measured values (cross) of $\epsilon_3$ and $\epsilon_2$ (left)
595: and of $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_3$ (right), with their
596: $1~\sigma$ region (solid ellipses), corresponding to
597: case {\rm a} of fig.~\ref{fig1}. The area inside the
598: dashed curves represents the MSSM prediction for $m_{{\tilde e}_L}$ between
599: 96 and 300~{\rm GeV}, $m_{\chi^+}$ between 105 and 300~{\rm GeV},
600: $-1000$~{\rm GeV}~$<\mu<1000$~{\rm GeV}, $\tan\beta=10$,
601: $m_{{\tilde e}_L}=1$~{\rm TeV}. and $m_A=1$~{\rm TeV}.}
602: \end{center}
603: \end{figure}
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605:
606: Squark loops cannot induce this kind of shifts in the $\epsilon$
607: parameters, since their leading effect is a positive contribution to
608: $\epsilon_1$. Thus, we will assume that all squarks are heavy, with
609: masses of the order of one TeV. Since the mass of the lightest Higgs
610: $m_H$ receives a significant contribution from stop loops, we can
611: treat $m_H$ as an independent parameter and, in our analysis, we fix
612: $m_H=113$~GeV. Varying the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$ does not
613: modify the results of our fit, and therefore we fix $m_A=1$~TeV. The
614: choice of the right-handed slepton mass has also an insignificant
615: effect on the fit.
616: Therefore, we are left with four relevant supersymmetric free
617: parameters: the weak gaugino mass $M_2$, the higgsino mass $\mu$, the
618: ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values $\tan\beta$ (which are
619: needed to describe the chargino--neutralino sector), and a
620: supersymmetry-breaking mass for the left-handed sleptons, ${\tilde
621: m}_{\ell_L}$ (lepton flavour universality is assumed).
622: The choice of the $B$-ino mass parameter $M_1$ does
623: not significantly affect our results and, for simplicity, we have
624: assumed the gaugino unification relation $M_1=
625: \frac{5}{3} M_2 \tan^2\theta_W $.
626:
627: We have computed the supersymmetric one-loop contributions to
628: $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ using the results
629: presented in ref.~\cite{Pierce,MSSMstudies}, and the package
630: LoopTools~\cite{LoopTools} for the numerical computation of loop
631: integrals. Figure~\ref{fig2} shows the range of the $\epsilon$
632: parameters that can be spanned by varying $M_2$, $\mu$, $\tan\beta$,
633: and ${\tilde m}_{\ell_L}$, consistently with the present experimental
634: constraints. We have imposed a limit on charged slepton masses of
635: 96~GeV~\cite{Moriond}, on chargino masses of 103~GeV~\cite{Moriond},
636: and on the cross section for neutralino production
637: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\chi_1^0\chi_2^0\to\mu^+\mu^-\slash{E})<0.1$~pb. We
638: have also required that the supersymmetric contribution to the muon
639: anomalous magnetic moment, $a_\mu=(g-2)/2$, lie within the range
640: $0<\delta a_\mu <7.5\times 10^{-9}$. As apparent from
641: fig.~\ref{fig2}, light particles in the chargino--neutralino sector
642: and light left-handed sleptons shift the values of $\epsilon_i$ in the
643: favoured direction, and by a sufficient amount to obtain a
644: satisfactory fit.
645:
646: In fig.~\ref{fig3} we show an alternative presentation of our results
647: directly in terms of the shifts in the observables $m_W$,
648: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ and $\Gamma_\ell$ induced by
649: supersymmetry.\footnote{A good approximation of the relations
650: between shifts in the physical observables and in the
651: $\epsilon$ parameters is given by
652: $\delta m_W=(0.53\delta\epsilon_1-0.37\delta\epsilon_2-0.32\delta\epsilon_3)
653: \times 10^5$~MeV; $\delta\Gamma_\ell=(1.01\delta\epsilon_1
654: -0.22\delta\epsilon_3)\times 10^5$~keV;
655: $\delta\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}=-0.33\delta\epsilon_1+0.43\delta\epsilon_3$.}
656: For reference, we also display in fig.~\ref{fig3} the difference
657: between the measured values of the observables (excluding the hadronic
658: asymmetries) and the corresponding SM predictions for $m_H=113$~GeV,
659: $m_t=174.3$~GeV. Supersymmetric contributions can bring the
660: theoretical predictions in perfect agreement with the data.
661: An interesting observation is that sparticle
662: effects can increase $m_W$ by $\delta m_W$ up to $\sim 100$~MeV, which
663: corresponds to approximately three standard deviations, and decrease
664: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ by $\delta \sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ up to about
665: $-8\times 10^{-4}$ ($\sim 4~\sigma$). Note the marked
666: anticorrelation between $\delta m_W$ and $\delta \sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$.
667: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
668: \begin{figure}
669: \begin{center}
670: \epsfig{file=fig3-l.ps,width=0.40\textwidth}
671: \epsfig{file=fig3-r.ps,width=0.40\textwidth}
672: \caption{\label{fig3}\it The area inside the dotted curves represents
673: the shifts in the values of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$,
674: $m_W$ and $\Gamma_\ell$ induced by supersymmetric corrections,
675: for the same parameter region as in fig.~\ref{fig2}.
676: The shifts necessary to reproduce the central values of the data
677: with $m_t=174.3$~{\rm GeV} and $m_H=113$~{\rm GeV}
678: are also shown, together with
679: the corresponding experimental errors.
680: The dot-dashed lines are obtained by varying the left slepton
681: masses, with all other supersymmetric particle decoupled.
682: The solid curve is obtained analogously, but also keeping a gaugino-like
683: chargino of $105$~{\rm GeV.}
684: In each curve, the circles correspond to $m_{\tilde\nu}=60,70,80$~{\rm GeV}
685: from left to right.
686: }
687: \end{center}
688: \end{figure}
689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
690: $\Gamma_\ell$ is moved upwards, but only by less than 90~keV, or about
691: $1~\sigma$.
692:
693: Let us now analyse in detail the mass spectrum responsible for this
694: effects on the $\epsilon$ parameters. The most significant contribution is
695: coming from light sneutrinos. The effect is maximal when $\tan\beta$ is large
696: since this allows the smallest possible sneutrino mass compatible with the
697: charged slepton mass bound,
698: \beq
699: m_{{\tilde e}_L}^2=m_{\tilde\nu}^2+m_W^2\left|\cos 2\beta\right|.
700: \label{slep}
701: \eeq
702: Figure~\ref{fig4} shows the supersymmetric contributions to the
703: $\epsilon$ parameters as functions of the charged slepton (or
704: sneutrino) mass, for a (purely gaugino) chargino of 105~GeV and for
705: $\tan\beta=10$. The steep functional dependence of the $\epsilon$'s on
706: $m_{\tilde\nu}$ illustrates why very light sneutrinos are required to
707: improve significantly the electroweak fit. The dependence of the
708: $\epsilon$'s on the lightest chargino mass (again for a purely gaugino
709: state) is shown in fig.~\ref{fig5}. This dependence is quite milder
710: than in the sneutrino case. Notice from fig.~\ref{fig5} that, even in
711: the limit of heavy charginos, in which all the effect is coming from
712: slepton vacuum polarization contributions, we can obtain a significant
713: improvement over the SM fit of electroweak data. Light charginos
714: (mostly because of their contributions to vertex and box diagrams) can
715: improve the situation, especially by making $|\delta\epsilon_3|
716: \simlt|\delta\epsilon_2|$, as it seems suggested by the data. Next, we
717: show in fig.~\ref{fig6} how the supersymmetric contributions to
718: $\epsilon$'s vary with the lightest chargino composition (or, in other
719: words, with the parameter $\mu$, for a fixed value of the chargino
720: mass $m_{\chi^+}=105$~GeV). Part of the region where the lightest chargino is
721: dominantly a gaugino state ({\it i.e.} large $\mu$) is preferred by
722: the requirements $\delta\epsilon_1 \simlt 0$ and $|\delta \epsilon_3|
723: \simlt|\delta\epsilon_2|$, suggested by the data.
724: For illustration purposes,
725: the bound $0< \delta a_\mu < 7.5\times 10^{-9}$ has not been imposed in
726: fig.~\ref{fig6}. It would have the effect of excluding the region of negative
727: $\mu$, and the region where the lightest chargino is dominantly
728: a higgsino (small $|\mu|$).
729:
730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
731: \begin{figure}
732: \begin{center}
733: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=0.60\textwidth}}
734: \caption{\label{fig4} \it
735: Supersymmetric contributions to the $\epsilon$ parameters
736: as functions of the charged slepton (or sneutrino) mass, for a
737: (purely gaugino) chargino mass of 105~{\rm GeV} and $\tan\beta=10$.}
738: \end{center}
739: \end{figure}
740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
742: \begin{figure}
743: \begin{center}
744: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig5.ps,width=0.60\textwidth}}
745: \caption{\label{fig5}\it
746: Supersymmetric contributions to the $\epsilon$ parameters
747: as functions of the mass of a (purely gaugino) chargino, for a charged
748: slepton mass of 96~{\rm GeV} and $\tan\beta=10$.}
749: \end{center}
750: \end{figure}
751:
752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
754: \begin{figure}
755: \begin{center}
756: \mbox{\epsfig{file=fig6.ps,width=0.60\textwidth}}
757: \caption{\label{fig6}\it
758: Supersymmetric contributions to the $\epsilon$ parameters
759: as functions of the higgsino mass $\mu$, for a charged slepton mass of
760: 96~{\rm GeV}, a chargino mass of 105~{\rm GeV}, and $\tan\beta=10$.}
761: \end{center}
762: \end{figure}
763:
764: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
765:
766: The effect of the light sneutrinos on the electroweak observables is also
767: explicitly shown in fig.~\ref{fig3}. The dot-dashed lines show the
768: contribution of light left sleptons, when all other supersymmetric
769: particles are decoupled. It is apparent that left sleptons alone are
770: responsible for the largest part of the effect. When light gauginos
771: are added to the spectrum (see solid lines of fig.~\ref{fig3})
772: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ increases, $\Gamma_\ell$ decreases,
773: and $m_W$ remains constant, bringing the theoretical prediction
774: to an even better agreement with the data. On the other hand, light higgsinos
775: (which appear only in vacuum polarization diagrams) further decrease
776: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm eff}$ and increase $m_W$ with respect to the sneutrino
777: contribution.
778:
779: To summarize, the request of an improved electroweak data fit is
780: making precise demands on the supersymmetric mass spectrum. The
781: left-handed charged sleptons have to be very close to their experimental
782: bounds, the sneutrino mass is selected to be below about $80$~GeV, the
783: squarks are in the TeV range, and $\tan\beta \simgt 4$, while there is
784: no information on right-handed slepton masses. The lightest chargino,
785: preferably a gaugino state with mass below about 150~GeV, further
786: improves the fit. This range of supersymmetric parameters is very
787: adequate in explaining the alleged discrepancy between the
788: experimental and theoretical values of the muon anomalous magnetic
789: moment~\cite{gminustwo}. In practice, requiring the supersymmetric contribution
790: to $g-2$ to be in the range indicated by the data amounts to determining
791: a precise value of $\tan\beta$ and selecting a
792: sign (positive in our conventions) of the parameter $\mu$.
793: We recall that, for moderately large $\tan\beta$,
794: the negative sign of $\mu$ is disfavoured by
795: the present measurements of the $B\to X_s \gamma$ branching ratio.
796:
797: \section{Phenomenological implications}
798: It is interesting to consider if the requirements obtained in the
799: previous section on the mass spectrum are consistent with predictions
800: from the various theoretical schemes proposed for supersymmetry
801: breaking. Squarks much heavier than sleptons, heavy higgsino states,
802: and large values of $\tan\beta$ are fairly generic consequences of
803: supersymmetric models with heavy gluinos and radiative electroweak
804: symmetry breaking. More unusual is the existence of a sneutrino with
805: mass less than about $80$~GeV. For instance, in the
806: supergravity-inspired scheme, in which all sleptons have a common
807: supersymmetry-breaking mass at the GUT scale and gaugino masses are
808: unified, we find
809: \beq
810: m_{{\tilde e}_L}^2-m_{{\tilde e}_R}^2=0.56M_2^2
811: +\frac{m_Z^2}{2} (1-4\sin^2\theta_W)\left|\cos 2\beta\right|.
812: \eeq
813: This relation, together with eq.~(\ref{slep}), implies that
814: $m_{\tilde\nu}\simgt m_{{\tilde e}_R}$, once we use the chargino mass limit
815: $M_2\simgt 100$~GeV. The experimental limit on $m_{{\tilde e}_R}$
816: rules out the possibility of a very light sneutrino. Therefore,
817: $m_{\tilde\nu}<80$~GeV requires different
818: supersymmetry-breaking masses for left and right sleptons. This could
819: be achieved in supergravity GUT schemes with non-universal soft
820: masses, by giving different scalar mass terms to matter fields
821: in the $\bf\bar 5$ and in the $\bf 10$
822: representations of $SU(5)$.
823: If we call $m_0$ the left slepton soft mass at the GUT scale,
824: the sneutrino mass is approximately given by
825: \be
826: m_{\tilde\nu}^2=m_0^2+0.78 M_2^2-\frac{m_Z^2}{2}\left|\cos 2\beta\right|.
827: \ee
828: If we impose $m_0^2>0$, the requirement $m_{\tilde\nu}<80$~GeV
829: implies $M_2<116$~GeV, and therefore the chargino should lie
830: just beyond its experimental limit.
831:
832: Gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking models~\cite{gaugemed} always predict
833: $m_{{\tilde r}_R}<m_{{\tilde\ell}_L}$, and exclude the existence of a
834: very light sneutrino. On the other hand, this is a possibility in
835: anomaly-mediated models~\cite{anomalymed} with an additional universal
836: supersymmetry-breaking scalar mass, since the right and left charged
837: sleptons turn out to be nearly degenerate in mass~\cite{GiudiceWells}:
838: \beq
839: m_{{\tilde e}_L}^2-m_{{\tilde e}_R}^2\simeq
840: 0.04\left(m_Z^2\left|\cos 2\beta\right|
841: +M_2^2 \ln \frac{m_{{\tilde e}_R}}{m_Z}\right).
842: \eeq
843: In the case of anomaly mediation, the relation between gaugino masses
844: is $M_1=11 M_2\tan^2\theta_W$, but this does not give any sizeable
845: modification of the results shown in figs.~\ref{fig2}--\ref{fig6}. Therefore,
846: both GUT supergravity schemes with non-universal mass terms and
847: anomaly mediation can give mass spectra compatible with the requirements
848: discussed in the previous section.
849:
850: The selected supersymmetric mass spectrum, with sleptons and possibly
851: charginos just beyond the present experimental bounds, is certainly
852: very encouraging for the next generation of experiments. Future hadron
853: and linear colliders can fully probe this parameter region. However,
854: the phenomenology may be slightly unconventional. Indeed, the lightest
855: supersymmetric particle (LSP) is either a neutralino (most probably
856: a $B$-ino state) or the sneutrino. In gravity mediation with gaugino
857: unification, the neutralino can be the LSP only if
858: $m_{\chi^\pm}<$~110--120~GeV. In anomaly mediation, there is the
859: possibility that an almost mass-degenerate $SU(2)$ triplet of gaugino
860: states is the LSP, and the LEP bound on chargino masses is evaded. Otherwise,
861: the sneutrino is the LSP.
862:
863: A light spectrum of electroweak interacting sparticles is promising
864: for early discovery.
865: Hard leptons generated from the decay chains of supersymmetric particles
866: are the generic signature of our scenario with light sleptons. This is
867: particularly promising for searches at the Tevatron
868: that rely on trilepton events. The trilepton topology is
869: generated by production of a $\chi_1^\pm \chi_2^0$ pair with a subsequent
870: fully leptonic decay. In our case, we expect that the dominant decay modes
871: of the ($W$-ino like) next-to-lightest neutralino are $\chi_2^0 \to
872: {\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \ell^\mp$ and $\chi_2^0 \to
873: {\tilde\nu}\nu$ and, for the chargino, $\chi_1^\pm \to{\tilde\nu}
874: \ell^\pm$ and $\chi_1^\pm \to{\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \nu$.
875: The decay modes into ${\tilde\ell}_R$ are strongly suppressed in the pure
876: $W$-ino limit, while an excess of $\tau$ in the final state is present
877: for a significant gaugino--higgsino mixing.
878:
879: The slepton decay modes depend on the nature of the
880: LSP. However in either case (${\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \to \ell^\pm \chi_1^0$
881: and ${\tilde\nu} \to \nu\chi_1^0$ for $\chi_1^0$ LSP or
882: ${\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \to {\tilde\nu}^\prime \ell^{\pm \prime} \nu$,
883: ${\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \to {\tilde \nu} {\bar f}f^\prime$
884: for ${\tilde \nu}$ LSP),
885: the final states are rather similar. Notice however that, for a sneutrino
886: LSP, the charged slepton can decay also into a charged lepton of a different
887: flavour, ${\tilde \ell}_L^\pm \to \ell^{\pm \prime} \slash{E}$, or into
888: quarks. The branching ratio into a single
889: trilepton channel is approximately
890: \beq
891: BR( \chi_2^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^- \slash{E})\times
892: BR( \chi_1^\pm \to \mu^\pm \slash{E})=\frac{1}{9}
893: \left[ 1+ \left( \frac{m_{\chi_2^0}^2 -m_{\tilde \nu}^2}
894: {m_{\chi_2^0}^2 -m_{{\tilde \ell}_L}^2}\right)^2\right]^{-1}.
895: \label{br}
896: \eeq
897: At present the experimental limit on the cross section of a single
898: trilepton channel is $\sigma(3\mu)<0.05$~pb for
899: $m_{\chi_1^\pm}=100$--$120$~GeV~\cite{trilepton}.
900: Since the cross section for production of gaugino-like $\chi_1^\pm \chi_2^0$
901: at $\sqrt{s}=2$~TeV is 0.3~pb (0.2~pb) for $m_{\chi_1^\pm,\chi_2^0}=$~100~GeV
902: (120~GeV), the signal rate (which is obtained by multiplying eq.~(\ref{br})
903: by the cross section) is not far beyond the present limit, and within
904: reach of the Tevatron upgrading.\footnote{We thank G. Polesello
905: for help in the numerical calculation.}
906:
907: Let us now make some remarks on the relic abundance of the LSP in the
908: scenario discussed here. Sneutrinos rapidly annihilate with
909: antisneutrinos in the early universe through $Z^0$ exchange in the
910: $s$-channel. Even in case of a cosmic lepton asymmetry, their
911: number density would still be depleted by the process ${\tilde\nu}
912: {\tilde \nu}\to\nu\nu$ via neutralino $t$-channel exchange. This
913: annihilation process is efficient, having an $s$-wave contribution,
914: and it leads to a present sneutrino relic density
915: \beq
916: \Omega_{\tilde\nu} h^2 \simeq 10^{-3}\left( \frac{M_2}{100~{\rm GeV}} \right)^2
917: \left(1+\frac{m_{\tilde \nu}^2}{M_2^2}\right).
918: \eeq
919: Values of $\Omega_{\tilde\nu}$ interesting for the dark matter problem
920: would require $M_2\simgt 1$~TeV. At any rate, since the
921: sneutrino--nucleon scattering cross section, in the non-relativistic
922: regime, is 4 times larger than the cross section for a Dirac neutrino
923: of the same mass, the case of a sneutrino
924: with halo density in our galaxy has been ruled out by nuclear recoil
925: detection searches. Nevertheless, it has been
926: suggested~\cite{snudm} that a cold dark matter sneutrino could be
927: resurrected in presence of a lepton-number violating interaction that
928: splits the real and imaginary parts of the sneutrino field, since this
929: would lead to a vanishing coupling of the LSP to the $Z^0$ boson.
930:
931: Cosmologically more interesting is the case of a neutralino LSP. For a
932: $B$-ino LSP and for $m_{{\tilde e}_R}\simlt 2m_{\tilde \nu}$, the
933: neutralino annihilation rate in the early universe
934: is dominated by ${\tilde\ell}_R$ exchange, and its
935: relic abundance is approximately given by~\cite{Drees}
936: \beq
937: \Omega_\chi h^2\simeq \frac{m_{{\tilde e}_R}^4}{{\rm TeV}^2~m_{\chi_1^0}^2}
938: f\left(\frac{m_{\chi_1^0}^2}{m_{{\tilde e}_R}^2}\right),
939: \eeq
940: where $f(x)=(1+x)^4/(1+x^2)$. For instance, for $m_{\chi_1^0}=60$~GeV
941: and $m_{{\tilde e}_R}=130$~GeV, we obtain $\Omega_\chi=0.3$ (for a
942: Hubble constant $h=0.7$). If $m_{{\tilde e}_R}\simgt 2m_{\tilde\nu}$,
943: then $t$-channel sneutrino and left charged slepton exchange dominate
944: the annihilation cross section. Since the hypercharge of left sleptons
945: is half the hypercharge of right sleptons, even in this case we obtain
946: an appropriate value of the neutralino relic abundance. For instance,
947: for $m_{\chi_1^0}=60$~GeV and $m_{\tilde\nu}=70$~GeV, we find
948: $\Omega_\chi=0.5$. However, we recall that coannihilation effects~\cite{coh}
949: between $\tilde\nu$ and $\chi_1^0$ could significantly reduce
950: the estimate of the relic abundance given here. Nevertheless,
951: we can conclude that the supersymmetric mass spectrum
952: selected by our analysis of electroweak data can predict the correct
953: $\chi_1^0$ relic density to explain dark matter.
954:
955: \section{Conclusions}
956: The long era of precision tests of the SM is now essentially
957: completed. The result has been a confirmation of the SM to a level
958: that was hardly believable apriori. In fact, on conceptual grounds, we
959: expect new physics near the electroweak scale. The fitted Higgs mass
960: from the radiative corrections is remarkably light. This fact is in
961: favour of a picture of electroweak symmetry breaking in terms of
962: fundamental Higgs fields like in supersymmetric extensions of the SM. A light
963: Higgs in the MSSM should be accompanied by a relatively light spectrum
964: of sparticles so that it would be natural to expect some of the
965: lightest supersymmetric particles to be close to their present experimental
966: limits. Although it is well known that the supersymmetric corrections to the
967: relevant electroweak observables are rather small for sparticles that
968: obey present experimental limits, still it is possible that some of
969: these effects distort the SM quantitative description with shifts of a
970: magnitude of the order of the present experimental errors. So it is
971: interesting to look at small discrepancies in the data that could be
972: attributed to supersymmetric effects. One such effect is the small excess of
973: the measured value of $m_W$ with respect to the SM prediction for the
974: observed value of $m_t$ and $m_H$ in agreement with the present direct
975: lower bound. Alternatively, the same effect is manifested by a
976: corresponding deficit of the $\epsilon_2$ parameter. Another effect
977: could be hidden by the fact that unfortunately there is an
978: experimental discrepancy between the values of $\sin^2\theta_{\rm
979: eff}$ measured from leptonic and hadronic asymmetries. If eventually
980: the true value will be established to be more on the side of the
981: leptonic asymmetries, then an effect of the same order of that
982: present in $\epsilon_2$ will also be needed in $\epsilon_3$ to better
983: reconcile the fitted value of $m_H$ with the direct limits on the
984: Higgs mass.
985:
986: We have shown in this note that negative shifts in
987: $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$ of a comparable size would indeed be
988: induced by light sleptons and moderately large $\tan\beta$. Charged
989: slepton near their experimental limit of about $100$~GeV could well
990: be compatible at large $\tan{\beta}$ with sneutrinos of masses as low
991: as $55-80$~GeV. If accompanied by light charginos and neutralinos one
992: can obtain shifts in the radiative corrections of precisely the right
993: pattern and magnitude to reproduce the description of the data that we
994: discussed. Light sleptons and large $\tan{\beta}$ are also compatible
995: with the recent indication of a deviation in the muon $g-2$. We have
996: discussed the phenomenological implications of this situation.
997: Interestingly, the discovery of supersymmetric particles at the Tevatron
998: in the next few years could be possible in channels with three hard
999: isolated leptons.
1000:
1001: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1002: We thank Anna Lipniacka for useful information, and
1003: Giacomo Polesello for his precious help.
1004: This work was supported in part
1005: by EU TMR contract FMRX-CT98-0194 (DG 12-MIHT).
1006:
1007: \noindent
1008: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1009: \bibitem{EWWG}
1010: LEP Electroweak Working Group, LEPEWWG/2001-01.
1011: \bibitem{cha}
1012: M.S.~Chanowitz, {\tt hep-ph/0104024}.
1013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104024;%%
1014: \bibitem{MSSMstudies}
1015: R.~Barbieri, M.~Frigeni and F.~Caravaglios, \PLB{279}{1992}{169};\\
1016: G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri and F.~Caravaglios, \PLB{314}{1993}{357};\\
1017: G.~Cho and K.~Hagiwara, {\tt hep-ph/0105037};\\
1018: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105037;%%
1019: J.~Ellis, G.L.~Fogli and E.~Lisi, \NPB{393}{1993}{3};\\
1020: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B393,3;%%
1021: P.H.~Chankowski, A.~Dabelstein, W.~Hollik, W.M.~Mosle,
1022: S.~Pokorski and J.~Rosiek, \NPB{417}{1994}{101};\\
1023: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B417,101;%%
1024: W.~de Boer, A.~Dabelstein, W.~Hollik, W.~Mosle and U.~Schwickerath,
1025: \ZPC{75}{1997}{627};\\
1026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607286;%%
1027: P.H.~Chankowski and S.~Pokorski, \PLB{366}{1996}{188}.
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505304;%%
1029: \bibitem{Pierce}
1030: D.M.~Pierce, J.A.~Bagger, K.T.~Matchev and R.J.~Zhang, \NPB{491}{1997}{3};\\
1031: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%
1032: J.D.~Wells, C.~Kolda and G.~L.~Kane, \PLB{338}{1994}{219};\\
1033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408228;%%
1034: M.~Boulware and D.~Finnell, \PRD{44}{1991}{2054};\\
1035: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,2054;%%
1036: P.H.~Chankowski and S.~Pokorski, \NPB{475}{1996}{3}.
1037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603310;%%
1038: \bibitem{Erler}
1039: J.~Erler and D.~M.~Pierce, \NPB{526}{1998}{53}.
1040: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801238;%%
1041: \bibitem{gminustwo}
1042: H.N.~Brown {\it et al.} (Muon g-2 Collaboration), \PRL{86}{2001}{2227}.
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
1044: \bibitem{epsilon}
1045: G.~Altarelli and R.~Barbieri, \PLB{253}{1991}{161};\\
1046: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,161;%%
1047: G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri and S.~Jadach, \NPB{369}{1992}{3};
1048: Erratum \NPB{376}{1992}{444};\\
1049: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B369,3;%%
1050: G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri, F.~Caravaglios, \NPB{405}{1993}{3};\\
1051: G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri and F.~Caravaglios,
1052: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf A13} (1998) 1031.
1053: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712368;%%
1054: \bibitem{Peskin}
1055: M.E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi, \PRL{65}{1990}{964}.
1056: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%
1057: \bibitem{BP01}
1058: H.~Burkhardt and B.~Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP-2001-03.
1059: \bibitem{degrassi}
1060: G.~Degrassi and P.~Gambino, \NPB{567}{2000}{3};\\
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905472;%%
1062: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and A.~Sirlin, \PLB{394}{1997}{188};\\
1063: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611363;%%
1064: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and A.~Vicini, \PLB{383}{1996}{219}.
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603374;%%
1066: \bibitem{J01}
1067: F.~Jegerlehner, {\tt hep-ph/0105283}.
1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105283;%%
1069: \bibitem{MOR00}
1070: A.~D.~Martin, J.~Outhwaite and M.~G.~Ryskin, \PLB{492}{2000}{69}.
1071: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008078;%%
1072: \bibitem{DH98}
1073: M.~Davier and A.~H\"ocker, \PLB{435}{1998}{427}.
1074: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805470;%%
1075: \bibitem{KS98}
1076: J.H.~K\"uhn and M.~Steinhauser, \PLB{437}{1998}{425}.
1077: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802241;%%
1078: \bibitem{EJ95}
1079: S.~Eidelman and F.~Jegerlehner, \ZPC{67}{1995}{585}.
1080: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502298;%%
1081: \bibitem{LoopTools}
1082: G.J.~van~Oldenborgh and J.A.M. Vermaseren, \ZPC{46}{1990}{425};\\
1083: T.~Hahn and M.~Perez-Victoria,
1084: {\it Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 118} (1999) 153.
1085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
1086: \bibitem{barcelona} P.~Gambino, {\tt hep-ph/9812332}.
1087: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812332;%%
1088: \bibitem{Moriond}
1089: K.~Jakobs, Talk given at the XXXVI Rencontres de Moriond on
1090: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories,
1091: Les Arcs, March 2001.
1092: \bibitem{gaugemed}
1093: M.~Dine and A.~E.~Nelson, \PRD{48}{1993}{1277};\\
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303230;%%
1095: M.~Dine, A.~E.~Nelson and Y.~Shirman, \PRD{51}{1995}{1362};\\
1096: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408384;%%
1097: G.F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 322} (1999) 419.
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801271;%%
1099: \bibitem{anomalymed}
1100: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, \NPB{557}{1999}{79};\\
1101: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%
1102: G.F.~Giudice, M.A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi,
1103: JHEP {\bf 9812} (1998) 027.
1104: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810442;%%
1105: \bibitem{GiudiceWells}
1106: T.~Gherghetta, G.F.~Giudice and J.~D.~Wells,
1107: \NPB{559}{1999}{27}.
1108: \bibitem{trilepton}
1109: B.~Abbott {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration), \PRL{80}{1998}{1591};\\
1110: F.~Abe {\it et al.}, (CDF Collaboration), \PRL{80}{1998}{5275}.
1111: \bibitem{snudm}
1112: L.J.~Hall, T.~Moroi and H.~Murayama, \PLB{424}{1998}{305}.
1113: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712515;%%
1114: \bibitem{Drees}
1115: M.~Drees, {\it Pramana} {\bf 51} (1998) 87.
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804231;%%
1117: \bibitem{coh}
1118: K.~Griest and D.~Seckel, \PRD{43}{1991}{3191}.
1119: \end{thebibliography}
1120: \vfill
1121: \end{document}
1122: