1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% b2.tex %%
3: %% Author: Rahul Malhotra %%
4: %% Last Revision: November 16, 2003 %%
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7: %% PREAMBLE %%
8:
9: %% Choose whether you want twocolumn printout
10: %% or preprint style.
11: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
12: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,prl,showpacs]{revtex4}
13: %\documentstyle[a4,11pt,axodraw]{article}
14:
15: %% Packages needed to compile
16: \usepackage{amsmath}
17: \usepackage{amsfonts}
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19:
20: %% NEW COMMANDS %%
21: %% ``\npartial''
22: \newcommand{\npartial}{\not\!\partial}
23: %% ``\Aslash''
24: \newcommand{\Aslash}{\not\!\!A}
25: %% ``\Pslash''
26: \newcommand{\Pslash}{\not\!\!\,\!\,\,\!\Pi}
27: %% ``\rat''
28: \newcommand{\rat}{\Biggl(\frac{M_{Z}}{m_{i}}\Biggr)}
29:
30:
31: %% START OF DOCUMENT %%
32:
33: \begin{document}
34:
35: %% Title Page Stuff
36: \title{Can there be a heavy sbottom hidden in three-jet data at LEP?}
37: \author{Rahul Malhotra }
38: \email[Email: ]{rahul@math.utexas.edu}
39: \affiliation{Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas,
40: Austin, Texas, 78712, U.S.A.}
41: \date{16 November, 2003}
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: A low-energy supersymmetry scenario with a light gluino of mass
45: $12 - 16$ GeV and light sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) of mass
46: $2 - 6$ GeV has been used to explain the apparent overproduction
47: of $b$ quarks at the Tevatron. In this scenario the other mass eigenstate
48: of the sbottom, i.e. $\tilde{b}_2$, is favored to be lighter
49: than $180$ GeV due to constraints from electroweak
50: precision data. We survey its decay modes in this scenario and
51: show that decay into a $b$ quark and gluino should be dominant. Associated
52: sbottom production at LEP via
53: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow Z^* \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_2 +
54: \tilde{b}^*_1 \tilde{b}_2$ is studied and we show that it is naturally
55: a three-jet process with a small cross-section, increasingly
56: obscured by a large Standard Model background for heavier $\tilde{b}_2$.
57: However we find that direct observation of a $\tilde{b}_2$ at the
58: $5\sigma$ level is possible if it is lighter than $110 - 129$ GeV, depending
59: on the sbottom mixing angle $|\cos\theta_b| = 0.30 - 0.45$.
60: We also show that $\tilde{b}_2$-pair production can be mistaken for
61: production of neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in the channel
62: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow h^0 A^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.
63: Using searches for the latter we place a lower mass limit of $90$ GeV on
64: $\tilde{b}_2$.
65: \end{abstract}
66: \pacs{12.60.Jv, 13.87.Ce, 14.65.Fy, 14.80.Ly}
67: \maketitle
68:
69:
70: %% INTRODUCTION
71: \section{Introduction}
72: The Standard Model (SM) has been very successful in explaining a range
73: of observations at hadron colliders and the CERN $e^+ e^-$ collider, LEP. But
74: it is still widely believed to be an effective theory valid at the
75: electroweak scale, with new physics lying beyond it. The Minimal
76: Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)\cite{haber} is widely considered to
77: be the most promising candidate for physics beyond the SM.
78:
79: The MSSM contains supersymmetric (SUSY) partners of quarks, gluons and
80: other SM particles which have not been observed, leading to speculation
81: that they might be too heavy to have observable production rates at present
82: collider energies. However it has been suggested in \cite{lightsb} that
83: a light sbottom ($\tilde{b}_1$) with mass $\cal{O}$($5$ GeV) is not ruled out
84: by electroweak precision data if its coupling to the $Z$ boson is tuned to be
85: small in the MSSM. Recently Berger {\it et al} \cite{berger1} have also
86: proposed a light sbottom and light gluino (LSLG) model to explain
87: the long-standing puzzle of overproduction of $b$ quarks at the
88: Tevatron \cite{excessb}.
89: In this model gluinos of mass $12 - 16$ GeV are produced in pairs in $p
90: \bar{p}$ collisions and decay quickly into a $b$ quark and light sbottom
91: ($2 - 6$ GeV) each. The sbottom evades direct detection by quickly undergoing
92: $R$-parity violating decays into soft dijets of light quarks
93: around the cone of the accompanying $b$ jet. The extra
94: $b$ quarks so produced result in a remarkably
95: good fit to the measured transverse
96: momentum distribution $\sigma_b (p_T > p^{min}_T)$ at NLO level, including
97: data enhancement in the $p^{min}_T \sim m_{\tilde{g}}$ region.
98:
99: Some independent explanations within the SM have also
100: been proposed to resolve the discrepancy. These include
101: unknown NNLO QCD effects, updated $b$-quark
102: fragmentation functions \cite{cacciari} and effects from changing the
103: renormalization scale \cite{chyla}. But, without
104: an unambiguous reduction in theoretical and experimental errors,
105: the LSLG scenario cannot be ruled out. It is also interesting in its
106: own right even if not solely responsible for the Tevatron discrepancy.
107: For example, a light $\tilde{b}_1$ is more natural if the gluino
108: is also light \cite{dreiner}. Experimental bounds on light gluinos
109: do not apply here as either the mass range or the decay channel is
110: different: only gluinos lighter
111: than $6.3$ GeV \cite{janot} are absolutely ruled out.
112: Very recently ALEPH \cite{stablesb} has ruled out
113: stable sbottoms with lifetime $\gtrsim 1$ ns and mass $< 92$ GeV.
114: However, using formulae in \cite{berger2} we calculate that even
115: minimal $R$-parity violating
116: couplings, as small as $10^{-6}$ times experimental limits,
117: would leave $\tilde{b}_1$ with a lifetime shorter than $1$ ns.
118: Light gluino and sbottom contributions to the running
119: strong coupling constant $\alpha_S$($Q$) have also been calculated and
120: found to be small \cite{berger1,alpha_s}. New phenomenon such as
121: SUSY $Z$-decays \cite{rahul,cheung1,luo}
122: and gluon splitting into gluinos \cite{cheung2} are predicted
123: in this scenario, but the
124: rates are either too small or require more careful study of LEP data.
125:
126: The sbottoms and light gluinos also affect electroweak precision
127: observables through virtual loops. In this case, serious constraints
128: arise on the heavier eigenstate of the sbottom,
129: i.e. $\tilde{b}_2$. According to \cite{cao}, corrections to $R_b$ are
130: increasingly negative as $\tilde{b}_2$ becomes heavier and it has to
131: be lighter than $125$ ($195$) GeV at the $2\sigma$
132: ($3\sigma$) level. An extension of this analysis to the
133: entire range of
134: electroweak precision data \cite{cho} yields that
135: $\tilde{b}_2$ must be lighter than $180$ GeV at $5\sigma$ level.
136: However, it has been suggested that the SUSY decay
137: $Z \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \bar{b} \tilde{g} + h.c.$ can contribute
138: positively to $R_b$ \cite{cheung1}, reducing some of the negative loop
139: effects, and possibly allowing higher $\tilde{b}_2$ masses
140: \cite{rahul, luo2}. Independently, if large $CP$-violating phases
141: are present in the model a $\tilde{b}_2$ with mass $\gtrsim 200$ GeV
142: is possible \cite{baek}. Still, it is fair to say that in the face
143: of electroweak constraints the LSLG model at least favors a
144: $\tilde{b}_2$ lighter than $200$ GeV or so.
145:
146: In this article we study production and decay of such a heavy sbottom at
147: LEPII. Available channels are (i)
148: pair production:
149: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}^*_2$ and (ii)
150: associated production: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tilde{b}^*_1 \tilde{b}_2 +
151: \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_2$. With LEPII center-of-mass energies
152: ranging upto $\sqrt{s} = 209$ GeV, the second channel should have produced
153: heavy sbottoms with masses as high as $\sim 200$ GeV. Since
154: they have not been observed, it has been commented
155: that the LSLG scenario is disfavored \cite{cao,cho}.
156:
157: However, searches for unstable sbottoms at LEPII have not been done for the
158: decay $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$, which should dominate in
159: this scenario as squarks, quarks and gluinos have strong
160: trilinear couplings in the MSSM. In that case,
161: the fast-moving gluino emitted by
162: $\tilde{b}_2$ would decay quickly into a $b$ quark and $\tilde{b}_1$ that
163: are nearly collinear, with
164: $\tilde{b}_1$ subsequently undergoing $R$-parity violating decays
165: into light quarks around the cone
166: of the accompanying $b$-jet. Unless the jet resolution is set very high,
167: the gluino should look like a fused $b$ flavored jet.
168: Overall $\tilde{b}_2$ should appear as a heavy particle decaying
169: into $b$ flavored dijets. On the other hand, the highly boosted prompt
170: $\tilde{b}_1$ produced in the
171: associated process would decay into nearly collinear light quarks
172: and appear as a single hadronic jet.
173: Pair and associated production are therefore naturally
174: described as 4-jet and 3-jet
175: processes respectively at leading order. Pair production in particular should
176: be similar to neutral MSSM Higgs production in the channel
177: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow h^0 A^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ if
178: $h^0$ and $A^0$ have approximately equal masses.
179:
180: The article is organised as follows: $\tilde{b}_2$ decays are studied
181: in Section II and $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$ is found to be
182: dominant, cross-sections and event topology are studied in Section III and the
183: corresponding SM 3-jet background for associated production is studied
184: in Section IV. In Section V, LEP searches for neutral Higgs bosons
185: are used to derive a lower bound on $\tilde{b}_2$ mass.
186: Conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
187:
188: %% HEAVY SBOTTOM DECAY
189: \section{Heavy Sbottom Decay}
190:
191: Sbottom decays in MSSM scenarios with large mass splitting between
192: $\tilde{b}_2$ and $\tilde{b}_1$ have been investigated before;
193: see \cite{porod} for example. However
194: the scenario where the gluino is also light has not received much attention.
195:
196: The direct decay products can be purely
197: fermionic (1) or bosonic (2):
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: \tilde{b}_2 & \rightarrow & b\tilde{g}, b\chi^0_k, t\chi^- \label{eqn1}\\
200: \tilde{b}_2 & \rightarrow & \tilde{b}_1 Z, \tilde{t}W^-,
201: \tilde{b}_1 h^0, \tilde{b}_1 A^0, \tilde{b}_1 H^0, \tilde{t}H^- \label{eqn2}
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: where $\chi^0_k$ $(k = 1,..,4)$ and $\chi^{\pm}$ are
204: neutralinos and charginos respectively, $t$ is the top quark,
205: $\tilde{t}$ are stops,
206: $h^0$ and $H^0$ are neutral $CP$-even
207: Higgs bosons, $A^0$ is the $CP$-odd Higgs and $H^{\pm}$ are charged Higgs
208: bosons.
209:
210: The individual widths depend on masses of above particles, but available
211: experimental constraints \cite{PDG} are model-dependent and might not all
212: be applicable in the LSLG scenario. However precision $Z$-width measurements
213: can be used to apply some basic constraints on masses and
214: the sbottom mixing angle.
215:
216: %%COUPLINGS AND MASS CONSTRAINTS
217: \subsection{Couplings and mass constraints}
218:
219: In the MSSM, $Z$-boson couplings to sbottom pairs are given by,
220: \begin{eqnarray}
221: Z\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_1 & \propto & \frac{1}{2}\cos^2 \theta_b -
222: \frac{1}{3}\sin^2 \theta_W \label{eqn3}\\
223: Z\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}_2 & \propto & -\frac{1}{2}\sin\theta_b\cos\theta_b
224: \label{eqn4}\\
225: Z\tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}_2 & \propto & \frac{1}{2}\sin^2 \theta_b -
226: \frac{1}{3}\sin^2 \theta_W \label{eqn5}
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: where $\theta_b$ is the mixing angle between left and right-handed states:
229: \begin{equation}
230: \begin{pmatrix}
231: \tilde{b}_1 \\
232: \tilde{b}_2
233: \end{pmatrix}
234: =
235: \begin{pmatrix}
236: \cos \theta_b &
237: \sin \theta_b \\
238: - \sin \theta_b &
239: \cos \theta_b
240: \end{pmatrix}
241: \begin{pmatrix}
242: \tilde{b}_L \\
243: \tilde{b}_R
244: \end{pmatrix}\label{eqn6}
245: \end{equation}
246: The light sbottom should have a vanishingly small coupling in
247: Eqn. (\ref{eqn3}) as the $Z \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_1$ decay
248: does not occur to high accuracy.
249: This is achieved with the choice
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: \cos \theta_b & \approx & \pm \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\sin\theta_W = \pm 0.39.
252: \label{eqn7}
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: The narrow range $|c_b| = 0.30 - 0.45$ ($c_b \equiv \cos\theta_b$)
255: is allowed \cite{lightsb} which we use at times to obtain upper and
256: lower bounds.
257:
258: Given that $m_{\tilde{b}_1} = 2 - 6$ GeV, the decay
259: $Z \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_2 + h.c.$ might also take place
260: if $\tilde{b}_2$ is lighter than $\sim 89$ GeV. However this decay is
261: suppressed both kinematically and by the factor $\sin^2 2\theta_b$.
262: Even for the higher value
263: $|c_b| = 0.45$ we calculate $\Gamma
264: (Z \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}^*_2 + h.c.) \leq 10$ MeV for
265: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} \geq 55$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{b}_1} \geq 2$ GeV. With the
266: full $Z$-width having a $1\sigma$ error of $2.3$ MeV and a $0.6\sigma$ pull
267: from the theoretical SM calculation \cite{PDG}, a lower limit of
268: $55$ GeV
269: on $\tilde{b}_2$-mass can be set at $\sim 4\sigma$ level without a detailed
270: analysis.
271:
272: Similarly, decays into pairs of neutralinos, charginos and stops
273: might contribute unacceptably to the $Z$ width and it seems safe enough to
274: apply a lower mass limit of $M_Z/2$ to them for calculation purposes.
275: With the observed top quark mass of $\sim 175$ GeV, this rules out the
276: chargino channel $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow t\chi^-$ as
277: $\tilde{b}_2$ masses $\lesssim 200$ GeV are being considered.
278:
279: \subsection{Calculations}
280:
281: The decay width for $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$ is
282: easily calculated at tree-level using Feynman rules for
283: the MSSM given in \cite{rosiek}:
284: \begin{eqnarray}
285: \Gamma (\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}) & = &
286: \frac{g^2_s m_{\tilde{b}_2} \kappa A}{6\pi}, \label{eqn8}\\
287: A & = &
288: 1 - x^2_b - x^2_{\tilde{g}} - 2 x_b x_{\tilde{g}} \sin 2\theta_b \nonumber
289: \end{eqnarray}
290: where $x_i = \frac{m_i}{m_{\tilde{b}_2}}$,
291: $\kappa^2 = \sum_i x^4_i - \sum_{i \neq j}x^2_i x^2_j$ (summing
292: over all particles involved in the decay) is the usual kinematic factor and
293: $g_s$ is the strong coupling evaluated at
294: $Q = m_{\tilde{b}_2}$. The canonical strong coupling value
295: $\alpha_S (M_Z) = 0.118$ is used here. Other parameters used in this section
296: are $m_b = 4.5$ GeV,
297: $m_{\tilde{b}_1} = 4$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{g}} = 14$ GeV and $c_b = +0.39$.
298:
299: The remaining widths in Eqns. (\ref{eqn1},\ref{eqn2}) are
300: calculated using tree-level formulae
301: given in \cite{porod}. Fig. \ref{fig1} shows the branching ratios versus
302: $\tilde{b}_2$ mass.
303: The $b\tilde{g}$ width is large, varying between $3.9 - 13.8$ GeV for
304: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} = 55 - 200$ GeV. It has
305: the maximum amount of available phase space and
306: proceeds via the strong coupling,
307: while the other widths are $\propto g^2_w$ where $g_w = e/\sin\theta_W$
308: is the usual weak coupling.
309:
310: The width shown for $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow
311: b\chi^0$ is the summed width over all 4 neutralinos ($\chi^0_k$).
312: This value scales approximately as
313: $m^2_b \tan^2\beta$ for large $\tan\beta$. Here $\tan \beta = v_2/v_1$
314: where $v_i$ are the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
315: Our calculation is most likely an overestimate as mixing angles are ignored
316: and all neutralinos are prescribed
317: the same mass. This channel has
318: been extensively searched for at LEP \cite{sbsearch}, but seems to be
319: at most $10 - 15\%$ of the full width in the LSLG scenario.
320:
321: Bosonic decays with $W$, $Z$ in the final state are also found to be small.
322: We show $\Gamma(\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 W^-)$ correct upto an
323: unknown factor $\sin^2 \theta_t \leq 1$ where $\sin\theta_t$ is the
324: stop mixing angle. For $\tilde{t}_2$ the factor would be $\cos^2 \theta_t$.
325: Because of the unnaturally low value of $\tilde{t}_1$ mass chosen here, this
326: width rises significantly as $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$ approaches $200$ GeV.
327:
328: Decays into Higgs bosons are more complex as besides Higgs masses,
329: the widths depend on unknown soft SUSY-breaking mass terms $A_b$ and $\mu$.
330: The only available mass constraint is $m_{h^0} \lesssim 130$ GeV
331: at two-loop level in the MSSM. However the excellent agreement between
332: electroweak precision measurements and theoretical
333: predictions with a single SM Higgs
334: boson has led to a preference for the ``decoupling limit'' of
335: the MSSM Higgs sector. In this limit, Yukawa
336: couplings of $h^0$ to quarks and leptons are nearly identical to
337: those of the Standard Model Higgs. At the same time $A^0,H^0,H^{\pm}$
338: have almost degenerate masses $>> M_Z$. Therefore,
339: with $\tilde{b}_2$
340: lighter than $200$ GeV, only $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 h^0$
341: is likely to be significant while other decays would be kinematically
342: impossible or heavily suppressed. The width is then given by
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: \Gamma (\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 h^0) & = &
345: \frac{g^2_w \kappa B^2}{64\pi m_{\tilde{b}_2}}, \label{eqn9}\\
346: B & = & - \frac{m_b \cos 2\theta_b}{m_W}(A_b - \mu \tan \beta) \nonumber\\
347: & & +\frac{m_Z \sin 2\theta_b}{\cos \theta_W}(-\frac{1}{2} +
348: \frac{2}{3}\sin^2 \theta_W)\cos 2\beta \nonumber
349: \end{eqnarray}
350: We choose $m_{h^0} = 114.4$ GeV in our calculation as LEP data has ruled out
351: SM Higgs bosons lighter than this value \cite{smhiggs}.
352:
353: In the decoupling limit,
354: arbitrary variation over $A_b$, $\mu$ in calculating $B$ is not required
355: as the factor $A_b - \mu \tan\beta$ can be expressed in terms of sbottom
356: masses and $\theta_b$:
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: \sin 2\theta_b & = & \frac{2m_b (A_b - \mu \tan \beta)}{m^2_{\tilde{b}_1}
359: - m^2_{\tilde{b}_2}}\label{eqn10}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: with $\theta_b$ given by Eqn. (\ref{eqn7}).
362: This is a common relation that arises when the sbottom mass matrix
363: (see \cite{primer} for example) is
364: diagonalized with the mixing matrix in Eqn. (\ref{eqn6}).
365:
366: \begin{figure}[t!]
367: \includegraphics{fig1.eps}
368: \caption{\small \label{fig1}
369: Branching ratios for $\tilde{b}_2$ with $\tan\beta = 30$. Masses
370: are set as $m_{\chi^0_k},m_{\tilde{t}_1} = M_Z/2$ $\forall$ $\chi^0_k$ and
371: $m_{h^0} = 114.4$ GeV. The Higgs width is calculated in the decoupling limit.}
372: \end{figure}
373:
374: Though theoretically and experimentally attractive,
375: if the decoupling limit does not
376: hold then other
377: Higgs particles might also be light. The most general lower mass limits from
378: LEP on neutral MSSM Higgs bosons are about $90$ GeV \cite{higgssearch}.
379: Then, the
380: $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow
381: \tilde{b}_1 A^0$ width (say) can become larger than $10\%$ of $\tilde{b}_2
382: \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$ due to the
383: coupling
384: \begin{eqnarray}
385: A^0\tilde{b}_1\tilde{b}_2 & \propto & -\frac{g_w m_b\cos 2\theta_b}
386: {2m_W}(\mu + A_b\tan\beta)\label{eqn11}
387: \end{eqnarray}
388: This happens if $A_b\tan\beta$ is larger than $\sim 10$ TeV.
389: Though the possibility is there, we consider it less likely and do not
390: pursue it further. In any event such a decay would be more important for
391: higher $\tilde{b}_2$ masses, and we show in Section III that
392: $\tilde{b}_2$ production at LEPII falls rapidly as its mass nears
393: $200$ GeV.
394:
395: We therefore conclude that the strong decay
396: $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$ is dominant and other decays
397: are unlikely to be of more than marginal importance at LEPII.
398:
399: %% PRODUCTION AT LEP
400: \section{Production at Lep}
401: Cross-sections for $\tilde{b}_2$ production are defined as
402: follows:
403: $\sigma_{22} = \sigma (e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tilde{b}_2 \tilde{b}^*_2)$
404: and
405: $\sigma_{12} = \sigma (e^+ e^- \rightarrow \tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_2 + h.c.)$.
406: For completeness production of $\tilde{b}_1 \tilde{b}^*_1$ pairs
407: is referred to
408: as $\sigma_{11}$. The $\sigma_{ij}$ are readily
409: calculated at tree-level,
410: \begin{eqnarray}
411: \sigma_{ij} & = & \frac{g^4_w \sin^4 \theta_W \beta^3_{ij}}{16\pi s}f_{ij},
412: \label{eqn12}\\
413: f_{ij} & = & (\frac{1}{9}-\frac{2c_V \lambda_{ij}}{3\beta^2_Z\sin^2 2\theta_W})
414: \delta_{ij}+\frac{(c^2_V+c^2_A)\lambda^2_{ij}}{\beta^4_Z\sin^4 2\theta_W}
415: \label{eqn13}
416: \end{eqnarray}
417: where $\lambda_{11} \approx 0$,
418: $\lambda_{12} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sin 2\theta_b$,
419: $\lambda_{22}
420: = \sin^2 \theta_b - \frac{2}{3}\sin^2 \theta_w$, $\beta^2_{ij} =
421: (1 - \frac{(m_{\tilde{b}_i}+m_{\tilde{b}_j})^2}{s})(1 -
422: \frac{(m_{\tilde{b}_i}-m_{\tilde{b}_j})^2}{s})$,
423: $\beta^2_Z = 1 - \frac{M^2_Z}{s}$
424: and $c_{V,A}$ are electron vector and axial couplings that equal
425: $-\frac{1}{2}+2\sin^2 \theta_W$ and $\frac{1}{2}$ respectively. The
426: $\lambda$-factors are proportional to sbottom-$Z$ couplings
427: in Eqns. (3-5). We use the same parameters here as used earlier
428: for width calculations.
429:
430: Both virtual photon ($\gamma^*$) and virtual $Z$ ($Z^*$) channels are
431: available for $\sigma_{22}$ while only $Z^*$
432: is available for $\sigma_{12}$. The latter falls by a factor of
433: $2$ in going from $|c_b| = 0.45$ to $0.30$. Pair production rises
434: in the same range by a smaller factor of 1.3 at $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV.
435: Variation of $\tilde{b}_1$ mass between $2 - 6$ GeV has
436: negligible effect on $\sigma_{12}$.
437:
438: Fig. \ref{fig2} shows $\sigma_{ij}$ versus $\tilde{b}_2$-mass at
439: $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV. Both
440: cross-sections are suppressed due to the $\beta^3$ kinematic factor
441: for scalar particle
442: production. However, asymmetry between sbottom masses causes
443: additional kinematic suppression of $\sigma_{12}$ as $\beta_{12}
444: \approx \beta^2_{22}$ for the same total rest mass of final products,
445: $m_{\tilde{b}_i} + m_{\tilde{b}_j}$. The missing photon
446: channel and smaller $\lambda$-factor,
447: $\lambda^2_{22}/\lambda^2_{12} \approx 1.8$,
448: reduces the cross-section further. Therefore
449: associated production is generally small and falls rapidly
450: as $\tilde{b}_2$ gets heavier.
451:
452: The LEPII operation covered a range
453: of center-of-mass energies from $130 - 209$ GeV with maximum data
454: collected at $\sqrt{s} = 189$ GeV and $205 - 207$ GeV.
455: Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the expected number of raw events. We use an approximate
456: luminosity distribution provided in \cite{lepewwg} counting
457: the combined integrated luminosity recorded by all four LEP experiments.
458: The number of events for associated production falls below $\sim 100$ for
459: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} > 147$ GeV at $|c_b| = 0.39$. It is therefore
460: possible that sufficient statistics might not be available to
461: explore sbottom masses above this value.
462:
463: \begin{figure}[t!]
464: \includegraphics{fig2.eps}
465: \caption{\small \label{fig2}
466: The $\tilde{b}_2$ production cross-section for $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV,
467: $|c_b| = 0.39$ as a function of mass.}
468: \end{figure}
469: \begin{figure}[b!]
470: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
471: \hline
472: {\it Number} & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\it Maximum} $\tilde{b}_2$ {\it mass (GeV)
473: }} \\
474: \cline{2-3}
475: {\it of} & {\it Associated} & {\it Pair} \\
476: {\it Events at LEPII} & {\it Production} & {\it Production} \\
477: \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}
478: 1000 & 59 & 71 \\
479: 100 & 147 & 94 \\
480: 10 & 177 & 101 \\
481: 1 & 192 & 103 \\
482: \hline
483: \end{tabular}
484: \caption{\small \label{fig3}
485: Expected number of raw LEPII events for the combined luminosity
486: recorded in the entire run. We show the $\tilde{b}_2$
487: masses beyond which event counts fall below rough benchmark levels.}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490: We now discuss the event topology in order to identify
491: important backgrounds. As shown in Section II the decay
492: $\tilde{b}_2 \rightarrow b\tilde{g}$ is dominant
493: which results in the states $\tilde{b}_1 \bar{b}\tilde{g} + h.c.$
494: and $b\bar{b}\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ for associated and pair processes
495: respectively. We decay the gluinos into $b\tilde{b}^*_1/\bar{b}
496: \tilde{b}_1$ pairs and show the opening angles between final
497: products for some representative $\tilde{b}_2$ masses in Fig. \ref{fig4}.
498: The $b$ quark and $\tilde{b}_1$ arising
499: from gluino decay overwhelmingly prefer a small angular
500: separation with a sharp peak at $\cos\theta \gtrsim 0.9$.
501: The other particles tend to be well-separated.
502:
503: Through $R$-parity and baryon-number violating couplings
504: $\lambda^{''}_{ij3}$, $\tilde{b}_1$ can decay into
505: pairs of light quarks: $\tilde{b}^*_1 \rightarrow u + s; c + d; c + s$.
506: A detailed discussion of such decays is
507: given in \cite{berger2}. In that case, the $\tilde{b}_1$ arising from
508: gluino decay would further decay hadronically in and around the cone of
509: the accompanying $b$ jet. In practise it would be
510: difficult to distinguish between the overlapping jets, unless a very fine
511: jet resolution is used. The gluino should then appear for the most part
512: as a single fused $b$-flavored jet with perhaps
513: some extra activity around the cone.
514:
515: The prompt $\tilde{b}_1$ from associated production is highly boosted
516: for most $\tilde{b}_2$ masses within range. This should result in a very
517: small angular separation between its decay products. If it decays into
518: pairs of light quarks, we calculate that at
519: $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{b}_1} = 4$ GeV
520: and $m_{\tilde{b}_2} \lesssim 170$ GeV,
521: at least $90\%$ of these would have
522: an opening angle $< 30^{o}$. At any rate a $\tilde{b}_2$ as heavy as
523: $170$ GeV is unlikely to be observable because of low event counts and
524: would be obscured by the large 3-jet SM background (Section IV).
525: Therefore in the observable range
526: $\tilde{b}_1$ should show up as a single hadronic jet.
527:
528: At leading order then, associated production is best described
529: as a 3-jet process, with 2 jets that can be tagged as $b$ quarks
530: and a hadronic jet from $\tilde{b}_1$. The relevant background for
531: this would be SM 3-jet events which we discuss in
532: Section IV.
533: \begin{figure}[t!]
534: \includegraphics{fig4.eps}
535: \caption{\small \label{fig4}
536: Opening angles between particle pairs in (a) pair production and
537: (b) associated production at $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV. Particles marked with
538: ``$dec$'' are gluino decay products. In (a) the $(b,\tilde{g})$ distribution
539: shown is for $b$ quarks and gluinos arising from the same $\tilde{b}_2$.
540: $(b,\tilde{g})$ arising from different $\tilde{b}_2$ and
541: $(\tilde{g},\tilde{g})$ have an identical distribution to that
542: shown for $(b,\bar{b})$. In (b), $(\tilde{b}^*_1,\tilde{g})$ is not
543: shown as it is the same as $(\tilde{b}^*_1,b)$.}
544: \end{figure}
545: On the other hand, pair production is naturally
546: a 4-jet process where each jet can be tagged as a $b$ quark. This
547: would have significant background from
548: {\it any other} heavy particles produced in pairs and decaying into
549: dijets of $b$ quarks. Searches for neutral Higgs bosons $h^0$ and $A^0$
550: that can satisfy this criteria have been done, and we discuss them
551: in Section V.
552:
553: %% BACKGROUNDS
554: \section{3-jet Background}
555:
556: The SM gluon radiation process: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow
557: q\bar{q}g$, $q = u,d,s,c,b$; constitutes the
558: main 3-jet background for associated production. In particular,
559: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow b\bar{b}g$ could be an irreducible background as gluon
560: jets and jets from light sbottoms might not be distinguishable on a
561: case-by-case basis.
562:
563: We compare this background with associated production
564: using the JADE jet-clustering algorithm
565: \cite{jade}:
566: \begin{eqnarray}
567: \min_{i \neq j}{(p_i + p_j)^2} & \geq & y_{cut}s
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: where $p_i$ are the momenta of the final state partons and $0 <
570: y_{cut} < 1$ is the jet resolution parameter.
571: As long as $y_{cut} > m^2_{\tilde{g}}/s \approx 3.4 - 5.9 \times 10^{-3}$ for
572: $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{g}} = 12 - 16$ GeV,
573: the hadronic decay products of $\tilde{g}$
574: and $\tilde{b}_1$ are clustered into single jets.
575: We evaluate matrix elements
576: at leading order and do not consider
577: contributions to the SM 3-jet cross-section from final states with more
578: than three partons. The renormalization scale is set at
579: $Q = \sqrt{s}/2$ with $\alpha_S (M_Z) = 0.118$.
580:
581: Fig. \ref{fig5} shows that $\sigma_{12}$ is a small fraction of the
582: total SM 3-jet cross-section, though it increases in proportion
583: as $y_{cut}$ increases and the jets are required to be well-separated.
584: It is unlikely to be visible as a generic excess in 3-jet production
585: given that measurements of hadronic cross-sections at LEPII have errors of
586: at least $\pm 0.2$ pb \cite{lepewwg}. However, if at least one jet is
587: $b$-tagged and $\sigma(e^+ e^- \rightarrow b\bar{b}g)$ is measured
588: very accurately, then for $\tilde{b}_2$ lighter than $\sim 140$ GeV
589: an excess might be observable at higher $y_{cut}$ values.
590: \begin{figure}[b!]
591: \includegraphics{fig5.eps}
592: \caption{\small \label{fig5}
593: Associated production (dashed lines)
594: compared to SM 3-jet cross-sections versus $y_{cut}$ at
595: $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV.}
596: \end{figure}
597:
598: If two jets out of three are required to have $b$ tags
599: then their total invariant mass can also be studied as in Fig. \ref{fig6}.
600: The total invariant mass of the $b/\bar{b}$ quark and
601: gluino (which appears as a
602: $b$-like jet) gives rise to a clear resonance around
603: $m_{\tilde{b}_2}$. This would allow direct observation of a $\tilde{b}_2$,
604: and should be the preferred method of study.
605: \begin{figure}[t!]
606: \includegraphics{fig6.eps}
607: \caption{\small \label{fig6}
608: The invariant mass of two $b$ tagged jets can be
609: reconstructed to observe excesses. Dashed lines show
610: associated production and the solid line $b\bar{b}g$ for
611: $\log_{10} y_{cut} = -1.2$. Tagging efficiencies for $b$ quarks are
612: not applied here. Events
613: are shown for the total integrated luminosity
614: recorded by the four LEP collaborations at $\sqrt{s} \geq 183$ GeV.}
615: \end{figure}
616:
617: The differential cross-section for $b\bar{b}g$ events increases with the
618: invariant mass, $m_{b\bar{b}}$, while the resonance in
619: $\sigma_{12}$ rapidly gets smaller as $\tilde{b}_2$ gets heavier.
620: This is natural as gluon radiation from quark pairs is higher for
621: softer gluons, which in turn implies a higher total invariant mass
622: for the $b\bar{b}$ pair. To estimate the discovery region we calculate
623: both signal ($S$) and background ($B$) events in the mass
624: window $M_{bb} = m_{\tilde{b}_2} \pm \Delta M$ where $M_{bb}$ is the invariant
625: mass of the $b$ tagged jets and $\Delta M = \Gamma_{\tilde{b}_2}$. The
626: $b$ tagging efficiency $\epsilon_b$ is taken to be $65\%$,
627: from $R_b$ studies at LEPII \cite{Rb}.
628: Mistag probabilities are assumed to be small and
629: not included in the analysis. We also use $\log_{10} y_{cut} = -1.2$
630: which is found to maximize the significance $S/\sqrt{B}$. The $N\sigma$
631: discovery region is defined as
632: \begin{eqnarray}
633: \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}} & \geq & N
634: \end{eqnarray}
635: Calculating events using the entire integrated luminosity recorded for
636: $\sqrt{s} \geq 183$ GeV, we find that for $|c_b| = 0.39$,
637: $\tilde{b}_2$ masses upto $123$ ($136$) GeV can be
638: discovered at the $5\sigma$ ($3\sigma$) level. For $|c_b| = 0.30 - 0.45$, the
639: upper limits for discovery are
640: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} = 110 - 129$ GeV ($5\sigma$) and
641: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} = 125 - 140$ GeV ($3\sigma$). Since $S$ and $B$ are
642: $\propto \epsilon^2_b$, the significance is $\propto \epsilon_b$ and
643: better $b$ tagging efficiencies can improve the upper limits.
644: However we have not included effects of
645: Gaussian smearing of pair invariant mass measurements, which might
646: reduce the significance.
647:
648: We note that the associated process also receives an irreducible
649: SUSY background as the $\tilde{b}^*_1 b\tilde{g} + h.c.$
650: final state is possible even if the heavy sbottom is absent. This has
651: been studied in the context of $Z$ decay \cite{cheung1}.
652: However, its kinematics are very different from
653: the same state produced by $\tilde{b}_2$ decay, and it should
654: have little effect on the overall background. In Fig. 6 it
655: would appear as an approximately uniform
656: distribution of $\sim 5$ events $/ 5$ GeV,
657: which is insignificant compared to the $b\bar{b}g$ background.
658:
659: %%Searches for e+ e- -> h0 A0
660: \section{Searches for $e^+ e^- \rightarrow h^0 A^0$}
661:
662: At leading order $e^+ e^- \rightarrow h^0 A^0$ proceeds only through the
663: virtual $Z$ channel. The relevant coupling is
664: \begin{eqnarray}
665: Z h^0 A^0 & \propto & g_w \cos(\beta-\alpha)
666: \end{eqnarray}
667: where
668: $\alpha$ is the mixing angle between neutral $CP$-even
669: Higgs bosons. This is comparable to the heavy sbottom coupling
670: $Z\tilde{b}_2\tilde{b}_2 \propto g_w(\sin^2 \theta_b -
671: \frac{2}{3}\sin^2\theta_W)$ in Eqn. \ref{eqn5}. However production of
672: $\tilde{b}_2\tilde{b}^*_2$ pairs is somewhat higher as it also
673: takes place through the $\gamma^*$ channel and receives an extra factor
674: of $3$ from summing over final-state colors.
675:
676: Being scalars, both pairs of particles are produced with the same
677: angular distribution. Searches for $h^0 A^0$ production \cite{higgssearch}
678: have been done
679: along the diagonal $m_{h^0} = m_{A^0}$, which makes them
680: kinematically identical to $\tilde{b}_2$ pair production. The final
681: states searched for are
682: $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$, $b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-$ or $\tau^+\tau^-\tau^+\tau^-$ as
683: $h^0/A^0$ decay mainly into $b$ or $\tau$ pairs in the parameter
684: space where they are approximately equimassive.
685: Therefore, the 4$b$ channel can be used to place limits on
686: $\tilde{b}_2$ pair production as the latter leads to 4
687: $b$ flavored jets in the final state.
688:
689: Cross-sections for the two processes are compared in Fig. \ref{fig7}.
690: The $h^0 A^0$ cross-section is called $\sigma_{hA}$.
691: We simply maximize this by setting $\cos (\beta-\alpha) = 1$
692: and Br$(h^0/A^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}) = 1$. The parameters used in
693: the experimental study were similar or lesser. We find that
694: $\sigma_{22}$ is $1.8 -2.3$ times higher than Higgs
695: production for $|c_b| = 0.45 - 0.3$. If the more typical
696: branching ratios
697: $Br(h^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}) = 0.94$ and
698: $Br(A^0 \rightarrow b\bar{b}) = 0.92$ are used then $\sigma_{22}$ is
699: effectively 2.1 to 2.6 times higher. However that could be offset
700: if $\tilde{b}_2$ has a branching ratio into $b\tilde{g}$
701: near its lower limit of around $0.9$ in this mass range
702: (see Fig. \ref{fig1}).
703:
704: Experimental searches for $h^0 A^0$ have used approximately $870$ pb$^{-1}$
705: of combined integrated luminosity, with center-of-mass energies between
706: $200$ and $209$ GeV. Only OPAL has seen a significant excess
707: in the 4$b$-jet channel,
708: which is at the $2\sigma$ level at $(m_{h^0},m_{A^0}) \sim (93,93)$ GeV.
709: This does not appear in other experiments, though it cannot be ruled out
710: statistically. No excess in this channel
711: seems to have been observed by any experiment below $\sim 90$ GeV which is
712: approximately the quoted lower limit at $95\%$ confidence for Higgs masses.
713: Since the pair cross-section is
714: higher than that for $h^0 A^0$, this should simultaneously rule out
715: heavy sbottoms lighter than $90$ GeV in the LSLG scenario.
716: \begin{figure}[t!]
717: \includegraphics{fig7.eps}
718: \caption{\small \label{fig7}
719: Comparison between $\sigma_{hA}$ and $\sigma_{22}$ at
720: $\sqrt{s} = 207$ GeV, versus $m = m_{h^0} = m_{A^0} = m_{\tilde{b}_2}$.
721: Upper and lower limiting curves for $\sigma_{22}$ are
722: obtained for $|c_b| = 0.30$, $0.45$ respectively.}
723: \end{figure}
724:
725: There are some qualifications to this analysis. First,
726: $\tilde{b}_2$ has a much larger width in absolute terms than $h^0$ or $A^0$,
727: and that seems to have been a significant factor in the $h^0 A^0$ searches
728: at LEP. However, since $\sigma_{22}$ is larger,
729: it is likely that any excess would have been observed and the
730: $90$ GeV lower limit is
731: approximately correct. Secondly, if very low
732: values of $y_{cut}$ (below $m^2_{\tilde{g}}/s$) were used in the LEP searches,
733: then the above analysis might not hold.
734:
735: %% CONCLUSIONS
736: \section{Conclusions}
737: We have shown that the heavy sbottom eigenstate decays dominantly into
738: $b\tilde{g}$ pairs in the light sbottom and light gluino
739: scenario. Pair and associated production of
740: $\tilde{b}_2$ at LEPII have been studied and found to be
741: naturally described as 4-jet and 3-jet processes respectively.
742: Their cross-sections and raw event rates have been calculated and associated
743: production is found to be small and obscured by the large SM 3-jet
744: background for large values of $\tilde{b}_2$ mass. However,
745: we find that $5\sigma$ discovery of a $\tilde{b}_2$ is possible
746: using 3-jet data provided $m_{\tilde{b}_2} \leq 110 - 129$ GeV,
747: for $|c_b| = 0.30 - 0.45$. The corresponding $3\sigma$ limits are
748: $m_{\tilde{b}_2} \leq 125 - 140$ GeV. We recommend a search
749: as far as possible. While invariant masses reconstructed from
750: $b$-tagged jet pairs might be the most direct
751: way to do this, single $b$-tagged events can also be useful
752: if the cross-sections are measurable to a high accuracy.
753:
754: We also find that $\tilde{b}_2$ pair production is similar to
755: production of neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ pairs, which
756: have been extensively searched for by the four LEP collaborations.
757: Minor excesses, though
758: inconclusive, seen in the $4b$ jet channel for
759: masses $\sim 93$ GeV provide further motivation for a
760: detailed study of 3-jet events. We show that $\tilde{b}_2$ should
761: be heavier than about $90$ GeV as no excess has been reported below this value.
762:
763: %% ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
764: \section{Acknowledgements}
765:
766: I would like to thank Prof. D. A. Dicus for useful discussions and help
767: given throughout the course of this work. This work was supported in part
768: by the United States Department of Energy under
769: Contract No. DE-FG03-93ER40757.
770:
771: {\it Note:} A paper by E.L. Berger, J. Lee and T.M.P. Tait
772: (hep-ph/0306110) that also covers associated production in this scenario,
773: using the jet cone algorithm, appeared independently on the internet a
774: few days before this one.
775:
776: \begin{thebibliography}{1}
777: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
778: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
779: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
780: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
781: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
782: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
783: \expandafter\ifx\csname
784: urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
785: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
786: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
787:
788: \bibitem{haber}
789: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~E.}~\bibnamefont{Haber}} and
790: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~L.}~\bibnamefont{Kane}},
791: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rept.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{117}},
792: \bibinfo{pages}{75} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).
793:
794: \bibitem{lightsb}
795: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Carena}},
796: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Heinemeyer}},
797: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~E.}~\bibnamefont{Wagner}} and
798: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Weiglein}},
799: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},
800: \bibinfo{pages}{4463} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0008023}.
801:
802: \bibitem{berger1}
803: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.}~\bibnamefont{Berger}},
804: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~W.}~\bibnamefont{Harris}},
805: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.}~\bibnamefont{Kaplan}},
806: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Sullivan}},
807: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~M.}~\bibnamefont{Tait}} and
808: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~E.}~\bibnamefont{Wagner}}
809: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},
810: \bibinfo{pages}{4231} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0012001}.
811:
812: \bibitem{excessb}
813: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{CDF}~\bibnamefont{Collaboration}},
814: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Abe {\it et al}}},
815: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}},
816: \bibinfo{pages}{500} (\bibinfo{year}{1993});
817: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{79}},\bibinfo{pages}{572} (\bibinfo{year}{1997});
818: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},\bibinfo{pages}{1451} (\bibinfo{year}{1995});
819: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D0}~\bibnamefont{Collaboration}},
820: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Abbott {\it et al}}},
821: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{487}},
822: \bibinfo{pages}{264} (\bibinfo{year}{2000});
823: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D0}~\bibnamefont{Collaboration}},
824: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Abbott {\it et al}}},
825: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},
826: \bibinfo{pages}{5068} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
827:
828: \bibitem{cacciari}
829: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Cacciari}} and
830: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Nason}},
831: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},
832: \bibinfo{pages}{122003} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ph/0204025}.
833:
834: \bibitem{chyla}
835: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Chyla}}
836: \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{03}},
837: \bibinfo{pages}{042} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0303179}.
838:
839: \bibitem{dreiner}
840: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Dedes}} and
841: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~K.}~\bibnamefont{Dreiner}}
842: \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{06}},
843: \bibinfo{pages}{006} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0009001}.
844:
845: \bibitem{janot}
846: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Janot}}
847: \eprint{hep-ph/0302076}.
848:
849: \bibitem{stablesb}
850: \bibinfo{collaboration}{ALEPH},
851: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Heister}} {\it et al.},
852: \eprint{hep-ex/0305071}.
853:
854: \bibitem{berger2}
855: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~L.}~\bibnamefont{Berger}},
856: \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{A18}},
857: \bibinfo{pages}{1263} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),
858: \eprint{hep-ph/0201229}.
859:
860: \bibitem{alpha_s}
861: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{C.-W.}~\bibnamefont{Chiang}},
862: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Luo}} and
863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{J.L.}~\bibnamefont{Rosner}},
864: \eprint{hep-ph/0207235}.
865:
866: \bibitem{rahul}
867: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Malhotra}} and
868: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{D.~A.}~\bibnamefont{Dicus}},
869: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}},
870: \bibinfo{pages}{097703} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0301070}.
871:
872: \bibitem{cheung1}
873: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Cheung}} and
874: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{W.-Y.}~\bibnamefont{Keung}},
875: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D67}},
876: \bibinfo{pages}{015005},
877: \eprint{hep-ph/0207219}.
878:
879: \bibitem{luo}
880: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Luo}},
881: \eprint{hep-ph/0301051}.
882:
883: \bibitem{cheung2}
884: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Cheung}} and
885: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{W.-Y.}~\bibnamefont{Keung}},
886: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},
887: \bibinfo{pages}{221801} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
888:
889: \bibitem{cao}
890: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Cao}},
891: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Xiong}} and
892: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Yang}},
893: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{88}},
894: \bibinfo{pages}{111802} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
895:
896: \bibitem{cho}
897: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.-C.}~\bibnamefont{{Cho}}},
898: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},
899: \bibinfo{pages}{091801} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{hep-ph/0204348}.
900:
901: \bibitem{luo2}
902: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Luo}} and
903: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L}~\bibnamefont{Rosner}},
904: \eprint{hep-ph/0306022}.
905:
906: \bibitem{baek}
907: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Baek}}},
908: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett. B}
909: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{541}}, \bibinfo{pages}{161} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),
910: \eprint{hep-ph/0205013}.
911:
912: \bibitem{porod}
913: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Bartl}},
914: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Majerotto}} and
915: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Porod}},
916: \bibinfo{journal}{Z. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C64}},
917: \bibinfo{pages}{499} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).
918:
919: \bibitem{PDG}
920: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Hagiwara}} {\it et al}
921: [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
922: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}},
923: \bibinfo{pages}{010001} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
924:
925: \bibitem{rosiek}
926: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Rosiek}},
927: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}},
928: \bibinfo{pages}{3464} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}); \eprint{hep-ph/9511250}.
929:
930: \bibitem{sbsearch}
931: \bibinfo{collaboration}{LEP SUSY Working Group},
932: Note LEPSUSYWG/02-02.1.
933:
934: \bibitem{smhiggs}
935: \bibinfo{collaboration}{ALEPH},
936: \bibinfo{collaboration}{DELPHI},
937: \bibinfo{collaboration}{L3} and
938: \bibinfo{collaboration}{OPAL Collaborations},
939: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B565}},
940: \bibinfo{pages}{61} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}); \eprint{hep-ex/0306033}.
941:
942: \bibitem{primer}
943: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~P.}~\bibnamefont{Martin}},
944: \eprint{hep-ph/9709356}.
945:
946: \bibitem{higgssearch}
947: \bibinfo{collaboration}{LEP Higgs Working Group},
948: \eprint{hep-ex/0107030}.
949:
950: \bibitem{lepewwg}
951: \bibinfo{collaboration}{LEP Electroweak Working Group},
952: Report No. LEPEWWG/2003-01.
953:
954: \bibitem{jade}
955: \bibinfo{collaboration}{JADE Collaboration},
956: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Bethke}} {\it et al.},
957: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B213}},
958: \bibinfo{pages}{235} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).
959:
960: \bibitem{Rb}
961: \bibinfo{collaboration}{ALEPH Collaboration},
962: \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C12}},
963: \bibinfo{pages}{183} (\bibinfo{year}{2000});
964: \bibinfo{collaboration}{ALEPH}, 99-018 CONF 99-013, March 1999;
965: \bibinfo{collaboration}{DELPHI}, 2000-038 CONF 356, March 2000;
966: \bibinfo{collaboration}{L3 Collaboration},
967: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B485}},
968: \bibinfo{pages}{71} (\bibinfo{year}{2000});
969: \bibinfo{collaboration}{OPAL Collaboration},
970: \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C16}},
971: \bibinfo{pages}{41} (\bibinfo{year}{2000});
972: \bibinfo{collaboration}{DELPHI Collaboration},
973: \bibinfo{journal}{Eur. Phys. J.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{C11}},
974: \bibinfo{pages}{383} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
975:
976: \end{thebibliography}
977:
978: \end{document}