1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: % \documentstyle[12pt,preprint,aps,floats,epsf,graphicx]{revtex}
4: \setlength{\parindent}{2em}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.4cm}
6: %\setlength{\textheight}{22.0cm}
7: \setlength{\textheight}{22.4cm}
8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.23cm}
9: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.23cm}
10: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.72cm}
11: %\setlength{\topmargin}{-2.0cm}
12: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
13: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}
14: %
15: \pagestyle{plain}
16:
17: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
18: %\tighten
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
20:
21: \def\ltap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\ }
22: \def\gtap{\ \raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}\ }
23: %\def\ms{\ifmmode{\overline{\rm MS}} \else{$\overline{\rm MS}$} \fi}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \noindent
28: \begin{minipage}[t]{6in}
29: \begin{flushright}
30: TU-707 \\
31: hep-ph/0312228
32: \end{flushright}
33: %\begin{center}
34: %\end{center}
35: \end{minipage}
36:
37: \vspace{3mm}
38:
39: \begin{center}
40:
41: {\Large \bf
42: Large $\tan\beta$ SUSY QCD corrections to $B \to X_s \gamma$
43: \footnote{
44: Talk at the 2nd International Conference
45: on Flavor Physics (ICFP2003), KIAS, Seoul, Korea,
46: Oct. 6-11, 2003}
47: } \\
48: %
49: \vspace{10mm}
50: {\large
51: Youichi Yamada} \\
52: \vspace{6mm}
53: \begin{tabular}{c}
54: {\it Department of Physics, Tohoku University,
55: Sendai 980-8578, Japan}
56: \end{tabular}
57: \vspace{5mm}
58: \begin{abstract}
59: \baselineskip=15pt
60: The charged-Higgs boson contributions to the Wilson
61: coefficients $C_7$ and $C_8$, relevant for the decay
62: $B\to X_s \gamma$, are discussed in supersymmetric models
63: at large $\tan \beta$. These contributions receive
64: two-loop ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\!\beta)$ corrections by squark-gluino
65: subloops, which are possibly large and nondecoupling
66: in the limit of heavy superpartners. In previous studies,
67: the relevant two-loop Feynman integrals were approximated by
68: using an effective two-Higgs-doublet lagrangian. However,
69: this approximation is theoretically justified only
70: when the typical supersymmetric scale $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is
71: sufficiently larger than the electroweak scale
72: $m_{\rm weak}\sim(m_W,m_t)$ and the mass of the charged-Higgs
73: boson $m_{H^\pm}$.
74: Here we evaluate these two-loop integrals exactly and compare the
75: results with the existing, approximated ones. We then examine the
76: validity of this approximation beyond the region where it has been
77: derived, i.e. for $m_H \gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$ and/or
78: $M_{\rm SUSY}\sim m_{\rm weak}$.
79: \end{abstract}
80: \end{center}
81: %\setlength{\parskip}{1.01ex}
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84: %
85: The inclusive width of the radiative decays of the $B$ mesons,
86: $B\to X_s \gamma$, is well described by the short-distant
87: processes $b\to s\gamma$ and $b \to sg$, since nonperturbative
88: hadronic corrections are small and well under control. The partonic
89: processes have been evaluated within the Standard Model (SM)
90: up to the next-to-leading order in QCD~\cite{NLOSM} and
91: partially beyond~\cite{NNLOproject}.
92: Because in the SM the processes $b\to s\gamma$ and $b \to s g$
93: occur through loops with $W^{\pm}$ and top quark,
94: possible new physics beyond the SM may contribute at
95: the same level in perturbation.
96: The rather good agreement between the SM prediction
97: and recent experimental results~\cite{EXPERIMENTS}
98: for the branching ratio ${\rm BR}(B\rightarrow X_s \gamma)$,
99: therefore, allows already to constrain some extensions of the SM.
100:
101: In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM),
102: new loop contributions to the decays $b\to s \gamma$ and $b \to s g$
103: come~\cite{BSGinSUSYproposal,BSGcontributions} from the
104: charged-Higgs boson $H^\pm$,
105: charginos, gluino and neutralino. Their contributions are often
106: comparable to or even larger than the SM one.
107: For generic models, these new contributions have been
108: calculated~\cite{LO-generalSUSY} at the
109: leading-order precision in QCD. Higher-order QCD and SUSY QCD corrections
110: to these contributions
111: have been evaluated~\cite{NLO-SUSY1,NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} for
112: specific scenarios. One important finding is that the gluino may induce
113: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}
114: to these beyond-SM contributions.
115: For models with very large $\tan\beta$, the ratio of
116: two Higgs VEVs, these corrections can be comparable to the leading-order
117: contributions and significantly affect the
118: constraints~\cite{bsglargeTB} on the charged-Higgs boson and
119: SUSY particles from the experiments.
120:
121: Here we focus on the contribution of the charged-Higgs
122: boson $H^\pm$ in large-$\tan\beta$ scenarios and
123: analyze the two-loop ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections.
124: In previous
125: studies~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}, squarks and gluino are assumed
126: to be sufficiently heavier than the electroweak scale and
127: charged-Higgs boson.
128: Under this restriction, the dominant part of these corrections
129: has been evaluated by using an effective two-Higgs-doublet (2HD)
130: lagrangian where squarks and gluino are integrated out.
131: This approach gives rather compact and simple approximated formulas
132: for the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections. However, the validity
133: of this approximation is not theoretically justified beyond the parameter
134: range treated in Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}, i.e.
135: for $m_{H^\pm}\gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$ and/or $M_{\rm SUSY}\sim m_{\rm weak}$.
136: It is important to examine, in such cases, how far the
137: approximation in Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} may deviate from
138: the result of the exact two-loop Feynman integrals.
139:
140: In this talk, we report on the calculation of the charged-Higgs boson
141: contribution to the Wilson coefficients $C_7$ and $C_8$,
142: related to the processes $b \to s \gamma$ and $b\to s g$,
143: to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \!\beta)$, by exact
144: evaluation of the relevant two-loop diagrams.
145: We first present the origin of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \!\beta)$
146: corrections to the $H^\pm$ contributions and list all necessary diagrams.
147: We next review the approximation in Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b},
148: here called the nondecoupling approximation.
149: Finally we make a numerical comparison of the exact result and
150: the nondecoupling approximation of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \beta)$
151: results for the $H^\pm$ contributions to $C_7(\mu_W)$ and $C_8(\mu_W)$,
152: and discuss the validity of the approximation.
153: A more complete discussion is presented in Refs.~\cite{BGY,fullpaper}.
154:
155: \section{${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\!\beta)$ corrections to the
156: $H^\pm$ contribution}
157: \label{diagrams}
158:
159: In the MSSM with large $\tan\beta$, the dominant part
160: of the one-loop $H^{\pm}$ contributions to the
161: $b\to s \gamma$ and $b \to s g$ decays comes from the
162: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CH-0}, where the
163: photon or gluon is to be attached to the $t$ or the $H^\pm$ lines.
164: The enhancing factor $\tan\beta$ at the $\bar{t}_Lb_RH^+$ vertex is
165: cancelled by the suppressing factor $\cot\beta$ at the $\bar{s}_Lt_RH^-$
166: vertex.
167: %
168: \begin{figure}[h]
169: \vspace{0.3truecm}
170: \begin{center}
171: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CH0.eps}
172: %\hspace{5mm}
173: %\includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CH1.eps}
174: \end{center}
175: \caption[f1]{\small
176: $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to sg$ by the one-loop charged-Higgs boson exchange.
177: The photon or gluon is to be attached at the $t$ or $H^-$
178: lines.}
179: \label{CH-0}
180: \end{figure}
181:
182: It has been shown \cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} that
183: these $H^\pm$ contributions receive
184: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\!\beta)$ corrections from the squark-gluino
185: subloops, which are potentially large for large $\tan\beta$.
186: These corrections may arise from
187: %
188: \begin{enumerate}
189: \item
190: counterterm for the $H^+\bar{t}_Lb_R$ coupling~\cite{dmb,carenaH0,carenaHp},
191: coming from the mass corrections $\delta m_b$;
192: \item
193: proper vertex corrections to the
194: $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_R$ coupling~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b};
195: \item
196: effective four-point couplings
197: $H^-\bar{s}t\gamma$ and $H^-\bar{s}tg$,
198: as well as the $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_L$ coupling,
199: generated by squark-gluino subloops.
200: \end{enumerate}
201: The two-loop diagrams relevant to the corrections of type 2 and 3,
202: listed above, are shown in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}, where
203: the photon must be replaced by a gluon, and vice versa,
204: whenever possible.
205: Note that, while the one-loop diagram in Fig.~\ref{CH-0} has an
206: chirality flip in the internal top quark line, the
207: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops} can have such a chirality flip also
208: on the $\tilde{t}$-squark line, giving rise to the
209: effective $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_L$ coupling mentioned above.
210: Both eigenstates of
211: the $\tilde{t}$-squark, $\tilde{t}_1$ and $\tilde{t}_2$,
212: but only one $\tilde{s}$-squark eigenstate, the left-handed one,
213: contribute in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}.
214: \begin{figure}[t]
215: %\vspace{0.3truecm}
216: \begin{center}
217: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CHphtop.eps}
218: \hspace{5mm}
219: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CHphH.eps}
220: \end{center}
221: \vspace{-0.1truecm}
222: \label{CH-phHtop}
223: %\end{figure}
224: %
225: %\begin{figure}[ht]
226: %\vspace{0.3truecm}
227: \begin{center}
228: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CHphst.eps}
229: \hspace{5mm}
230: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CHphss.eps}
231: \end{center}
232: \vspace{-0.2truecm}
233: %\label{CH-phstss}
234: %\end{figure}
235: %
236: %\begin{figure}[ht]
237: %\vspace{0.3truecm}
238: \begin{center}
239: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CHglgl.eps}
240: \end{center}
241: \vspace{-0.2truecm}
242: \caption[f1]{\small $H^\pm$ mediated diagrams contributing
243: at order ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \beta)$ to the decays
244: $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to s g$. The photon must be replaced by a
245: gluon and vice versa, whenever possible.}
246: \label{CHexch2loops}
247: \end{figure}
248: %
249:
250: We calculate the $H^{\pm}$ contributions to the Wilson
251: coefficients $C_7$ and $C_8$ at the electroweak scale $\mu_W=m_W$,
252: including the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections.
253: Our normalization of $C_7(\mu_W)$ and $C_8(\mu_W)$
254: is the conventional one, as
255: follows from the definition of the effective Hamiltonian,
256: %
257: \begin{equation}
258: H_{\rm eff} \supset
259: -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V^*_{ts}V_{tb}
260: \left( C_7(\mu) {\cal O}_7(\mu) + C_8(\mu) {\cal O}_8(\mu)
261: \right) \,.
262: \end{equation}
263: %
264: and of the operators ${\cal O}_7$ and ${\cal O}_8$,
265: %
266: \begin{equation}
267: {\cal O}_7(\mu) =
268: \frac{e}{16\pi^2} m_b(\mu)\bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu} b_R F_{\mu\nu}\,,
269: \hspace{0.8truecm}
270: {\cal O}_8(\mu) =
271: \frac{g_s}{16\pi^2}m_b(\mu)\bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu}T^a b_RG^a_{\mu\nu}\,,
272: \label{O7and8}
273: \end{equation}
274: %
275: where $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $G^a_{\mu\nu}$ are
276: the field strengths of the photon and the gluon, respectively.
277:
278: We denote by
279: $ C_{7,H}(\mu_W)$ and $ C_{8,H}(\mu_W)$ the $\tan \beta$-unsuppressed
280: $H^\pm$ contribution to $C_7(\mu_W)$ and $C_8(\mu_W)$, respectively.
281: They are decomposed as
282: %
283: \begin{equation}
284: C_{i,H}(\mu_W) = \frac{1}{1+\Delta_{b_R,b} \tan\beta}
285: \left[ C_{i,H}^0(\mu_W) + \Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W) \right] \,,
286: \label{defWC}
287: \end{equation}
288: %
289: where $C_{i,H}^0(\mu_W)$ and $\Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W)$
290: are the contributions of the one-loop diagram in Fig.~\ref{CH-0}
291: and the two-loop diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}, respectively.
292: The overall factor $1/(1+\Delta_{b_R,b} \tan\beta)$ represents
293: the correction to the $H^+\bar{t}_L b_R$ Yukawa coupling
294: coming from the correction to $m_b$~\cite{dmb,carenaH0}.
295: The one-loop function $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ is given in Ref.~\cite{fullpaper}
296: and of the order of
297: $\alpha_s\mu m_{\tilde{g}}/M_{\rm SUSY}^2\sim \alpha_s M_{\rm SUSY}^0$.
298: In the large $M_{\rm SUSY}$ limit,
299: the contributions from $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ and the vertex corrections
300: to the $H^-\bar{s}_L t_R$ coupling are nondecoupling,
301: while all other contributions of
302: Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops} are decoupling.
303:
304: We calculate all contributions of the two-loop
305: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops} by exact evaluation of
306: the loop integrals, making use of
307: results and techniques in Ref.~\cite{GvdB}.
308: The explicit forms of the Feynman integrals for these
309: diagrams are listed in Ref.~\cite{fullpaper}.
310:
311:
312: \section{Nondecoupling approximation vs. exact calculation}
313: \label{EFLvsHME}
314: %
315: In Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}, the calculations of the
316: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$ corrections were performed under the
317: assumption that all squarks and gluino, around $M_{\rm SUSY}$,
318: are sufficiently heavier than the top quark and the $W$ boson,
319: whereas $m_{H^\pm}$ is around the electroweak scale
320: $m_{\rm weak}\sim m_W, m_t$. The squark-gluino subloop
321: corrections to the $H^\pm$ contributions were described
322: in terms of an effective 2HD lagrangian,
323: in which squarks and gluino are integrated out.
324: In the following we call the approximation in
325: Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} the
326: nondecoupling approximation, since it collects all
327: nondecoupling parts of the
328: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$ corrections.
329: Strictly speaking, however, it includes parts of
330: the formally decoupling ${\cal O}(m_{\rm weak}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$
331: contributions through the masses and couplings of squarks~\cite{OTHERPAPS}.
332: For the contribution from $\delta m_b$, the use of the effective
333: 2HD lagrangian allows us to resum higher-order
334: ${\cal O}((\alpha_s \tan\beta)^n)$ terms~\cite{carenaHp} in
335: Eq.~(\ref{defWC}), by putting $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ in the denominator.
336:
337: For $\Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W)$ coming from the
338: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}, the nondecoupling
339: approximation is obtained by retaining only the diagrams a) and b),
340: with chirality flip on the $t$-quark line only, and evaluating the
341: squark-gluino subloops at vanishing external momenta.
342: By this approximation, the original two-loop Feynman integrals
343: for the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$ corrections are
344: factorized into two one-loop diagrams, taking rather compact forms.
345:
346: We show one example to illustrate the difference
347: between the nondecoupling approximation and the exact calculation.
348: The contribution of the diagram Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a),
349: with chirality flip on the $t$-quark line, is proportional to the integral
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: I_{ti2}
352: & = &
353: \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
354: \int\frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \
355: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
356: \frac{1}{\left[ k^2 -m_t^2 \right]^2
357: \left[ k^2 -m_{H^\pm}^2 \right]
358: \left[ (l+k)^2-m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2\right]
359: \left[ l^2 -m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
360: \left[ l^2 -m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right]}
361: \nonumber\\ &&
362: \times
363: \left\{ \frac{l\cdot k}{l^2 -m_{\tilde{g}}^2}
364: -\frac{2k^2}{k^2 -m_t^2} \right\}\, .
365: \label{intt2}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: %
368: The loop momenta $k$ and $l$ represent the momenta of $(t, H^{\pm})$ and
369: SUSY particles, respectively.
370: In the nondecoupling approximation, the $k$-dependence of the
371: $\tilde{t}_i$ line is neglected, i.e. $(l+k)^2-m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2$ is
372: replaced by $l^2-m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2$.
373: The term proportional to $l\cdot k$ is then dropped and
374: the integral is factorized into two one-loop integrals as
375: \begin{equation}
376: I_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec}
377: =
378: \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
379: \int\frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \
380: \frac{-2k^2}{\left[ k^2 -m_t^2 \right]^3
381: \left[ k^2 -m_{H^\pm}^2 \right] }
382: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
383: \frac{1}{
384: \left[ l^2-m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2\right]
385: \left[ l^2 -m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
386: \left[ l^2 -m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right]} \,.
387: \label{eq-ti2-nondec}
388: \end{equation}
389:
390: In the nondecoupling approximation,
391: ${\cal O}((m_{\rm weak}^2,m_{H^\pm}^2)/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ terms which may
392: come from the $k$-dependence of the squark-gluino subloops of
393: the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a,b), as well as the whole
394: contributions of the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}c-e),
395: are neglected.
396: The resulting deviation of this approximation from
397: the exact two-loop calculation is, therefore, expected to
398: become large when $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is not much
399: heavier than $m_{\rm weak}$ and/or $m_{H^\pm}$.
400:
401: Since the condition for the theoretical justification of the
402: nondecoupling approximation,
403: $m_{\rm weak}^2\sim m_{H^\pm}^2\ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2$, is
404: often violated in well-known scenarios for the SUSY breaking mechanism,
405: it is very important to study how far this approximation may be
406: applied beyond this restricted parameter region.
407: Clearly, a definite answer to this question will be given by
408: the exact calculation of all the two-loop
409: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}, without
410: any assumption on the relative size of $m_{H^\pm}$, $M_{\rm SUSY}$,
411: and $m_{\rm weak}$.
412:
413:
414: \section{Numerical results}
415: \label{WCoeff}
416: %
417:
418: We present numerical results for the $H^\pm$ contributions,
419: $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)(i=7,8)$ shown in Eq.~(\ref{defWC}),
420: at the scale $\mu_W=M_W$.
421: We make a comparison of the results
422: $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm exact}$ obtained from the exact
423: two-loop integrals with the nondecoupling approximation
424: $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm nondec}$.
425:
426: \begin{figure}[h]
427: %\begin{figure}[t]
428: %\begin{figure}[ht]
429: %\begin{figure}
430: \vspace{0.3truecm}
431: \begin{center}
432: \includegraphics[width= 7.8cm]{figr78h.eps}
433: \hspace{3mm}
434: \includegraphics[width= 7.8cm]{figr78l.eps}
435: \end{center}
436: \vspace{-0.5truecm}
437: \caption[f1]{\small Relative deviations $r_i(\mu_W)(i=7,8)$ of
438: the nondecoupling approximations of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$
439: Wilson coefficients $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)$ from the exact two-loop results,
440: as defined in the text,
441: for the spectrum I (left) and spectrum II (right).
442: }
443: \label{r78fig}
444: \end{figure}
445: %
446: %
447: In Fig.~\ref{r78fig}, we plot the ratios
448: %
449: \begin{equation}
450: r_i(\mu_W) \equiv
451: \displaystyle{
452: \frac{C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm nondec} -C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm exact}}
453: {C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm exact}} }
454: \hspace*{5truemm}
455: (i = 7,8)\,,
456: \label{plotratio}
457: \end{equation}
458: %
459: showing the relative deviation of the nondecoupling approximation from
460: the exact two-loop calculation, as functions of $m_{H^\pm}$.
461: The correction $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ in Eq.~(\ref{defWC}),
462: coming from the mass correction $\delta m_b$,
463: cancel out in the ratios $r_i$.
464:
465: Two sets of the parameters for squarks and gluino are used in
466: Fig.~\ref{r78fig}. For an example of a heavier SUSY
467: spectrum, called here spectrum~I, we have chosen
468: $(m_{\tilde{s}_L},m_{\tilde{t}_1},m_{\tilde{t}_2})=
469: (700,500,450)$ GeV, the left-right mixing angle of $\tilde{t}$-squarks
470: $\cos \theta_t = 0.8$, $m_{\tilde{g}}=600$ GeV, and $\mu=550$ GeV.
471: For a lighter SUSY spectrum, spectrum~II, we set
472: $(m_{\tilde{s}_L},m_{\tilde{t}_1},m_{\tilde{t}_2})=
473: (350,400,320)$ GeV, $\cos \theta_t = 0.8$,
474: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV, and $\mu=450$ GeV.
475: As for other input parameters, we have used
476: $\tan\!\beta=30$,
477: $m_t(\mu_W) = 176.5\,$GeV, which corresponds to a pole mass
478: $M_t=175\,$GeV, and $\alpha_s(\mu_W) =0.12 $.
479:
480:
481: For the spectrum I, the difference between
482: the exact calculation and the nondecoupling approximation is
483: very small in the whole range of $m_{H^{\pm}}$,
484: even for $m_{H^{\pm}}\gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$.
485: This is a surprising result since, as
486: discussed in Sect.~\ref{EFLvsHME},
487: the ${\cal O}(m_{H^\pm}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ deviation
488: was expected to be large in this region.
489: In the case of the spectrum~II, $r_{7,8}$ become larger.
490: The corrections beyond the nondecoupling approximation are of the
491: same order of the SU(2)$\times$U(1) breaking effects in the SUSY
492: particle subloops~\cite{OTHERPAPS} and are no longer negligible.
493: Nevertheless, $r_7$ and $r_8$
494: remain of the same order of magnitude for increasing
495: $m_{H^{\pm}}$, up to $m_{H^{\pm}}\gg M_{\rm SUSY}$.
496: In both cases, the main part of the difference between the
497: result of the nondecoupling approximation and the exact two-loop result
498: comes from the diagram in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a) and, for $C_{8,H}$,
499: also from the diagram in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}e).
500:
501:
502: To understand the results for $m_{H^\pm}\gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$
503: qualitatively, we again consider the diagram in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a),
504: with chirality flip on the top quark line. When
505: $m_{H^\pm}$ is sufficiently larger than $m_t$,
506: this diagram gives the largest contribution to $\Delta C_{7,H}^1(\mu_W)$ and
507: $\Delta C_{8,H}^1(\mu_W)$.
508: It is proportional to the integral $I_{ti2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{intt2}).
509: For the following discussion
510: we rewrite $I_{ti2}$ in the form
511: \begin{equation}
512: I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm}, m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}) =
513: \int\frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \
514: \frac{k^2}
515: {\left[k^2 -m_t^2\right]^3 \left[k^2 - m_{H^\pm}^2\right]}
516: \,
517: Y_{ti2}\left(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}
518: \right)\,.
519: \label{eq-Iint}
520: \end{equation}
521: %
522: $Y_{ti2}(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}})$
523: represents the form factor for the effective vertex $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_R$
524: generated by the squark-gluino loops and is given by:
525: %
526: \begin{equation}
527: Y_{ti2}(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}) =
528: \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
529: \left[-2 F + (k^2-m_t^2) G\right]
530: \left(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2\right) \,,
531: \label{eq-Ydef}
532: \end{equation}
533: %
534: with
535: %
536: \begin{eqnarray}
537: F(k^2; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2)
538: & = &
539: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
540: \frac{1}{ \left[ (l+k)^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2 \right]
541: \left[ l^2 -\!m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
542: \left[ l^2-m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right] } \,,
543: \label{eq-Fdef}
544: \\
545: k^{\mu}
546: G(k^2; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2)
547: & = &
548: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
549: \frac{l^{\mu}}{ \left[ (l+k)^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2 \right]
550: \left[ l^2 -\!m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
551: \left[ l^2-m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right]^2} \,.
552: \label{eq-Gdef}
553: \end{eqnarray}
554: %
555: The nondecoupling approximation of $I_{ti2}$, shown in
556: Eq.~(\ref{eq-ti2-nondec}), is obtained
557: by replacing $Y_{ti2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-Iint}) with
558: %
559: \begin{equation}
560: Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec} =
561: - 2 \mu m_{\tilde{g}} F (0; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,
562: m_{\tilde{g}}^2)\,,
563: \label{eq-Yapprox}
564: \end{equation}
565: which is an ${\cal O}(M_{\rm SUSY}^0)$ constant with respect to $k^2$.
566: To simplify our discussion,
567: we set hereafter ($m_{\tilde{t}_i}$, $m_{\tilde{s}}$, $m_{\tilde{g}}$, $\mu$)
568: equal to $M_{\rm SUSY}$.
569:
570: For $\vert k^2 \vert \ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2$, $F(k^2;M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$
571: and $G(k^2;M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ behave as
572: %
573: \begin{eqnarray}
574: F(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)
575: & = &
576: {\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{M_{\rm SUSY}^{2}}\right) +
577: {\cal O}\left(\frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^{4}}\right)\,,
578: \nonumber \\%[1.8ex]
579: G(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)
580: & = &
581: {\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{M_{\rm SUSY}^{4}}\right)\,.
582: \label{eq-FHzeroKlimit}
583: \end{eqnarray}
584:
585: For $\vert k^2 \vert \gg M_{\rm SUSY}^2$, it is:
586: %
587: \begin{eqnarray}
588: F(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)
589: & \to &
590: {\cal O}\left( \frac{1}{k^2} \ln \frac{k^2}{M^2_{\rm SUSY}} \right),
591: \nonumber \\
592: G(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^{2})
593: & \to &
594: {\cal O}\left( \frac{1}{k^4}\ln \frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2} \right) \,.
595: \end{eqnarray}
596: %
597: The behavior of $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ is therefore
598: %
599: \begin{equation}
600: Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2) \to
601: \left\{
602: \begin{array}{ll}
603: Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec} +
604: {\cal O}\left(
605: \displaystyle{\frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}},
606: \displaystyle{\frac{m_t^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}} \right)
607: &
608: (\vert k^2 \vert \ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2),
609: \\[1.8ex]
610: {\cal O}\left(\displaystyle{\frac{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}{k^2}
611: \ln \frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}} \right)
612: &
613: (\vert k^2 \vert \gg M_{\rm SUSY}^2)\,,
614: \end{array}
615: \right.
616: \label{eq-deviation}
617: \end{equation}
618: %
619: which supports the naive expectation that a substantial deviation
620: of $I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm},M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ from its nondecoupling
621: approximation $I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm},M_{\rm SUSY}^2)\vert_{\rm nondec}$ may
622: arise for $m_{H^\pm}\gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$.
623:
624: However, the factor multiplying $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^{2})$ in
625: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-Iint}) plays an important role, leading
626: to the fact that
627: this expectation does not hold in the case in which $M_{\rm SUSY}$
628: is not rather light.
629: Since for $\vert k^2\vert \gg m_{H^\pm}^2$ this factor drops as
630: $d^4k/k^6$, the integral~(\ref{eq-Iint}) gets its largest contribution
631: from the region $\vert k^2\vert \ltap m_{H^\pm}^2$. A closer
632: inspection actually shows that it is the region of small
633: $\vert k^2\vert$, up to $\vert k^2\vert = {\cal O}( m_t^2)$, which
634: determines the bulk of the value of this integral. If $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is
635: sufficiently larger than $m_t$,
636: $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ does not
637: deviate substantially from $Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec}$ in this region.
638: This explains the smallness of the deviation for
639: $m_{H^\pm}\gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{r78fig}.
640:
641: \section{Conclusion}
642: \label{conclu}
643: %
644: We have studied the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \beta)$
645: corrections to the $H^{\pm}$ contributions to the Wilson
646: coefficients relevant for the decay $B\to X_s \gamma $, in the
647: MSSM with large $\tan\beta$. These corrections are
648: generated by the shift of the $b$-quark mass in the Higgs-quark
649: couplings and by the dressing of the one-loop $H^\pm$ diagrams
650: with squark-gluino subloops, as shown in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}.
651:
652: In this talk, we have focused on the latter class of corrections.
653: In previous studies~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}, the contributions
654: from these two-loop diagrams were calculated in an approximated
655: way, by using an effective 2HD lagrangian formalism in which squarks and
656: gluino are integrated out. This method, here called the
657: nondecoupling approximation, is theoretically justified
658: in the case $m_{\rm weak}^2\sim m_{H^\pm}^2 \ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2$,
659: and gives rather compact forms for these corrections.
660: However, the deviation from the exact two-loop result was,
661: in principle, expected to be of
662: ${\cal O}(m_{\rm weak}^2,m_{H^\pm}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$, and to become
663: significant when $m_{\rm weak} \le M_{\rm SUSY} $ and/or
664: $m_{H^\pm} \ge M_{\rm SUSY}$.
665:
666: We have calculated the contributions of the two-loop diagrams
667: in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops} exactly, without assuming any patterns for
668: the mass of the particle involved, and compared the results with the
669: nondecoupling approximation.
670: Surprisingly, the difference between the nondecoupling approximation in
671: Refs.~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} and the
672: exact two-loop result was shown to be quite small, even for
673: $m_{H^\pm} \gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$, provided $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is sufficiently
674: larger than $m_{\rm weak}$. The unexpected absence of
675: large deviation for the case of $m_{H^\pm} \gtap M_{\rm SUSY}$
676: with $M_{\rm SUSY}^2\gg m_{\rm weak}^2$ can be
677: understood from the structure of the relevant two-loop integrals.
678: In contrast, nonnegligible deviation appeared
679: for $M_{\rm SUSY}$ not much larger than $m_{\rm weak}$.
680:
681: We have illustrated our findings by showing the
682: $H^\pm$ contributions to the Wilson coefficients $C_{7,H}$
683: and $C_{8,H}$ at the electroweak matching scale $\mu_W$,
684: for different spectra of the gluino, squarks and $H^\pm$.
685: Analyses of $C_7$ and $C_8$ at a low scale $\sim m_b$,
686: including other contributions than the $H^\pm$-mediated one,
687: and of the actual branching ratio ${\rm BR}(B \to X_s \gamma)$,
688: will be presented in future work.
689:
690:
691: \vspace*{0.5truecm}
692: \noindent
693: {\bf Acknowledgements}
694: This talk is based on the works~\cite{BGY,fullpaper} in collaboration
695: with Francesca Borzumati and Christoph Greub.
696: The author was supported by the
697: Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education,
698: Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, No.~14740144.
699:
700:
701: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
702:
703: \bibitem{NLOSM}
704: %\cite{Bertolini:1986th}
705: %\bibitem{Bertolini:1986th}
706: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
707: %``QCD Enhancement Of Radiative B Decays,''
708: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 59} (1987) 180;
709: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,180;%%
710: %
711: %\cite{Deshpande:nr}
712: %\bibitem{Deshpande:nr}
713: N.~G.~Deshpande, P.~Lo, J.~Trampetic, G.~Eilam and P.~Singer,
714: %``B $\to$ K* Gamma And The Top Quark Mass,''
715: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 59} (1987) 183.
716: %%CITATION = PRLTA,59,183;%%
717: %
718: %\cite{Buras:2002er}
719: %\bibitem{Buras:2002er}
720: A.~J.~Buras and M.~Misiak,
721: %``Anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma after completion of the NLO QCD calculations,''
722: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33} (2002) 2597.
723: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207131].
724: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207131;%%
725: %
726: %\cite{Gambino:2003zm}
727: %\bibitem{Gambino:2003zm}
728: P.~Gambino, M.~Gorbahn and U.~Haisch,
729: %``Anomalous dimension matrix for radiative and rare semileptonic
730: % B decays up to three loops,''
731: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 673} (2003) 238,
732: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306079].
733: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306079;%%
734: %for a final test of the NLO calculation not included
735: %in the previous summary.
736:
737:
738: \bibitem{NNLOproject}
739: %\cite{Bieri:2003ue}
740: %\bibitem{Bieri:2003ue}
741: K.~Bieri, C.~Greub and M.~Steinhauser,
742: %``Fermionic NNLL corrections to b $\to$ s gamma,''
743: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114019;
744: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0302051].
745: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302051;%%
746: %
747: M.~Misiak, talk at the ``2003 Ringberg Phenomenology Workshop
748: on Heavy Flavours''.
749:
750:
751: \bibitem{EXPERIMENTS}
752: %\bibitem{Belle}
753: %\bibitem{Abe:2001hk}
754: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
755: %``A measurement of the branching fraction for the
756: %inclusive B $\to$ X/s gamma decays with Belle,''
757: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 151;
758: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0103042].
759: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
760: %
761: %\bibitem{CLEO}
762: %\bibitem{Chen:2001fj}
763: S.~Chen {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
764: %``Branching fraction and photon energy spectrum for b $\to$ s gamma,''
765: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251807;
766: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0108032].
767: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108032;%%
768: %
769: %\bibitem{BABAR}
770: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
771: %B ---> S GAMMA USING A SUM OF EXCLUSIVE MODES.
772: arXiv:hep-ex/0207074;
773: %DETERMINATION OF THE BRANCHING FRACTION FOR
774: %INCLUSIVE DECAYS B ---> X(S) GAMMA.
775: hep-ex/0207076.
776:
777:
778: \bibitem{BSGinSUSYproposal}
779: %\cite{Bertolini:1987tg}
780: %\bibitem{Bertolini:1987tg}
781: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
782: %``New Constraints On Squark And Gluino Masses From Radiative B Decays,''
783: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 192} (1987) 437.
784: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B192,437;%%
785:
786:
787: \bibitem{BSGcontributions}
788: %\bibitem{BBM}
789: %\bibitem{Bertolini:1987pk}
790: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
791: %``Supersymmetric Enhancement Of Noncharmed B Decays,''
792: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 294} (1987) 321;
793: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B294,321;%%
794: %
795: %\bibitem{BBMR}
796: %\bibitem{Bertolini:1990if}
797: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,
798: %``Effects Of Supergravity Induced Electroweak Breaking
799: %On Rare B Decays And Mixings,''
800: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 353} (1991) 591.
801: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B353,591;%%
802:
803:
804: \bibitem{LO-generalSUSY}
805: %\cite{Borzumati:1999qt}
806: %\bibitem{Borzumati:1999qt}
807: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler,
808: %``Gluino contribution to radiative B decays: Organization of QCD corrections
809: % and leading order results,''
810: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 075005;
811: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911245].
812: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911245;%%
813: %
814: %\cite{Greub:1999yq}
815: %\bibitem{Greub:1999yq}
816: C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler,
817: %``Indirect search for supersymmetry in rare B decays,''
818: arXiv:hep-ph/9912420;
819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912420;%%
820: %
821: %\cite{Wyler:2000mk}
822: %\bibitem{Wyler:2000mk}
823: D.~Wyler and F.~Borzumati,
824: %``Gluino contribution to radiative B decays:
825: % New operators, organization of QCD corrections and leading order results,''
826: arXiv:hep-ph/0104046;
827: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104046;%%
828:
829:
830: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY1}
831: %\cite{Ciuchini:1998xy}
832: %\bibitem{Ciuchini:1998xy}
833: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,
834: %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''
835: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534} (1998) 3;
836: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9806308].
837: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806308;%%
838:
839:
840: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY2a}
841: %\bibitem{effVbsg1}
842: %\bibitem{Degrassi:2000qf}
843: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,
844: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions
845: %beyond the leading order,''
846: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009.
847: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0009337].
848: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%
849:
850:
851: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY2b}
852: %\bibitem{effVbsg2}
853: %\bibitem{Carena:2000uj}
854: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
855: %``b $\to$ s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''
856: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 141.
857: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0010003].
858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%
859:
860:
861: \bibitem{bsglargeTB}
862: %\bibitem{Oshimo:zd}
863: N.~Oshimo,
864: %``Radiative B Meson Decay In Supersymmetric Models,''
865: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 404} (1993) 20;
866: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B404,20;%%
867: %
868: %\cite{Borzumati:1993zg}
869: %\bibitem{Borzumati:1993zg}
870: F.~M.~Borzumati,
871: %``The Decay b $\to$ s gamma in the MSSM revisited,''
872: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63} (1994) 291;
873: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9310212].
874: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310212;%%
875: %
876: %\bibitem{bsgdmb}
877: %\cite{Borzumati:1994te}
878: %\bibitem{Borzumati:1994te}
879: F.~M.~Borzumati, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
880: %``Constraints on the minimal SUSY SO(10) model from cosmology
881: %and the b $\to$ s gamma decay,''
882: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 349} (1995) 311;
883: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9412379].
884: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412379;%%
885: %
886: %\cite{Murayama:1995fn}
887: %\bibitem{Murayama:1995fn}
888: H.~Murayama, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
889: %``Viable $t$-$b$-$\tau$ Yukawa Unification in SUSY SO(10),''
890: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 371} (1996) 57;
891: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9510327].
892: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510327;%%
893: %
894: %\bibitem{Rattazzi:1996fb}
895: R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid,
896: %``Large tan(beta) in gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking models,''
897: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 501} (1997) 297;
898: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9612464].
899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612464;%%
900: %
901: %\cite{Borzumati:1996qs}
902: %\bibitem{Borzumati:1996qs}
903: F.~M.~Borzumati,
904: %``On the minimal messenger model,''
905: arXiv:hep-ph/9702307;
906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702307;%%
907: %
908: %\cite{Baer:1997jq}
909: %\bibitem{Baer:1997jq}
910: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, D.~Casta\~no and X.~Tata,
911: %``b $\to$ s gamma constraints on the minimal supergravity model
912: % with large tan(beta),''
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 015007;
914: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9712305].
915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712305;%%
916: %
917: %\bibitem{Blazek:1997cs}
918: T.~Bla\v{z}ek and S.~Raby,
919: %``b $\to$ s gamma with large tan(beta) in MSSM analysis
920: %constrained by a realistic SO(10) model,''
921: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 095002;
922: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9712257].
923: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712257;%%
924: %
925: %\cite{Demir:2001yz}
926: %\bibitem{Demir:2001yz}
927: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,
928: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''
929: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007.
930: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107329].
931: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%
932:
933: \bibitem{BGY}
934: %\cite{Borzumati:2003wb}
935: %\bibitem{Borzumati:2003wb}
936: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub and Y.~Yamada,
937: %``Towards an exact evaluation of the supersymmetric
938: % O(alpha(s) tan(beta)) corrections to anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
939: arXiv:hep-ph/0305063.
940: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305063;%%
941:
942: \bibitem{fullpaper}
943: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub and Y.~Yamada, arXiv:hep-ph/0311151.
944:
945:
946: \bibitem{dmb}
947: %\cite{Banks:1987iu}
948: %\bibitem{Banks:1987iu}
949: T.~Banks,
950: %``Supersymmetry And The Quark Mass Matrix,''
951: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 303} (1988) 172;
952: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B303,172;%%
953: %
954: %\bibitem{Hempfling:1993kv}
955: R.~Hempfling,
956: %``Yukawa coupling unification with supersymmetric threshold corrections,''
957: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 6168;
958: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,6168;%%
959: %
960: %\bibitem{Hall:1993gn}
961: L.~J.~Hall, R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid,
962: %``The Top quark mass in supersymmetric SO(10) unification,''
963: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 7048;
964: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9306309].
965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306309;%%
966: %
967: %\bibitem{Carena:1994bv}
968: M.~Carena, M.~Olechowski, S.~Pokorski and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
969: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking and bottom - top Yukawa unification,''
970: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 426} (1994) 269;
971: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9402253].
972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402253;%%
973: %
974: %\bibitem{Blazek:1995nv}
975: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, S.~Raby and S.~Pokorski,
976: %``Finite supersymmetric threshold corrections to CKM matrix elements
977: %in the large tan Beta regime,''
978: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 4151;
979: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9504364].
980: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504364;%%
981: %
982: %\bibitem{Pierce:1996zz}
983: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~T.~Matchev and R.~j.~Zhang,
984: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
985: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 491} (1997) 3;
986: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9606211].
987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%
988: %
989: %\bibitem{Borzumati:1999sp}
990: F.~Borzumati, G.~R.~Farrar, N.~Polonsky and S.~Thomas,
991: %``Soft Yukawa couplings in supersymmetric theories,''
992: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 555} (1999) 53.
993: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9902443].
994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902443;%%
995:
996:
997: \bibitem{carenaH0}
998: %\bibitem{Carena:1998gk}
999: M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1000: %``MSSM Higgs boson phenomenology at the Tevatron collider,''
1001: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 075010;
1002: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9808312].
1003: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808312;%%
1004: %
1005: %\bibitem{Babu:1998er}
1006: K.~S.~Babu and C.~F.~Kolda,
1007: %``Signatures of supersymmetry and Yukawa unification in Higgs decays,''
1008: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451} (1999) 77;
1009: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9811308].
1010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811308;%%
1011: %
1012: %\bibitem{Eberl:1999he}
1013: H.~Eberl, K.~Hidaka, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto and Y.~Yamada,
1014: %``Improved SUSY QCD corrections to Higgs boson decays
1015: %into quarks and squarks,''
1016: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 055006;
1017: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912463].
1018: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912463;%%
1019: %
1020: %\bibitem{Haber:2000kq}
1021: %H.~E.~Haber {\it et al.},
1022: H.~E.~Haber, M.~J.~Herrero, H.~E.~Logan, S.~Pe\~naranda,
1023: S.~Rigolin and D.~Temes,
1024: %``SUSY-QCD corrections to the MSSM h0 b anti-b vertex
1025: %in the decoupling limit,''
1026: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 055004;
1027: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0007006];
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007006;%%
1029: %
1030: %\cite{Logan:2000cz}
1031: %\bibitem{Logan:2000cz}
1032: H.~E.~Logan,
1033: %``Supersymmetric radiative corrections at large tan(beta),''
1034: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 101} (2001) 279;
1035: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0102029].
1036: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102029;%%
1037: %
1038: %\bibitem{Herrero:2001yg}
1039: M.~J.~Herrero, S.~Pe\~naranda and D.~Temes,
1040: %``SUSY-QCD decoupling properties in H+ $\to$ t anti-b decay,''
1041: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 115003.
1042: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105097].
1043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105097;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{carenaHp}
1046: %\bibitem{Carena:1999py}
1047: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1048: %``Effective Lagrangian for the anti-t b H+ interaction in the MSSM
1049: %and charged Higgs phenomenology,''
1050: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 577} (2000) 88.
1051: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912516].
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912516;%%
1053:
1054:
1055: \bibitem{GvdB}
1056: %\cite{Davydychev:1992mt}
1057: %\bibitem{Davydychev:1992mt}
1058: A.~I.~Davydychev and J.~B.~Tausk,
1059: %``Two loop selfenergy diagrams with different masses and
1060: %the momentum expansion,''
1061: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 397} (1993) 123.
1062: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B397,123;%%
1063: %
1064: %\cite{Ghinculov:1994sd}
1065: %\bibitem{Ghinculov:1994sd}
1066: A.~Ghinculov and J.~J.~van der Bij,
1067: %``Massive two loop diagrams: The Higgs propagator,''
1068: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 436} (1995) 30.
1069: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9405418].
1070: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405418;%%
1071:
1072: \bibitem{OTHERPAPS}
1073: %\bibitem{D'Ambrosio:2002ex}
1074: G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori and A.~Strumia,
1075: %``Minimal flavour violation: An effective field theory approach,''
1076: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645} (2002) 155;
1077: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0207036].
1078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207036;%%
1079: %
1080: %\cite{Buras:2002vd}
1081: %\bibitem{Buras:2002vd}
1082: A.~J.~Buras, P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek and \L.~S{\l}awianowska,
1083: %``Delta(M(d,s)), B/(d,s)0 $\to$ mu+ mu- and B $\to$ X/s gamma
1084: % in supersymmetry at large tan beta,''
1085: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 659} (2003) 3.
1086: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0210145].
1087: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210145;%%
1088:
1089:
1090: \end{thebibliography}
1091:
1092:
1093: \end{document}
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097: