1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % Add discussion on Hadronic contribution
4: %
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: % Add new light-by-light hadronic contribution
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10:
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: % New BNLdata in 2002 added
13: % with the new data the diffrence
14: % between Exp and SM is enlarged
15: % again to be 2.6 sigma
16: %
17: % 2002/08/12
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19:
20: %---- TwoColumn PRD format ---
21: %\documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
22:
23: %---- Print format ---
24: \documentclass[aps,prd,showpacs,preprint,tightenlines]{revtex4}
25: %\preprint{Dr}
26: \usepackage{graphicx,amsmath}
27:
28:
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%% MyAlias.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: %\input{MyAlias.tex}
32: %================= Definitions =================================\
33: \def \beq{\begin{equation}} \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
34: \def \be{\begin{eqnarray}}
35: \def \ee{\end{eqnarray}}
36: \def \beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
37: \def \eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
38:
39: \def \bea{\begin{array}} \def \eea{\end{array}}
40:
41: \def\nn{\nonumber \\ }
42:
43: % section
44: \def\SC#1{\newpage\section{#1}}
45: \def\SSC#1{\subsection{#1}}
46: \def\SSSC#1{\subsubsection{#1}}
47:
48: %================== Greak letters =======================
49: \def\a{\alpha} \def\A{\Alpha}
50: \def\b{\beta} \def\B{\Beta}
51: \def\g{\gamma} \def\G{\Gamma}
52: \def\d{\delta} \def\D{\Delta}
53: \def\m{\mu} \def \M{\Mu}
54: \def\n{\nu} \def\N{\Nu}
55: \def\p{\pi} \def\P{\Pi}
56: \def\o{\omega} \def\O{\Omega}
57: \def \x{\xi}
58: \def \e{\epsilon}
59: \def \s{\sigma}
60: \def \t{\tau}
61: \def \l{\lambda}
62: \def \r{\rho}
63:
64: %========== Math =======
65:
66: \def \abs#1{\left| #1 \right|}
67: \def \abssq#1{\left| #1 \right|^2}
68:
69: \def \tr#1{\left[ #1\right]}
70: \def \order#1{{\cal O}{#1}}
71:
72: % invers
73: \def \inv#1{\frac{1}{#1}}
74: \def \invsq#1{\frac{1}{\left( #1\right)^2}}
75: \def \invn#1#2{\frac{1}{\left( #1\right)^{#2}}}
76:
77: %======== Dirac symble =======
78:
79: % Dirac Matrix
80: \def \gmu{\gamma_{\mu}} \def \gMu{\gamma^{\mu}}
81: \def \gnu{\gamma_{\nu}} \def\gNu{\gamma^{\nu}}
82: \def \grh{\gamma_{\rho}} \def \gRh{\gamma^{\rho}}
83: \def \gsi{\gamma_{\sigma}} \def\gSi{\gamma^{\sigma}}
84: \def \gmn{\gamma_{\mu\mu}} \def\gMN{\gamma^{\mu\nu}}
85: \def \gfive{\gamma_{5}}
86: % Dirac slash
87: \def \sh#1{#1\!\hskip-5pt /}
88:
89: % momentum loop integration
90: \def\mint#1{\int {d^d #1\over (2\pi)^d}\ }
91:
92: % feynman integration
93: \def\fint#1{\int^1_0 d#1\ }
94: \def\fintb#1#2{\int^1_0 d#1\int^{1-#1}_0 d#2 \ }
95:
96: % denominator of propagator
97: \def\deno#1#2{\frac{1}{#1^2-#2^2}}
98:
99: %======== others =======
100: \newcommand{\ignor}[1]{}
101:
102: %==================== Journals ==================================
103: %===== PRD style =====
104: \newcommand{\NPB}[3]{ { Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}
105: \newcommand{\npps}[3]{ { Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. }{\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
106: \newcommand{\PLB}[3]{ { Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}
107: \newcommand{\PRD}[3]{ { Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1}, #2 (#3)}
108: \newcommand{\prep}[3]{ { Phys.Rep. }{\bf #1} ,#2 (#3)}
109: \newcommand{\PRL}[3]{ { Phys.~Rev.~Lett. }~{\bf #1} ,~#2~(#3)}
110: \newcommand{\ijm}[3]{ { Int. j. Mod. Phys.}{\bf A#1} ,#2 (#3)}
111: \newcommand{\mpla}[3]{ { Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} ,#2 (#3)}
112: \newcommand{\zpc}[3]{ { Zeit. f{\"u}r Physik }{\bf C#1} ,#2 (#3)}
113: \newcommand{\report}[3]{{ Phys. Rep}{\bf #1},#2 (#3)}
114: \newcommand{\epj}[3]{{ Eur. Phys. J.}{\bf C#1}, #2 (#3)}
115: \newcommand{\jhep}[3]{{ JHEP.}{\bf C#1}, #2 (#3)}
116: %=== EPJ style ======
117: \newcommand{\Npb}[3]{ { Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
118: \newcommand{\Npps}[3]{ { Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
119: \newcommand{\Plb}[3]{ { Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1}, #3 (#2)}
120: \newcommand{\Prd}[3]{ { Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1}, #3 (#2)}
121: \newcommand{\Prep}[3]{ { Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} ,#3 (#2)}
122: \newcommand{\Prl}[3]{ { Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} ,#3 (#2)}
123: \newcommand{\Ijm}[3]{ { Int. j. Mod. Phys.}{\bf A#1} ,#3 (#2)}
124: \newcommand{\Mpla}[3]{ { Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} ,#3 (#2)}
125: \newcommand{\Zpc}[3]{ { Zeit. f{\"u}r Physik }{\bf C#1} ,#3 (#2)}
126: \newcommand{\Report}[3]{{ Phys. Rep}{\bf #1},#3 (#2)}
127: \newcommand{\Epj}[3]{{ Eur. Phys. J.}{\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
128: \newcommand{\Jhep}[3]{{ JHEP.}{\bf C#1}, #3 (#2)}
129:
130:
131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
132: %------ Local definition ------
133: \newcommand{\gmt}{$g-2$ }
134: \begin{document}
135:
136: \title{Lepton flavor-changing Scalar Interactions and Muon $g-2$}
137: \author{Yu-Feng Zhou} \email[Email: ]{zhou@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de}
138: \affiliation{Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, \\
139: Sektion Physik. Theresienstra$\beta$e 37, D-80333. Munich, Germany}
140: \author{Yue-Liang Wu} \email[Email: ]{ylwu@itp.ac.cn}
141: \affiliation{ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of
142: Science, Beijing 100080, China }
143: \date{\today}
144: \pacs{
145: 12.60.Fr, % Extensions of electroweak Higgs sector
146: 13.40.Em, % Electric and magnetic moments
147: 13.35.-r % Decays of leptons
148: }
149:
150: \begin{abstract}
151: A systematic investigation on muon anomalous magnetic moment and
152: related lepton flavor-violating process such as $\m\to e\g$, $\t\to
153: e\g$ and $\t\to \m\g$ is made at two loop level in the models with
154: flavor-changing scalar interactions. The two loop diagrams with
155: double scalar exchanges are studied and their contributions are
156: found to be compatible with the ones from Barr-Zee diagram. By
157: comparing with the latest data, the allowed ranges for the relevant
158: Yukawa couplings $Y_{ij}$ in lepton sector are obtained. The
159: results show a hierarchical structure of $Y_{\m e, \t e} \ll Y_{\m
160: \t} \simeq Y_{\m\m}$ in the physical basis if $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is
161: found to be $>50\times 10^{-11}$. It deviates from the widely used
162: ansatz in which the off diagonal elements are proportional to the
163: square root of the products of related fermion masses. An
164: alternative Yukawa coupling matrix in the lepton sector is
165: suggested to understand the current data. With such a reasonable
166: Yukawa coupling ansatz, the decay rate of $\t\to \m\g$ is found to
167: be near the current experiment upper bound.
168: \end{abstract}
169: \maketitle
170: %
171: % ------ review on g-2 in SM ---------------
172: %
173: \section{Introduction}
174: Recently, the Muon \gmt Collaboration at BNL reported their improved
175: result on the measurement of muon anomalous magnetic moment ( \gmt)
176: \cite{Bennett:2002jb}. Combining with the early measurements in CERN and
177: BNL, the new average value of muon \gmt is as follows
178: \be
179: a_{\mu}^{exp}=(116592030\pm 80 )\times 10^{-11}
180: \ee
181: %%%%%% new comment added %%%%%%%%%%
182: This result confirmed the earlier measurement\cite{Brown:2001mg} with a much higher
183: precision. With this new result the difference between experiment and
184: the Standard Model~ (SM) prediction is enlarged again. The most
185: recent analysis by different groups are given by
186: \be
187: \D a_{\m} \equiv a^{exp}_{\m}-a^{SM}_{\m}
188: =\left\{
189: \begin{array}{ll}
190: (303.3 \pm106.9)\times 10^{-11} & \mbox{\cite{FJ02}} \\
191: (297.0 \pm 107.2 )\times 10^{-11} (ex)& \mbox{ \cite{HMNT}} \\
192: (357.2 \pm 106.4)\times 10^{-11}(in) &\mbox{ \cite{HMNT}}
193: \end{array}
194: \right.
195: \ee
196:
197: As the large muon \gmt may imply the existence of new physics beyond the
198: SM, in the recent years large amount of work has been done in checking the
199: new physics contributions to muon \gmt by using model
200: % add more refs !
201: dependent\cite{models-g2,wu:2001vq} and independent approaches
202: \cite{Raidal:2001pf}.
203:
204: In this work, we would like to focus on a general discussion on the
205: models with lepton flavor-changing scalar interactions where the new
206: physics contributions mainly arise from additional Yukawa couplings. Such models
207: may be considered as the simple extension of the standard model (SM)
208: with more than one Higgs doublet $\phi_i \ (i > 1)$ but without
209: imposing any discrete symmetry. For example the extension of
210: SM with two Higgs doublets (S2HDM)\cite{wu:S2HDM} motivated from the
211: spontaneous CP violation\cite{Lee:1973iz,Lee:1974jb}.
212:
213: % In general,
214: %after spontaneous symmetry breaking,
215: %each Higgs doublet could receive vacuum expectation values (VEVs), but
216: %one can always rotate them into a convenient basis so that only one of them
217: %has the VEV: $v=(\sum\limits_{i} v^2_i)^{1/2}=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1/2}\simeq 246$
218: %GeV. Such a Higgs doublet will play the same role as the one in the
219: %SM. In such a basis, the interactions related to the remaining scalars
220: %represent the new physics effects beyond the SM.
221: %
222:
223: The general form of Yukawa interaction reads
224: \be
225: {\mathcal L}_{Y}=\bar{\psi}^{i}_{L} Y^{a}_{ij} \psi^{j}_{R}\phi_{a} ,
226: \label{Yukawa-interaction}
227: \ee
228: %
229: where $Y^{a}_{ij}$ ($i,\ j =1,2,3$) is the Yukawa coupling matrices.
230: The index $a=1,2, \cdots$ labels the Higgs doublets. The behavior of
231: the Yukawa interactions depends on the texture of Yukawa coupling
232: matrices. In general there are two kind of ansatz on Yukawa coupling
233: matrices in mass eigenstates:
234: %
235: 1. Yukawa coupling matrices of the scalar interactions are diagonal due to
236: some discrete global symmetry \cite{2HDM-type12}.
237: 2. Yukawa coupling matrices contain
238: non-zero off-diagonal elements which are naturally suppressed by the
239: light quark masses \cite{cheng:1987rs,sher:1991km}.
240: %
241: In the following sections (section {\bf I$\!$I} and {\bf I$\!$I$\!$I})
242: we discuss at two loop level the constraints on those Yukawa coupling
243: matrix elements under the above two ansatz and will mainly focus on
244: the latter one. One kind of two loop diagrams with double scalar
245: exchanges are studied in detail and their contributions to muon \gmt
246: are found to be compatible with the one from Barr-Zee diagram. In
247: section {\bf I$\!$V}, combined constraints from muon \gmt and several
248: lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes are obtained. We note that unlike other
249: experiments which often impose upper bounds of parameters in the new
250: physics models, the current data on muon $g-2$ may provide nontrivial
251: lower bounds. It is founded that a small lower bound of $\Delta
252: a_{\mu} > 50\times 10^{-11}$ will significantly modify the texture
253: of Yukawa coupling matrix and make it deviate from the widely used
254: ansatz in which the off diagonal elements are proportional to the
255: square root of the products of related fermion masses.
256:
257: %In the whole
258: %discussion, for simplicity we focus on real Yukawa couplings.
259: %Recently, it is pointed out that the measurment of muon \gmt may
260: %contain contribution from muon electric dipole moment (EDM).
261: %Thus the cuurent experiment gives a combined constraint on both muon \gmt
262: %and EDM \cite{Feng:2002wf}. Although in SM the muon EDM is predicted to be
263: %extremly small, in many new physics models its value can be considerable.
264: %The case of complex couplings will be discussed seperately.
265:
266: %Not that in the most general case the Yukawa couplings could be complex and
267: %result in considerable CP violation. The value of muon EDM could also
268: %be modified.
269:
270: %n all the discussions we take the value of $\Delta a_\mu$ from results given
271: %by Davier and H\"{o}cker in Eq.(\ref{Davier}) as an example.
272: %The dependence of our conclusions on various
273: %predictions of $\Delta a_\mu$ from different groups are studied in section {\bf V}.
274:
275:
276: \section{Muon \gmt from diagonal Yukawa couplings}
277: The ansatz of zero off-diagonal matrix elements is often used to avoid
278: the flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) at tree level which was
279: originally suggested from the kaon physics, such as $K\rightarrow
280: \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay and $K^{0}-\overline{K}^{0}$ mixing. Such a
281: texture structure of the Yukawa couplings can be obtained by imposing
282: some kind of discrete symmetries\cite{2HDM-type12}. The minimal SUSY
283: Standard Model (MSSM) and the two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) of type
284: {\bf I} and {\bf I$\!$I} can be cataloged into this type. In such
285: models, the Yukawa interactions are flavor conserving and the
286: couplings are proportional to the related fermion masses
287: \be
288: Y_{ii}&=&{\Large { g m_{i}\over 2 m_{W} }} \xi_{i} \quad {\rm and} \quad Y_{ij}=0.
289: \ (i \neq j)
290: \ee
291: where $g$ is the weak coupling constant and $m_W$ is the mass of $W$ boson.
292: $\xi_{i}$ is the rescaled coupling constant. In the minimal SUSY model
293: and the 2HDM of type {\bf I$\!$I}, $\xi_i=\tan\beta (\cot\beta)$ for down (up) type fermions.
294: %
295: % --one loop flavor conserving contributions--
296: The corresponding Feynman diagrams contributing to muon \gmt at one
297: loop level which is shown in Fig.\ref{1l.eps}a , which have been recently
298: discussed and compared with the current data in
299: Ref.\cite{Dedes:2001hh,Dedes:2001nx,Krawczyk:2001pe}.
300:
301: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
302: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{1l.eps}
303: \caption{One loop diagram contribution to muon \gmt. The dashed curves represent
304: the scalar or pseudo-scalar propagator.
305: (a) Flavor conserving Yukawa interactions.
306: (b) Flavor changing Yukawa interactions in which $\m$ changes into $\t$ in the
307: loop. }
308: \label{1l.eps}
309: \end{center}\end{figure}
310:
311:
312: As the muon lepton mass is small, i.e., $m_{\m}\ll m_{\phi}$,
313: where $m_{\phi}$ is the mass of scalar ($\phi=h$) or pseudo-scalar ($\phi = A$), the one loop
314: contribution to muon \gmt can be written as \cite{oneloop-g2}
315: \be
316: \D a_{\m}=\pm{ 1\over 8\p^{2}} { m^2_{\m}\over m^2_{\phi}}
317: \ln \left( {m^2_{\phi}\over m^2_{\m}}\right) Y^2_{ii}
318: \ee
319: where the sign ``+ (-)'' is for scalar ($\phi=h$) (pseudo-scalar $\phi=A$) exchanges.
320: It can be seen from the above equation that the one loop scalar
321: contribution is not large enough to explain the current data.
322: Even for a large value of $\xi_\mu=\tan\beta\sim 50$, one still needs a very
323: light mass of the scalar $M_h\sim 5 $ GeV,
324: which seems not favored by the LEP experiment. The situation will be even
325: worse when both the scalar and pseudo-scalar are included as their
326: contributions have opposite signs.
327: %
328: %-- Two loop flavor conserving contributions--
329:
330:
331: The situation may be quite different if one goes to two loop level.
332: From the well known Barr-Zee mechanism\cite{BarrZee} ( see. Fig.\ref{barrzee.eps} )in which the
333: scalar or pseudo-scalar couples to a heavy fermion loop.
334: As the Yukawa couplings are no longer suppressed by the light
335: fermion mass, the two loop contributions
336: could be considerable. Taking the top quark loop as an example, the
337: two loop Barr-Zee diagram contribution to muon \gmt is given by
338: \be\label{BarrZeeG2}
339: \Delta a^h_\mu &=& { N_c q^2_t \over \pi^2 }
340: {m_\mu m_{t} \over m^2_{\phi}} F\left({ m^2_{t}\over m^2_{\phi} }\right)
341: Y_{tt} Y_{\m\m}
342: \label{BZ}
343: \ee
344: where $N_c=3$ and $q_t=2/3$ are the color number and the charge of top quark respectively.
345: The integral function $F(z)$ has the following form\cite{BarrZee}
346: \be
347: F(z)=
348: \left\{
349: \begin{array}{cc}
350: -{1\over2}\int^1_0 dx {1-2x(1-x)\over x(1-x)-z} \ln{x(1-x)\over z}
351: & \text{for scalar} \\
352: {1\over2}\int^1_0 dx {1\over x(1-x)-z}\ln {x(1-x)\over z}
353: & \text{for pseudo-scalar}
354: \end{array}
355: \right.
356: \nn
357: \ee
358: %
359:
360:
361: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
362: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{barrzee.eps}
363: \caption{Two loop Barr-Zee diagram contribution to muon \gmt.
364: }
365: \label{barrzee.eps}
366: \end{center}
367: \end{figure}
368:
369: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
370: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{barrzee-g2.eps}
371: \caption{Contribution to muon \gmt from the two
372: loop Barr-Zee diagrams. The three solid curves (from down to up) correspond to
373: $Y_{\m \m}(\xi_\m)=2\times 10^{-2}(48.3)$, $4\times 10^{-2}(97.6)$ and $1\times 10^{-1}(273.9)$ respectively.
374: The horizontal lines represent the $1\sigma$ allowed rang
375: from Ref.\cite{FJ02}
376: %of $\Delta a_\mu$ estimated from two groups at 68\% and 90\%CL .
377: }
378:
379: \label{barrzee-g2.eps}
380: \end{center}\end{figure}
381:
382: It is noticed that the contributions from Barr-Zee diagram through
383: scalar and pseudo-scalar exchanges have also different sign, negative
384: for scalar and positive for pseudo-scalar, which is just opposite to
385: the one loop case. Thus there exists a cancellation between one and
386: two loop diagram contributions. It was found in
387: Refs.\cite{Chang:2000ii,Cheung:2001hz} that the pseudo-scalar
388: exchanging Barr-Zee diagram can overwhelm its negative one loop
389: contributions and results in a positive contribution to \gmt. For a
390: sufficient large value of the coupling $\xi_\mu=\tan\beta\sim 50$, its
391: contribution can reach the $2\sigma$ experimental bound with $m_{\phi} \leq
392: 70$GeV. To avoid the cancellation between scalar and pseudo-scalar
393: exchange, the mass of the scalar boson has to be pushed to be very
394: heavy ( typically greater than 500 GeV). In Fig.\ref{barrzee-g2.eps}
395: the numerical calculation of Barr-Zee diagram contribution to muon \gmt is presented,
396: which agrees with those results.
397:
398:
399:
400:
401: %
402: %%
403: %======= one and two loop interferences =======
404:
405: % The above conclusion is obtained in the condition that the
406: %Yukawa couplings $Y_{ij}$ are real. As it is noticed in our recent
407: %paper\cite{wu:2001vq} that $Y_{ij}$ may be complex in the most general
408: %case. In such a case, the scalar and pseudo-scalar are mixed
409: %together and the interference between one loop and two loop Barr-Zee
410: %diagram is not always destructive. In a large parameter space the
411: %interference could be constructive, and the allowed ranges for the
412: %couplings and the scalar (pseudo-scalar) mass become wider.
413:
414: %
415: %\noindent {\bf 2. Yukawa coupling matrices are not diagonal.}\\
416: %
417: %
418:
419: \section{Muon \gmt from off-diagonal Yukawa couplings}
420:
421: When imposing the strict discrete symmetries to Yukawa interaction,
422: the off-diagonal elements of Yukawa coupling matrix are all zeros. This
423: is the simplest way to prevent the theory from tree level
424: FCNC. However, to meet the constraints from the data on
425: $K^0-\overline{K}^0$ mixing and $K\to \m^{+}\m^{-}$ the off-diagonal
426: elements do not necessarily to be zero. An alternative way is to
427: impose some approximate symmetries such as global family symmetry
428: \cite{wu:S2HDM} on the Lagrangian. This results in the second ansatz of
429: the Yukawa matrices in which small off-diagonal matrix elements are allowed,
430: which leads to an enhancement for many flavor changing processes.
431: As the constraints from $K^{0}-\overline{K}^{0}$ mixing are strong, the corresponding
432: off-diagonal matrix elements should be very small. However, up to now there is no
433: such strong experimental constraints on the FCNC processes involving heavier flavors such as $c$ and $b$ quarks.
434: The possibility of off-diagonal elements associated with the second and the third
435: generation fermions are not excluded.
436: %
437: One of the widely used ansatz of the Yukawa
438: matrix basing on the hierarchical fermion mass spectrum
439: $m_{u,d}\ll m_{c,s}\ll m_{t,b}$ was proposed by Cheng and Sher \cite{cheng:1987rs,sher:1991km}.
440: In this ansatz, the off-diagonal matrix element has the following form:
441: \be
442: Y_{ij}={g\sqrt{m_{i}m_{j}} \over 2 m_{W}} \xi_{ij}
443: \label{Cheng-Sher_Ansartz}
444: \ee
445: where $\xi_{ij}$s are the rescaled Yukawa couplings which are roughly of the same order of
446: magnitudes for all $i,j$s. In this ansatz, the scalar or pseudo-scalar mediating $d-s$
447: transition is strongly suppressed by small factor
448: $\sqrt{m_{d}m_{s}}/(2 m_W)\simeq 4\times 10^{-4}$, which easily
449: satisfies the constraints from $\D m_{K}, \e_{K}$ and $\G(K\to \m^{+}\m^{-})$. As the
450: couplings grow larger for heavier fermions, the tree level FCNC processes may give
451: considerable contributions in $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixing, $\m^{+}\m^{-}\to t c,\m\t$
452: and several rare $B$ and $\t$ decay modes\cite{Atwood:1995ej,Atwood:1997vj,wu:1999fe,sher:2000uq}.
453:
454:
455: Unlike the flavor-conserving one loop diagrams, the flavor-changing
456: one loop diagrams (see Fig.\ref{1l.eps}b) with internal heavy fermions can give large
457: contribution to muon \gmt. The reason is that the loop integration
458: yield an enhancement factor of
459: $\sim m_{i}\ln(m^2_{i}/m^2_{\phi})/(m_{\m} \ln(m^2_{\mu}/m^2_{\phi}))$.
460: For the internal $\t$ loop, it is a factor of
461: ${\mathcal{O}}(10)$. If one uses the scaled coupling $\xi_{\m\t}$ and
462: takes $\xi_{\m\t}\simeq \xi_{\m}$ as in the ``Cheng-Sher'' ansatz,
463: the value of the enhancement factor can reach ${\mathcal{O}}(10^2)$.
464: In the following discussion, for simplicity we only take one loop diagram with
465: internal $\tau$ loop into consideration as it is dominated over other fermion loops
466: in the case that the Yukawa couplings are of the same order of magnitudes.
467:
468: The expression of one loop flavor changing diagram contribution to muon
469: \gmt is given by \cite{nie:1998dg}
470: \be
471: \Delta a_\mu
472: &=&\pm{1 \over 8 \pi^2} {m_\mu m_\tau \over m^2_{\phi}}
473: \left(\ln {m^2_{\phi}\over m^2_\tau}-{3\over2}\right)
474: Y_{\mu\tau}^2
475: %\nn
476: %&=&\pm{g^2 \over 32 \pi^2}
477: %{m^2_\mu m^2_\tau \over m^2_W m^2_{\phi}}
478: % \left(\ln {m^2_{\phi}\over m^2_\tau}-{3\over2}\right)
479: % \xi_{\mu\tau}^2
480: %\nn
481: \ee
482: where the sign ``+ (-)'' is for scalar ($\phi=h$) (pseudo-scalar $\phi=A$) exchanges.
483: For detailed discussion on one loop flavor changing diagram, we refer to
484: the Refs.\cite{Kang:2001sq,Diaz:2000cm}.
485:
486: As the two loop contribution to muon \gmt is more considerable via the Barr-Zee
487: mechanism in flavor-conserving case, it is nature to go further to consider the
488: same diagram with flavor-changing couplings. However, in the case of muon \gmt,
489: as the initial and final states are all muons, it is easy to see that the Barr-Zee
490: diagram with flavor-changing coupling can not contribute.
491: %
492: %Since the two loop diagrams of Barr-Zee type can give large contribution to
493: %muon \gmt, it is nature to ask if there are similar diagrams with flavor changing
494: %couplings. It is easy to find that there is {\em no} flavor changing Barr-Zee %diagram
495: %contribution to muon \gmt, because the initial and final states are all muons.
496: %
497: It can only appear in flavor changing process such as $\m\to e\g$.
498: %
499: The non-trivial two loop diagrams which give non-negligible contribution to \gmt are those
500: diagrams (as shown in Fig.\ref{2Ldh.eps}) which have two internal scalars with both of
501: them coupling to a heavy fermion loop.
502:
503: %
504: It is known that large Yukawa couplings between scalar and heavy
505: fermions can compensate the loop suppressing factor $g^{2}/16\p^{2}$
506: and make the Barr-Zee diagram to be sizable. The same mechanism also
507: enhances the two-loop double scalar exchanging diagrams. Further more, in the
508: flavor changing case, the $\m$ lepton can go into heavier lepton $\t$
509: in the lower loop, this may provide an additional enhancement in loop integration.
510: Taking the internal $t$-quark loop as an example, the ratio between the
511: contribution to muon \gmt from two-loop double scalar diagrams relative to the one from
512: Barr-Zee type diagrams can be roughly estimated by the
513: ratio between the couplings, which gives
514: $\sim
515: \xi_{t}\xi_{\m\t}^{2} m_{t}m_{\t} / ( 4\xi_{\m} m^2_{W} \sin^2\theta_{W}),
516: $
517: %
518: where $\theta_W$ is Weinberg angle with the value $\sin^2\theta_W\simeq 0.23$.
519: For the typical values of $\xi_{t}=1$ and $\xi_{\m\t}\simeq
520: \xi_{\m}=30$ the ratio is of order 1. Thus this kind of two-loop double
521: scalar-exchanging diagram is compatible with the one of Barr-Zee type.
522: In the large $m_{t}$ limit, the contribution to muon \gmt from two loop double
523: scalar (pseudo-scalar) exchanging diagram has the following form
524: \be
525: \D a_{\m}
526: &=&
527: \mp { N_{C} m_{\t}m_{\m} m_{t}^2\over 16 \pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
528: \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
529: Y_{tt}^2 Y_{\m\t}^2
530: \label{tldh}
531: \nn
532: \ee
533: The details of the two loop calculations can be found in the appendix
534: at the end of this paper. Comparing with the one-loop
535: flavor-changing diagram in the same way, one can see that the contribution from this
536: diagram could be sizable .
537: %
538: % ------- TLDS results and comparison with Barr-Zee ---------
539: %
540: %
541: %
542: %The numerical results are shown in Fig.\ref{twobarrzee-g2.eps}
543: %and Fig.\ref{onetwo-g2.eps}.
544: %
545: For a comparison, the contribution to muon \gmt from two-loop double
546: pseudo scalar-exchanging diagrams and Barr-Zee diagrams with pseudo-scalar
547: are shown in Fig.\ref{twobarrzee-g2.eps}.
548:
549:
550: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
551: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{twobarrzee-g2.eps}
552: \caption{ Comparison between two loop Barr-Zee pseudo-scalar and
553: double pseudo-scalar exchanging diagram in contribution to muon \gmt. The
554: contribution to muon \gmt is plotted as function of $Y=Y_{\m\t}=Y_{\m\m}$.
555: Three solid curves (from up to down) correspond to double scalar exchanging
556: diagram contribution with scalar (pseudo-scalar) mass $m_{A}=100, 150, 200 $GeV respectively.
557: Three dashed curves indicate the ones from two loop Barr-Zee diagrams with
558: pseudo-scalar exchange.
559: The horizontal lines represent the $1\sigma$ allowed range
560: from Ref.\cite{FJ02}
561: %The horizontal lines represent the allowed rang
562: %of muon \gmt estimated from two groups at 68\% and 90\%CL .
563: }
564: \label{twobarrzee-g2.eps}
565: \end{center}\end{figure}
566:
567: To make the two kind of contributions comparable, we take
568: $Y_{\m\m}=Y_{\m\t}\equiv Y$.
569: It can be seen that the contribution from the former highly depends on the coupling $Y$
570: and the scalar mass. In the range $0.05\leq Y \leq 0.15$, the contribution from double
571: scalar-exchanging diagram is much large than the one from Barr-Zee diagram when
572: $m_{A}$ is about $100\sim 150$GeV. it decrease with $m_{A}$
573: increasing and becomes quite small when $m_{A}\sim 200$ GeV.
574: %
575: %
576: In Fig.\ref{onetwo-g2.eps}, the contribution to muon \gmt from two-loop double
577: scalar-exchanging diagrams is compared with the one from the corresponding
578: flavor-changing one loop diagrams.
579: %
580: Note that just like the case of Barr-Zee diagram,
581: the two-loop double scalar-(pseudo-scalar) exchanging diagrams give
582: negative (positive) contributions, which have the opposite signs as the one
583: from one loop scalar (pseudo-scalar)- exchanging diagram. The reason is
584: that a closed fermion loop always contributes a minus sign.
585: %
586: It results in a strong cancellation between one and two loop diagram
587: contributions in the case of flavor changing couplings with real
588: Yukawa coupling constants. The allowed range of the scalar mass will
589: be strongly constrained. Taking $Y_{\m\t}=0.08(\xi_{\m\t}\simeq 50)$
590: , $Y_{tt}=0.67(\xi_t\simeq 1)$ and $\D a_{\m}>50 \times 10^{-11}$ as an example, the mass of scalar
591: $m_{h}$ lies in a narrow window of $\sim 100 \leq m_{h}\leq 200$ GeV.
592:
593:
594: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
595: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{onetwo-g2.eps}
596: \caption{Comparison between one loop and two loop double scalar exchange
597: diagrams in contribution to muon \gmt. The contribution to muon \gmt is
598: plotted as function of scalar mass. The two dashed curves represent the contribution
599: at one loop with $Y_{\m\t}(\xi_{\m\t})$=0.12(70.6) (up) and 0.08(47) (down) respectively. The two
600: dotted curves correspond to the one from two loop double scalar diagram with the
601: same couplings. (Note that their contribution are negative) The solid curves
602: are the total contribution to \gmt from the both diagrams.
603: The horizontal lines represent the $1\sigma$ allowed rang
604: from Ref.\cite{FJ02}
605: %The horizontal lines represent the allowed rang
606: %of $\Delta a_\mu$ estimated from two groups at 68\% and 90\%CL .
607: }
608: \label{onetwo-g2.eps}
609: \end{center}\end{figure}
610:
611: % ignored as ONLY real Yukawa coupling is discussed
612:
613: %\begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
614: %\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{combin_all.eps}
615: %\caption{ Total contribution to muon \gmt in the case
616: %of non-zero phases, with $Y_{\m\t}=0.05$, $Y_{\m\m}=0.03, \d_t=2\pi/3$
617: %and $\d_{\m\t}=\d_{\m\m}=0$.
618: %The curves correspond to the contributions from
619: %one loop flavor changing,
620: %one loop flavor conserving, two loop double scalar exchanging
621: %and two loop Barr-Zee diagrams( which is negative) respectively.
622: % The horizontal lines represent the allowed rang
623: %of muon \gmt estimated from two groups at 68\% and 90\%CL .
624: % }
625: %\label{combin_all.eps}
626: %\end{center}\end{figure}
627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
628:
629: %As it is mentioned in the above discussion, the constraints may be
630: %weaker if the Yukawa couplings $Y_{ij}$ are allowed to be complex.
631: %In this case the couplings in Eq.(\ref{BZ}) and Eq.(\ref{tldh}) should be replaced as
632: %\begin{eqnarray}
633: %& & Y_{tt} Y_{\m\m}\rightarrow \abs{Y_{tt} Y_{\m\m}} \cos \d_{t} \cos \d_{\m} \nonumber \\
634: %& & Y_{tt}^2 Y_{\m\t}^2 \rightarrow \abs{Y_{tt} Y_{\m\t}}^2 \cos 2\d_{t} \cos 2\d_{\m\t}
635: %\end{eqnarray}
636: %respectively, with
637: %$\d_{t}$, $\d_\m$ and $\d_{\m\t}$ being the phases of the corresponding couplings.
638: %Although the one and two loop share the same phase in the
639: %coupling $Y_{\m\t}$ or $Y_{\m\m}$, the non-zero phase of $\d_t$ may
640: %change the interference between one and two loop diagrams.
641: %a small value of $\cos 2\d_t$ may reduce the contribution from two
642: %loop double scalar diagrams or turn theirs signs to be positive.
643: %Taking $\d_t=2\pi/3$ as an example, we show in Fig.\ref{combin_all.eps}
644: %that in this case the total contribution to muon \gmt would be
645: %large enough to meet the current data with reasonable values of
646: %the couplings $Y_{\m\t}$ and $Y_{\m\m}$.
647:
648: %============== Lepton flavor violating processes ========
649: \section{Lepton flavor violation processes and the texture of Yukawa matrix}
650: The flavor changing Yukawa couplings will unavoidably lead to the
651: enhancement of decay rates of lepton flavor violating processes.
652: such as $\m\to e\g$, $\tau\to \m(e)\g$, $\m\to e^{-}e^{-}e^{+}$ and
653: $\t\to e^{-}e^{-}e^{+}(\m^{-}\m^{-}\m^{+}) $. The current experimental
654: data especially the data of $\m\to e \g$ will impose strongest constraints on
655: the related Yukawa couplings. From the current data the upper bound of
656: the decay $\m\to e\g$ is
657: $\G(\m\to e\g) \leq 3.6 \times 10^{-30} $ GeV \cite{pdg:2000}. It constrains the
658: coupling $Y_{e \t(\m)}$ to be extremely small.
659: %
660: In the models with flavor changing scalar interactions,
661: The leading contributions to $\m\to e\g$ come from the one loop
662: flavor changing diagram, the two loop double scalar exchanging
663: diagram and the two loop flavor changing Barr-Zee diagrams.
664:
665:
666: The effective vertex for one loop flavor changing scalar interaction reads
667: \cite{Chang:1993kw}
668: %----------------------------------Equation------------------------------------%
669: \begin{align}\label{muegamma1}
670: \Gamma^{one}_{\m}=\frac{1}{2(4\pi)^2}\frac{m_{\tau}}{m_{\phi}^2}
671: \left(\ln\frac{m_{\phi}^2}{m_{\tau}^2}-\frac32 \right) Y_{\mu\tau}Y_{\tau e}
672: \bar\ell i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\ell q^{\nu}
673: \end{align}
674: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
675: while the one for two loop loop double scalar exchanging is
676: %----------------------------------Equation------------------------------------%
677: \begin{align}\label{muegamma2}
678: \Gamma^{two}_{\m}=\frac{N_{C} m_{\tau} m_{f}^2}{32\pi^4 m_{\phi}^4}
679: \left( \ln\frac{m_{\phi}^2}{m_{\tau}^2}-\frac52 \right)
680: Y_{ff}^2 Y_{\mu\tau}^2 \bar\ell i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\ell q^{\nu}
681: \end{align}
682: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
683: In Fig.\ref{onetwo-meg.eps} the decay rate from the
684: sum of the first two diagrams are presented as function of the scalar mass. In the calculation we take the value of coupling
685: $Y_{tt}=0.67$ (or $\x_{t}\simeq 1$). The value of $Y_{\m\t}$ is
686: taken to be 0.08(or $\x_{\m\t}\simeq 50$) which is the typical
687: allowed value from the current data on \gmt . It can be seen from the
688: figure that the decay rate of $\m\to e\g$ constrain the value of $Y_{\t e}$ to be no
689: more than $10^{-6}\sim 10^{-5}$ for $100 \leq m_{h} \leq
690: 200$GeV.
691: %
692:
693: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
694: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{onetwo-meg.eps}
695: \caption{Contribution to decay $\m\to e\g$ from the sum of
696: one loop and two loop double scalar diagrams. The three solid curves
697: (from down to up) correspond to
698: $Y_{\t e}=1\times 10^{-6}, 3\times 10^{-6}$ and $1\times 10^{-5}$ respectively.
699: The coupling $Y_{\m\t}$ is taken to be 0.08. The horizontal line indicates
700: the experimental upper bound of $\m\to e\g$ }.
701: \label{onetwo-meg.eps}
702: \end{center}\end{figure}
703:
704: Similarly, the value of coupling $Y_{\m e}$ is also constrained to be very
705: small by the decay rate $\m\to e\g$. The reason is that $Y_{\m e}$ is
706: associated with the flavor changing Barr-Zee diagram in which muon goes
707: into tau in the lower loop. If there is no accidental cancellation
708: with other diagrams the upper bound of $Y_{\m e}$ can be obtained
709: by assuming that the flavor changing Barr-Zee diagram is dominant.
710: The decay rate of $\mu\to e\gamma$ from this diagram alone can be obtained
711: from Eq.(\ref{BarrZeeG2}) and is given by
712: \be\label{BarrZeemeg}
713: \Gamma^{BZ}(\mu\to e\gamma) &=& 8 \a m_{\mu}^5
714: \abs{{ N_c q^2_t \over \pi^2 }
715: {m_\mu m_{t} \over m^2_{\phi}} F\left({ m^2_{t}\over m^2_{\phi} }\right)
716: Y_{tt} Y_{\m\m}}^{2}
717: \label{BZ}
718: \ee
719: The numerical result is represented in Fig.\ref{barrzee-meg.eps} which shows that the
720: upper bound of $Y_{\m e}$ is also of the order $10^{-6}\sim 10^{-5}$ for $100 \leq m_{h} \leq 200$GeV.
721:
722: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
723: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{barrzee-meg.eps}
724: \caption{Contribution to decay $\m\to e\g$ from the two
725: loop flavor changing Barr-Zee diagrams. The three solid curves
726: (from down to up) correspond to
727: $Y_{\m e}=3\times 10^{-6}, 7\times 10^{-6}$ and $1\times 10^{-5}$ respectively.
728: The horizontal line indicates the experimental upper bound of $\m\to e\g$}.
729: \label{barrzee-meg.eps}
730: \end{center}\end{figure}
731:
732: %=============== Yukawa coupling matrix ==========================
733: With the above constraints on the values of Yukawa couplings
734: in the lepton sector, let us discuss the possible texture of Yukawa
735: coupling matrix. In the SM with one Higgs doublet, it is well known that
736: by assuming the Yukawa matrix to be of the Fritzsch form \cite{Fritzsch:1978vd,Fritzsch:1979zq}
737: in flavor basis, i.e.
738: \be
739: Y\simeq\left(
740: \begin{array}{ccc}
741: 0 & \sqrt{m_1 m_2} & 0 \\
742: \sqrt{m_1 m_2} & 0 & \sqrt{m_2 m_3} \\
743: 0 & \sqrt{m_2 m_3} & m_3
744: \end{array}
745: \right)
746: \ee
747: one can reproduce not only correct quark masses in mass eigenstates
748: but also, in a good approximation, some of the mixing angles. In the models with
749: multi-Higgs doublets, one can simply extend this Fritzsch
750: parameterization to all the other Yukawa matrices including the leptons\cite{cheng:1987rs}.
751: This results in the ansatz as in Eq.(\ref{Cheng-Sher_Ansartz}) with all $\xi_{ij}$
752: being of the same order of magnitude.
753:
754: It is not difficult to see that such an ansatz may be challenged by current experiment data
755: in the lepton sector. This is because in order to explain the possible large muon \gmt, the off-diagonal
756: elements connecting the second and third families should be enhanced, while to meet the
757: constraints from $\m\to e \g$, the ones connecting the first and second or the first and third families
758: should be greatly suppressed.
759:
760:
761: Taking the value of $\Delta a_{\mu}> 50\times 10^{-11}$, $m_h \sim
762: 150 $GeV and $m_A \gg m_h$ as an example , in the case of muon \gmt, if the
763: flavor-conserving Barr-Zee Diagram is playing the major role, the
764: rescaled coupling $\xi_{\m}$ should be as large as $50$ ( see
765: Fig.\ref{barrzee-g2.eps}). If one assumes that
766: the flavor-changing coupling is responsible for the large muon \gmt,
767: $\xi_{\m\t}(Y_{\m\t})$ should be about 10(0.02). On the other hand,
768: due to the strong constraint from $\m\to e\g$, for the flavor-changing
769: contribution dominated case, $\xi_{\t e}$ has to be less than 0.08
770: when $\xi_{\m\t}(Y_{\m\t})$ is taken a typical value of $17.6(0.03)$. In the case of flavor
771: changing Barr-Zee diagram dominant, the Yukawa coupling $\xi_{\m e}$
772: has to be less than 0.24. Thus one finds that
773: \be
774: \xi_{\m} &\sim& \xi_{\m\t} \simeq {\mathcal O}(10)
775: \nn
776: \xi_{\t e}&\sim& \xi_{\m e} \simeq {\mathcal O}(10^{-1})
777: \ee
778: which clearly indicates that the rescaled couplings $\xi_{ij}$are not in the same order of magnitude.
779: In the case of light pseudo-scalar mass $m_A \simeq 150$ GeV and $m_h \gg m_A$ the results
780: are similar.
781: %
782: %
783:
784: %If \gmt is found to be large the Yukawa matrix should
785: %have a texture quite different from the one given in
786: %Eq.(\ref{Cheng-Sher_Ansartz}). The off-diagonal elements associated
787: %with the first generation lepton should be further suppressed,
788: %while the one associated with the second and third generation leptons
789: %could be considerably large.
790: %
791:
792: From these considerations, it is suggested that the Yukawa matrices associated with the physical
793: scalar bosons may take the following form in the mass eigenstate
794: \be
795: Y \simeq \l^2 \left(
796: \begin{array}{ccc}
797: {\mathcal{O}}(1) & {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda^n) & {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda^n) \\
798: {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda^n) & {\mathcal{O}}(1) & {\mathcal{O}}(1) \\
799: {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda^n) & {\mathcal{O}}(1) & {\mathcal{O}}(1)
800: \end{array}
801: \right)
802: \label{new-matrix}
803: \ee
804: where $\l\approx 0.22$ is roughly of the same order of the Wolfenstein parameter $\l$, and $n\simeq 2\sim 3$.
805: With such a parameterization, one is able to understand all the current experimental data concerning
806: both muon \gmt and lepton flavor-changing processes.
807:
808: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
809: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{onetwo-tmg.eps}
810: \caption{Prediction of decay rate $\t\to \m\g$ from the sum of
811: one loop and two loop double scalar diagrams. The three solid curves
812: (from down to up) correspond to
813: $Y_{\t \t}$: 0.003, 0.01 and 0.03 respectively.
814: The coupling $Y_{\m\t}$ is taken to be 0.08. The horizontal line indicates the experimental upper bound of $\t\to \m\g$}.
815: \label{onetwo-tmg.eps}
816: \end{center}\end{figure}
817:
818: If one takes the Yukawa matrix of the form in Eq.(\ref{new-matrix}), the decay rate
819: of $\t \to \m \g$ could be predicted. In a good approximation, the decay rate can
820: be obtained by replacing $Y_{\mu\tau}Y_{\tau e}$ into $Y_{\tau\tau} Y_{\tau \mu}$
821: in Eqs.(\ref{muegamma1}) and (\ref{muegamma2})
822: %
823: Assuming $\t$ lepton dominance in the loop, the
824: contributions to $\t \to \m\g$
825: and shown in Fig.\ref{onetwo-tmg.eps}.
826: The current upper bound on $\t\to\m \g$ is $3.5\times 10^{-19}$ GeV\cite{pdg:2000}.
827: It is found that, the predicted decay rate could reach the current experimental bound.
828: A modest improvement in the precision of the present experiment for $\t \to \m\g$ may
829: yield a first evidence of lepton family number non-conservation.
830:
831: %====== Conclusion =========
832:
833:
834: In summary, we have studied the muon \gmt and several lepton flavor
835: violation processes in the models with flavor-changing scalar
836: interactions. The two loop diagrams with double scalar exchanges have
837: been investigated and their contribution to muon \gmt is found to be
838: compatible with the one from Barr-Zee diagram. The constraints on
839: Yukawa coupling constants have been resulted from the current data of
840: muon \gmt and several lepton flavor violation processes. The results
841: have shown a very strong constraints on the flavor-changing couplings
842: associated with the first generation lepton. The early ansatz that the
843: flavor changing couplings are proportional to the square root of the
844: products of related fermion masses may not be suitable for the lepton
845: sector if the $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is found to be $>50\times 10^{-11}$.
846: This indicates that both experimental and theoretical uncertainties need to be
847: further reduced in order to explore the existence of new physics from muon \gmt.
848: It has been shown that an alternative simple parameterization
849: given in Eq.(\ref{new-matrix}) is more attractive to understand the current
850: experimental data. With such a parameterization, the decay rate of
851: $\t\to \m\g$ is found to be close to the current experiment upper
852: bound.
853:
854:
855:
856: %==== Acknowledgments ===
857: \begin{acknowledgments}
858: This work is supported in part by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and NSFC under Grant
859: $\#$ 19625514. Y.F. Zhou acknowledges the support by Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
860: \end{acknowledgments}
861:
862:
863:
864: \begin{widetext}
865:
866: \appendix
867:
868: \section{Two loop double scalar diagrams
869: in muon \gmt and $\m\to e\g$}
870: From the Yukawa interaction shown in Eq.(\ref{Yukawa-interaction}).
871: the $\bar{q}q \phi$ vertex has the following form in $d$ dimension.
872: \be
873: ig \m^{\e/2} ( Y_1+Y_2\g_{5} )
874: \ee
875: where $\m$ is renormalization scale and $\e/2=2-d/2$ .
876: %
877: %
878: %
879: The total amplitude can be written as the product of lower
880: and upper parts as follows
881: %----------------------------------Equation------------------------------------%
882: \begin{align}%\label{}
883: \Gamma_{\m}=M \cdot I_{\m}
884: \end{align}
885: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
886: The amplitude $M$ for upper loop is given by
887: \begin{figure}[htb]\begin{center}
888: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{tldh.eps}
889: \caption{ Two loop double scalar exchanging digram }.
890: \label{2Ldh.eps}
891: \end{center}\end{figure}
892:
893:
894: \be
895: M&=&-g^{2}\m^{\e} \cdot 2N_{C}\mint{l} \tr{{ ( A_{1}+A_{2}\gfive )
896: ( \sh{l}+\not{q}+m_{f}) (B_{1}+B_{2}\gfive) {(\sh{l}+m_{f})}}}
897: {1\over (l+q)^2-m^2_\tau}{1\over l^2-m_{f}^2}
898: \nn
899: \ee
900: %\end{widetext}
901: where $N_C$ and $m_f$ are the color number and mass of fermion $f$.
902: For $t$ quark $f=t$ and $N_C=3$. $A_{1,2}$ and $B_{1,2}$ are the couplings
903: of vertex $A$ and $B$.
904:
905:
906:
907: %After Feynman parameterization and momentum
908: % integration, we have
909: %%\begin{widetext}
910: %\be
911: %M&=&-4\cdot N_{C}g^2\mu^{\e}(A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2}) {i\over (4\pi)^{2-{\e/2}}}
912: %\Gamma({\e \over 2})\fint{x}\nn
913: %&&\left(
914: % (2+{\e\over2}) [x(x-1)]^{1-\e/2}{1\over \left( q^2-R \right)^{{\e \over 2}-1} }
915: % +C_{ab} m_{f}^{2} [x(x-1)]^{-\e/2}{1\over \left( q^2-R \right)^{{\e \over 2}} } \right)
916: %\ee
917: %with $R={m_{f}^2 /[ x(1-x)]}$
918: %and $C_{ab}={ 2A_{2}B_{2}/( A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2}) }$
919:
920: The amplitude $I_{\mu}$ for the lower loop is given by
921: \be
922: I_{\m}
923: &=&-g^2 \m^{\e}
924: \bar{\ell} (p_2)(C_{1}+C_{2}\gfive)
925: ( \not{p}_2-\not{q}+m_{\tau}) \gamma_{\mu} ( \not{p}_1-\not{q}+m_{\tau})
926: (D_{1}+D_{2}\gfive)\ell(p_1) \nn
927: &&\times{1\over (q-p_{2})^2- m_{\tau}^2} \cdot {1\over (q-p_{1})^2- m_{\tau}^2}\cdot {1\over (q^2-m_{\phi}^2)^2}
928: \ee
929: where $C_{1,2}$ and $D_{1,2}$ are the couplings for vertex $C$ and $D$.
930:
931: %Therefore the total amplitude reads
932: %\be
933: %\G_{\m}&=&M\cdot I_{\m}\nn
934: %&=&4\cdot 2N_{C} g^{4} \m^{2\e} (A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2}) { i\over (4\p)^{2-\e/2}} \G({ \e\over2 })
935: % \fint{x}\nn
936: %&& \left( (2+{ \e\over2 }) (x(x-1))^{1-\e/2} \inv{(q^{2}-R)^{\e/2-1}}
937: % +C_{ab} m_{f}^{2} (x(x-1))^{-\e/2} \inv{(q^{2}-R)^{\e/2}}
938: % \right) \nn
939: %&& \cdot 6 \fintb{y}{z}(1-y-z) \mint{q'}\inv{(q^{\prime 2}-\D^{\prime } )^{4}} \cdot {\cal N}
940: %\ee
941: %with $q'=q-yp_{2}-zp_{1}$ and $\D'=(y+z) m_{\t}^2+(1-y-z)) m_{\phi}^2$.
942: %Where the factor 2 comes from the diagram with $C$ and $D$ are interchanged.
943:
944: After integrating over the lower loop and isolating the poles from Feynman integration, we obtain
945: \be
946: \G_{\m}
947: &=&{-8 \cdot 2N_{C} g^{4} (A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2}) m_{\tau}m_{\mu} \over (4\p)^{4}} \times \fint{x} 2 x(1-x) \fintb{y}{z} ( y+z )(1-y-z)
948: \nn
949: && \left(
950: \left(
951: ( { 2\over\e }-2\g_{E}+2\ln4\p - \ln x(1-x)+{ 1\over2 })\cdot f_{1,div}+2\cdot f_{1,con} \right)\right.
952: \nn
953: &&\left. + { 1\over 2}
954: C_{ab} R
955: \cdot \left(
956: ({ 2\over\e }-2\g_{E}+2\ln4\p - \ln x(1-x))\cdot f_{2,div}+2\cdot f_{2,con}
957: \right)
958: \right)
959: \nn
960: && \bar{\ell} (C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2}+(C_{1}D_{2}+C_{2}D_{1})\gfive )
961: { i\sigma^{\mu\nu}k_{\nu}\over 2m_{\mu}}\ell
962: \label{total-AMP}
963: \ee
964: %with
965: %\be
966: %f_{1,div}={ 3 \Delta' +R\over \Delta'^2 },
967: %\quad \quad
968: %f_{2,div}&=&-{ 1\over \D^{' 2} }
969: %\ee
970: %and,
971: %\be
972: %f_{1,con}&=&\left\{
973: % -13 \Delta'^4 + 38 \Delta'^3 R - 37 \Delta'^2 R^2 + 14 \Delta' R^3 - 2 R^4 \right.\nn
974: %&& +(-12 \Delta'^4 + 32 \Delta'^3 R - 24 \Delta'^2 R^2 ) \ln({ R\over\mu^2 })
975: % +4 R^4 \ln({ \Delta'\over \mu^2} )\nn
976: %&& \left. +( -2 \Delta'^4 + 32 \Delta'^3 R -24 \Delta'^2 R^2 -2 R^4 )\ln({ \Delta'\over R })
977: % \right\}{ 1\over 4\Delta'^2(\Delta'-R)^3}
978: %\nn
979: %f_{2,con}&=&\left\{
980: %3 \D^{'4} -10 \D^{'3}R+7 \D^{'2}R^{2}-2\D^{'}R^{3}+ 2R^{4}\right.
981: %\nn
982: %&&+4 R^{3}( R-4 \D^{'} )\ln { \D'\over \mu^{2}}
983: % +2( 2\D^{'4}-8 \D^{'3} R+12 \D^{'2} R^{2}+4 \D^{'} R^{3}-R^{4}) \ln { \D'\over R}
984: %\nn
985: %&&\left. 4(\D^{'4}-4 \D^{'3} R+6 \D^{'2} R^{2})\ln{ R\over\mu^{2} } \right\}
986: %{ 1\over 4\D^{'2}(\D'-R)^{4}}
987: %\ee
988: with $\D'=(y+z) m_{\t}^2+(1-y-z)) m_{\phi}^2$, $R={m_{f}^2 /[ x(1-x)]}$
989: and $C_{ab}={ 2A_{2}B_{2}/( A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2}) }$.
990: %
991: In large $m_{f}$ limit,
992: i.e. $m_{f}^2>> { 1\over 4}m_{\phi}^2>> m_{\t}^2$,
993: the functions $f_{1,div(con)}$ and $f_{2,div(con)}$ have the following
994: forms
995: \be
996: f_{1,div}&\to&{R\over \Delta'^2 },
997: \quad\quad
998: f_{2,div}\to-{ 1\over \D^{' 2} }
999: \nn
1000: f_{1,con} &\to& {R\over 2\Delta'^2 }
1001: \left[
1002: 1- \ln({ \Delta' R\over \mu^4} )
1003: \right],
1004: \quad\quad
1005: f_{2,con}\to { 1\over 2\D^{'2}}
1006: \left[
1007: 1+ \ln{ \D' R\over \m^{4} }
1008: \right]
1009: \ee
1010: %
1011: %%
1012: %
1013: %The counter term of upper loop has the following form
1014: %\be
1015: %C=i( \delta Z q^2-\delta m_{\phi}^2 )
1016: %\ee
1017: %With $\delta Z$ and $\delta m^{2}$ are the wave function and mass
1018: %renormalization constants respectively.
1019: %In the On-Shell Renormalization scheme, they are given by
1020: %\be
1021: %\d Z &=& -4\cdot 2N_{C}g^2(A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2})
1022: % {1\over (4\pi)^{2}}\fint{x}
1023: % \cdot 2 x(1-x)
1024: % \left({ 2\over\e }-\g_{E}+\ln4\p +{ 1\over2 }
1025: % - {\cal F}(x) \right)
1026: %\nn
1027: %\d m_{\phi}^2
1028: %&=&-4\cdot 2N_{C}g^2(A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2})
1029: % {1\over (4\pi)^{2}}\fint{x} m_{f}^{2}
1030: %\nn
1031: %&& \left\{
1032: % 2 \cdot
1033: % \left({ 2\over\e }-\g_{E}+\ln4\p +{ 1\over2 }
1034: % - {\cal F}(x)
1035: % \right)
1036: % \right.
1037: %\left. +C_{ab} \left( { 2\over\e }-\g_{E}+\ln4\p
1038: % - {\cal F}(x)
1039: % \right)\right\}
1040: %\ee
1041: %with
1042: %\be
1043: %{\cal F}(x)=\left( \ln{ m_{f}^{2}-x(1-x)m_{\phi}^{2}\over \m^2}\right)
1044: %\ee
1045: %Inserting the counter terms to the lower loop, the counter term
1046: %at two loop level is given by
1047: %\be
1048: %\d \G_{\mu}&=&\bar{\ell}(p_{2}) ig\mu^{\e/2} (C_{1}+C_{2}\gfive)
1049: % { i\over \not{p_{2}}-\not{q}-m_{\t} } \g_{\m}
1050: % { i\over \not{p_{1}}-\not{q}-m_{\t} }
1051: %\nn
1052: %&& ig\mu^{\e/2} (D_{1}+D_{2}\gfive) \ell(p_{1}) { i\over q^{2}-m_{\phi}^2} \cdot
1053: % { i\over q^{2}-m_{\phi}^2} \cdot i(\d Z q^{2}-\d m_{\phi}^{2})
1054: %\nn
1055: %&=&-ig^{2} \m^{\e}\cdot 6 \fintb{y}{z}(1-y-z) { 1\over (q'2-\D')^4}{\cal N}
1056: %\ee
1057: %with
1058: %\be
1059: %{\cal N}
1060: %&=& 2(y+z)m_{\t}m_{\m} \bar{\ell}(p_2) (C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2}+(C_{1}D_{2}+C_{2}D_{1})\gfive)) \nonumber \\
1061: %& & [(( 1+{ 1\over 2}( 1+{\e\over 4}) )\d Z q'^{2} - \d m_{\phi}^{2}) ]
1062: % { i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n} \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1}) \nn
1063: %\ee
1064: %after integration over $q'$, we arrive at
1065: %\be
1066: %& & \d \G_{\m}
1067: %= { -8\cdot 2N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t}m_{\m} (A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2})\over (4\pi)^{4}}
1068: % \fint{x} 2x(1-x) \fintb{y}{z} (y+z) (1-y-z)
1069: %\nn
1070: %& &
1071: % \left\{
1072: % \bar{\ell}(p_{2}) (C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2}+(C_{1}D_{2}+C_{2}D_{1})\gfive))
1073: % \left[ -{3\D'+R\over \D'^2}
1074: % ({ 2\over\e }-2\g_{E}+2\ln4\pi -{\cal F}(x)-\ln{ \D'\over \m^{2} })
1075: %\right.
1076: %\right.
1077: %\nn
1078: %&& +{ 3\over 2\D'}-{ R\over \D'^{2}}
1079: %%
1080: %%
1081: %\left.
1082: %\left.
1083: % +{1\over \D'^2} { 1\over 2}C_{ab} R
1084: % ({ 2\over\e }- 2\g_{E}+ 2\ln4\pi -{\cal F}(x)-\ln{ \D'\over \m^{2} }))
1085: % \right]
1086: % { i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n} \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1}) \right\}
1087: %\ee
1088: %
1089: %Adding the counter term into the amplitude, the urtral-violate divergences are canceled.
1090: %The physical amplitude is given by
1091: After the renormalization in $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme for the upper loop, one finds
1092: \be
1093: \G_{\m}
1094: &=& { -8\cdot 2N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t}m_{\m} (A_{1}B_{1}-A_{2}B_{2})\over (4\pi)^{4}}
1095: \fint{x} 2x(1-x) \fintb{y}{z} (y+z) (1-y-z)
1096: \nn
1097: &&
1098: \left[ +{3\D'+R\over \D'^2}
1099: ( -\ln x(1-x)+{ 1\over 2} +{\cal F}(x)+\ln{ \D'\over \m^{2} }) +2\cdot f_{1,con}
1100: \right.
1101: \nn
1102: &&
1103: \left.
1104: -{1\over \D'^2} { 1\over 2}C_{ab} R
1105: ( -\ln x(1-x)+{ 1\over 2}+{\cal F}(x)+\ln{ \D'\over \m^{2} }))
1106: + { 1\over 2}C_{ab} R (2\cdot f_{2,con}-{ 1\over 2 })
1107: +{3 \D'-2 R\over 2\D'^{2}}
1108: \right]
1109: \nn
1110: &&
1111: \bar{\ell}(p_{2})(C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2}+(C_{1}D_{2}+C_{2}D_{1})\gfive))
1112: { i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n} \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1})
1113: \ee
1114: with
1115: \be
1116: {\cal F}(x)= \ln { m_{f}^2-x(1-x)m_{\t}^2\over \m^{2} }
1117: \ee
1118: In the limit of $m_{f}^2>>{ 1\over 4} m_{\phi}^2>>m_{\t}^2$, The
1119: above equation can be simplified as
1120: \be
1121: \G_{\m}&=& - { N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t}m_{\m} m_{f}^2(A_{1}B_{1}+A_{2}B_{2})\over 16\pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
1122: \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
1123: \nn
1124: &&
1125: \left(
1126: (C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2}) \bar{\ell}(p_{2}){ i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n} \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1})
1127: +(C_{1}D_{2}+C_{2}D_{1}) \bar{\ell}(p_{2}){ i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n}\gfive \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1})
1128: \right)
1129: \ee
1130: Therefore its contribution to muon \gmt is as follows
1131: \be
1132: \D a_{\m}= - { N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t}m_{\m} m_{f}^2\over 16\pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
1133: \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
1134: (A_{1}B_{1}+A_{2}B_{2}) (C_{1}D_{1}+C_{2}D_{2})
1135: \ee
1136: In the real coupling case, for scalar exchange, one has
1137: \be
1138: g A_{1}&=&g B_{1}=Y_{ff} ,\quad g C_{1}=g D_{1}=Y_{\m\t}
1139: \ee
1140: and others are zero. Similarly for pseudoscalar exchange
1141: the couplings are
1142: \be
1143: g A_{2}=g B_{2}= iY_{ff} , \quad g C_{2}=g D_{2}= iY_{\m\t}
1144: \ee
1145: Therefore, the two loop double scalar (pseudo-scalar) diagram's contribution to $\D a_{\m}$ is
1146: \be
1147: \D a_{\m}
1148: &=&
1149: \mp { N_{C} m_{\t}m_{\m} m_{f}^2\over 16 \pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
1150: \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
1151: Y_{ff}^2 Y_{\m\t}^2
1152: \ee
1153: %
1154: For the decay $\m\to e \g$ , the effective vetex is
1155: \be
1156: \G^{(\mu\to e\gamma)}_{\m}&=& - { N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t}m_{\m} m_{f}^2(A_{1}B_{1}+A_{2}B_{2})\over 16\pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
1157: \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
1158: \nn
1159: &&
1160: \left(
1161: (C'_{1}D_{1}+C'_{2}D_{2}) \bar{\ell}(p_{2}){ i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n} \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1})
1162: +(C'_{1}D_{2}+C'_{2}D_{1}) \bar{\ell}(p_{2}){ i\sigma_{\m\n}k^{\n}\gfive \over 2 m_{\m} }\ell(p_{1})
1163: \right)
1164: \nn
1165: \ee
1166: where $C'_{1}$ and $C'_{2}$ are the Yukawa couplings for $\tau e \phi$ vetex.
1167: The decay rate is then given by
1168: %----------------------------------Equation------------------------------------%
1169: \begin{align}%\label{}
1170: \Gamma(\mu\to e \gamma)=\frac{1}{16\pi m_{\mu}} \overline{\sum}
1171: \abs{e \G^{(\mu\to e\gamma)}_{\mu} \e^{\mu}}^2
1172: \end{align}
1173: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------%
1174: %\be
1175: %\G(\m\to e\g)&=&{ m_{\m}^3\over 8\pi }
1176: %\left[
1177: %{ N_{C} g^{4} m_{\t} m_{f}^2\over 32\pi^{4}m_{\phi}^4}
1178: % \left( -{ 5\over 2}+\ln{ m_{\phi}^2\over m_{\t}^2 }\right)
1179: %\right]^2
1180: %\abs{(A_{1}B_{1}+A_{2}B_{2}) }^2\cdot
1181: %\nn
1182: %&&\left(
1183: % \abs{C'_{1}D_{1}+C'_{2}D_{2}}^2
1184: % +\abs{C'_{1}D_{2}+C'_{2}D_{1}}^2
1185: %\right) \nn
1186: %\ee
1187: %
1188:
1189:
1190: \end{widetext}
1191: %==== Acknowledgments ===
1192:
1193:
1194: \bibliography{try,CoolRef,newRefs}
1195: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
1196:
1197: %\newpage
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204:
1205:
1206:
1207:
1208:
1209:
1210: \end{document}
1211:
1212:
1213: %In the Standard Model, the contribution to muon \gmt arises from
1214: %different kind of processes such as the radiative corrections from QED,
1215: %hadronic vacuum polarization and electroweak radiative corrections, i.e.
1216: %\be
1217: %a_{\mu}^{SM}=a_{\mu}^{QED}+a_{\mu}^{Had}+a_{\mu}^{EW}
1218: %\ee
1219: %
1220: % SM- five loop QED
1221: %
1222: Among those, the QED correction has been estimated at 5 loop level,
1223: which give gives \cite{Mohr:2001wp}
1224: \be
1225: a_{\mu}^{QED}=116584705.7\pm 2.9\times 10^{-11}
1226: \ee
1227: %
1228: % SM - two loop EW
1229: %
1230: The
1231: electroweak radiative corrections have been calculated at two loop
1232: level and are found to have the value
1233: \cite{Czarnecki:1995wq,Czarnecki:1996sz}
1234: \be
1235: a_{\mu}^{EW}=152\pm4\times 10^{-11}.
1236: \ee
1237: %
1238: % SM - hadron
1239: %
1240: The leading hadronic loop contributions arise from vacuum polarization
1241: and light by light (LL) diagrams. i.e.
1242: \begin{equation}
1243: a_{\mu}^{Had}=a_{\mu}^{Had}(vac.pol.)+a_{\mu}^{Had}(LL)
1244: \end{equation}
1245: %
1246: The recent reevaluation of LL diagrams lead to an opposite sign to the
1247: original calculations\cite[XXX], which significantly reduces the
1248: discrepancy between experimet and theory. However, comparing with the
1249: latest data, there is still strong evidence that the observed muon
1250: \gmt is much larger that the one from SM calculations. Taking the hadron
1251: vacuum polarization contribution as
1252: $a^{had}_{\m}(pol)=(6924\pm62)\times 10^{-11}$\cite[]
1253: and LL contribution as
1254: $a^{had}_{\m}(LL)=(+89.6\pm 15.4)\times 10^{-11}$ \cite[] for an
1255: example one finds that the difference between experiment and SM is
1256: given by
1257: \be
1258: \Delta a_\mu\equiv a^{\text exp}_\mu-a^{\text SM}_\mu
1259: =( 259.3\pm 103)\times 10^{-11},
1260: \ee
1261: which is a $2.5\sigma$ deviation. The exact value of deviation
1262: varies with diffrent theoretical estimations on hadronic vacuum
1263: polarization process. With a more conservative estimation, the value
1264: may be as $1.6 \sigma$. For a more details we refer to the reference
1265: \cite[]
1266:
1267: %It is known that by using the dispersion relation the amplitude of
1268: %vacuum polarization diagrams are related to the cross section of
1269: %$e^+e^-\to hadrons$ \cite{Eidelman:1995ny} which has been precisely
1270: %measured. Including the most recent data from CMD and BES, the
1271: %hadronic vacuum polarization contribution is estimated as
1272: %$6698\pm111\times 10^{-11}$ \cite{Jegerlehner:2001wq}
1273:
1274:
1275: %The contribution of light-by-light diagrams can be
1276: %estimated from Vector Meson Dominance model (VMD).
1277: %The early results which were confirmed by three independent
1278: %groups prefer a negative value of about $-80\pm 25 \times 10^{-11}$
1279: %\cite{Hayakawa:1995ps,Bijnens:1996xf,Hayakawa:1998rq,Bartos:2001pg}.
1280: %
1281: %With this result, the total hadronic contributions are given by
1282: %\be\label{Jegerlehner}
1283: %a_{\mu}^{Had}=6803\pm 114\times 10^{-11}
1284: %\ee
1285: %This is the most conservative SM estimation. To further reduce the
1286: %theoretical error, other methods such as including $\tau$ decay data
1287: %through isospin relations \cite{Alemany:1998tn} perturbative QCD
1288: %\cite{Davier:1998kw} as well as QCD sum rules \cite{Davier:1998si} can
1289: %be used and more precise estimation can be made as
1290: %\be\label{Davier}
1291: %a_{\mu}^{Had}=6937\pm 67\times 10^{-11}.
1292: %\ee
1293: %For a recent review, we refer to the references
1294: %\cite{Jegerlehner:2001wq,Czarnecki:2001pv,Hocker:2001fu}.
1295: %With the above estimation of muon \gmt in SM, the difference between
1296: %current data and the SM prediction can be calculated. Using results
1297: %in Eq.(\ref{Jegerlehner}), it is given by
1298: %\be
1299: %\Delta a_\mu=a^{\text exp}_\mu-a^{\text SM}_\mu
1300: %=362\pm189 \times 10^{-11} \quad \mbox{Jegerlenhner'01}
1301: %\ee
1302: %while use the results in Eq.(\ref{Davier}), it is
1303: %\be
1304: %\Delta a_\mu=426\pm165 \times 10^{-11} \quad \mbox{Davier \& H\"{o}cker'98}
1305: %\label{Davier-g2}
1306: %\ee
1307:
1308: %It is found that large deviation from the SM prediction was observed
1309: %for both two kind of SM estimations. If one use the conservative
1310: %results (Jegerlenhner'01) on Hadronic contribution the difference is
1311: %$\sim 2\sigma$, while in the more precise estimation (Davier \&
1312: %H\"{o}cker'98) in Eq.(\ref{Davier}), the difference is around $\sim
1313: %2.6\sigma$.
1314:
1315: %But most recently this conclusion was challenged by new results given in Refs.
1316: %\cite{Knecht:2001qf,Knecht:2001qg} that the correct sign of $\pi^0$ pole contribution
1317: %should be positive,which was soon confirmed by another group
1318: %\cite{Hayakawa:2001bb,Bijnens:2001cq,Prades:2001zv}. The new result gives\cite{Hayakawa:2001bb}
1319: %\begin{equation}
1320: %a_{\mu}^{Had}(LL)=+89.6\pm 15.4 \times 10^{-11}
1321: %\end{equation}
1322: %This result largely reduces the difference between experiment and
1323: %theory. If it is confirmed to be correct the discrepancy will be about $1.6(1)\sigma$ in
1324: %Davier \& H\"{o}cker(Jegerlenhner)'s approach.
1325: %As the sign of light-by-light hadronic
1326: %contribution has been changed two times in the literature \cite{Kinoshita:1985it}.
1327: %It seems that more work are urgently needed in checking the sign of LL contribution.
1328:
1329: %
1330:
1331: \section{discussions and summary}
1332:
1333: In the above discussions, all the conclusions are made at 90$\%$CL
1334: with the SM prediction based on the estimation of $\Delta a_\mu$ from
1335: Davier and H\"{o}cker in Eq.(\ref{Davier}) , which presents a large
1336: discrepancy ($\sim2.6\sigma$) between experiment and theory. If one
1337: wants to take a critical view on the approaches (including $\tau$
1338: decay data to improve precision) used in obtaining such a SM
1339: prediction, a more conservative estimation in Eq.(\ref{Jegerlehner})
1340: in which only $e^+e^-$ data are used can be adopted. It may be
1341: interesting to check the differences of the conclusions under
1342: different SM value of $\Delta a_\mu$. To make a quantitative
1343: comparison, both the SM estimation from Eq.(\ref{Davier}) and
1344: Eq.(\ref{Jegerlehner}) are presented at 68\% and 90\% CL in
1345: Fig.\ref{barrzee-g2.eps}, Fig.\ref{twobarrzee-g2.eps} ,
1346: Fig.\ref{onetwo-g2.eps} and Fig.\ref{combin_all.eps}. It can be seen clearly that all the
1347: constraints become weaker when a more conservative estimation is used.
1348: Roughly speaking, a result holds at at 90\%CL in Davier and
1349: H\"{o}cker's estimation will holds at about 68\%CL in the ones from
1350: Jegerlehner's. Under Jegerlehner's estimation, at 90\%CL ( corresponds to a lower bound of
1351: $\Delta a_{\mu}>50\times 10^{-11}$), the allowed
1352: typical lower bound of coupling $Y_{\mu\tau}$ will decrease from 0.08
1353: to 0.03 when the mass of scalar is around 150 GeV. However, the
1354: corresponding rescaled coupling $\xi_{\mu\tau }$ is still larger than
1355: $\xi_{e\tau}$ for about two order of magnitude, i.e. the conclusion in
1356: Eq.(\ref{new-matrix}), serving as an order of magnitude estimation
1357: remains to be unchanged. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that
1358: a lower bound of $\Delta a_{\mu}>50\times 10^{-11}$, if confirmed by
1359: future work will lead to a significant deviation of Yukawa matrix from
1360: Cheng-Sher type.
1361:
1362: If the positive light-by-light hadronic contribution is confirmed, of
1363: course the difference between experiment and SM prediction become quite
1364: smaller. From Davier \& H\"{o}cker's approach there is about
1365: $1.6\sigma$ deviation and a weaker lower bound of $\xi_{\mu\tau}$
1366: still remains. However, if one takes a more conservative estimation
1367: such as Jegerlehner's approach. the lower bound vanishs at $1\sigma$
1368: level. In this case one can only obtain upper bounds of the parameters
1369: in new physics models.
1370:
1371:
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375:
1376:
1377:
1378:
1379:
1380:
1381:
1382:
1383:
1384:
1385:
1386:
1387:
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391:
1392:
1393:
1394:
1395:
1396:
1397:
1398:
1399:
1400:
1401:
1402:
1403:
1404:
1405:
1406:
1407:
1408:
1409:
1410:
1411:
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415:
1416:
1417:
1418:
1419:
1420:
1421:
1422:
1423:
1424:
1425:
1426:
1427:
1428:
1429:
1430:
1431:
1432:
1433:
1434:
1435:
1436:
1437:
1438:
1439:
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443:
1444:
1445:
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457:
1458:
1459:
1460:
1461:
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465:
1466:
1467:
1468:
1469:
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473:
1474:
1475:
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479:
1480:
1481:
1482:
1483:
1484:
1485:
1486:
1487:
1488:
1489:
1490:
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495:
1496:
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500:
1501:
1502:
1503:
1504:
1505:
1506:
1507:
1508:
1509:
1510:
1511:
1512:
1513:
1514:
1515:
1516:
1517:
1518: