1: \documentstyle[color,twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
2:
3: %%%%%%% comment this out before sending to PRL
4: \definecolor{Red}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0}
5: \newcommand{\rd}{\color{Red}}
6: \definecolor{Blue}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0}
7: \newcommand{\bl}{\color{Blue}}
8: %%%%%%% end of comment this out
9:
10:
11:
12: \setlength{\textheight}{24.0cm}
13:
14: \setcounter{topnumber}{6}
15: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{6}
16: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
17: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
18: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
19: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Uli's macros
22: \newcommand{\lt}{\left}
23: \newcommand{\rt}{\right}
24: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
25: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber\\}
26: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
27: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}
28: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
29: \newcommand{\imag}{{\rm Im}\,}
30: \newcommand{\real}{{\rm Re}\,}
31: \newcommand{\mev}{\mbox{MeV}}
32: \newcommand{\gev}{\mbox{GeV}}
33: \newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline{#1}}
34:
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Sakis' macros
37: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
38: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
39: \newcommand{\br}{\begin{eqnarray}}
40: \newcommand{\er}{\end{eqnarray}}
41: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
42: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
43: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
44: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
45: \newcommand{\bn}{\begin{enumerate}}
46: \newcommand{\en}{\end{enumerate}}
47: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}
48: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
49: \newcommand{\ul}{\underline}
50: %\newcommand{\ol}{\overline} \ol already defined in ReVTeX
51: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
52: \newcommand{\bs}{$B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-$}
53: \newcommand{\cbs}{{\cal B}(B_s\rightarrow\mu^+\mu^-)}
54: \tighten
55:
56:
57: \def\Ord{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}
58: \def\OOrd{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}
59:
60: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}
61: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}
62:
63: \def\preprint{{\it preprint}}
64:
65: \begin{document}
66: \tolerance=100000
67: \thispagestyle{empty}
68: %\setcounter{page}{0}
69:
70: % \begin{flushright}
71: % {\rm CERN-TH-2001-xxx}\\
72: % {\rm July 2001} \\
73: % \end{flushright}
74:
75: %\vspace*{\fill}
76:
77: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
78:
79: %\title{\vspace{-1ex}\small
80: % CERN--TH/2001-211, \hfill hep-ph/0108037\\[2mm] \large
81: %Correlation of $B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-$ and $(g-2)_\mu$ in Minimal Supergravity}
82: %
83: \title{\vspace{-3ex}{ \small CERN--TH/2001-211
84: \hfill hep-ph/0108037 }\\[2mm]
85: Correlation of $B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-$ and $(g-2)_\mu$ in Minimal
86: Supergravity}
87: %
88: \author{Athanasios Dedes$^1$, Herbert K.~Dreiner$^1$ and
89: Ulrich Nierste$^2$}
90: %
91: \address{
92: {\it $^1$ Physikalisches Institut, Universit\"at Bonn, Nu{\ss}allee 12,
93: D-53115 Bonn, Germany} \\
94: {\it $^2$ CERN, TH Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
95: }
96: \maketitle
97: \begin{abstract}
98: We analyse the rare decay mode \bs\ in the minimal supergravity
99: scenario (mSUGRA). We find a strong correlation with the muon
100: anomalous magnetic moment $(g-2)_\mu$. An interpretation of the
101: recently measured excess in $(g-2)_\mu$ in terms of mSUGRA
102: corrections implies a substantial supersymmetric enhancement of the
103: branching ratio $\cbs$: if $(g-2)_\mu$ exceeds the Standard Model
104: prediction by $4\cdot 10^{-9}$,
105: $\cbs$ is larger by a factor of { 10--100}
106: than in the Standard Model and within reach of Run-II of the
107: Tevatron. Thus an experimental search for \bs\ is a stringent test of
108: the mSUGRA GUT scale boundary conditions. If the decay \bs\ is
109: observed at Run-II of the Tevatron, then we predict the mass of the
110: lightest supersymmetric Higgs boson to be less than 120 GeV. The
111: decay \bs\ can also significantly probe the favoured parameter range
112: in SO(10) SUSY GUT models.
113: \end{abstract}
114: \pacs{}
115: ]
116:
117:
118:
119: Supersymmetry (SUSY) is an attractive and widely studied extension of
120: the Standard Model (SM). The minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA)
121: \cite{mSUGRA} relates all supersymmetric parameters to just 5 real
122: quantities: the universal scalar and gaugino masses $M_0$ and
123: $M_{1/2}$, the trilinear term $A_0$, the ratio $\tan \beta$ of the two
124: Higgs vacuum expectation values, and $\mbox{sgn}\,\mu$, where $\mu$ is
125: the Higgs\-ino mass parameter. The first three
126: quantities are defined at a high,
127: grand unified energy scale
128: and the others at the electroweak scale.
129: They are the boundary conditions for the
130: renormalization group equations, which determine the physical
131: parameters at our low scale. Precision observables, which are affected
132: by SUSY corrections through loop effects, play an important role in
133: constraining the supersymmetric parameter space. The small number of
134: parameters makes mSUGRA highly predictive so it can be significantly
135: tested by low energy precision measurements. In this letter we show
136: that the decay \bs\ is a stringent test of the mSUGRA scenario, in
137: particular when correlated with $(g-2)_\mu$.
138:
139: Recently the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) reported an excess
140: of the muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_{\mu}=(g-2)_{\mu}/2$ over its
141: SM value \cite{BNL}. The difference $\delta a_{\mu} = a_{\mu}^{exp} -
142: a_{\mu}^{SM} = (43\pm 16) \cdot 10^{-10}$ corresponds to a 2.6$\sigma$
143: deviation from the SM. An mSUGRA interpretation of this anomaly
144: implies $\mu >0$ (in the sign convention with $M_{1/2}>0$ and equal
145: signs of the diagonal elements of the chargino mass matrix)
146: \cite{Lopez:1994vi}. It further invites a large $\tan\beta\gsim10$
147: \cite{Feng}. The discrepancy in the case of $a_\mu$ is by itself not
148: significant enough to justify the claim of new physics, especially
149: since the calculation of $a_{\mu}^{SM}$ involves two hadronic
150: quantities: the hadronic contributions to the photon self-energy,
151: which must be obtained from other experiments, and the (smaller)
152: light-by-light scattering contribution, which can only be estimated
153: with hadronic models. A more conservative estimate of the latter would
154: reduce the BNL anomaly to a 2$\sigma$ effect \cite{BNL}. Hence in
155: order to resolve the possible ambiguity between mSUGRA and alternative
156: explanations of $\delta a_{\mu}$ one ideally wishes to study other
157: observables whose sensitivity to supersymmetric loop corrections is
158: correlated with $\delta a_{\mu}$. It is our purpose here to show the
159: strong correlation between $\cbs$ and $\delta a_{ \mu}$ in mSUGRA.
160:
161: SUSY modifies B meson observables if $\tan \beta$ is large, because
162: the $b$ Yukawa coupling becomes sizable.~Especially sensitive are
163: quantities with a $b$ quark chir\-ality flip like the branching ratios
164: ${\cal B}(B \to X_s \gamma)$ and ${\cal B} (B \to \ell^+ \ell^-)$. In
165: mSUGRA the low energy value for the trilinear term $A_t$ is dominated
166: by $M_{1/2}$ with $A_t <0$ for $M_{1/2}>0$ \cite{Masiero}. Then
167: $\mu>0$ implies that the charged-Higgs-top loop and the chargino-stop
168: loop tend to cancel in ${\cal B}(B \to X_s \gamma)$, so that the
169: sensitivity to mSUGRA corrections is weakened. A further disadvantage
170: of this decay mode is that it requires an experimental cut on the
171: photon energy, which introduces some hadronic uncertainty.
172:
173: In \cite{Masiero} the possible impact of flavour-blind SUSY on other B
174: physics observables, in particular those which enter the fit of the
175: unitarity triangle, were studied and only small effects were found.
176: This did not include the decay \bs. In contrast to the observables in
177: \cite{Masiero}, the branching ratio $\cbs$ grows like $\tan^6\beta$
178: \cite{Babu,Chankowski,Urban}, with a possible several orders of
179: magnitude enhancement. We here go beyond this work to study \bs\ in the
180: mSUGRA model. Since ${\cal B} (B \to \ell^+ \ell^-) \propto
181: m_{\ell}^2$, the branching ratio is largest for $\ell=\tau$. Yet
182: $\tau$'s are hard to detect at hadron colliders, so that the prime
183: experimental focus is on the search for \bs. B factories running on
184: the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance produce no $B_s$ mesons. Leptonic
185: branching ratios of $B_d$ mesons are smaller by a factor of $|V_{td}
186: /V_{ts}|^2\lsim 0.06$. Since in B factories the boost of the $B_d$
187: meson is known and the considered leptonic decay rates can be
188: substantially enhanced over their SM values in SUSY, we encourage our
189: colleagues at BaBar and BELLE to look for $B_d \to \tau^+ \tau^-$
190: decays, as well. From now on we restrict ourselves to the decay mode
191: \bs.
192:
193: In \cite{Babu,Chankowski,Urban} the SUSY corrections to $\cbs$ were
194: calculated at the one-loop level. For large $\tan \beta$, higher order
195: corrections can be large, eventually of order 1. In \cite{cgnw} $\tan
196: \beta$-enhanced supersymmetric QCD corrections have been summed to all
197: orders in perturbation theory.
198: We have incorporated these dominant higher order corrections
199: by replacing the $b$ Yukawa coupling
200: $h_b\propto m_b \tan \beta$ with $ h_b^{{\rm eff}} = h_b/(1+\Delta
201: m_b)$, where $\Delta m_b \propto \mu \tan \beta$ depends on the gluino
202: and sbottom masses and can be found in \cite{cgnw}. $\Delta m_b$ is
203: positive for $\mu>0$. The dominant contribution to $\cbs $ is
204: proportional to $h_b^{{\rm eff}\,4}$, so that the inclusion of $\Delta
205: m_b$ tempers the large-$\tan \beta$ behaviour.
206:
207: The considered branching ratio can be expressed as
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \lefteqn{\!\! \cbs \; =} \nn
210: && 6.0 \cdot 10^{-7}
211: \lt(\frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.040}\rt)^2
212: \lt(\frac{f_{B_s}}{230\,\mev}\rt)^2
213: \frac{m_{\mu}^2}{m_{B_s}^2}
214: \sqrt{1-\frac{4 m_\mu^2}{m_{B_s}^2}} \nonumber \\
215: && \Biggl \{
216: \biggl ( 1-\frac{4 m_\mu^2}{M_{B_s}^2}\biggr )
217: \lt| \frac{m_{B_s}^2 C_S}{m_{\mu}} \rt|^2 +
218: \lt| \frac{m_{B_s}^2 C_P}{m_{\mu}} - 2 C_A \rt|^2 \Biggr \} .
219: \label{brancing}
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: Here $|V_{ts}|=0.040\pm 0.002$ is the relevant CKM matrix element and
222: $f_{B_s}=(230 \pm 30)\; \mev$ \cite{fbs} is the $B_s$ decay constant.
223: In \eq{brancing} we have kept the dependence on the lepton mass
224: $m_{\mu}$, so that the generalisation to $B_d \to \tau^+ \tau^-$ is
225: straightforward. The Wilson coefficients $C_S$, $C_P$ and $C_A$, which
226: contain the short-distance physics, are normalised as in
227: \cite{Nierste}. The coefficients $c_S$, $c_P$ and $c_{10}$ defined in
228: \cite{Urban} are related to ours by $C_S=-2 c_S \sin^2 \theta_W$, $C_A
229: = -2 c_{10} \sin^2 \theta_W$ and $C_P = 2 c_P \sin^2 \theta_W$. Within
230: the SM, $C_S$ and $C_P$ are negligibly small and the NLO result for
231: $C_A$ can be well approximated by $C_A=2.01 (\ov{m}_t/167\;
232: \gev)^{1.55}$ \cite{Buchalla}. Here $\ov{m}_t\equiv \ov{m}_t(m_t) $ is
233: the top quark mass in the $\ov{\rm MS}$ scheme. $\ov{m}_t = 167$
234: GeV corresponds to a pole mass of $m_t=175\; \gev$. The SM prediction
235: is given by $\cbs = (3.7 \pm 1.2) \cdot 10^ {-9}$, with the
236: uncertainty ($\pm 25\%$) dominated by $f_{B_s}$. This is also the
237: main hadronic uncertainty in the SUSY calculation.
238:
239: During Run-I of the Tevatron, CDF determined \cite{CDFbmumu}
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: \begin{eqnarray}
242: \cbs < 2.6 \times 10^{-6},
243: \qquad \mbox{ at 95\% C.L.}
244: \label{expbmumu}
245: \end{eqnarray}
246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
247: The single event sensitivity of CDF at Run-IIa is estimated to be $1.0
248: \cdot 10^{-8}$, for an integrated luminosity of 2 fb$^{-1}$
249: \cite{fnalbrep}. Thus if mSUGRA corrections enhance $\cbs$ to
250: e.g.\ $5\cdot 10^{-7}$, one will see 50 events in Run-IIa. Run-IIb may
251: collect 10-20 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, which implies
252: 250-500 events in this example.
253:
254: In SUSY, the dominant coefficients are $C_{S,P}$ since they are
255: proportional to $\tan^3\beta$.~We would like to understand the effect
256: of the restricted mSUGRA parameters on $C_{S,P}$ and thus on $\cbs$.
257: In mSUGRA the low-energy values of both $\mu$ and the squark masses
258: are dominated by the (GUT scale) value of $M_{1/2}$ through the
259: renormalization group equations. For not-too-large $M_0,M_{1/2}\lsim
260: 500$ GeV and $A_0\simeq 0$ GeV we can derive the approximate formula
261: $\cbs \approx 10^{-6} \tan^6 \beta \, M_{1/2}^2 \gev^4 /(M_{1/2}^2 +
262: M_0^2)^3$. In the vicinity of the maximum (near $M_{1/2}=0.4\, M_0$)
263: the approximate formula is not accurate. A similar estimate of the
264: supersymmetric contribution to $a_\mu$ yields $(\delta
265: a_\mu)_{SUSY}\propto\tan\beta f(M_0)/M_{1/2} ^2$. $(\delta
266: a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ depends on slepton masses, which are less sensitive to
267: $M_{1/2}$ than squark masses; they are dominated by $M_0$. We have
268: encoded the $M_0$ dependence in the slowly varying function $f(M_0)$.
269: { Hence both $\cbs$ and $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ grow with $\tan \beta$
270: and decrease with increasing $M_{1/2}$. For this} it is essential
271: that we have made the assumption of the mSUGRA GUT scale boundary
272: conditions. Thus within mSUGRA we expect a strong correlation between
273: $\cbs$ and $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$: if $\delta a_\mu \not=0$ requires
274: a SUSY explanation with large $\tan\beta$ then we would expect $\cbs$
275: to be strongly enhanced. If, however, the supersymmetric explanation
276: of $\delta a_\mu$ requires small $M_{1/2}$ and a moderate value of
277: $\tan\beta$ then we would expect only a moderate enhancement of
278: $\cbs$.
279: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%555
280: %\onecolumn
281: %\widetext
282: \begin{figure}[t]
283: \centerline{\psfig{figure=btomumu-g-2.ps, angle=90,height=8cm}}
284: \caption{$(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$, versus $\cbs$ for
285: $\tan\beta$ (top) and $M_{1/2}$=450,
286: $M_0=350, A_0=0, \mu>0, m_t=175$ GeV. Shown also, the SM
287: prediction, the present bound by CDF~\protect\cite{CDFbmumu}, on
288: $\cbs$ as well as the present 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ bound on
289: $\delta a_\mu$ from BNL~\protect\cite{BNL}. We used $f_{B_s}=230$
290: MeV.}
291: \label{fig1}
292: \end{figure}
293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
294:
295:
296:
297:
298:
299:
300: We now study these effects quantitatively.~For this we use the full
301: computation of Eq.(\ref{brancing}) including the resummed SUSY QCD
302: corrections, and restricting ourselves to the mSUGRA parameters.~In
303: Fig.\ref{fig1}, we show the direct correlation between $\cbs$ and
304: $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ for the fixed parameters: $M_{1/2}=450\; \gev,
305: M_0=350\; \gev, A_0=0, \mu>0$ and $m_t=175$ GeV. On the upper edge we
306: show the $\tan\beta$ dependence. We restrict ourselves to
307: $\tan\beta<58$ in order to guarantee radiative electroweak symmetry
308: breaking (REWSB). We have included the SM prediction and the CDF bound
309: from Eq.(\ref{expbmumu}). The solid (dashed) curve represents the
310: $\cbs$ result with (without) resummation of the $\tan \beta$-enhanced
311: SUSY-QCD corrections. In this example, the resummation suppresses
312: $\cbs$ by 75\% for $\tan\beta\gsim 50$. In order for mSUGRA to account
313: for $\delta a_\mu$ within 1$\sigma$ of the current BNL measurement at
314: this parameter point, we see that we need a large value of $\tan\beta
315: \gsim 50$. Due to the strong correlation within mSUGRA we then predict
316: $\cbs \gsim 5 \cdot 10^{-8}$, which is observable by CDF at Run~II.
317:
318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
319: %\onecolumn
320: %\widetext
321: \begin{figure}[t]
322: \centerline{\psfig{figure=btomumu_m12tanb.ps, angle=90,height=7cm}}
323: \caption{Contours of $\cbs$ (solid) and $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$
324: (in units $10^{-10})$ (dashed) in the $M_{1/2}$-$\tan\beta$ plane.
325: The lightest neutral CP-even Higgs mass is shown as well
326: (dot-dashed). The shaded regions are excluded, as described in the
327: text. The mSUGRA parameters are given at the top.}
328: \label{fig2}
329: \end{figure}
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331:
332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
333: \begin{figure}
334: \centerline{\psfig{figure=btomumu_m12mo.ps, angle=90,height=7cm}}
335: \caption{Contour plots of the $\cbs$ (solid) and on $(\delta a_
336: \mu)_{SUSY}$ (dashed) in the ($M_{0},M_{1/2}$)-plane for
337: mSUGRA parameter values as shown. The shaded regions are excluded as
338: described in the text. Contours of the light Higgs boson mass
339: (dot-dash line) are also shown. }
340: \label{fig3}
341: \end{figure}
342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
343:
344: As we discussed above, we expect $\cbs$ to dominantly depend on the
345: mSUGRA parameters $M_{1/2}$ and $\tan\beta$. In Fig.\ref{fig2} we show
346: the $\cbs$ (solid) and the $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ (dashed) contours
347: in this plane. We have fixed: $M_0=300$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\mu>0$ and
348: $m_t=175$ GeV. The $2\sigma$ contours for $\delta a_\mu$ (11,75) are
349: explicitly given. The left vertical shaded region is theoretically
350: excluded since it does not allow for REWSB or violates the LEP
351: chargino bound. The upper right triangular shaded region is excluded,
352: since the LSP is not neutral. If as expected, CDF can probe down to
353: $\cbs\gsim2\cdot 10^{-7}$ at RUN~IIa, this corresponds to a
354: sensitivity of $(M_{1/2}, \tan\beta)$ ranging from $(160\,\gev, 47)$
355: to $(450\,\gev, 57)$. The qualitative discussion of before is now
356: nicely reproduced. $\cbs$ decreases with increasing $M_{1/2}$ and
357: rapidly increases with $\tan\beta$. Fig.\ref{fig2} also nicely shows
358: the cross-correlation between $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ and $\cbs$. If
359: both $\cbs$ and $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ are found in disagreement with
360: the SM and are measured with a $50\%$ and $20\%$ accuracy,
361: respectively, then for given $M_0$, this fixes $\tan \beta$ to better
362: than $ 20\%$ and $M_{1/2}$ to better than $30\%$.
363:
364:
365:
366: It is conventional to discuss mSUGRA physics in the $(M_{1/2},M_0
367: )$-plane. In Fig.\ref{fig3} we show the contours of $\cbs$ (solid) and
368: $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$ (dashed) in this plane, for $\tan\beta=50$,
369: $A_0=0$, $\mu>0$ and $m_t=175 \, \gev$. Again we include the CDF bound
370: Eq.(\ref{expbmumu}) and the Higgs mass contours. The left shaded
371: region is excluded through the requirement of REWSB or the chargino
372: bound. The lower right shaded region is excluded through the
373: requirement of a neutral LSP. A sensitivity of $\cbs\gsim
374: 2\cdot10^{-7}$ at CDF now corresponds to a sensitivity of
375: $M_{1/2}\lsim 280 \,\gev$ and $M_0\lsim 400 { \,\gev}$, respectively.
376:
377: While CDF is not able to see squark masses directly up to 0.7 TeV
378: (corresponding to $M_{1/2}=M_0\simeq 300$ GeV,), it will nevertheless
379: be able to prepare the ground for LHC by observing the \bs\ mode.
380: Even better, after 10$\,{\rm fb}^{-1}$ CDF will probe $M_{1/2} \lsim
381: 450$ GeV and $M_0 \lsim 600\,\gev$ (for $\tan \beta=50$) which in
382: mSUGRA corresponds to masses for the heaviest superpartners of 1 TeV.
383: We conclude the discussion of Fig.\ref{fig3} with the prediction of
384: the light Higgs boson mass $M_h$ (dot-dashed line) for $\tan\beta=50$
385: in the mSUGRA scenario~\cite{ASBS}. Any measurement of $\cbs$ by
386: itself implies a useful \emph{upper}\ bound on $M_h$. The simultaneous
387: information of $\cbs$ and $\delta a_{ \mu}$ fixes $M_h$ in most
388: regions of the $(M_{1/2},M_0)$-plane. A Higgs mass around 115.6 GeV
389: results in $ 10^{-8} \lsim \cbs \lsim 3\cdot 10^{-7}$ which would most
390: likely be measured before the Higgs boson is discovered.
391:
392: In Figs.~1-3 we have chosen $A_0=0$. A non-zero $A_0$ changes the
393: value of $A_t$ at low energies. This parameter plays a crucial role
394: for the GIM cancellations among the contributions of different squarks
395: to $\cbs$. Changing $A_0$ to $-500\,\gev$ in the scenario of Fig.~1
396: enhances $\cbs$ by up to a factor of 6 compared to the case with
397: $A_0=0$. For $A_0=+500$ GeV $\cbs$ is slightly decreased.
398:
399: In our figures we have omitted further constraints on the mSUGRA
400: parameter space, in order to clearly show the correlation between
401: $\cbs$ and $(\delta a_\mu)_{SUSY}$. The most significant further
402: constraint comes from the measurement of ${\cal B}(B\rightarrow
403: X_s\gamma)$ \cite{bsgammaexp}, whose prediction is less certain in the
404: large $\tan\beta$ region \cite{bsgammath,Masiero}.~If we take the
405: conservative approach of \cite{Djouadi:2001yk}, then we can exclude
406: values of $M_{1/2}\lsim 250\,\gev$ in Fig.\ref{fig2} for $\tan\beta
407: \gsim 25$. In the scenario of Fig.\ref{fig3} this implies $\cbs
408: \lsim 5\cdot10^{-7}$. For a discussion of the constraints from
409: supersymmetric dark matter see for example \cite{Feng,Djouadi:2001yk}
410: and references therein.
411:
412:
413: The large values of $\tan\beta$ we have been considering are
414: theoretically well motivated within SUSY SO(10) Yukawa
415: unification.~There a narrow parameter region can explain the observed
416: $\delta a_\mu$ while still being consistent with the constraint from
417: $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ \cite{Baer,Stuart}.~This is {\it not} within
418: the context of mSUGRA. However, in this parameter region both $\mu$
419: and $M_{1/2}$ are light, while the CP-odd Higgs boson mass is less
420: than 300 GeV, and $\tan\beta\approx 50$. Therefore we expect $\cbs$ to
421: be strongly enhanced.~As an example we determine $\cbs$ for the best
422: fit points found in~\cite{Stuart}: $M_A=110$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1}
423: \lsim 250$ GeV, $|A_t| \gsim 1$ TeV, $m_{\tilde{t}} \lsim 1$ TeV and
424: $\tan\beta \simeq 50$. Within the hadronic uncertainties $\cbs \gsim
425: 10^{-5}$ which is already excluded by CDF~\cite{CDFbmumu}. Thus the
426: SO(10) models should be reconsidered in the light of $\cbs$. Turning
427: it around, if an SO(10) GUT model is the correct description of nature
428: then the decay \bs\ must be just around the corner.
429:
430: In conclusion, we have found a striking correlation between the muon
431: anomalous magnetic moment $a_{\mu}$ and the branching ratio $\cbs$ in
432: mSUGRA scenarios. If the reported excess in $a_{\mu}$ \cite{BNL} is
433: caused by mSUGRA corrections with large $\tan\beta$, one faces more
434: than an order of magnitude enhancement of $\cbs$ over its SM value.
435: This is within reach of Run-II of the Tevatron. The combined
436: measurements significantly constrain the mSUGRA parameters, allowing a
437: determination of $\tan\beta$ and $M_{1/2}$. A measurement of $\cbs$
438: will further constrain the mass of the lightest Higgs bosons. SO(10)
439: SUSY explanations of the measured $a_{\mu}$ are barely compatible with
440: the present upper bound on $\cbs$.
441:
442: {\it We thank
443: B. Dutta, G. Isidori, K. Mizukoshi and X. Ta\-ta for cross-checking our
444: numerical results.
445: A.D. acknowledges financial support from the Network
446: RTN European Program HPRN-CT-2000-00148. }
447:
448: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
449: \vspace{-1.2cm}
450: \bibitem{mSUGRA}
451: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452: H.~P.~Nilles,
453: %``Dynamically Broken Supergravity And The Hierarchy Problem,''
454: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 115} (1982) 193; Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 217} (1983)
455: 366;
456: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,193;%%
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt, P.~Nath,
459: %``Locally Supersymmetric Grand Unification,''
460: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 49} (1982) 970;
461: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,970;%%
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara, C.~Savoy,
464: %``Gauge Models With Spontaneously Broken Local Supersymmetry,''
465: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 119} (1982) 343;
466: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B119,343;%%
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
468: L.~Hall, J.~Lykken, S.~Weinberg,
469: %``Supergravity As The Messenger Of Supersymmetry Breaking,''
470: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 27} (1983) 2359;
471: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,2359;%%
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473: S.~K.~Soni, H.~A.~Weldon,
474: %``Analysis Of The Supersymmetry Breaking Induced By N=1 Supergravity
475: %Theories,''
476: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 126} (1983) 215.
477: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B126,215;%%
478:
479: \bibitem{BNL}
480: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.} [Muon g-2 Collaboration],
481: %``Precise measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment,''
482: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001)
483: [hep-ex/0102017].
484: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
485: For a theory review see, A.~Czarnecki and W.~J.~Marciano,
486: %``The muon anomalous magnetic moment: A harbinger for 'new physics',''
487: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 013014 (2001)
488: [hep-ph/0102122].
489: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102122;%%
490: For a SUSY calculation see for example
491: %\cite{Moroi:1996yh}
492: T.~Moroi,
493: %``The Muon Anomalous Magnetic Dipole Moment in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model,''
494: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 6565
495: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 56} (1996) 4424]
496: [hep-ph/9512396].
497: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512396;%%
498:
499: %\cite{Lopez:1994vi}
500: \bibitem{Lopez:1994vi}
501: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, X.~Wang,
502: %``Large (g-2)-mu in SU(5) x U(1) supergravity models,''
503: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 366
504: [hep-ph/9308336],
505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308336;%%
506: %\cite{Chattopadhyay:1996ae}
507: U.~Chattopadhyay, P.~Nath,
508: %``Probing supergravity grand unification in the Brookhaven g-2 experiment,''
509: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 1648
510: [hep-ph/9507386].
511: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507386;%%
512: %%%%%%%%%%g-2 and other constraints papers%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513: \bibitem{Feng}
514: L.~L.~Everett, et al.,
515: %``Implications of muon g-2 for supersymmetry and for discovering superpartners directly,''
516: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 3484
517: [hep-ph/0102145];
518: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: J.~Feng,~K.~Matchev,
521: %``Supersymmetry and the anomalous anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,''
522: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 3480 (2001)
523: [hep-ph/0102146];
524: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%
525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: U.~Chattopadhyay, P.~Nath,
527: %``Upper limits on sparticle masses from g-2 and the possibility for discovery of SUSY at colliders and in dark matter searches,''
528: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 5854 (2001)
529: [hep-ph/0102157];
530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%
531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
532: J.~Ellis,~D.~Nanopoulos,~K.~Olive,
533: %``Combining the muon anomalous magnetic moment with other constraints on the CMSSM,''
534: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 65 (2001)
535: [hep-ph/0102331];
536: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%
537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
538: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,
539: %``Muon g-2, dark matter detection and accelerator physics,''
540: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505}, 177 (2001)
541: [hep-ph/0102344];
542: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%
543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
544: S.~P.~Martin, J.~Wells,
545: %``Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in supersymmetric theories,''
546: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035003 (2001)
547: [hep-ph/0103067];
548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%
549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
550: H.~Baer, et al.,
551: %``Impact of muon anomalous magnetic moment on supersymmetric models,''
552: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 035004
553: [hep-ph/0103280].
554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%
555: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
556: Y.~G.~Kim, M.~M.~Nojiri,
557: %``Implications of muon anomalous magnetic moment for direct detection of neutralino dark matter,''
558: hep-ph/0104258;
559: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104258;%%
560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
561: L.~Roszkowski, et al.,
562: %``New cosmological and experimental constraints on the CMSSM,''
563: hep-ph/0106334.
564: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%
565: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
566:
567:
568:
569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%g-2 and CP-violation%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
570: \bibitem{Masiero}
571: A.~Bartl, et al.,
572: %``General flavor blind MSSM and CP violation,''
573: hep-ph/0103324.
574: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103324;%%
575:
576: \bibitem{Babu}
577: K.~S.~Babu and C.~Kolda,
578: %``Higgs-mediated B0 $\to$ mu+ mu- in minimal supersymmetry,''
579: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 228 (2000)
580: [hep-ph/9909476];
581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909476;%%
582: C.~Huang, W.~Liao and Q.~Yan,
583: %``The promising process to distinguish supersymmetric models with large
584: %tan(beta) from the standard model: B $\to$ X/s mu+ mu-,''
585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 011701
586: [hep-ph/9803460].
587: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803460;%%
588:
589: \bibitem{Chankowski}
590: P.~H.~Chankowski and L.~Slawianowska,
591: %``B0/d,s $\to$ mu- mu+ decay in the MSSM,''
592: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054012 (2001)
593: [hep-ph/0008046].
594: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008046;%%
595:
596: \bibitem{Urban}
597: C.~Bobeth, T.~Ewerth, F.~Kruger and J.~Urban,
598: %``Analysis of neutral Higgs-boson contributions to the decays anti-B/s $\to$ l+ l- and anti-B $\to$ K l+ l-,''
599: hep-ph/0104284. For the numerical results on $\cbs$ presented here
600: we follow the formulae of this article.
601: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104284;%%
602:
603: \bibitem{cgnw}
604: M.~Carena, et al.,
605: %``Effective Lagrangian for the anti-t b H+ interaction in the MSSM
606: %and charged Higgs phenomenology,''
607: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 577}, 88 (2000).
608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912516;%%
609:
610:
611: \bibitem{fbs}
612: C.~Bernard,
613: %``Heavy quark physics on the lattice,''
614: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 94}, 159 (2001)
615: [hep-lat/0011064].
616: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0011064;%%
617:
618: \bibitem{Nierste}
619: H.~E.~Logan and U.~Nierste,
620: %``B/s,d $\to$ l+ l- in a two-Higgs-doublet model,''
621: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 39 (2000)
622: [hep-ph/0004139].
623: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004139;%%
624:
625:
626: \bibitem{Buchalla}
627: G.~Buchalla and A.~J.~Buras,
628: %``The rare decays K+ $\to$ pi+ neutrino anti-neutrino and K(L) $\to$ mu+ mu- beyond leading logarithms,''
629: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 412}, 106 (1994)
630: [hep-ph/9308272];
631: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308272;%%
632: M.~Misiak and J.~Urban,
633: %``{QCD} corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z-penguins and W-boxes,''
634: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451}, 161 (1999)
635: [hep-ph/9901278].
636: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901278;%%
637:
638:
639: \bibitem{CDFbmumu}
640: F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
641: %``Search for the decays B/d0 $\to$ mu+ mu- and B/s0 $\to$ mu+ mu- in p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''
642: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 3811 (1998).
643: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,3811;%%
644:
645: \bibitem{fnalbrep}
646: D.~Atwood et al.,
647: \emph{B Physics at the Tevatron: Run-II and Beyond},
648: FERMILAB-Pub-01/197 (preliminary).
649:
650:
651: \bibitem{ASBS}
652: S.~Ambrosanio, A.~Dedes, S.~Heinemeyer, S.~Su and G.~Weiglein,
653: %``Implications of the Higgs boson searches on different soft SUSY-breaking scenarios,''
654: hep-ph/0106255. For the mSUGRA and Higgs spectrum we follow the discussion
655: and the numerical code of this article.
656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106255;%%
657:
658:
659: \bibitem{bsgammaexp}
660: M.~S.~Alam {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
661: %``First measurement of the rate for the inclusive radiative penguin decay b $\to$ s gamma,''
662: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 2885;
663: %%CITATION = PRLTA,74,2885;%%
664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
665: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.},
666: %``b $\to$ s gamma branching fraction and CP asymmetry,''
667: hep-ex/9908022;
668: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9908022;%%;
669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
670: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
671: %``A measurement of the branching fraction for the inclusive B $\to$ X/s gamma decays with Belle,''
672: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 151
673: [hep-ex/0103042].
674: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
675:
676: \bibitem{bsgammath}
677: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%
678: S.~Bertolini, et al.,
679: %``Effects of supergravity induced electroweak breaking on rare B decays and mixings,''
680: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 353} (1991) 591,
681: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B353,591;%%
682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
683: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,
684: %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''
685: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534} (1998) 3
686: [hep-ph/9806308].
687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806308;%%
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: %\cite{Degrassi:2000qf}
690: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, G.~F.~Giudice,
691: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions beyond the leading order,''
692: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009
693: [hep-ph/0009337].
694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
695: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,
696: %``b $\to$ s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''
697: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 141
698: [hep-ph/0010003].
699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%
700:
701: %\cite{Djouadi:2001yk}
702: \bibitem{Djouadi:2001yk}
703: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,
704: %``Constraints on the Minimal Supergravity Model and Prospects for SUSY Particle Production at Future Linear e^+ e^- Colliders,''
705: hep-ph/0107316.
706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%
707:
708:
709:
710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%SO(10)%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
711:
712: \bibitem{Baer}
713: H.~Baer and J.~Ferrandis,
714: %``Supersymmetric SO(10) GUT models with Yukawa unification and a positive mu term,''
715: hep-ph/0106352.
716: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106352;%%
717:
718: \bibitem{Stuart}
719: T.~Blazek, R.~Dermisek and S.~Raby,
720: %``Predictions for Higgs and SUSY spectra from SO(10) Yukawa unification with mu > 0,''
721: hep-ph/0107097.
722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107097;%%
723:
724:
725:
726:
727:
728:
729:
730:
731:
732:
733:
734:
735: \end{thebibliography}
736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
737:
738: \newpage
739: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%FIGURES%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
740:
741:
742:
743:
744:
745: \end{document}
746:
747:
748:
749:
750: