1: \documentstyle[twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
2: \def\btt#1{{tt$\backslash$#1}}
3: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6: \title{Can MSSM with light sbottom and light gluino survive $Z$-peak constraints ? }
7:
8:
9: \author{Junjie Cao $^{1,2}$, Zhaohua Xiong $^{1,3}$, Jin Min Yang $^3$}
10:
11: \address{$^1$ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China}
12: \address{$^2$ Physics Department, Henan Normal University, Henan 453002, China}
13: \address{$^3$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China}
14: \date{\today}
15: \maketitle
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18:
19: In the framework of minimal supersymmetric model we examine
20: the $Z $-peak constraints on the scenario of one light sbottom
21: ($2\sim 5.5$ GeV) and light gluino ($12\sim 16$ GeV), which has been
22: successfully used to explain the excess of bottom quark production
23: in hadron collision. Such a scenario is found to be severely constrained
24: by LEP $Z$-peak observables, especially by $R_b$, due to the large effect
25: of gluino-sbottom loops. To account for the $R_b$ data in this scenario,
26: the other mass eigenstate of sbottom, i.e., the heavier one, must be
27: lighter than $125$ ($195$) GeV at $2\sigma$ ($3 \sigma $) level, which
28: should have been produced in association with the lighter one at LEP II
29: and will probobaly be within the reach of Tevatron Run 2.
30:
31: \end{abstract}
32: \pacs{13.38.Dg,12.60.Jv}
33:
34: \noindent{\bf Introduction}~~
35: Although the standard model (SM) has been successful phenomenologically, it is
36: generally believed to be an effective theory valid at the electroweak scale
37: and some new physics must exist beyond the SM. This belief was seemingly
38: corroborated by some experiments, such as the recent measurement of muon
39: $g-2$ \cite{E821} and the evidence of neutrino oscillations~\cite{superK}.
40: Among various speculations of new physics theories, the minimal supersymmetric
41: model (MSSM) is arguably a promising candidate and has been intensively
42: studied in the past decades.
43:
44: The non-observation of any sparticles from direct experimental searches
45: suggested heavy masses for sparticle spectrum. However, there have been
46: a lot of analysis \cite{lightbg} which argue that a very light sbottom
47: and light gluino (with mass of a few GeV) may have escaped from the
48: direct experimental searches. It is intriguing that a light sbottom
49: may require a light gluino, as analyzed in the last reference in
50: \cite{lightbg}. A recent analysis \cite{doelectr}
51: showed that a light sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) with mass comparable with
52: bottom quark is still allowed by electroweak precision data if its
53: coupling to $Z$ boson is small enough. A study by Berger {\em et~al}
54: \cite{Berger01} found that the scenario of MSSM with one light sbottom
55: ($2 \sim 5.5$ GeV) and a light gluino ($12\sim 16$ GeV) can successfully
56: provide an explanation for the long-standing puzzle that the measured
57: cross section of bottom quark production at hadron collider exceeds
58: the QCD prediction by about a factor of 2 \cite{CDF93}. They also argued
59: that such a scenario is consistent with all experimental constraints
60: on the masses and couplings of sparticles.
61:
62: We note that the previous examinations \cite{doelectr} on
63: $Z$-peak constraints focus on the direct production of a light sbottom
64: followed by its decay similar to the bottom quark. Then by fine-tuning
65: the mixing of left- and right-handed sbottoms, the coupling of $Z$-boson
66: to the lighter mass eigenstate of sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) can be
67: sufficiently small so as to avoid the $Z$-peak constraints. It is
68: noticeable that when sbottom $\tilde{b}_1$ and gluino are both light,
69: as was used to explain the excess of bottom quark production in hadron
70: collision \cite{Berger01}, gluino-sbottom loops may cause large effects
71: in $Zb\bar b$ coupling \footnote{Previous calculations of SUSY loop
72: effects on $Zb\bar b$ coupling focused on rather heavy squarks and
73: gluino and thus obtained very small effects\cite{Djouadi91}.}. Therefore,
74: in such a scenario, it is important to reexamine the loop contributions
75: to $Zb\bar b$ coupling and further, the $Z$-peak constraints. This is
76: the aim of this letter. Through explicit calculations, we do find that
77: gluino-sbottom loops comprising of sbottoms and a light gluino cause
78: large effects on $Z$-peak observables. To account for the $R_b$ data,
79: subtle cancellation between $\tilde{b}_1$ loops and $\tilde{b}_2$
80: loops is needed, which can be realized by requiring the mass splitting
81: between two sbottoms not to be too large. Numerical results show that
82: for $\tilde{b}_1$ with mass of $2 \sim 5.5$ GeV, $\tilde b_2$ must be
83: lighter than $125$ GeV and $195$ GeV at $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ level,
84: respectively.
85: \vspace*{.2cm}
86:
87: \noindent{\bf Calculations}~~
88: We start the calculations by writing down the sbottom mass-square
89: matrix~\cite{susyint}
90: \begin{equation}
91: M_{\tilde b}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
92: M_{{\tilde b}_{LL}}^2& M^{2\dagger}_{{\tilde b}_{LR}}\\
93: M^2_{{\tilde b}_{LR}}& M_{{\tilde b}_{RR}}
94: \end{array} \right),
95: \end{equation}
96: where $M_{{\tilde b}_{LL}}^2=M_{\tilde Q}^2+m_b^2-m_Z^2(\frac{1}{2}
97: -\frac{1}{3}\sin^2\theta_W)\cos(2\beta)$, $M_{{\tilde b}_{RR}}^2=
98: M_{\tilde D}^2+m_b^2-\frac{1}{3} m_Z^2 \sin^2\theta_W\cos(2\beta)$, and
99: $M_{{\tilde b}_{LR}}^2=m_b(A_b-\mu\tan\beta)$. Here $M_{\tilde Q}^2$
100: and $ M_{\tilde D}^2$ are soft-breaking mass terms for left-handed
101: squark doublets $\tilde Q$ and right-handed down squarks, respectively.
102: $A_b$ is the coefficient of the trilinear term $H_1 \tilde Q \tilde D$
103: in soft-breaking terms and $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ is the ratio of
104: the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
105: By diagonalizing the sbottom mass-square matrix, one obtains the
106: physical mass eigenstates ${\tilde b}_{1, 2}$
107: \begin{eqnarray}
108: \label{rotate}
109: \left (\begin{array}{l}
110: \tilde b_1\\ \tilde b_2
111: \end{array} \right )=\left (
112: \begin{array}{cc}
113: \cos\theta &\sin\theta\\
114: -\sin\theta &\cos\theta\\
115: \end{array} \right )
116: \left (\begin{array}{l}
117: \tilde b_L\\ \tilde b_R
118: \end{array} \right ).
119: \end{eqnarray}
120: where $\theta$ is the mixing angle of sbottoms. In our following
121: analyses we take the sbottom masses and the mixing angel as free parameters
122: since they are independent of each other and determined by SUSY parameters
123: $M_{\tilde{b}_{LL}}^2$, $M_{\tilde{b}_{RR}}^2$ and $M_{\tilde{b}_{LR}}^2$.
124:
125: The coupling of $Z$-boson to sbottoms is given by
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: V^{\mu}(Z\tilde{b}_i\tilde{b}^*_j)=i e O_{ij} (p_1+p_2)^{\mu},
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: where $p_{1,2}^{\mu}$ are the momentum of $\tilde{b}_i$ and $\tilde{b}_j$,
130: respectively. $O_{ij}$ are defined as
131: $O_{11}= v_b + a_b \cos 2\theta$,
132: $O_{22}= v_b - a_b \cos 2\theta$ and
133: $O_{12}= O_{21}=-a_b \sin 2\theta$.
134: Here $v_b=1/(4 \sin\theta_W \cos\theta_W) (1-\frac{4}{3} \sin^2 \theta_W)$ and
135: $a_b=1/(4 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W)$ are the vector and axial vector
136: couplings of $Zb\bar b$, respectively.
137:
138: Apparently, a light sbottom $\tilde{b}_1$ (a few GeV) can affect $Z$-peak
139: observables in two ways:
140: (1) the direct pair production of $\tilde{b}_1$ through $Z\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}^*_1$
141: coupling, as discussed in \cite{doelectr};
142: (2) the loop effects of $\tilde{b}_1$. If gluino is also light ($12\sim 16$ GeV),
143: then the loop effects are mainly from gluino-sbottom loops in $Z b \bar{b} $
144: vertex, which comprise a light gluino $\tilde g$ and sbottoms, as shown in Fig.~1.
145: It should be noted that even if the direct pair production of $\tilde{b}_1$ is
146: avoided by tuning the mixing angle $|\cos\theta| \simeq \sqrt{2/3}\sin{\theta_W}
147: \simeq 0.38$ to set $Z\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}^*_1$ coupling to be zero ($O_{11}\sim 0$),
148: $Z\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}^*_2$ and $Z\tilde{b}_2\tilde{b}^*_2$ couplings still exist and
149: the irreducible loops shown in Fig.~1(b) make contributions. It should also be noted that
150: the self-energy loops in Fig.~1(a) involve only SUSY QCD interactions, i.e.,
151: gluino-sbottom-bottom couplings, which are not affected by the zero
152: $Z\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}^*_1$ coupling.
153:
154: \begin{figure}[htb]
155: \begin{center}
156: \epsfig{file=fey.ps,width=200pt,height=80pt}
157: \caption{The gluino one-loop diagrams for $Zb\bar{b}$.}
158: \label{fey}
159: \end{center}
160: \end{figure}
161:
162: Using dimensional regulation and adopting the on-shell renormalization scheme for
163: the calculation of Fig.~1, we obtain the effective $Zb\bar{b}$ vertex
164: \begin{eqnarray} \label{vertex}
165: V_{\mu}^{eff} (Zb\bar{b})&=&i e \left\{
166: \gamma_\mu(v_b- a_b \gamma_5)
167: +\frac{\alpha_s}{3\pi} \left[F_1\gamma_\mu +F_2 \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \right. \right.
168: \nonumber\\
169: & & \left. \left.
170: +i~F_3~\sigma_{\mu\nu}k^\nu
171: +i~F_4~\sigma_{\mu\nu}k^\nu\gamma_5\right] \right\}.
172: \end{eqnarray}
173: Here $F_i$ are form factors originated from loop corrections, given by
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: F_1&=&2\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2O_{ij}\left\{
176: -A^-_{ij}m_bm_{\tilde{g}}\left(C_{0}(i,j)+C_{11}(i,j)\right)
177: \right.\nonumber\\
178: &&\left.+A^+_{ij}\left[m_b^2\left(C_{11}(i,j)+C_{21}(i,j)\right)
179: +C_{24}(i,j)\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
180: &&+v_b \delta Z_V+a_b\delta Z_A,\\
181: F_2&=&2\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2 O_{ij} B^+_{ij}C_{24}(i,j)
182: -v_b \delta Z_A- a_b \delta Z_V,\\
183: F_3&=-&\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2 O_{ij}\left\{
184: A^+_{ij}m_b\left[C_{11}(i,j)+C_{21}(i,j)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
185: &&\left.-m_{\tilde{g}}A^-_{ij}
186: \left[C_0(i,j)+C_{11}(i,j)\right]\right\},\\
187: F_4&=&\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^2 O_{ij} \left\{
188: B^+_{ij}m_b\left[2C_{12}(i,j)-C_{11}(i,j)
189: -C_{21}(i,j)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
190: &&\left.\left.+2C_{23}(i,j)\right]+m_{\tilde{g}}B^-_{ij}
191: \left[C_0(i,j)+C_{11}(i,j)\right]\right\} ,
192: \end{eqnarray}
193: where
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: \delta Z_V&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^2\left[A_{ii}^+
196: \left(B_1(i)+2m_b^2\frac{\partial B_1(i)}{\partial p_b^2}\right)
197: \right.\nonumber\\
198: &&\left.-2m_bm_{\tilde{g}}A_{ii}^-
199: \frac{\partial B_0(i)}{\partial p_b^2}\right]
200: \left \vert_{p_b^2=m_b^2} , \right.\\
201: \delta Z_A&=&-\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 B_{ii}^+B_1(i) .
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: Here $B_{0,1}(j) = B_{0,1}(-p_b, m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_j})$ and
204: $C_{0,nm}(i,j)=C_{0,nm}
205: (-p_b, k, m_{\tilde g }, m_{\tilde b_i}, m_{\tilde b_j})$,
206: with $p_b$ and $k$ denoting the four-momentum of b quark and Z boson
207: respectively, are the Feynman loop integral functions and their expressions
208: can be found in \cite{bcanaly}.
209: Other constants appearing above are defined by
210: $A_{ij}^\pm=a_ia_j\pm b_ib_j$, $B_{ij}^\pm =a_ib_j\pm a_jb_i$,
211: $a_{1,2}=(\sin\theta\mp\cos\theta)/\sqrt{2}$ and
212: $b_{1,2}=(\cos\theta\pm\sin\theta)/\sqrt{2}$.
213: \vspace*{.2cm}
214:
215: \noindent{\bf Numerical results}~~ Let's now evaluate the effects of
216: the above corrections to $Z$ peak observables.
217: We start with $R_b\equiv \Gamma(Z\to b\bar b)/ \Gamma(Z\to hadrons)$.
218: From Eq. (\ref{vertex}) we obtain the contribution to $R_b$
219: \begin{equation}
220: \delta R_b=R_b^{SM}(1-R_b^{SM})\Delta_{\rm SUSY},
221: \end{equation}
222: where
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: \Delta_{\rm SUSY} &=&\frac{2\alpha_s}{3\pi}
225: \frac{1}{v_b^2(3-\beta^2)+2 a_b^2\beta^2}\left[v_b (3-\beta^2){\rm Re} F_1\right.
226: \nonumber\\
227: &&\left.-2 a_b \beta^2 {\rm Re} F_3+6m_b v_b {\rm Re} F_4\right]
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: with $\beta =\sqrt{1-4m_b^2/m_Z^2}$.
230:
231: To obtain numerical results, we set input parameters as \cite{Erler:sa}
232: $R_b^{exp}=0.21642\pm 0.00065$, $R_b^{SM}=0.21573\pm 0.0002$,
233: $\sin^2\theta_W=0.2312$, $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.1192$,
234: $m_Z=91.188$ GeV and $m_b=4.75$ GeV.
235: We will vary $m_{\tilde g}$ in the range $12\sim 16$ GeV and $m_{\tilde b_1}$
236: in the range $2\sim 5.5$ GeV as was used in \cite{Berger01}.
237:
238: For $m_{{\tilde b}_1}=3.5~GeV$ and $m_{\tilde g}=14~GeV$,
239: we present $\delta R_b$ versus $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
240: In addition to $\cos{\theta}=\pm 0.38$ which leads to zero
241: $Z\tilde b_1 \tilde b_1^*$ coupling and hence avoids large
242: rate of direct pair production of $\tilde{b}_1$ \cite{doelectr},
243: we also plotted the curves for $\cos\theta=\pm 0.30$ and $\pm 0.45$.
244: From the figure, one sees that the contributions to $R_b$
245: are negative in all the parameter space we have investigated.
246: One can also see that the negative $\cos{\theta}$ gives larger
247: contributions than positive one and as $\vert\cos{\theta}\vert$
248: increases, the contributions become more sizable.
249: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
250: \begin{figure}[htb]
251: \begin{center}
252: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,width=240pt,height=280pt}
253: \caption{$\delta R_b$ as a function of $m_{\tilde{b}_2} $
254: for $m_{{\tilde b}_1}=3.5~GeV$ and $m_{\tilde g}=14~GeV$.
255: The corresponding region above each horizontal line is allowed
256: by LEP $R_b$ data at $2\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ level, respectively.
257: }
258: \label{fig2}
259: \end{center}
260: \end{figure}
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262: \vspace*{-.2cm}
263:
264: Comparing with the experimental bounds shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, one
265: learns that even in the favorable case of positive $\cos{\theta}$, the
266: contribution to $R_b $ is too large to be allowed at 3 $\sigma$ level
267: if $m_{\tilde b_2} \geq 200$ GeV. Since the heavier sbottom has not been
268: observed at LEPII, and it can in principle be produced in association
269: with the lighter one, its mass should probably be larger than about $200$ GeV
270: \footnote{ A detailed study may be needed to make this bound quantitative.}.
271: So, we conclude that the scenario of one light sbottom and
272: light gluino faces severe challenge. As to the largeness of the gluino-sbottom
273: loop contributions, two main reasons may account for it. One is the large
274: splitting between $m_{\tilde b_1} $ and $m_{\tilde b_2}$, which leads to
275: a weak cancellation between $\tilde{b}_1 $ and $\tilde{b}_2$ contributions;
276: the other is the lightness of sbottom $\tilde b_1$ and gluino, which induces
277: large self-energy contributions. To check our understanding, we fix
278: $m_{\tilde b_2}$ and $m_{\tilde g}$ but let $m_{\tilde b_1}$ approaches to
279: $m_{\tilde b_2}$. Then we do find large cancellation occurs between different
280: diagrams.
281:
282: We notice from Fig.~\ref{fig2} the intriguing feature that as $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$
283: increases, the effects get more sizable. This can be understood as the weaker
284: cancellation between $\tilde b_1 $ and $\tilde b_2$ contributions when
285: $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$ increases. To further understand this behavior, we used
286: approximate forms of B and C functions \cite{bcanaly}, and found that in
287: the limit $m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2 \gg m_Z^2 > m_{\tilde{b}_1, \tilde{g}}^2 $,
288: $\delta R_b$ is roughly linear dependent on $\ln (m_{\tilde b_2^2}
289: /m_{\tilde b_1^2})$ and thus increases as $m_{\tilde b_2^2}/m_{\tilde b_1^2}$
290: gets larger. Of course, this feature does not mean that SUSY QCD is
291: non-decoupling from the SM. To check the decoupling property of SUSY QCD,
292: we let all relevant sparticles ($\tilde b_1$, $\tilde b_2$, $\tilde g$) become
293: heavy and found the contributions drop quickly to zero. Actually, even for
294: a light $\tilde b_1$, $\delta R_b $ drops monotonously to zero when
295: $m_{\tilde{g}}$ get large, as shown in Fig.~~\ref{fig3}.
296:
297: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
298: \begin{figure}[htb]
299: \begin{center}
300: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=230pt,height=200pt}
301: \caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig2}, but versus gluino mass for $m_{{\tilde b}_1}=3.5~GeV$.}
302: \label{fig3}
303: \end{center}
304: \end{figure}
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
306: \vspace*{-.2cm}
307:
308: Since in such a scenario with a light $\tilde b_1$ of a few GeV, the $\tilde b_2$
309: lighter than $200$ GeV might be disfavored by LEP II experiment~\cite{doelectr},
310: we fix $m_{\tilde b_2}=200$ GeV and $\cos{\theta}=0.3$ and plot $\delta R_b$
311: versus $m_{\tilde b_1}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig4}, where $m_{\tilde b_1}$ varies in the
312: range $2\sim 5.5$ GeV and $m_{\tilde g}$ in $12\sim 16$ GeV, as used in \cite{Berger01}
313: to explain the excess of bottom quark production in hadron collision. We see that
314: such a scenario is totally excluded by the LEP $R_b$ data at $2\sigma$ level, while
315: at $3\sigma$ level only a tiny corner with $m_{\tilde g}$ close to 16 GeV and
316: $m_{\tilde b_1}$ close to 5 GeV is allowed.
317:
318: Let's next consider the effects on other $Z$-peak observables:
319: $R_{c}$, $R_{\ell}$, $A_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$. In our calculation of these observables,
320: we neglect SUSY QCD correction to $\Gamma(Z\to q \bar q)~ (q \neq b)$ since
321: the corresponding loops involve squarks $\tilde q$ ($\tilde q \neq \tilde b)$
322: which are assumed to be heavy. Then the effects on all these observables
323: stem only from the corrections to $Zb\bar b$ vertex in Eq.(\ref{vertex}).
324: Since $F_{1,2}$ are found to be much larger than $F_{3,4}$,
325: we neglect $F_{3,4}$ in the calculation of $A_b$ and $A_{FB}^b$.
326: In Table 1, we show the effects on these observables including $R_b$.
327: We see that gluino-sbottom loop effects significantly enlarge the
328: deviations of the predictions from the experimental values.
329:
330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
331: \begin{figure}[htb]
332: \begin{center}
333: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=235pt,height=200pt}
334: \caption{ Same as Fig.~\ref{fig2}, but versus $m_{\tilde b_1}$ for
335: $m_{\tilde b_2}=200$ GeV.}
336: \label{fig4}
337: \end{center}
338: \end{figure}
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340: \vspace*{-.4cm}
341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
342: \null
343: \noindent
344: {\small Table 1: Deviation of some Z-peak observables from experimental values.
345: The MSSM predictions are obtained by including SUSY QCD contributions with
346: $m_{\tilde b_1}=3.5$ GeV and $m_{\tilde g}=14$ GeV. The SM predictions are
347: taken from \cite{LP01}. The values of $m_{\tilde b_1}$ are in units of GeV. }
348: \vspace*{0.1cm}
349:
350: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
351: \hline
352: & \multicolumn{6}{c|}{MSSM} & \\ \cline{2-7}
353: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\cos\theta=0.30$}
354: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\cos\theta=0.45$} & SM\\ \cline{2-7}
355: & $m_{\tilde b_2}$: & & & & & & \\
356: & 150& 200 & 250 & 150& 200 & 250 & \\ \hline
357: $R_b$ &2.66$\sigma$ &3.22$\sigma$ &3.59$\sigma$ &4.49$\sigma$
358: &5.47$\sigma$ &6.16$\sigma$ &1.12$\sigma$ \\ \hline
359: $R_c$ &-0.19$\sigma$&-0.22$\sigma$ & -0.24$\sigma$ &-0.28$\sigma$
360: &-0.33$\sigma$ &-0.36$\sigma$ &-0.12$\sigma$\\ \hline
361: $R_{\ell}$ &2.26$\sigma$&2.66$\sigma$ &2.93$\sigma$ &3.65$\sigma$
362: &4.32$\sigma$ &4.83$\sigma$ &1.11$\sigma$\\ \hline
363: $A_b$ & -0.90$\sigma$&-0.93$\sigma$ &-0.94$\sigma$ &-0.76$\sigma$
364: &-0.80$\sigma$ &-0.84$\sigma$ &-0.64$\sigma$\\ \hline
365: $A^b_{FB}$ & -3.25$\sigma$&-3.28$\sigma$ &-3.30$\sigma$ &-3.06$\sigma$
366: &-3.12$\sigma$ &-3.16$\sigma$ &-2.90$\sigma$\\ \hline
367: \end{tabular}
368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
369: \vspace*{0.2cm}
370:
371: We should remind that in the calculation we only considered the SUSY QCD loops, i.e.,
372: gluino-sbottom loops. Since we focused on a special scenario of the MSSM, in
373: which there exist a very light sbottom ($2\sim 5.5$ GeV) and a very light gluino
374: ($12\sim 16$ GeV), such gluino-sbottom loop effects are much larger than SUSY
375: electroweak corrections \cite{Djouadi91}. In fact, we re-calculated SUSY EW
376: corrections to $R_b$ and found they are indeed small under the current experimental
377: limits on the masses of charginos and stops. The dominant contributions
378: from chargino loops are found to be positive (opposite
379: to SUSY QCD corrections) and at the level of $10^{-4}$,
380: which are about one order smaller than our present SUSY QCD
381: corrections.
382: \vspace*{.2cm}
383:
384: \noindent{\bf Conclusions }~~
385: From the above analyses we conclude that the scenario of the MSSM
386: with one light sbottom ($2\sim 5.5$ GeV) and light gluino ($12\sim 16$ GeV)
387: can give rise to large effects on $Zb\bar b$ vertex through gluino-sbottom
388: loops. Such effects significantly enlarge the deviations of some $Z$-peak
389: observables, especially $R_b$, from their experimental data. To account for
390: the $R_b$ data in this scenario, the other mass eigenstate of sbottom, i.e.,
391: the heavier one, must be lighter than $125$ ($195$) GeV at $2\sigma$ ($3 \sigma $)
392: level, which should have been produced in association with the lighter one at LEP II
393: and will probobaly be within the reach of Tevatron Run 2.
394:
395: \begin{references}
396: \bibitem{E821} H.~N.~Brown, ~{\em et~al.}, Mu g-2 Collaboration, hep-ex/0009029;
397: hep-ex/0102017.
398: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0009029; HEP-EX 0102017;%%
399:
400: \bibitem{superK} Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. B 81 (1998) 1562.
401: %%CITATION = PRLTA,81,1562;%%
402: \bibitem{lightbg}
403: M.~Jezabek, J.~H.~Kuhn, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 301}, 121 (1993);
404: J.~Ellis, D.~Nanopoulos and D.~Ross, Phys.~Lett. B{\bf 305}, 375 (1993);
405: M.~Carena{\em et al.}, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 317}, 346 (1993);
406: C. E. Carlson and M. Sher, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 72}, 2686 (1994);
407: L.~Clavelli and G. R. Goldstein, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 58}, 095012 (1998);
408: S.~Moretti, R.~Munoz-Tapia, K. Odagiri, Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 389}, 545 (1996);
409: T.~D.~Gutierrez, R.~Vogt and J.~F.~Gunion, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 591}, 277 (2000);
410: U. Nierste and T. Plehn, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 493}, 104 (2000);
411: A.~Dedes and H.~K.~Dreiner, JHEP {\bf 0106} 006 (2001).
412: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B301,121;%%
413: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B305,375;%%
414: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B317,346;%%
415: %%CITATION = PRLTA,72,2686;%%
416: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,095012;%%
417: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B389,545;%%
418: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B591,277;%%
419: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B493,104;%%
420: %CITATION = HEP-PH 0009001;%%
421:
422: \bibitem{doelectr} M.~Carena, S.~Heinemeyer, C.~E.~M.~Wagner
423: and G.~Weiglein, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 86}, 4463 (2001).
424: %%CITATION = PRLTA,86,4463;%%
425:
426: \bibitem{Berger01} E.~L.~Berger {\em et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 86}, 4231 (2001).
427: %%CITATION = PRLTA,86,4231;%%
428:
429: \bibitem{CDF93}CDF Collaboration, F.~Abe~{\em et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.
430: {\bf 71}, 500 (1993); {\bf 75},~1451 (1995); {\bf 79}, 572 (1997);
431: D0 Collaboration, B.~Abbott, {\em et al.}, Phys.~Lett. B{\bf 487},
432: 264 (2000); Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 85}, 5068 (2000).
433: %%CITATION = PRLTA,71,500;%%
434: %%CITATION = PRLTA,75,1451;%%
435: %%CITATION = PRLTA,79,572;%%
436: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B487,264;%%
437: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,5086;%%
438:
439: \bibitem{Djouadi91}
440: A. Djouadi, et al., Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 349}, 48 (1991);
441: M. Boulware and D. Finnell, Phys.~Rev~D{\bf 44}, 2054 (1991);
442: C. S. Li, J. M. Yang, B. Q. Hu and Y. S. Wei, Commun. Theor. Phys. {\bf 20}, 213 (1993);
443: C. S. Li, B. Q. Hu, J. M. Yang and Z. Y. Fang, J. Phys. G 19, L13 (1993);
444: X.~Wang,J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys.~Rev~D{\bf 52}, 4116(1995).
445: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B349,48; %%
446: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,2054;%%
447: %%CITATION = CTPMD,20,213;%%
448: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G19,L13;%%
449: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,4116;%%
450: \bibitem{susyint}
451: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane, Phys.~Rep. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985);
452: J.~F.~Gunion and H.~E.~Harber, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 272}, 1 (1986).
453: %% CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
454: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B272,1;%%
455:
456: \bibitem{bcanaly} G.~'t Hooft and M.~Veltman, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 153}, 365 (1979);
457: G.~Passarino and M.~Veltman, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 160}, 151 (1979).
458: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
459: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B160,151;%%
460: \bibitem{Erler:sa} J.~Erler and P.~Langacker, ``Electroweak
461: Model And Constraints On New Physics: In Review Of Particle
462: Physics (Rpp 2000),'' Eur. Phys. J. C { 15}, 95 (2000).
463: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,95;%%
464:
465: \bibitem{LP01} J. Drees, ``{\it Review of Final LEP Results}'', presented at Lepton-Photon
466: 01, July 2001, Rome, Italy.
467:
468: \end{references}
469:
470: \end{document}
471:
472: