1: \documentstyle[aps,prd,epsfig,eqsecnum]{revtex}
2: \begin{document}
3: \draft
4: \preprint{hep-ph/0210211}
5: \title{Higgs-boson production associated with a bottom quark at hadron colliders \\with SUSY-QCD corrections}
6:
7: \author{Junjie Cao $^{a,b}$, Guangping Gao $^b$, Robert J. Oakes$^c$, Jin Min Yang $^b$ \\\ }
8:
9: \address{$^a$ CCAST(World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China}
10: \address{$^b$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, P.O.Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China}
11: \address{$^c$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University,
12: Evanston, IL 60208, USA}
13: \date{\today}
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: The Higgs boson production $p p ~(p\bar p)\to b h +X$ via $b g \to b h$ at
18: hadron colliders, which may be an important channel for testing the
19: bottom quark Yukawa coupling, is subject to large supersymmetric
20: quantum corrections. In this work the one-loop SUSY-QCD
21: corrections to this process are evaluated and are found to be
22: quite sizable in some parameter space. We also study the behavior
23: of the corrections in the limit of heavy SUSY masses and find the
24: remnant effects of SUSY-QCD. These remnant effects, which are left
25: over in the Higgs sector by the heavy sparticles, are found to be
26: so sizable (for a light CP-odd Higgs and large $\tan\beta$) that
27: they might be observable in the future experiment. The exploration
28: of such remnant effects is important for probing SUSY, especially
29: in case that the sparticles are too heavy (above TeV) to be
30: directly discovered in future experiments.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \pacs{14.80.Cp, 13.85.Qk,12.60.Jv}
34:
35: \section{Introduction}
36: \label{sec:sec1}
37: Searching for the Higgs boson is the most
38: important task for the Fermilab Tevatron collider and the CERN
39: Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Among various
40: Higgs production mechanisms, those induced by the bottom quark
41: Yukawa coupling are particularly important because in some
42: extensions of the Standard Model (SM) such a coupling could be
43: considerably enhanced and thus the production rates can be much
44: larger than the SM predictions.
45: The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)\cite{HaberKane}
46: serve as a good example of such extensions, where the coupling of the
47: lightest $CP$-even Higgs boson (denoted by $h$) to the bottom quark is
48: proportional to $\tan{\beta}$ \cite{Gunion} and thus can be
49: significantly enhanced by large $\tan\beta$.
50:
51: In the production channels of the Higgs boson via its coupling
52: to the bottom quark , the process $p p~ (p\bar{p} ) \to b h
53: +X$ via $ b g \to b h$ was recently emphasized in
54: Ref.\cite{willenbrock}. The advantage of this process over the
55: production via $b \bar b \to h$ \cite{bbh}, the dominant
56: production channel via the bottom quark Yukawa coupling, is that
57: the final bottom quark can be used to reduce backgrounds and to
58: identify the Higgs boson production mechanism \cite{background}.
59: And compared with the production via $gg, q \bar q \to h b
60: \bar{b}$ \cite{ggbbh}, the production rate of $p p ~(p\bar{p}
61: ) \to b h +X$ is one order of magnitude larger. So the production
62: $p p ~(p\bar{p} ) \to b h +X$ may be a crucial channel for
63: testing the bottom quark Yukawa coupling.
64:
65: If the MSSM is indeed chosen by Nature, then the prediction of the
66: cross section for the production $p p ~(p\bar{p} ) \to b h
67: +X$ \cite{huang} must be renewed with the inclusion of SUSY
68: quantum corrections because, like the process of the charged Higgs
69: boson production $pp~(p\bar p) \to t H^-+X$ \cite{refree,gao}
70: and the relevant Higgs decays\cite{decay1,haber-nondecoup,gluino},
71: the SUSY quantum corrections to this process may be quite large.
72: In this work we study the one-loop
73: SUSY-QCD corrections to this process, which is believed to
74: be the dominant part in the SUSY corrections.
75:
76: It is well known that the low-energy observables in the MSSM
77: will recover their corresponding SM predictions when all sparticles
78: as well as $M_A$ (the mass of the CP-odd neutral Higgs boson) take
79: their heavy limits.
80: If only some of the masses take their heavy limits, e.g., all sparticles
81: are heavy but $M_A$ is light, then large remnant effects of SUSY may be
82: left over in the physical observables of the Higgs sector.
83: The study of these remnant effects will serve as an important
84: probe for those heavy SUSY particles \cite{haber-nondecoup}.
85: Such kind of study will be performed for the process
86: $pp ~(p\bar{p} ) \to b h +X$ in this work. After deriving the SUSY-QCD
87: corrections to this process, we will examine the behavior of
88: the corrections in the limit of heavy SUSY masses. When $M_A$
89: is light and the sparticles take their heavy limits, we find
90: the large remnant effects left over by the SUSY-QCD in such a Higgs
91: production process.
92:
93: This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:calculations}
94: we present our strategy for the calculation of the one-loop SUSY-QCD corrections
95: to the process $pp ~(p\bar{p} ) \to b h +X$. In
96: Section \ref{sec:results}, we scan the parameter space of the MSSM to estimate
97: the size of the SUSY-QCD corrections. In Section \ref{sec:decouple}, we study
98: the behaviors of these corrections in the limit of heavy
99: SUSY masses. The conclusion is given in Section \ref{sec:conclusion} and the
100: detailed formula obtained in our calculations are presented in the Appendix.
101:
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: \section{Calculations}
105: \label{sec:calculations}
106:
107: At high energy hadron colliders, the incoming $b$-quark is generated from gluons
108: splitting into nearly collinear $b \bar{b} $ pairs. When one
109: member of the pair initiates a hard-scattering subprocess, its
110: partner tends to remain at low $p_T $ and to become part of the
111: beam remnant. Hence the final state typically has no high-$p_T$
112: $b$-quarks. When the scale of the hard scattering is large
113: compared with the $b$-quark mass, the $b$-quark is regarded as part of
114: the proton sea\cite{bsea}. However, unlike the light quark sea,
115: the $b$-quark sea is perturbatively calculable. If the scale of the
116: hard scattering is $\tilde{\mu}$ (for the scale we use $\tilde{\mu}$
117: to distinguish from the SUSY parameter $\mu$), the $b$-quark distribution
118: function $b(x, \tilde{\mu}) $ is intrinsically of order $\alpha_s
119: (\tilde{\mu}) \log(\tilde{\mu}/m_b)$. As $ \tilde{\mu} $
120: approaches $m_b$ from above, $ b(x, \tilde{\mu}) \rightarrow 0 $;
121: while as $\tilde{\mu} $ becoming asymptotically large,
122: $\alpha_s(\tilde{\mu}) \log(\tilde{\mu}/m_b)$ approaches order of
123: unity and one needs to sum terms of order $\alpha_s^n (\tilde{\mu}) \log^n
124: (\tilde{\mu}/m_b)$ into the $b$-quark distribution function to yield a
125: well-behaved perturbation expansion in terms of $\alpha_s $
126: \cite{bsea}. In this case, the $b$-quark distribution function becomes
127: of the same order as the light partons. The main uncertainty of
128: $b$-quark distribution function comes from that of gluon distribution
129: function which is about $10\% $ \cite{lai}.
130:
131: The subprocess $gb \to b h$ occurs through both $s$-channel and
132: $t$-channel shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:feyman}$(a, b)$. The spin- and
133: color-averaged differential cross section at tree-level is given
134: by
135: \begin{equation}
136: \frac{d \hat{\sigma}^{0}}{d \hat{t}} = -
137: \frac{\alpha_s (\tilde{\mu})}{24} \left (\frac{g m_b
138: (\tilde{\mu})}{2 m_W} \right )^2 \left(
139: \frac{\sin{\alpha}}{\cos{\beta}} \right )^2 \frac{1}{\hat{s}^2}
140: \frac{m_h^4+(\hat{s}+ \hat{t}-m_h^2)^2}{\hat{s} \hat{t}} ,
141: \label{tree}
142: \end{equation}
143: where $\hat{s}$ and $\hat{t}$ are the usual Mandelstam
144: variables, $\alpha_s (\tilde{\mu}) $ is the running strong
145: coupling, and $m_b (\tilde{\mu}) $ is the running bottom quark
146: mass\cite{bbh}. $\alpha$ represents the mixing angel between the
147: two CP-even Higgs boson eigenstates and $\beta$ is defined by
148: $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ with $v_{1,2}$ denoting the vacuum
149: expectation values of the two Higgs doublets\cite{Gunion}. In
150: Eq.(\ref{tree}), we use the $\overline{MS}$ running mass of the
151: $b$-quark rather than the pole mass to take into account large QCD
152: logarithm corrections to the vertex $hb\bar{b}$ \cite{Brat}. The
153: SM prediction of the cross section is recovered when setting
154: $|\sin{\alpha}/\cos {\beta}| =1 $\cite{willenbrock}. Throughout
155: the calculations we neglect the $b$-quark mass except in the $b$-quark
156: Yukawa couplings.
157:
158: The one-loop Feynman diagrams of SUSY-QCD corrections are shown in
159: Fig.~\ref{fig:feyman}(c-r). In our calculations we use dimensional
160: regularization to control the ultraviolet divergences in the
161: virtual loop corrections. For the renormalization of strong
162: coupling constant $g_s$, we employ the $\overline{MS}$ scheme
163: \cite{Bene}. As to the $ h b \bar{b}$ Yukawa coupling, at one
164: loop level to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ it is given by
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: \bar{g}_{hbb}=g_{hbb}+\delta {g}_{hbb}^{QCD}+ \delta {g}_{hbb}^{SQCD} ,
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: where $\bar{g}_{hbb}$ denotes the one-loop coupling, $g_{hbb} $ is
169: tree-level coupling, $\delta{g}_{hbb}^{QCD} $ is the radiative
170: correction from pure QCD \cite{Brat}, and $\delta{g}_{hbb}^{SQCD}
171: $ is the one-loop SUSY-QCD contribution \cite{haber-nondecoup}. In
172: determining $\delta{g}_{hbb}^{QCD} + \delta{g}_{hbb}^{SQCD} $, one
173: needs the counter-term of the vertex $h b \bar{b} $, whose general
174: from is given by $ g_{hbb} (\frac{\ \ \ \delta{m}_b^{QCD}}{m_b}+
175: \frac{\ \ \ \delta{m}_b^{SQCD}}{m_b}) $ with $\delta{m}_b$ being
176: the counter-term of the $b$-quark mass defined by
177: $m_b^0=m_b+\delta{m}_b$ ($m_b^0 $ is the bare mass).
178: $\delta{m}_b$ is determined by requiring $m_b$ to be the
179: pole of the one-loop corrected $b$-quark propagator
180: \cite{Brat,haber-nondecoup,carena}. One major difference between $
181: \delta{g}_{hbb}^{QCD}$ and $ \delta{g}_{hbb}^{SQCD} $ is that the
182: former contains large logarithms $ \alpha_s
183: \log{\frac{\tilde{\mu}}{m_b}} $ of ${\cal{O}} (1)$
184: and thus one needs to introduce $\overline{MS}$ running mass $m_b (\tilde{\mu})
185: $ to absorb leading logarithms
186: $\alpha_s^n\log{(\frac{\tilde{\mu}}{m_b})^n }$ \cite{Brat}. An
187: extensive discussion about this issue in the MSSM was provided in
188: Ref.\cite{carena}.
189:
190: The one-loop SUSY-QCD contribution to the amplitude of $g b \to b h$ can be
191: written as
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \delta M &=& \frac{i g_{s}^{3} T^{a} }{16 \pi^2} \frac{g m_b} {2 m_W}
194: \frac{\sin\alpha}{\cos\beta}
195: \overline{u} (p_2) ( C_1 \gamma^{\mu}P_{L} + C_2
196: \gamma^{\mu}P_{R} + C_3 \gamma^{\mu} \not{k} P_{L} + C_4
197: \gamma^{\mu} \not{k} P_{R} + C_5 p_1^{\mu} P_{L} + C_6
198: p_1^{\mu}P_{R} \nonumber \\
199: & & + C_7 p_1^{\mu} \not{k} P_{L} + C_8 p_1^{\mu} \not{k} P_{R} +
200: C_9 p_2^{\mu} P_{L} + C_{10} p_2^{\mu}P_{R} + C_{11} p_2^{\mu}
201: \not{k} P_{L} + C_{12} p_2^{\mu} \not{k} P_{R}) u (p_1)
202: \epsilon_{\mu} (k) ,
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: where $P_{L,R}\equiv (1\mp \gamma_5)/2$, $T^a\equiv \lambda^a/2$
205: with $\lambda^a$ being the Gell-Mann matrices, and $k$, $p_1$ and
206: $p_2$ are the momentum of the incoming gluon, incoming $b$-quark and the
207: outgoing $b$-quark, respectively. $g_s$ and $m_b$ should be
208: understood as the running ones in Eq.(\ref{tree}).
209: The coefficients $C_{i}$ arise from the loops and are given
210: explicitly in Appendix A. We have checked that all the ultraviolet
211: divergences canceled as a result of renormalizability of the
212: MSSM.
213: %%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: \begin{figure}[hbt]
215: \begin{center}
216: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=10cm} \vspace*{.5cm} \caption{ Feynman
217: diagrams of $g b \to b h $ with one-loop SUSY-QCD corrections:
218: $(a,b)$ are tree level diagrams; $(c-e)$ are one-loop vertex
219: diagrams for $s$-channel; $(f-k)$ are one-loop vertex diagrams for
220: $t$-channel ; $(l-n)$ are the box diagrams; $(o-r)$ are
221: self-energy diagrams. } \label{fig:feyman}
222: \end{center}
223: \end{figure}
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225:
226: The differential cross section of $g b \to b h$ with one-loop SUSY-QCD corrections
227: is given by
228: \begin{eqnarray}
229: \frac{d \hat{\sigma}}{d \hat{t}} =\frac{d \hat{\sigma}^{0} }{d \hat{t}}
230: + \frac{d (\Delta \hat{\sigma})}{d \hat{t}} ,
231: \end{eqnarray}
232: where the first term is the tree-level result given in
233: Eq.(\ref{tree}) and the second term is the one-loop
234: SUSY-QCD corrections given by
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: \frac{d (\Delta \hat{\sigma})}{d \hat{t}} & = &
237: -\frac{\alpha_s}{48} \frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} \left (
238: \frac{\sin{\alpha}}{\cos{\beta}} \right )^2 \left (\frac{g m_b}{
239: 2 m_W} \right )^2 \frac{1}{\hat{s}^2} \nonumber \\
240: & & \times \left [ 2 (C_3+C_4) m_h^2+ (C_5 + C_6)\frac{m_h^2 (\hat{s}+
241: \hat{t} -m_h^2)}{\hat{t}} + (C_9+ C_{10}) \frac{-(\hat{s}+ \hat{t}
242: -m_h^2)^2}{\hat{s}} \right ] . \label{loop}
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: The cross section of $g b\rightarrow b h$ is then given by
245: \begin{equation}
246: \hat{\sigma}(\hat s) =\int_{\hat{t}_{min}}^{\hat{t}_{max}} {\rm d}
247: \hat{t} \ \frac{d \hat{\sigma}}{d \hat{t}} ,
248: \label{cross}
249: \end{equation}
250: where $ \hat{t}_{max} = 0 $ and $ \hat{t}_{min}= -\hat{s}+ m_h^2 $
251: with $m_h$ denoting the Higgs mass. In order to avoid collinear
252: divergence in Eq.(\ref{cross}) and to enable the outgoing $b$-jet
253: to be tagged by silicon vertex detector at the Tevatron and the LHC , we
254: require the transverse momentum of the outgoing $b$-jet to be
255: larger than $15$ GeV and apply a rapidity cut $ |\eta_b |< 2.5 $
256: for the LHC and $ |\eta_b | <2.0 $ for the Tevatron.
257:
258: The total hadronic cross section for $pp~ (p\bar{p}) \to b
259: h +X$ can be obtained by folding the subprocess cross section
260: $\hat{\sigma}$ with the parton luminosity
261: \begin{equation}
262: \sigma(s)=\int_{\tau_0}^1 \!d\tau\, \frac{dL}{d\tau}\, \hat\sigma
263: (\hat s=s\tau) , \label{cross1}
264: \end{equation}
265: where $\tau_0=m_h^2/s$ and $s$ denotes the $p p ~(p\bar{p})$
266: squared center-of-mass energy. $dL/d\tau$ is the
267: parton luminosity given by
268: \begin{equation}
269: \frac{dL}{d\tau}=\int^1_{\tau} \frac{dx}{x}[f^p_g(x,Q)
270: f^{p}_b(\tau/x,Q)+(g\leftrightarrow b)] ,
271: \end{equation}
272: where $f^p_b$ and $f^p_g$ are the $b$-quark and gluon
273: distribution functions in a proton, respectively. In our
274: numerical calculations, we used the CTEQ5L parton distribution
275: functions~\cite{pm}. We did not distinguish the factorization scale
276: $Q$ and the renormalization scale $\tilde{\mu}$, and assumed
277: $\tilde{\mu}=Q=m_h$.
278: The scale dependence of our results will be briefly discussed in
279: the proceeding section.
280:
281: The process $pp ~(p\bar{p}) \to b h +X$ has been extensively
282: studied \cite{willenbrock} in the framework of the Standard
283: Model. Its cross section is found to be at the order of $1 $ fb
284: for the Tevatron and $100 $ fb for the LHC, and the next-leading-order
285: (NLO) QCD correction can enhance the production rate by $50\% \sim 60\%$
286: for the Tevatron and $20\%\sim 40\%$ for the LHC \cite{willenbrock},
287: depending on the applied cuts and the Higgs boson mass.
288: We will incorporate such QCD corrections in our calculations for
289: the production rate $\sigma /\sigma_{SM}$.
290:
291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
292: \section{Numerical results}
293:
294: \label{sec:results} In this section we will perform a scan over
295: the SUSY parameter space to show the possible size of the SUSY-QCD
296: corrections. Before performing numerical calculations, we take a
297: look at the relevant parameters involved. For the SM parameters,
298: we took $m_W=80.448$ GeV, $m_Z=91.187$ GeV, $m_t=174.3 $ GeV,
299: $\bar{m}_b(\bar{m}_b)=4.2$ GeV \cite{Groom}$, \sin^2 \theta_W
300: =0.223$ and $\alpha_s(m_Z) = 0.118$ . We used the one-loop QCD
301: running $\alpha_s(\tilde{\mu})$ and $m_b (\tilde{\mu}) $.
302:
303: For the SUSY parameters, apart from gluino mass, the mass
304: parameters of sbottoms are involved. The sbottom squared-mass
305: matrix is ~\cite{Gunion}
306: \begin{equation}
307: M_{\tilde b}^2 =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
308: m_{{\tilde b}_L}^2& m_b X_b\\
309: m_b X_b & m_{{\tilde b}_R}^2
310: \end{array} \right),
311: \end{equation}
312: where
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: m_{{\tilde b}_L}^2 &=& m_{\tilde Q}^2+m_b^2 + m_Z^2(I_3^b
315: -Q_b \sin^2\theta_W)\cos(2\beta), \\
316: m_{{\tilde b}_R}^2 &=& m_{\tilde D}^2+m_b^2
317: + m_Z^2 Q_b \sin^2\theta_W\cos(2\beta),\\
318: X_b&=& A_b-\mu\tan\beta. \label{smass1}
319: \end{eqnarray}
320: Here $m_{\tilde Q}^2$ and $m_{\tilde{D}}^2$ are soft-breaking mass
321: terms for left-handed squark doublet $\tilde Q$ and right-handed
322: down squark $\tilde D$, respectively. $A_b $ is the coefficient of the
323: trilinear term $H_1 \tilde Q \tilde D$ in soft-breaking terms and
324: $\mu$ the bilinear coupling of the two Higgs doublet in the
325: superpotential. $ I_3^b =-1/2 $ and $ Q_b =-1/3 $ are the isospin
326: and electric charge of the b-quark, respectively. This mass square
327: matrix can be diagonalized by a unitary rotation
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: \left( \begin{array}{c} \tilde b_L \\ \tilde b_R \end{array} \right )
330: =\left (
331: \begin{array}{cc}
332: \cos\theta_b &-\sin\theta_b\\
333: \sin\theta_b &\cos\theta_b\\
334: \end{array} \right )
335: \left( \begin{array}{c} \tilde b_1 \\ \tilde b_2 \end{array} \right ),
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: and consequently $\theta_b$ and the masses of physical
338: sbottoms $ \tilde{b}_{1,2} $ can be expressed as
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: \tan{2 \theta_b} &=& \frac{2 m_b X_b}{(m_{\tilde{b}_L}^2
341: -m_{\tilde{b}_R}^2)}, \label{theta} \\
342: m_{\tilde{b}_1}^2&= &m_{\tilde{b}_L}^2 \cos^2{\theta_b} +2 m_b X_b
343: \cos{\theta_b} \sin{\theta_b} + m_{\tilde{b}_R}^2 \sin^2 \theta_b ,\\
344: m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2&= &m_{\tilde{b}_L}^2 \sin^2{\theta_b} - 2 m_b
345: X_b \cos{\theta_b} \sin{\theta_b} + m_{\tilde{b}_R}^2
346: \cos^2{\theta_b} .
347: \end{eqnarray}
348: From Eqs.(\ref{tree},\ref{loop},\ref{cross}) we know that the
349: cross section also depends on the Higgs mass, $\alpha$ and
350: $\beta$, which can be determined at tree level by $\tan{\beta}$
351: and the CP-odd Higgs mass $M_A$ \cite{Gunion}. Noticing the fact
352: that both the mass and the mixing angle receive large radiative
353: corrections when the SUSY scale is high above $m_t$ \cite{Haber}, we
354: used the loop-corrected relations of Higgs masses and mixing angle
355: \cite{Carena1,Carena2} in the computation of cross section. In our
356: calculation, we used the program SUBHPOLE2 \cite{Carena1}, where
357: two-loop leading-log effects of the MSSM are incorporated in the Higgs
358: masses and the mixing angel, to generate $m_h$ and $\alpha$ needed
359: for our computation. The input parameters for this program are the
360: mass parameters in the top sqaurk and sbottom sector, and $M_A$,
361: $\tan \beta$ and the heavier chargino mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$.
362:
363: We found that the usage of the loop-corrected relations of Higgs
364: masses and mixing angle is indeed necessary. Comparing with the
365: results obtained by using tree-level relations for Higgs masses
366: and mixing angel, the size of SUSY-QCD corrections by using the
367: loop-corrected relations is generally magnified from $30\%$ to
368: $200 \%$\footnote{The main reason for such an enhancement is that
369: for a large SUSY scale, the dominant term of the
370: SUSY-QCD correction is proportional to $\cot\alpha + \tan\beta $ (see
371: for example, Eqs.(\ref{approx1}, \ref{approx2}, \ref{slow},
372: \ref{approx4}) in the proceeding section), whose value obtained by using
373: the loop-corrected
374: relations of the Higgs masses and the mixing angle is generally larger
375: than that by using the tree-level relations.}.
376: We also checked that this conclusion is
377: also valid for the SUSY-QCD correction to the Higgs partial width $\Gamma
378: (h \to b \bar{b})$.
379:
380: Now we know the relevant parameters are
381: \begin{equation} \label{para}
382: m_{\tilde{Q}}, m_{\tilde{U}}, m_{\tilde{D}}, A_{t,b},
383: m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}, \mu, M_A, \tan{\beta} ,
384: \label{input}
385: \end{equation}
386: where $M^2_{\tilde U}$ is the soft-breaking mass term for
387: right-handed top-squark and $A_t$ the coefficient of the
388: soft-breaking trilinear term $H_2 \tilde Q \tilde U$. To
389: show the main features of SUSY effects in $ pp ~(p\bar{p})
390: \to b h +X$, we performed a scan over this ten-dimensional
391: parameter space. In our scan we make no assumptions about the
392: relations among these parameters to keep our result
393: model-independent, but restrict the parameters with mass dimension
394: to be less than $2$ TeV. In addition, we consider the following
395: experimental constraints:
396: \begin{itemize}
397: \item[{\rm(1)}]
398: $\mu>0$ and $\tan\beta$ in the range $5\le\tan\beta\le 50$, which seems
399: to be favored by the muon $g-2$ measurement~\cite{Brown01}.
400: \item[{\rm(2)}]
401: The LEP and CDF lower mass bounds on Higgs, gluino, stop, sbottom and chargino~\cite{LEP,PDG00}
402: \begin{eqnarray}
403: m_h \geq 114~GeV, m_{{\tilde t}_1}\geq 86.4~GeV,~ m_{{\tilde
404: b}_1}\geq 75.0~GeV, ~ m_{\tilde{g}}\geq 190~GeV, ~
405: m_{\tilde{\chi}}^{light} \geq 67.7~GeV ,\label{constrain}
406: \end{eqnarray}
407: \end{itemize}
408: where $m_{\tilde{\chi}}^{light} $ is the mass of the lighter chargino.
409:
410: %%%%%%% Fig.2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
412: \begin{figure}
413: \begin{center}
414: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,width=8cm} \caption{The scatter plot of
415: $\sigma^0/\sigma_{SM}^{0}$ versus $M_A$.}
416: \label{fig:scan1}
417: \end{center}
418: \end{figure}
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420:
421: It would be interesting to first scan over the allowed parameter
422: space to figure out how large the production rate is enhanced in
423: the MSSM. In Fig.\ref{fig:scan1} we present the tree-level cross
424: section relative to the SM prediction with the same Higgs mass.
425: This ratio is independent of collider energy, but is dependent on
426: the SUSY mass parameters since we use the loop-corrected
427: relations of the Higgs masses and the mixing angle (see the second
428: paragraph of Sect. II) . From Fig.\ref{fig:scan1} one sees that
429: the production rate in the MSSM can be significant larger than the
430: SM prediction for a light $M_A $; while for a heavy $M_A$ the MSSM
431: prediction approaches to the SM value. This character was first
432: noticed in \cite{haber-decoup} and, as a result of this character,
433: distinguishing the lightest MSSM Higgs boson from the SM Higgs
434: boson in the large $M_A$ limit will be very difficult. When
435: SUSY-QCD corrections are added, this character remains unchanged
436: for heavy sbottoms(see following discussions). From
437: Fig.\ref{fig:scan1} one also finds that there exists the
438: possibility (although very rare) that the MSSM cross section is
439: suppressed to be below the SM value \cite{Gordon}. In this case,
440: the SUSY-QCD corrections will play a more important role in Higgs
441: phenomenology at colliders \cite{Carena3}.
442:
443: Now let us scan over the allowed parameter space to show the
444: possible size of the SUSY-QCD corrections relative to the
445: tree-level value. In our numerical evaluation, we found the
446: relative correction is insensitive to collider energy.
447: The difference of the results between the LHC and the Tevatron
448: is at the level of parts per mill.
449: In Fig.\ref{fig:scan2}
450: we present the SUSY-QCD corrections to the cross section.
451: %%%%%%% Fig. 3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
452: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
453: \begin{figure}
454: \begin{center}
455: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=8cm} \caption{The scatter plot of the
456: SUSY-QCD correction $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$ versus $M_A$ for the Tevatron.
457: The difference of the results between the LHC and the Tevatron
458: is at the level of parts per mill. }
459: \label{fig:scan2}
460: \end{center}
461: \end{figure}
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: Fig.\ref{fig:scan2} manifests three features of
464: SUSY-QCD corrections for large $\tan{\beta}$. The first one is that the correction size
465: is enhanced by $\tan{\beta}$ and thus can be quite large. The second one is that
466: for $M_A$ lighter than $500$ GeV, the correction tends to be negative.
467: The third one is that for large $M_A$, the correction may be positive
468: and the maximum value seems to be independent
469: of the value of $M_A$. These features can be explained as follows.
470:
471: For the correction size larger than $ 2 \% $, the dominant
472: contribution of the SUSY-QCD correction is from the loop
473: corrections to the vertex $h b \bar{b}$ and the contribution of
474: the box diagrams is much smaller for the parameters satisfying the
475: constraints in the paragraph following Eq.(\ref{input}) \footnote{In the large limit of
476: SUSY mass parameters discussed in the proceeding section, we have checked
477: that, even for the correction size far smaller than $1 \% $,
478: the dominant contribution still comes from the corrections to the
479: vertex $ h b \bar{b} $.}. As a result, the correction behaves like
480: (which is similar to the SUSY-QCD correction to the vertex $h b
481: \bar{b}$ in case of heavy sbottoms \cite{haber-nondecoup})
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma^0} \sim C_1 \frac{M_{EW}^2}{M_A^2} +C_2
484: \frac{M_{EW}^2}{M_{\tilde{b}}^2} , \label{explain}
485: \end{eqnarray}
486: where $M_{EW}$ and $M_{\tilde{b}} $ denote the electroweak scale
487: and the typical mass of sbottoms, respectively. $C_{1} $ and $C_2 $
488: are functions of $m_{\tilde{b}_1}$, $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$,
489: $m_{\tilde{g}}$, $\mu $ and $A_b$, but independent of $M_A$. It
490: is found that in general $C_1$ is negative and $C_2 $ is positive
491: and either $C_1$ or both $C_1$ and $C_2$ are enhanced by large
492: $\tan{\beta}$. For a light $M_A$ compared with $m_{\tilde{b}}$,
493: the first term of the RHS in Eq.(\ref{explain}) is dominant and
494: hence the cross section tends to be negative. While for a large
495: $M_A$ , the second term is dominant and the cross section tends to
496: be positive. So the behavior of Eq.(\ref{explain}) can explain the
497: features of Fig.\ref{fig:scan2}.
498:
499: From Fig.\ref{fig:scan2} we noticed that in some corners
500: of parameter space the one-loop SUSY-QCD contributions to the cross section
501: are comparable or even larger than the tree-level result and
502: consequently, one must consider higher order corrections. In
503: such cases, it is important to sum over the terms $\alpha_s^n
504: (\frac{\mu}{M_{SUSY}})^n $ to all orders of perturbation theory by
505: using an effective Lagrangian approach \cite{carena,technique}.
506: %%%%%% Fig.4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
507: %\vspace*{-0.2cm}
508: \begin{figure}[htb]
509: \begin{center}
510: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=9.7cm} \caption{The
511: SUSY-QCD correction $\delta \sigma/\sigma^0 $ and the cross
512: section $\sigma /\sigma_{SM} $ versus the mass of the produced Higgs boson.
513: Solid curves are for the LHC and the dashed for the Tevatron.
514: For $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$, each solid curve overlaps with the
515: corresponding dashed one due to the tiny difference.}
516: \label{fig:higgs}
517: \end{center}
518: \end{figure}
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: Next we study the dependence of the SUSY-QCD correction $\delta
521: \sigma/\sigma^0 $ and the cross section normalized by the SM
522: prediction, $\sigma /\sigma_{SM} $, on the mass of the produced
523: Higgs boson, which can be directly compared with experiment
524: results and hence is much informative.
525: In such a study we assumed
526: a common value ($M_{SUSY}$) for all input SUSY mass parameters
527: and, considering the fact that $m_h$ is
528: insensitive to $M_A$ for $M_A >150 GeV$ \cite{Carena2}, we fixed
529: the value of $M_A$. Then through varying the value of $M_{SUSY}$,
530: we obtain the different mass value of the Higgs boson.
531:
532: The dependence on $m_h$ is illustrated in
533: Fig.\ref{fig:higgs} for $\tan\beta =50$.
534: (Note that $m_h$ can vary only in a small range since it is
535: stringently upper bounded in the MSSM.)
536: In this figure and also in the
537: following figures showing $\sigma /\sigma_{SM}$, we also
538: incorporated the conventional QCD corrections \cite{willenbrock}
539: into both the MSSM and the SM cross sections. As pointed out
540: earlier, the SUSY-QCD correction $\delta \sigma/\sigma^0$ is not
541: sensitive to collider energy. The difference of the results between
542: the LHC and the Tevatron is too small to be visible, as shown
543: in the upper part of Fig.\ref{fig:higgs}. But for
544: $\sigma /\sigma_{SM}$ the difference between
545: the LHC and the Tevatron is visible since the QCD corrections
546: are significantly different for these two colliders \cite{willenbrock}.
547:
548: We also studied the dependence of the production rate on the renormalization scale
549: $\tilde \mu$. (As pointed out earlier, we assume that the factorization scale
550: is equal to the renormalization scale.)
551: We found that such a scale dependence is significant
552: in some parameter space. For example, for the LHC with
553: $M_A=300$ GeV and $m_h=120 $ GeV, the ratio $\sigma(\tilde \mu)/\sigma (m_h)$
554: is $0.93$ for $\tilde \mu=m_h/2$ and $1.03$ for $\tilde \mu=2 m_h$.
555: Such an uncertainty is comparable with the uncertainty from the $b$-quark Yukawa
556: coupling ($ \bar{m}_b (\bar{m}_b) = 4.2 \pm 0.2 $) and the partron
557: distribution function (about $10 \%$).
558:
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560: \section{Behaviours of SUSY-QCD corrections in decoupling limits}
561: \label{sec:decouple}
562: To study the behaviors of the SUSY-QCD correction in
563: the large limit of SUSY mass parameters, we consider four typical
564: cases as in Ref.\cite{haber-nondecoup} where the decoupling
565: property of SUSY-QCD correction to the coupling of $h b \bar{b} $ is
566: analyzed.
567: To qualitatively understand the feature of each case, we present
568: the approximate formula in the limits, but in practical numerical
569: calculations we use the complete one-loop expressions.
570:
571: About the inputs of the SUSY parameters, there are several
572: differences between our work and Ref.\cite{haber-nondecoup}. The
573: first one is that in \cite{haber-nondecoup} the tree-level
574: relations for the Higgs masses and the mixing angle were used, but in our
575: calculations we use the loop-corrected relations.
576: As discussed earlier, using the
577: loop-corrected relations leads to a significantly different
578: correction. The second one is that in our analysis we considered
579: the experimental bounds in Eq.(\ref{constrain}). This will rule
580: out some parameter space which have been considered in
581: Ref.\cite{haber-nondecoup}. The third one is that in cases B and D
582: we also require $A_{t,b}$ to be large since large $A_{t,b}$ is
583: favored by the Higgs mass bound.
584:
585: %%%%%% Fig.5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
586: %\vspace*{-0.2cm}
587: \begin{figure}[htb]
588: \begin{center}
589: \epsfig{file=fig5.ps,width=9.7cm} \caption{The SUSY-QCD correction
590: $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$ versus $M_S$ in Case A. For each fixed
591: value of $M_A$, the solid curve (for the LHC) overlaps with the
592: corresponding dashed one (for the Tevatron) due to the tiny
593: difference.} \label{fig:cas1A}
594: \end{center}
595: \end{figure}
596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
597:
598: (1) {\em Case A:}~~ All SUSY mass parameters except $M_A$ are of
599: the same size (collectively denoted by $M_S$) and tend to heavy,
600: i.e.,
601: \begin{eqnarray}
602: m_{\tilde Q} \sim m_{\tilde U} \sim m_{\tilde D} \sim A_b \sim A_t
603: \sim m_{\tilde g}\sim \mu \sim M_S .
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: In this case the SUSY-QCD correction behaves like
606: \begin{eqnarray}
607: \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma^0} \sim \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3 \pi} \left
608: [ - ( \tan{\beta}+\cot{\alpha}) -\cot{\alpha} (\frac{m_h^2}{12
609: M_S^2}+ \frac{m_b^2 \tan^2{\beta}}{2 M_S^2}) +
610: \frac{\tan{\beta}}{3} \frac{\cos{\beta} \sin(\alpha
611: +\beta)}{\sin{\alpha}} \frac{m_Z^2}{M_S^2} \right ] ,
612: \label{approx1}
613: \end{eqnarray}
614: where the first term in the RHS corresponds to the first term in
615: Eq.(\ref{explain})\footnote{In the MSSM the tree-level relation
616: for Higgs masses and mixing angle predicts the following relation:
617: $\cot{\alpha} = -\tan{\beta} -\frac{2 m_Z^2}{M_A^2} \tan{\beta}
618: \cos{2 \beta} +O(\frac{m_Z^4}{M_A^4}) $ and at loop level, the gap
619: between $\cot{\alpha} $ and $-\tan{\beta} $ is generally
620: enlarged.} and the rest corresponds to the second term in
621: Eq.(\ref{explain}). The striking feature of this case is that for
622: very large $ M_S $, the correction approaches a nonzero constant,
623: and this remnant effect of SUSY-QCD corrections is enhanced by
624: large $\tan{\beta} $. This feature is illustrated in
625: Fig.\ref{fig:cas1A}. From Fig.\ref{fig:cas1A} one also finds that
626: the SUSY-QCD correction in this case is negative and sizable
627: \footnote{If the correction is too sizable (say exceed 50\%),
628: higher order corrections are also important and need a proper
629: treatment\cite{carena,technique}.} for a light $ M_A $ and a large
630: $\tan{\beta}$.
631:
632: In Fig.\ref{fig:acas1A} we show the loop corrected cross section
633: normalized by the SM prediction. From this figure we see that for
634: $M_A$ of several hundred GeV, although the tree-level cross
635: section in the MSSM can be reduced by large SUSY-QCD corrections,
636: an enhancement of several times over the SM prediction can still
637: be expected due to the fact that the tree-level $b$-quark Yukawa
638: coupling in the MSSM is significantly enhanced by large
639: $\tan\beta$ for light $M_A $. This large enhancement shows a very
640: weak dependence on $M_S$. So we can conclude that up to the
641: next-leading order, a light $M_A$ is still able to make the MSSM
642: cross section larger than the SM prediction.
643: %%%%%%%%%% Fig.6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
644: \begin{figure}[htb]
645: \begin{center}
646: \epsfig{file=fig6.ps,width=10cm}
647: \caption{ $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ versus $M_A $ in Case A
648: for the LHC (solid) and the Tevatron (dashed). }
649: \label{fig:acas1A}
650: \end{center}
651: \end{figure}
652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
653: (2) {\em Case B:}~~
654: $M_{\tilde Q}$ $M_{\tilde U}$, $M_{\tilde D}$ and $A_{t, b} $
655: (collectively denoted as $M_S $) is much larger than $\mu $,
656: $m_{\tilde{g}} $ and $M_A $ (collectively denoted as $M $ ), i.e.,
657: \begin{eqnarray}
658: M_{\tilde Q, \tilde U, \tilde D} \sim A_{t, b} \sim M_S \gg
659: m_{\tilde g} \sim \mu \sim M_A \sim M .
660: \end{eqnarray}
661: In this case the SUSY-QCD correction behaves as
662: \begin{eqnarray}
663: \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma^0}
664: &\sim & \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3 \pi} \left [ \frac{-2 M^2}{M_S^2} (\tan{\beta}+\cot{\alpha} )
665: - \frac{m_h^2 M^2}{ 6 M_S^4} (\frac{M_S}{M}+\cot{\alpha}) \right . \nonumber \\
666: & & \left . -\frac{m_Z^2}{2 M_S^2} \frac{\cos{\beta}
667: \sin{(\alpha+\beta)}}{\sin{\alpha}} (1-
668: (\frac{M_S}{M}-\tan{\beta}) \frac{2 M^2 }{M_S^2} ) \right ].
669: \label{approx2}
670: \end{eqnarray}
671: From this expression we see that in the large $M_S$ limit, the
672: SUSY-QCD corrections decouple rapidly as $M^2/M_S^2 $ and the
673: decoupling behavior is slowed down by large $\tan{\beta} $. The
674: characters of this case are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:casB}.
675: So we see that even with a fixed light $M_A$, the process still
676: does not have remnant SUSY-QCD effects if the gluino mass and $\mu$
677: are also kept light.
678: %%%% Fig.7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
679: \begin{figure}[htb]
680: \begin{center}
681: \epsfig{file=fig7.ps,width=10cm} \caption{ The
682: SUSY-QCD correction $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$ and
683: $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ versus $M_S$ in Case B. The solid curves are for
684: the LHC and the dashed for the Tevatron.
685: For $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$, each solid curve overlaps with the
686: corresponding dashed one due to the tiny difference. } \label{fig:casB}
687: \end{center}
688: \end{figure}
689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
690: (3) {\em Case C:}~~ Only the gluino mass gets much larger than other
691: SUSY parameters (collectively denoted as $M_S$) \footnote{In this case
692: the Higgs mass bound requires $M_S $ to be much
693: larger than electroweak scale.}:
694: \begin{eqnarray}
695: m_{\tilde{g}} \gg M_{\tilde Q, \tilde U, \tilde D} \sim A_{t, b}
696: \sim \mu \sim M_A \sim M_S .
697: \end{eqnarray}
698: In this case the SUSY-QCD correction behaves as
699: \begin{eqnarray}
700: \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma^0}
701: &\simeq & \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3 \pi} \left [
702: \frac{2 M_S}{M_{\tilde{g}}} (\tan{\beta}+ \cot{\alpha})
703: (1- \log{\frac{M_{\tilde{g}}^2}{M_S^2}} ) -
704: \frac{M_S \cot{\alpha}}{3 M_{\tilde{g}}} \frac{m_h^2}{M_S^2} \right .
705: \nonumber \\
706: && \left . +
707: \frac{M_S \tan{\beta}}{M_{\tilde{g}}} \frac{m_Z^2}{M_S^2}
708: \frac{\cos{\beta} \sin{(\alpha+\beta)}}{\sin{\alpha}} -
709: \frac{m_b^2 \tan^2{\beta} \cot{\alpha}}{M_{\tilde{g}} M_S} \right ] .
710: \label{slow}
711: \end{eqnarray}
712: The main character of this case is that as gluino mass gets large,
713: the correction drops very slowly like $\frac{1}{m_{\tilde{g}}}
714: \log{\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}^2}{M_S^2}}$, which was also observed in
715: Refs.\cite{haber-nondecoup,gluino}. Again, like other cases, the
716: size of the correction is enhanced by large $\tan{\beta}$.
717: In Fig.\ref{fig:casC} we show the dependence of the SUSY-QCD correction
718: and $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ on the gluino mass. Note that in this case
719: we found that $\tan{\beta}=8$ cannot satisfy the experimental
720: bounds in Eq.(\ref{constrain}) for $M_S =600$ GeV. In
721: Fig.\ref{fig:casC} the correction size is
722: significantly smaller than those in Case A and B. The reason is that
723: here a large $M_A$ is chosen so that $ \tan{\beta}+ \cos\alpha $
724: is suppressed (see footnote 3).
725:
726: Let us explain the origin of the slowness of the decoupling in
727: this case. Such slowness of the decoupling arises from the first
728: term in Eq.(\ref{slow}), i.e., $\frac{2 \mu }{M_{\tilde{g}}}
729: (\tan{\beta}+ \cot{\alpha}) \log{\frac{M_{\tilde{g}}^2}{M_{\tilde
730: q}^2}}$ (note that the $M_S$ in the factor $\frac{2 M_S
731: }{M_{\tilde{g}}}$ is $\mu$ and the one in the logarithm is squark
732: mass $M_{\tilde q}$). As $M_{\tilde{g}}$ gets much larger than
733: $M_{\tilde q}$ and $\mu$, $\frac{2 \mu}{M_{\tilde{g}}}$ decreases
734: but $\log{\frac{M_{\tilde{g}}^2}{M_{\tilde q}^2}}$ increases. For
735: the example shown in Fig.\ref{fig:casC}, i.e., $M_{\tilde{g}}$ is
736: changing from 1 TeV to 5 TeV with fixed $M_{\tilde q}=\mu=600$
737: GeV, the factor $\frac{2 \mu}{M_{\tilde{g}}}$ is decreased by
738: $1/5$ but the factor $\log{\frac{M_{\tilde{g}}^2}{M_{\tilde
739: q}^2}}$ is increased by 4.16. Thus the slowness of the decoupling
740: as gluino gets heavy is caused by the enlarged mass splitting
741: between gluino and squark. Of course, since $\tan{\beta}+
742: \cot{\alpha}$ is proportional to $\frac{2 m_Z^2}{M_A^2}
743: \tan{\beta} \cos{2 \beta}$ (see footnote 3), the contribution of
744: the first term in Eq.(\ref{slow}) will be decoupled rapidly if
745: $M_A$ gets large.
746: %%%% Fig.8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
747: \begin{figure}[htb]
748: \begin{center}
749: \epsfig{file=fig8.ps,width=10cm} \caption{ The
750: SUSY-QCD correction $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$ and
751: $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ versus the gluino mass in Case C.
752: The solid curves are for the LHC and the dashed for the Tevatron.
753: For $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$, each solid curve overlaps with the
754: corresponding dashed one due to the tiny difference.} \label{fig:casC}
755: \end{center}
756: \end{figure}
757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
758:
759: (4) {\em Case D:} ~~One of the sbottoms and $A_{t,b} $ become
760: heavy while other mass parameters (denoted as M) are fixed. We choose
761: \begin{eqnarray}
762: M_{\tilde D} \sim M_{\tilde U} \sim A_{t,b} \gg M_{\tilde Q} \sim m_{\tilde{g}}
763: \sim \mu \sim M_A \sim M \gg M_{EW}
764: \end{eqnarray}
765: or equally
766: \begin{eqnarray}
767: m_{\tilde{b}_2} \sim m_{\tilde{t}_2} \sim A_{t,b} \gg
768: m_{\tilde{b}_1} \sim m_{\tilde{t}_1} \sim m_{\tilde{g}} \sim \mu
769: \sim M \gg M_{EW} ,
770: \end{eqnarray}
771: where $ m_{\tilde{b}_{1,2}}$ and $ m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}} $
772: are the masses of bottom-squarks and top-squarks, respectively.
773:
774: In this case the SUSY-QCD correction behaves as
775: \begin{eqnarray}
776: \frac{\Delta \sigma}{\sigma^0} & \simeq & \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3 \pi}
777: \left [ \frac{2 M^2}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2} (\tan{\beta}+
778: \cot{\alpha}) \left (1+ \log\frac{M^2}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2} \right )
779: + \frac{m_Z^2}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2} \frac{\cos{\beta}
780: \sin{(\alpha+\beta)}}{\sin{\alpha}} (-1+\frac{2}{3} s_W^2)
781: (\frac{m_{\tilde{b}_2}}{m_{\tilde{b}_1}} -\tan{\beta} ) \right ].
782: \label{approx4}
783: \end{eqnarray}
784: The main feature of this case is the correction decouples like $
785: \frac{1}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2} \log\frac{M^2}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2} $
786: and this decoupling behavior is slowed down by large $ \tan{\beta} $.
787: Fig.\ref{fig:casD} shows the dependence of the correction and
788: the cross section on $m_{\tilde D}$ ($\sim m_{\tilde{b}_2}$).
789: Comparing with the results in case B, we see that
790: the correction size decrease more slowly as $m_{\tilde{D}}$
791: gets heavy.
792: %%%%% Fig.9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
793: \begin{figure}[htb]
794: \begin{center}
795: \epsfig{file=fig9.ps,width=10cm} \caption{ The
796: SUSY-QCD correction $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$ and
797: $\sigma/\sigma_{SM}$ versus $M_{\tilde D}$ in Case D for the LHC (solid
798: curves) and the Tevatron (dashed curves).
799: For $\Delta \sigma/ \sigma^0$, each solid curve overlaps with the
800: corresponding dashed one due to the tiny difference.} \label{fig:casD}
801: \end{center}
802: \end{figure}
803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
804:
805: From the above analyses we see that when $M_A$ is fixed and all
806: other SUSY mass parameters get large, the SUSY-QCD lefts over some
807: remnant effects in the Higgs production process $ p p \to b h +X $
808: at the hadron colliders. Note that for the remnant effects to be
809: left over, $\mu$ and gluino mass must be comparable with or larger
810: than the masses of the sbottoms. The fundamental reason for such
811: a behavior is that the couplings like $h\tilde{b}_i \tilde{b}_j$
812: are proportional to SUSY mass parameters.
813:
814: We conclude this section by making a few remarks. Firstly,
815: in our analysis we assumed $m_{\tilde{g}}, \mu > 0$ and, as a result, all four cases
816: have negative values of the correction. In the
817: anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking scenario\cite{anomal}, a negative
818: $m_{\tilde{g}}$ is predicted and in this case, the sign of
819: the correction may be reversed. Secondly, it should be noted that in
820: the calculations of such Higgs processes it is necessary to use the
821: loop-corrected relations of the Higgs masses and the mixing angle since such
822: relations can significantly affect the results.
823: Thirdly, in case of a light $ M_A$, although the
824: SUSY-QCD corrections tend to reduce the cross section severely,
825: the MSSM cross section can still be several
826: times larger than the SM prediction. If the cross section of
827: this process is measured in the future and found to be
828: several times larger than the SM prediction, a light $M_A $ is
829: favored.
830:
831: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
832: \section{Conclusion}
833: \label{sec:conclusion}
834:
835: In this work, we studied the one-loop SUSY-QCD quantum effects in
836: the Higgs production $ p p ~(p\bar p) \to b h +X $ at the Tevatron and the
837: LHC in the framework of the MSSM. We found that for a light $M_A$
838: and large $\tan{\beta}$, the corrections can be quite sizable and
839: cannot be neglected. We performed a detailed analysis on the
840: behaviors of the corrections in the limits of heavy SUSY masses
841: and found that when $M_A$ is fixed and all other SUSY mass
842: parameters get large, the SUSY-QCD lefts over some remnant effects
843: in the Higgs production process $ p p \to b h +X $. Such remnant
844: effects can be so sizable for a light $M_A$ that they might be observable in the future
845: experiment. The exploration of such remnant effects is important
846: for probing SUSY, especially in case that the sparticles are too
847: heavy (above TeV) to be directly discovered in future
848: experiments.
849:
850:
851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
852: \section*{Acknowledgment}
853: We thank Tao Han for discussions.
854: This work is supported in part by the Chinese Natural Science Foundation
855: and by the US Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics
856: under grant No. DE-FG02-91-ER4086.
857: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
858: \appendix
859: \section{Expressions of form factors}
860:
861: Before presenting the explicit form of $C_i$s, we define the
862: following abbreviations:
863: \begin{eqnarray}
864: \hat{s}&=& (p_1+k)^2,\ \ \ \ \ \ \hat{t}= (k-p_2)^2, \\
865: a_{1,2}&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\sin{\theta_b} \mp \cos{\theta_b}),\
866: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ b_{1,2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\cos{\theta_b} \pm
867: \sin{\theta_b}), \\
868: A_{I}^L&=& (a_I-b_I)^2, \ \ \ \ A_{I}^R=(a_I + b_I)^2,\ \ \ \
869: A_I=a_I^2-b_I^2,\ \ \ \ (I=1,2), \\
870: A_{IJ}^L&=& a_I a_J+b_I b_J+ a_I b_J+ b_I a_J, \ \ \ \ \
871: A_{IJ}^R=a_I
872: a_J+b_I b_J- a_I b_J - b_I a_J, \\
873: B_{IJ}^L&=&a_I a_J-b_I b_J - a_I b_J+ b_I a_J, \ \ \ \ \
874: B_{IJ}^R=a_I a_J - b_I b_J + a_I b_J - b_I a_J, \\
875: cc_1 &=& -\frac{m_Z}{\cos{\theta_W}} \left (\frac{1}{2}
876: -\frac{1}{3} \sin^2{\theta_W} \right ) \sin(\alpha+\beta),
877: \\ cc_2& = & -\frac{m_Z}{\cos{\theta_W}} \frac{1}{3}
878: \sin^2{\theta_W} \sin(\alpha+\beta), \ \ \ \
879: cc_3 = \frac{m_b}{2 m_W \cos{\beta}} (A_b \sin{\alpha} + \mu \cos{\alpha}), \\
880: Q_{11}&=&cc1 \cos^2\theta_b +cc2 \sin^2 \theta_b +2 cc3
881: \sin\theta_b \cos \theta_b, \\
882: Q_{12}&=&(cc2-cc1) \sin{\theta_b}\cos{\theta_b}
883: + cc3 (\cos^2\theta_b -\sin^2\theta_b), \\
884: Q_{21}&=&(cc2-cc1) \sin{\theta_b}\cos{\theta_b} + cc3
885: (\cos^2\theta_b -\sin^2\theta_b), \\
886: Q_{22}&= &cc1 \sin^2\theta_b +cc2 \cos^2 \theta_b - 2 cc3
887: \sin\theta_b \cos \theta_b, \\
888: B^{I}_i&= & B_i (p, m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_I}) |_{p^2=m_b^2},\\
889: B^{s\ I}_i&=& B_i (p, m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_I})|_{p^2=\hat{s}},
890: \ \ \ \ \ \ B^{t\ I}_i = B_i (p, m_{\tilde{g}},
891: m_{\tilde{b}_I}) |_{p^2=\hat{t}}, \\
892: C^{a\ I}_{ij}&=&C_{ij}(p_1,k,m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{g}},
893: m_{\tilde{g}}), \ \ \ \ C^{b\ I}_{ij}
894: =C_{ij}(-p_1,-k,m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_I},
895: m_{\tilde{b}_I} ), \\
896: C^{c\ I}_{ij}&=&C_{ij}(-p_2,k,m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{g}},
897: m_{\tilde{g}}), \ \ \ \ C^{d\ I}_{ij} =C_{ij}(-p_2,k,m_{\tilde{g}},
898: m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{b}_I} ), \\
899: C^{e\ IJ}_{ij}&=&C_{ij}(-p_2,-p_h, m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_I},
900: m_{\tilde{b}_J}), \ \ \ \ C^{f\ IJ}_{ij} =C_{ij}(-p_1,p_h,
901: m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_J}, m_{\tilde{b}_I} ), \\
902: D^{g\ IJ}_{ij}&=&D_{ij} (-p_1,-k, p_h, m_{\tilde{g}},
903: m_{\tilde{b}_J}, m_{\tilde{b}_J}, m_{\tilde{b}_I}), \ \ \ \ D^{h\
904: IJ}_{ij}=D_{ij} (-p_1, p_h, p_2, m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{b}_J},
905: m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{g}}), \\
906: D^{k \ IJ}_{ij}&=&D_{ij} (-p_2, k, -p_h, m_{\tilde{g}},
907: m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{b}_I}, m_{\tilde{b}_J}),
908: \end{eqnarray}
909: where $B_i$, $C_{ij} $ and $D_{ij} $ are loop functions defined in
910: \cite{hooft}.
911:
912: After $ \frac{g_s^2}{16 \pi^2} $ is factored out, the
913: renormalization constant of b-quark can be expressed as
914: \begin{eqnarray}
915: \delta Z_L & = & C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^L B_1^I,\ \ \ \ \ \delta Z_R
916: = C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^R B_1^I, \\
917: \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}& = & C_F \sum_{I=1}^2
918: (\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}}{m_b} A_I B_0^I -\frac{1}{2} A_I^L B_1^I
919: -\frac{1}{2} A_I^R B_1^I) ,
920: \end{eqnarray}
921: where $C_F=4/3 $. The contributions of the self-energy diagrams of $b$-quark propagator
922: can be written as
923: \begin{eqnarray}
924: \Sigma_L^s&=&C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^L B_1^{s\ I} - \delta Z_L, \ \ \
925: \ \Sigma_L^t=C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^L B_1^{t\ I} - \delta Z_L, \\
926: \Sigma_R^s&=&C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^R B_1^{s\ I} - \delta Z_R, \ \ \
927: \ \Sigma_R^t=C_F \sum_{I=1}^2 A_I^R B_1^{t\ I} - \delta Z_R.
928: \end{eqnarray}
929:
930: $C_i$ appeared in Eq.(\ref{loop}) are given by
931: \begin{eqnarray}
932: C_3 &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (\hat{s} C_{12}^{a\ I} +
933: \hat{s} C_{23}^{a\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{a\ I} -1/2 - m_{\tilde{g}}^2
934: C_{0}^{a\ I}) A_I^L/\hat{s}+ \frac{1}{3} C_{24}^{b\ I} A_I^L/\hat{s} \nonumber \\
935: & & -\frac{3}{2} (\hat{t} C_{12}^{c\ I} + \hat{t} C_{23}^{c\ I}+
936: 2 C_{24}^{c\ I} -1/2 - m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{c\ I})
937: A_I^R/\hat{t}+ \frac{1}{3} C_{24}^{d\ I} A_I^R /\hat{t} \} \nonumber\\
938: && -\delta Z_L/\hat{s}-\delta
939: Z_R/\hat{t}-\Sigma_L^s/\hat{s}-\Sigma_R^t/\hat{t}-(\frac{1}{2}
940: \delta Z_L+\frac{1}{2} \delta Z_R +\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )
941: (\frac{1}{\hat{s}}+\frac{1}{\hat{t}}) \nonumber \\
942: &&+ \frac{2 m_W \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2
943: Q_{IJ} \{ \frac{4}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{e\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L
944: /\hat{s}+\frac{4}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{f\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L
945: /\hat{t}+ \frac{3}{2} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{0}^{h\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L \},\\
946: C_4 &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (\hat{s} C_{12}^{a\ I} +
947: \hat{s} C_{23}^{a\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{a\ I} -1/2 - m_{\tilde{g}}^2
948: C_{0}^{a\ I}) A_I^R/\hat{s}+ \frac{1}{3} C_{24}^{b\ I} A_I^R/\hat{s}\nonumber \\
949: & & -\frac{3}{2} (\hat{t} C_{12}^{c\ I} + \hat{t} C_{23}^{c\ I}+
950: 2 C_{24}^{c\ I} -1/2 - m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{c\ I})
951: A_I^L/\hat{t}+ \frac{1}{3} C_{24}^{d\ I} A_I^L /\hat{t} \} \nonumber\\
952: && -\delta Z_R/\hat{s}-\delta
953: Z_L/\hat{t}-\Sigma_R^s/\hat{s}-\Sigma_L^t/\hat{t}-(\frac{1}{2}
954: \delta Z_L+\frac{1}{2} \delta Z_R +\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )
955: (\frac{1}{\hat{s}}+\frac{1}{\hat{t}}) \nonumber \\
956: &&+ \frac{2 m_W \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2
957: Q_{IJ} \{ \frac{4}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{e\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R
958: /\hat{s}+\frac{4}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{f\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R
959: /\hat{t}+ \frac{3}{2} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{0}^{h\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R \}, \\
960: C_5 &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (-4 C_{24}^{a\ I} +1 + 2
961: m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{a\ I}) A_I^L/\hat{s}- \frac{1}{3} ( \hat{s}
962: C_{12}^{b\ I}+\hat{s} C_{23}^{b\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{b\ I} ) A_I^L/\hat{s} \} \nonumber \\
963: && + 2 \delta Z_L/\hat{s}+ 2 \Sigma_L^s/\hat{s}+( \delta Z_L+
964: \delta Z_R +2 \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )/\hat{s}+ \frac{2 m_W
965: \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2 Q_{IJ} \{
966: -\frac{8}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{e\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L /\hat{s} \nonumber \\
967: && +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} (D_{0}^{g\ IJ}+
968: D_{11}^{g\ IJ}-D_{13}^{g\ IJ} ) B_{IJ}^L + 3 m_{\tilde{g}}
969: (D_{11}^{h\ IJ}- D_{12}^{h\ IJ}) B_{IJ}^L +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{13}^k B_{IJ}^L \},\\
970: C_6 &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (-4 C_{24}^{a\ I} +1 + 2
971: m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{a\ I}) A_I^R/\hat{s}- \frac{1}{3} ( \hat{s}
972: C_{12}^{b\ I}+\hat{s} C_{23}^{b\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{b\ I} ) A_I^R/\hat{s} \} \nonumber \\
973: && + 2 \delta Z_R/\hat{s}+ 2 \Sigma_R^s/\hat{s}+( \delta Z_L+
974: \delta Z_R +2 \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )/\hat{s}+ \frac{2 m_W
975: \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2 Q_{IJ} \{
976: -\frac{8}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{e\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R /\hat{s} \nonumber\\
977: && +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} (D_{0}^{g\ IJ}+ D_{11}^{g\
978: IJ}-D_{13}^{g\ IJ} ) B_{IJ}^R + 3 m_{\tilde{g}} (D_{11}^{h\ IJ}-
979: D_{12}^{h\ IJ}) B_{IJ}^R +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{13}^k
980: B_{IJ}^R \},
981: \\
982: C_9 &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (-4 C_{24}^{c\ I} +1 + 2
983: m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{c\ I}) A_I^R/\hat{t}- \frac{1}{3} ( \hat{t}
984: C_{12}^{d\ I}+\hat{t} C_{23}^{d\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{d\ I} ) A_I^R
985: /\hat{t} \} \nonumber \\
986: && + 2 \delta Z_R/\hat{t}+ 2 \Sigma_R^t/\hat{t}+( \delta Z_L+
987: \delta Z_R +2 \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )/\hat{t}+ \frac{2 m_W
988: \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2 Q_{IJ} \{
989: -\frac{8}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{f\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L /\hat{t} \nonumber\\
990: && +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{13}^{g\ IJ} B_{IJ}^L
991: + 3 m_{\tilde{g}} (D_{12}^{h\ IJ}- D_{13}^{h\ IJ}) B_{IJ}^L +\frac{1}{3}
992: m_{\tilde{g}} (D^k_0+D^k_{11}-D^k_{13}) B_{ij}^L \}, \\
993: C_{10} &= & \sum_{I=1}^2 \{ -\frac{3}{2} (-4 C_{24}^{c\ I} +1 + 2
994: m_{\tilde{g}}^2 C_{0}^{c\ I}) A_I^L/\hat{t}- \frac{1}{3} ( \hat{t}
995: C_{12}^{d\ I}+\hat{t} C_{23}^{d\ I}+ 2 C_{24}^{d\ I} ) A_I^L
996: /\hat{t} \} \nonumber \\
997: && + 2 \delta Z_L/\hat{t}+ 2 \Sigma_L^t/\hat{t}+( \delta Z_L+
998: \delta Z_R +2 \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b} )/\hat{t}+ \frac{2 m_W
999: \cos{\beta}}{m_b \sin{\alpha}} \sum_{I,J=1}^2 Q_{IJ} \{
1000: -\frac{8}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} C_{0}^{f\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R /\hat{t}
1001: \nonumber \\ && +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} D_{13}^{g\ IJ} B_{IJ}^R
1002: + 3 m_{\tilde{g}} (D_{12}^{h\ IJ}- D_{13}^{h\ IJ}) B_{IJ}^R
1003: +\frac{1}{3} m_{\tilde{g}} (D^k_0+D^k_{11}-D^k_{13}) B_{ij}^R \}.
1004: \end{eqnarray}
1005:
1006: Since we have neglect the b-quark mass throughout this paper,
1007: $C_{1,2,7,8,11,12}$ are irrelevant to our result and we do not
1008: present their explicit forms here.
1009:
1010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1011:
1012: \begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{99}
1013:
1014: \bibitem{HaberKane} For a review, see, e.g., H.~E.~Haber, G.~L.~Kane, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 117}, 75 (1985).
1015: %% CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;
1016:
1017: \bibitem{Gunion} For a review, see, e.g., J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber, G.~L.~Kane and S.~Dawson,
1018: {\it The Higgs Hunter's Guide}, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990).
1019:
1020: \bibitem{willenbrock} J.~Campbell, R.~K.~Ellis, F.~Maltoni and S.~Willenbrock, hep-ph/0204093.
1021: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0204093;%%
1022:
1023: \bibitem{bbh} D.~A.~Dicus and S.~Willenbrock, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 39}, 751 (1989);
1024: D.~Dicus, T.~Stelzer, Z.~Sullivan and S.~Willenbrock, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 59}, 094016 (1999).
1025: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D39,751;%%
1026: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D59,094016;%
1027:
1028: \bibitem{background} M.~Drees, M.~Guchait and P.~Roy, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.\ {\bf 80},
1029: 2047(1998); Erratum-{\it ibid.} {\bf 81}, 2394(1998);
1030: M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna and C.~E.~Wagner, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 60}, 075010 (1999);
1031: ATLAS Collaboration, Technical Design Report, CERN-LHCC-99-15.
1032: %% CITATION = PRLTA,80,2047;%%
1033: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D60,075010;%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{ggbbh} E.~Richter-Was and D.~Froidevaux, Z.~Phys.~C{\bf 76}, 665(1997);
1036: J.~L.~Diaz-Cruz, H.~J.~He, T.~Tait and C.~P.~Yuan, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 80}, 4641 (1998);
1037: C.~Balazs, J.~L.~Diaz-Cruz, H.~J.~He, T.~Tait and C.~P.~Yuan, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 59}, 055016 (1999);
1038: M.~Carena {\it et al.}, Report of the Tevatron Higgs Working Group, hep-ph/0010338.
1039: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C76,665;%%
1040: %% CITATION = PRLTA,80,4641;%%
1041: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D59,055016;%%
1042: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0010338;%%
1043:
1044:
1045: \bibitem{huang} C.-S. Huang and S.-H. Zhu, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 60}, 075012(1999).
1046: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D60,075012;%%
1047:
1048: \bibitem{refree} A.~Belyaev, D.~Garcia, J.~Gausch and J.~Sola,
1049: Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 65}, 031701 (2002).
1050: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D65,031701;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{gao} G.~Gao, G.~Lu, Z.~Xiong and J.~M.~Yang, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 66}, 015007(2002).
1053: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D66,015007;%%
1054:
1055: \bibitem{decay1} C. S. Li and J. M. Yang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 315}, 367 (1993);
1056: C. S. Li, B. Q. Hu and J. M. Yang, D {\bf 47}, 2865 (1993).
1057: J. M. Yang, C. S. Li and B. Q. Hu, D {\bf 47}, 2872 (1993);
1058: J. A. Coarasa, D. Garcia, J. Guasch, R. A. Jimenez, J. Sola,
1059: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 2}, 373 (1998);
1060: A. Dobado, M.~J.~Herrero, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D65}, 075023(2002);
1061: M.~J.~Herrero, S.~Pe\~naranda and D.~Temes, Phys.~Rev.~D64, 115003 (2001);
1062: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B315,367;%%
1063: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2865;%%
1064: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2872;%%
1065: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C2,373;%%
1066: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D65, 075023;%%
1067: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D64,115003;%%
1068:
1069: \bibitem{haber-nondecoup} H.~E.~Haber, et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D 63}, 055004 (2001).
1070: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D63,055004;%%
1071:
1072: \bibitem{gluino} A.~Dabelstein, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 456}, 25(1995);
1073: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein, Eur.~Phys.~J.~C{\bf 16}, 139(2000).
1074:
1075: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C16,139;%%
1076: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B456,25;%%
1077:
1078: \bibitem{bsea} R.~M.~Barnett, H.~E.~Haber and D.~E.~Soper, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 306}, 697 (1988);
1079: F.~I.~Olness and W.~K.~Tung, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 308},813 (1988);
1080: M.~A.~Aivazis, J.~C.~Collins, F.~I.~Olness and
1081: W.~K.~Tung, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 50}, 3102 (1994);
1082: J.~C.~Collins, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 58}, 094002 (1998).
1083: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B306,697;%%
1084: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B308,813;%%
1085: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D50,3102;%%
1086: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D58,094002;%%
1087:
1088: \bibitem{lai} J.~Huston, {\it et. al} Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 58}, 114034(1998).
1089: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D58,114034;%%
1090:
1091: \bibitem{Brat} See, for example, E.~Braaten and J.~P.~Leveille,
1092: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D22}, 715 (1980); M.~Drees and
1093: K.~Hikasa, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 240}, 455 (1990).
1094: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D22, 715;%%
1095: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B240, 455;%%
1096:
1097: \bibitem{Bene} W.~Beenakker, R.~H\''{o}pkker, and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1098: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 378}, 159 (1996);
1099: W.~Beenakker, {\it et. al} Z. Phys. C{\bf 75}, 349 (1997).
1100: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B378,159;%%
1101: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C75,349;%%
1102:
1103: \bibitem{carena} M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 577}, 88(2000).
1104: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B577,88;%%
1105:
1106: \bibitem{pm} H.~L.~Lai, et al. (CTEQ collaboration), hep-ph/9903282.
1107: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 9903282;%%
1108:
1109: \bibitem{Groom} D.~E.~Groom {\it et al} [Partical Data Group Collaboration], Eur.~Phys.~J.~C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).
1110: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C15,1;%%
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Haber} H.~Haber and R.~Hempfling, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 66}, 1815(1991);
1113: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 355}, 209 (1995);
1114: H.~Haber, R.~Hempfling and A.~H.~Hoang, Z.~Phys.~C{\bf 57}, 539 (1997).
1115: %% CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
1116: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B355,209;%%
1117: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C57,539;%%
1118:
1119: \bibitem{Carena1} M.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 461},407(1996);
1120: M.~Carena, {\it et. al.}, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf
1121: 580}, 29(2000).
1122: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B461,407;%%
1123: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B580,29;%%
1124:
1125: \bibitem{Carena2} A.~Dabelstein, Z.~Phys.~C{\bf 67}, 495(1995);
1126: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein, Eur.~Phys.~J.~C{\bf 9}, 343(1999);
1127: J.~R.~Espinosa and R.~J.~Zhang, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 586}, 3(2000);
1128: J.~R.~Espinosa, I.~Navarro, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 615}, 82(2001);
1129: G.~Degrassi, P.~Slavich, F.~Zwirner, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 611}, 403(2001);
1130: A.~Brignole, G.~Degrassi, P.~Slavich, F.~Zwirner, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 631}, 195 (2002).
1131: %% CITATION = ZEPYA,C67,495;%%
1132: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C9,343;%%
1133: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B586,3;%%
1134: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B615,82;%%
1135: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B611,403;%%
1136: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B631,195;%%
1137:
1138: \bibitem{Brown01} H.~N~Brown,~{\em et~al.}, Mu g-2 Collaboration, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.{\bf 86}, 2227 (2001).
1139: %% CITATION = PRLTA,86, 2227;%%
1140:
1141: \bibitem{LEP} R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 499}, 53(2001);
1142: LEP Higgs Working Group, hep-ex/0107029 (LHWG/2001-03).
1143: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B499,53;%%
1144: %% CITATION = HEP-EX 0107029;%%
1145:
1146: \bibitem{PDG00} Particle Physics Group. Eur.~Phys.~J.~C, {\bf 15}, 274 (2000).
1147: %% CITATION = EPHJA,C15,274;%%
1148:
1149: \bibitem{haber-decoup} H.~E.~Haber and Y.~Nir, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 335}, 363(1990).
1150: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B355,363;%%
1151:
1152: \bibitem{Gordon} G.~L.~Kane, G.~D.~Kribs, S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 53}, 213 (1996);
1153: W.~Loinaz and J.~D.~Wells, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 445}, 178 (1998);
1154: K.~S.~Babu and C.~Kolda, Phys.~Lett.~B{\bf 451}, 77 (1999).
1155: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D53,213;%%
1156: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B445,178;%%
1157: %% CITATION = PHLTA,B451,77;%%
1158:
1159: \bibitem{Carena3} M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 62}, 055008(2000);
1160:
1161: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D62,055008;%%
1162:
1163: \bibitem{technique}H.~Eberl, et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 055006 (2000).
1164: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D62,055006;%%
1165:
1166:
1167: \bibitem{anomal} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 557}, 79(1999);
1168: G.~D.~Kribs, Phys.~Rev.~D{\bf 62}, 015008 (2000).
1169: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B557,79;%%
1170: %% CITATION = PHRVA,D62,015008;%%
1171:
1172: \bibitem{hooft} G 't Hooft and M.~Veltman, Nucl.~Phys.~B{\bf 44}, 189(1972);
1173: A.~Denner, Fortschr.~Phys.~{\bf 41}, 307(1993).
1174: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
1175: %% CITATION = NUPHA,B160,151;%%
1176:
1177: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup
1178:
1179: \end{document}
1180: )
1181: