1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,cite,feynarts}
3:
4: \input paperdef
5:
6: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm
7: \evensidemargin -0.1cm
8: \marginparwidth 68pt
9: \marginparsep 10pt
10: \topmargin 0cm
11: \headheight 0pt
12: \headsep 0pt
13: \footskip 25pt
14: \textheight 23.5cm
15: \textwidth 16.5cm
16: \columnsep 10pt
17: \columnseprule 0pt
18: \setlength{\parskip}{1ex}
19:
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25: \thispagestyle{empty}
26:
27:
28: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
29:
30: \begin{flushright}
31: CERN-TH/2003-309\\
32: DCPT/03/148\\
33: DESY-03-153\\
34: IPPP/03/74\\
35: LMU 28/03\\
36: hep-ph/0312264
37: \end{flushright}
38:
39:
40: \begin{center}
41:
42: {\large\sc {\bf Two-Loop SUSY Corrections to the}}
43:
44: \vspace{0.4cm}
45:
46: {\large\sc {\bf Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon}}
47:
48: \vspace{1cm}
49:
50:
51: {\sc
52: S.~Heinemeyer$^{1,2}$%
53: \footnote{email: Sven.Heinemeyer@cern.ch}%
54: , D.~St\"ockinger$^{3,4}$%
55: \footnote{email: Dominik.Stockinger@durham.ac.uk}%
56: ~and G.~Weiglein$^{4}$%
57: \footnote{email: Georg.Weiglein@durham.ac.uk}
58: }
59:
60: \vspace*{1cm}
61:
62: {\sl
63: $^1$ CERN, TH Division, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
64:
65: \vspace*{0.4cm}
66:
67: $^2$Institut f\"ur theoretische Elementarteilchenphysik,
68: LMU M\"unchen, Theresienstr.\ 37, D--80333 M\"unchen, Germany
69:
70:
71: \vspace*{0.4cm}
72:
73: $^3$ DESY Theorie, Notkestr. 85, 22603 Hamburg, Germany
74:
75: \vspace*{0.4cm}
76:
77: $^4$Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham,\\
78: Durham DH1~3LE, UK
79: }
80:
81: \end{center}
82:
83: \vspace*{0.2cm}
84:
85: \begin{abstract}
86:
87: We calculate supersymmetric
88: \twol\ corrections to the anomalous
89: magnetic moment of the muon, consisting of diagrams with a closed
90: scalar fermion or fermion loop and gauge and/or Higgs boson exchange. We
91: discuss the numerical impact of each subclass of diagrams and
92: determine the leading contributions.
93: We analyze in detail constraints from experimental information on the
94: Higgs boson mass,
95: $\De\rho$, and the branching ratios of $B \to X_s\ga$ and
96: $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$.
97: If these constraints are taken into account, the largest possible
98: effect of our two-loop corrections is reduced from more than
99: $3\,\si$ (in terms of the current
100: experimental error) to $\sim0.5\,\si$, such that the influence
101: on the total supersymmetric prediction is smaller than previously estimated.
102: However, exceptions arise in rather extreme parameter
103: scenarios with a strong non-universality between the soft
104: breaking parameters in the stop and sbottom sectors.
105: \end{abstract}
106:
107: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}
108: \setcounter{page}{0}
109: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
110:
111: \newpage
112:
113:
114:
115:
116:
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119:
120:
121:
122: \section{Introduction}
123:
124:
125: A new era of precision measurements of the anomalous magnetic moment
126: of the muon $\amu \equiv (g_\mu - 2)/2$ has been initiated by
127: the ``Muon g-2 Experiment'' (E821) at BNL, leading to the current
128: experimental world average of~\cite{g-2exp}
129: \BE
130: \amuexp = (11\, 659\, 208 \pm 6) \times 10^{-10}~.
131: \EE
132:
133: The most recent
134: $e^+e^-$ data driven evaluations of the hadronic contributions by
135: \citeres{DEHZ,g-2HMNT,Jegerlehner} lead to the following Standard Model
136: (SM) predictions (the deviation from the experimental result is also
137: shown)%
138: %
139: \footnote{
140: The numbers for the combination of the experimental and the theory
141: error and the corresponding deviaton in terms of $\si$ have been
142: recalculated according to the new experimental result.
143: }%
144: %
145: :
146: \BEA
147: \amutheo &=& (11\, 659\, 180.9 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10}
148: \quad (27.1 \pm 10.0 ~:~2.7\,\si)
149: \mbox{\cite{DEHZ} }
150: \non \\
151: \amutheo &=& (11\, 659\, 175.6 \pm 7.5) \times 10^{-10}
152: \quad (32.4 \pm ~\,9.6 ~:~3.3\,\si)
153: \mbox{\cite{g-2HMNT} }
154: \non \\
155: \amutheo &=& (11\, 659\, 179.4 \pm 9.3) \times 10^{-10}
156: \quad (28.6 \pm 11.1 ~:~2.5\,\si)
157: \mbox{\cite{Jegerlehner} } . \non
158: \EEA
159: Recent analyses concerning $\tau$ data indicate that uncertainties due to
160: isospin breaking effects may have been underestimated
161: earlier~\cite{Jegerlehner}, so that
162: with a better theoretical understanding of the isospin breaking effects
163: the $\tau$-based results could come closer to the $e^+e^-$- based
164: results. One may thus hope that eventually a combination of $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$
165: data will lead to an even more
166: precise theoretical prediction.
167:
168: While the present $\sim 2.5 - 3.3\,\si$ deviation between
169: the SM prediction for $\amu$
170: and the experimental result can of course not be regarded as strong evidence
171: for new physics, an increased accuracy of both theory and experiment
172: might give rise to a significantly larger deviation in the future.
173: On the other hand, already the current precision leads to very
174: restrictive bounds on new physics scenarios.
175:
176: This is illustrated by the fact that the experimental precision of
177: $6\times 10^{-10}$ has now reached the level of
178: the standard electroweak and of typical supersymmetric (SUSY)
179: contributions. The
180: electroweak one- and two-loop (and higher-order)
181: contributions in the SM amount to
182: $19.5 \times 10^{-10}$ and $-4.1 \times 10^{-10}$, respectively, see
183: \citeres{g-2review,g-2review2} for reviews.
184: The SUSY contributions
185: are generally suppressed by $\MW^2/\tilde M^2$, where $\MW$ is the
186: mass of the $W$~boson and $\tilde M$ is
187: the typical scale of the SUSY particle masses. However, for large
188: values of $\tb$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two
189: Higgs doublets in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM),
190: the muon Yukawa coupling is enhanced by $\tb$ as compared to the SM.
191: The supersymmetric one-loop contribution is approximately given by
192: \cite{g-2MSSMf1l}
193: \BE
194: |\amu^{\SU}| = 13 \times 10^{-10}
195: \KL \frac{100 \gev}{\tilde M} \KR^2 \tb,
196: \EE
197: where all SUSY masses are assumed to be equal to $\tilde M$.
198: The involved SUSY particles are neutralinos, charginos and scalar
199: leptons of the second generation.
200: The magnitude of the supersymmetric \onel\ contribution is at the right level
201: to account for the $\sim 3\si$ deviation between the SM prediction and the
202: data, and even larger shifts are possible.
203: The supersymmetric two-loop contributions are known only in some
204: approximations. Since the \onel\ contribution can be large, the
205: \twol\ corrections can be expected to be quite
206: important, even beyond the leading QED-logarithms
207: \cite{g-2MSSMlog2l}.
208:
209: The importance of the SUSY \twol\ contributions is
210: twofold. On the one hand, their inclusion increases the accuracy of
211: the bounds on the supersymmetric parameter space (see e.g.\
212: \citeres{g-2appl1,g-2appl2}). On the other hand,
213: the supersymmetric \twol\
214: contributions depend on many additional parameters and can in principle
215: be large even if the \onel\ diagrams are suppressed due to heavy smuons and
216: sneutrinos.
217:
218: Particularly interesting contributions are the ones enhanced by large
219: values of the Higgs mixing parameter $\mu$ and a large trilinear
220: coupling $A$ (where $A$ generically denotes the Higgs--stop or
221: Higgs--sbottom coupling, $A_{t,b}$). They arise from so-called
222: Barr-Zee \twol\ diagrams where a Higgs boson is exchanged between the
223: external muon and a 3rd generation sfermion loop.
224: Results for such contributions were
225: obtained in \citeres{g-2BarrZee1,g-2BarrZee2} and found to give huge
226: contributions up to \order{20\times10^{-10}} if $\tb$ is large
227: and $\mu,A$ are of the order of several TeV. In these analyses, however,
228: other experimental constraints on the parameter space of the MSSM were
229: neglected.
230: Moreover, the results of \citeres{g-2BarrZee1,g-2BarrZee2} for the $H^\pm$
231: contribution disagree by a factor 4, so that an independent check seems
232: to be necessary.
233:
234: In this paper we present a calculation and numerical analysis of all
235: \twol\ contributions $\delamu$ in the MSSM where a closed 3rd generation
236: sfermion or fermion loop is inserted into a \onel\ diagram with
237: gauge-boson and/or Higgs-boson exchange.
238: This set of diagrams contains the terms
239: $\propto \mu,A$ but also
240: other terms enhanced by the large Yukawa couplings of the $t$, and
241: (for large $\tb$) $b$, $\tau$, as well as terms without any
242: enhancement. All of these contributions are included in our final
243: result.
244:
245: Our numerical analysis is focused on two questions:
246: what are the numerical results for the individual subclasses, and which of
247: them should be taken into account for a reliable supersymmetric
248: prediction for $\amu$?
249: Secondly, are huge two-loop contributions of
250: \order{20\times10^{-10}} still possible if existing experimental
251: constraints on the
252: supersymmetric parameter space are taken into account?
253:
254: The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
255: In \refse{sec:calc} we present the \twol\ diagrams and the method of their
256: evaluation. The numerical analysis
257: is given in \refses{sec:numeval},~\ref{sec:expconst},~\ref{sec:nonuniv}.
258: The importance of this class of \twol\ corrections and
259: their numerical size is discussed in \refse{sec:numeval}, taking into account
260: constraints on the SUSY parameter space from other experimental
261: information. The leading contributions and
262: the influence of the individual experimental constraints are examined
263: in \refse{sec:expconst}. Effects from non-universality of
264: the soft SUSY-breaking parameters are analyzed in
265: \refse{sec:nonuniv}. We conclude with \refse{sec:conclusions}.
266:
267:
268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
270:
271:
272: \section{Calculation}
273: \label{sec:calc}
274:
275: In this section we briefly describe the diagrams we have investigated, their
276: evaluation and the tools that have been used.
277:
278: The set of diagrams calculated in this paper corresponds to the
279: fermion/sfermion corrections to non-supersymmetric, i.e.\ two Higgs doublet
280: model type, contributions. It forms a gauge-independent class of
281: diagrams. In order to discuss the shift between the
282: MSSM and the SM predictions, we subtract the pure SM contribution from
283: our result (where the SM Higgs boson mass $\MHSM$ is set to the
284: value of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson mass, $\Mh$).
285:
286: The one-loop diagrams corresponding to the contributions considered in
287: this paper are the SM one-loop diagrams.
288: Expressing the one-loop result in terms of the Fermi constant
289: $G_{\mu}$ and $\sw^2 \equiv 1 - \MW^2/\MZ^2$, ($\MZ$ being the
290: $Z$~boson mass), it takes the conventional form of the
291: electroweak one-loop result in the SM (omitting the QED
292: contribution) \cite{g-2review,g-2review2},
293: \BE
294: a_{\mu}^{\rm EW,1L} = \frac{G_{\mu}}{8 \pi^2 \sqrt{2}}
295: m_{\mu}^2 \left[\frac{5}{3} + \frac{1}{3} (1 - 4 \sw^2)^2\right] .
296: \label{eq:sm1loop}
297: \EE
298:
299: The two-loop diagrams that we calculate can be subdivided into three classes:
300: \\{($\sfn V \phi$)}
301: diagrams with a sfermion ($\Stop$, $\Sbot$, $\Stau$,
302: $\Snet$) loop, where at least one gauge and one Higgs boson are
303: exchanged, see \reffi{fig:HGsf};
304: \\{($\sfn V V$)} diagrams with a
305: sfermion loop, where only gauge bosons appear in the second loop,
306: see \reffi{fig:Gsf};
307: \\{($f V \phi$)} diagrams with a fermion ($t$, $b$, $\tau$, $\nu_\tau$)
308: loop, where at least one gauge and one Higgs boson are
309: present in the other loop, see \reffi{fig:HGf}. The corresponding
310: diagrams with only gauge bosons are identical to the SM diagrams and
311: give no genuine SUSY contribution.
312:
313: For our later analysis we further split up the ($\sfn V \phi$)
314: diagrams of Fig.\ \ref{fig:HGsf} into the following groups:
315: diagrams with photon and Higgs exchange ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$),
316: $Z$/Higgs exchange ($\sfn Z \{h,H\}$), and $W$/charged Higgs exchange
317: ($\sfn W^\pm H^\mp$). The remaining sfermion loop diagrams containing
318: only gauge boson and Goldstone boson exchange are grouped together
319: with the diagrams involving only gauge
320: bosons, ($\sfn W^\pm G^\mp$)+($\sfn VV$). All these groups are
321: separately gauge independent in $R_\xi$-gauges at the order $m_\mu^2/M_W^2$.
322: Note that since we neglect $\cp$-violating phases, diagrams with
323: photon or $Z$ and $\cp$-odd Higgs bosons $A^0$, $G^0$ do not
324: contribute. The diagrams ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$) and ($\sfn W^\pm H^\mp$)
325: are the ones evaluated in \citeres{g-2BarrZee1,g-2BarrZee2} neglecting
326: all but the leading terms in the sfermion--Higgs couplings.
327:
328: All diagrams are understood to include the corresponding subloop
329: renormalization. For the fermion loop class ($fV\phi$) we actually
330: calculate the difference between the
331: Standard Model and the MSSM, which originates from the extended Higgs
332: sector of the MSSM. Diagrams where two Higgs bosons couple to
333: the external muon are suppressed by an extra factor of $m_\mu^2/\MW^2$ and
334: hence negligible.
335:
336:
337: In order to perform a systematic calculation,
338: a {\em Mathematica} program has been written
339: that can deal with all kinds of MSSM \twol\ contributions to
340: $\amu$. Its main steps are the following:
341: The amplitudes for
342: $\amu$ are generated using the program
343: \fa~\cite{feynarts,fa-mssm}, and the appropriate
344: projector~\cite{g-2SM2lA,g-2SM2lB} is applied. The Dirac algebra and the
345: conversion to a linear combination of \twol\ integrals is performed
346: using \tc~\cite{2lred}.
347: In order to simplify the integrals, a large mass
348: expansion \cite{smirnov} is applied where the muon mass is
349: taken as small and all other masses as large. All resulting \twol\
350: integrals are either \twol\ vacuum integrals or products of \onel\
351: integrals. They can be
352: reduced to the standard integrals $T_{134}$~\cite{t134} and $A_0$ and
353: $B_0$~\cite{a0b0c0d0} and can be evaluated analytically.
354: The asymptotic expansion has to be performed up to terms of
355: order $m_\mu^2$. Terms of lower power in $m_\mu/M_{\rm heavy}$ (where
356: $M_{\rm heavy}$ represents all kinds of other masses) cancel
357: each other as required for non-QED corrections. Terms of higher powers
358: in $m_\mu/M_{\rm heavy}$ are numerically irrelevant and can be safely
359: neglected.
360:
361:
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: \input diagrams
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365:
366: The counterterm diagrams contain the renormalization
367: constants $\de M^2_{W,Z}$, $\de Z_e$, $\de t_{h,H}$ corresponding
368: to mass, charge and tadpole renormalization and can be easily
369: evaluated. We choose the on-shell renormalization scheme
370: \cite{onshell}. This leads to $\de M^2_{W,Z} = {\rm
371: Re}\Si^T_{W,Z}(M^2_{W,Z})$, where
372: $\Si_{W,Z}^T$
373: denote the transverse parts of the gauge-boson self-energies.
374: The charge renormalization is given by $\de Z_e = - 1/2\; \Sip_\ga(0)$,
375: where $\Sip$ denotes the derivative of the self-energy with respect to
376: the momentum squared.
377: The tadpoles are renormalized such that the sum of the tadpole
378: contribution $T$ and the counterterm vanishes, i.e.\
379: $\de t_{h,H} = -T_{h,H}$.
380:
381: As mentioned above, see \refeq{eq:sm1loop}, we are using a \onel\ result
382: which is parametrized in terms of $G_{\mu}$ instead
383: of the ratio $\al/\MW^2$. Therefore our two-loop correction
384: contains a term given by the product of the corresponding \onel\
385: result and $\De r$, where the latter denote the one-loop corrections
386: to muon decay, $\mu \to \nu_\mu \, e \, \bar\nu_e$.
387: Relevant here are only the contributions arising from 3rd
388: family sfermion loops to $\De r$. These corrections are included in
389: our \twol\ result (in the ($\sfn V V$) class).
390:
391: As a cross check we have evaluated the SM \twol\ diagrams with a
392: closed fermion loop as presented in \citeres{g-2SM2lA,g-2SM2lB}
393: and found perfect agreement separately for each diagram
394: (after going to the limit $\sw^2 \to 1/4$, used in
395: \citeres{g-2SM2lA,g-2SM2lB}).
396: We have furthermore checked the UV-finiteness of our result as well as
397: the cancellation of the wave function renormalization constants.
398: We also found agreement with \citere{g-2BarrZee2} for the
399: contributions to the ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$) and ($\sfn W^\pm H^\mp$)
400: diagrams calculated there. This confirms that the earlier result of
401: \citere{g-2BarrZee1} is too large by a factor of 4.
402:
403: Our final result for the sum of all diagrams is rather
404: lengthy and not displayed here. It
405: is included as a Fortran subroutine in the code \fh~\cite{feynhiggs}
406: (see: {\tt www.feynhiggs.de}). It can also be obtained as a
407: {\em Mathematica} formula from the authors upon request.
408:
409:
410:
411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
413:
414: \section{Numerical results allowed
415: by experimental\\constraints for the different sets of diagrams }
416: \label{sec:numeval}
417:
418:
419: The MSSM \twol\ contributions to $\amu$ depend on many parameters,
420: most notably on $\tan\beta$, the $\mu$ parameter, the trilinear soft
421: SUSY-breaking parameters $A_{t,b,\tau}$, the mass of the $\cp$-odd
422: Higgs $M_A$, and the
423: soft SUSY-breaking parameters $M_{Q,L,U,D,E}$ appearing in the
424: sfermion mass
425: matrices. In \citeres{g-2BarrZee1,g-2BarrZee2} it was shown that in
426: particular large $\mu$ and $A$ parameters can give rise to very large
427: contributions of the ($\tilde{f}\gamma \{H,h\}$) and ($\tilde{f}W^\pm H^\mp$)
428: diagrams, however ignoring existing experimental constraints on the
429: MSSM parameter space. In order to find out the largest possible
430: contributions of each class of diagrams, we perform a scan of the MSSM
431: parameter space. We vary the parameters in the ranges
432: \BEA
433: -3 \tev ~\le &\mu& \le ~3 \tev \non \\
434: -3 \tev ~\le &A_{t,b}& \le ~3 \tev \non \\
435: 150 \gev ~\le &\MA& \le ~1 \tev \non \\
436: 0 ~\le &\msusy& \le ~1 \tev
437: \label{bounds}
438: \EEA
439: where we have set $\msusy = M_Q = M_L = M_U = M_D = M_E$
440: ($M_Q, M_U$ are the soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the $\Stop$~mass
441: matrix, $M_Q, M_D$ in the $\Sbot$~mass matrix, and $M_L, M_E$ in the
442: $\Stau$~mass matrix)
443: and $A_\tau = \Ab$.
444: Furthermore we fix $\tb$ to $\tb=50$. Large values
445: of $\tb$ and small values of $\MA$ generically lead to larger SUSY
446: contributions but also to more restrictive experimental
447: constraints. These two effects tend to cancel each other. We have
448: checked that the maximum contributions from our diagrams to $\amu$
449: allowed by the experimental
450: constraints are about the same for $\tb = 25$, $\tb = 37$ and $\tb =
451: 50$ and when $\MA$ is varied in the range $\MA = 90 \ldots 150
452: \gev$. The effect of relaxing the restriction of a common soft
453: SUSY-breaking parameter in the sfermion mass matrices will be
454: described in \refse{sec:nonuniv}. As SM input
455: parameters we use $\mt = 175 \gev$, and $\mb(\mt) = 3 \gev$ (in order to absorb
456: leading QCD corrections).
457:
458:
459: %%%%%%%%%%%%% T A B L E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
460: \begin{table}[tb]
461: \begin{center}
462: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
463: Quantity & $\Mh$ & $ \De\rho^{\SU}$ & $ \br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ &
464: $\De_{B \to X_s\ga}$ \\
465: \hline
466: strong bound & $>111.4 \gev$ & $<3\times10^{-10}$
467: & $ < 0.97\times10^{-6}$ & $< 1.0\times10^{-4}$ \\
468: weak bound & $>106.4 \gev$ & $<4\times10^{-10}$
469: & $ < 1.2\times10^{-6}$ & $< 1.5\times10^{-4}$
470: \end{tabular}
471: \end{center}
472: \caption{Strong and weak bounds imposed on the MSSM parameter
473: space. $\De_{B \to X_s\ga}=|\br(B \to X_s\ga)-3.34\times10^{-4}|$,
474: where $3.34\times10^{-4}$ is the current experimental central value
475: \cite{bsg}.}
476: \label{tab:bounds}
477: \end{table}
478: %%%%%%%%%%%%% T A B L E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
479:
480: We restrict the parameter space further by imposing the following
481: experimental constraints:%
482: %
483: \footnote{%
484: There are of course also lower bounds on sfermion masses from direct
485: searches. The bounds from LEP are roughly
486: $m_{\Stop,\Sbot}\gsim100\gev$. From Run I of the Tevatron stronger
487: bounds arise for parts of the MSSM parameter space
488: \cite{pdg,mschmitt}. We do not impose the direct
489: bounds explicitly in the scans since we present the results of $\amu$
490: as functions of the lightest sfermion mass.
491: }%
492:
493: \begin{itemize}
494:
495: \item The lightest $\cp$-even MSSM Higgs-boson mass $\Mh$
496: has to be larger than its experimental limit $114.4 \gev$
497: \cite{lephiggs,LEPHiggsSM}.%
498: %
499: \footnote{%
500: The limit on the SM Higgs mass
501: holds unchanged for the light MSSM Higgs mass $\Mh$ for
502: $\MA \gsim 150 \gev$. For lower values of $\MA$, the bound on $\Mh$ is
503: smaller but the restrictions implied on the $\mu$ and $A$ parameters
504: are significant also in this case.%
505: }
506: $\Mh$ has been evaluated
507: with \fh 2.0~\cite{feynhiggs}, based on
508: \citeres{mhiggsletter,mhiggslong,mhiggsAEC}.
509:
510: \item The $\Stop/\Sbot$-contribution to the $\rho$
511: parameter, evaluated up to the \twol\ level~\cite{delrhosusy2loop},
512: does not exceed its experimental bound.
513:
514: \item The branching ratios $\br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$~\cite{bsmumu} and
515: $\br(B \to X_s\ga)$~\cite{bsg}
516: are in agreement with their experimental limits.%
517: %
518: \footnote{
519: We are grateful
520: to A.\ Dedes and G.\ Hiller for providing the respective codes.
521: }%
522: \end{itemize}
523: In order to be able to check the sensitivity on these bounds we use a
524: stronger and a weaker version for each bound, see \refta{tab:bounds}.
525: The two Higgs mass bounds take into account a $3 \gev$ uncertainty
526: due to unknown higher-order corrections~\cite{mhiggsAEC}, the weak
527: bound in addition an uncertainty of $5 \gev$ due to the imperfect
528: knowledge of the top mass~\cite{tbexcl}, on
529: which $\Mh$ is much more sensitive than $\amu$. The two bounds on
530: $\De\rho^{\SU}$, $\br(B\to X_s \ga)$, and $\br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$
531: correspond to $2\si$ and $3\si$ bounds and to $90\%$ and $95\%$~C.L.\
532: bounds, respectively.
533:
534: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
535: \begin{figure}[htb!]
536: \BC
537: \epsfig{figure=g-2_gammaHiggs02.cl.eps, width=7.5cm, height=5.5cm}~~~
538: \epsfig{figure=g-2_WHiggs02.cl.eps, width=7.5cm, height=5.5cm}\\[1.5em]
539: \epsfig{figure=g-2_ZHiggs02.cl.eps, width=7.5cm, height=5.5cm}~~~
540: \epsfig{figure=g-2_GaugeDeltar02.cl.eps, width=7.5cm, height=5.5cm}\\[1.5em]
541: \epsfig{figure=g-2_Fermion_MA02.cl.eps, width=7.5cm, height=5.5cm}
542: \\[0.5em]
543: ~~~
544: \caption{%
545: Possible contributions to $\delamu$ for the case that
546: all experimental bounds are required in their strong versions. The
547: results are subdivided into five classes of diagrams: sfermion loops
548: with gauge and Higgs boson exchange ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$), $(\sfn
549: W^\pm H^\mp$), ($\sfn Z \{h,H\}$), sfermion loops with gauge or
550: Goldstone boson exchange ($\sfn VV$)+($\sfn W^\pm G^\mp$), and fermion
551: loop diagrams ($f V \phi$). The results are plotted as functions of
552: the lightest sfermion mass (sfermion loops) or $\MA$ (fermion loops).
553: }
554: \label{fig:scans}
555: \EC
556: \end{figure}
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558:
559: The interplay of these constraints restricts the allowed parameter
560: space severely. The $\Mh$ bound puts a limit of about 2.5$\msusy$
561: on $|A_t|$. The data on $b$ decays constrain $\mu$ and $A$
562: parameters in particular for small $\MA$. $\De\rho$ restricts the mass
563: splittings in the $\Stop,\Sbot$ sectors and thereby also the $\mu$ and
564: $A$ parameters, which appear in the off-diagonal elements of the
565: squark mass matrices.
566:
567: In \reffi{fig:scans} we plot the resulting ranges of possible
568: contributions of the individual classes of diagrams for the case that
569: all bounds are required in their strong versions. In the case of
570: the sfermion loop contributions we plot the results for $\amu$ over
571: the lightest sfermion mass (min$\{ \mste, \mstz, \msbe, \msbz \}$),
572: and in the case of the fermion loop
573: contributions we plot the results over $\MA$.
574:
575: {}From \reffi{fig:scans} the following conclusions can be drawn:
576: \begin{itemize}
577: \item The contribution of the gauge and charged Goldstone boson
578: exchange diagrams,\\
579: ($\sfn W^\pm G^\mp$) + ($\sfn VV$), is very
580: small. Its maximum size is about
581: $\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\amu^{\rm EW,1L}\approx 0.02\times10^{-10}$.
582: \item The contribution of the ($\sfn Z \{h,H\}$) diagrams with $Z$ and
583: Higgs exchange is at most of the order $0.1\times10^{-10}$ and
584: thus negligible compared to the present experimental error. The
585: reason for this suppression compared to the photon and $W$ exchange
586: diagrams is the factor $(1-4\sw^2)$ in the coupling of the $Z$ to
587: muons.
588: \item The contribution of the ($f V \phi$) diagrams with a fermion loop
589: can reach $0.6\times10^{-10}$ for small
590: $\MA \lsim 200 \gev$; the fermion loop diagrams are thus not
591: completely negligible.
592: \item The photon exchange diagrams with a sfermion loop ($\sfn
593: \ga \phi$) are dominant;
594: the results of the $W$ exchange diagrams ($\sfn
595: W^\pm H^\mp$) are much smaller. The photon
596: exchange diagrams are the only ones that can contribute more than
597: $1\times10^{-10}$, the $W$ exchange diagrams contribute up to
598: $0.3\times10^{-10}$. The reason for the suppression of the $W$
599: diagrams is not only the high value of $\MW$ but also the fact that
600: the $W$ couples to two different sfermions, to $\Stop-\Sbot$ or to
601: $\Stau-\Snet$, of which at least one is usually relatively heavy.
602: \end{itemize}
603: Hence we find that the photon exchange contributions
604: calculated in \citeres{g-2BarrZee2} are indeed the dominant subclass of
605: diagrams with a closed (s)fermion loop.
606: We also find, however, that the
607: maximum contributions of more than $20\times10^{-10}$ quoted in
608: \citeres{g-2BarrZee1,g-2BarrZee2} for the photon and $W$ contributions
609: are reduced to about $2.5\times10^{-10}$ and $0.3\times10^{-10}$
610: due to the experimental constraints on the MSSM parameter space.
611: Owing to the smallness of these contributions, the fermion loop
612: contributions can make up for a non-negligible part of the
613: two-loop corrections.
614:
615:
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
618:
619: \section{Leading contributions and influence of the experimental
620: constraints}
621: \label{sec:expconst}
622:
623: Let us now focus on the photon and $W$ exchange contributions $(\sfn \ga
624: \{h,H\})$, $(\sfn W^\pm H^\mp)$ and study
625: the influence of the individual constraints on the ranges of possible
626: numerical values. We choose this set of contributions not only because
627: the photon contributions are dominant within our class of diagrams,
628: but also because these
629: contributions are obviously significantly restricted by the
630: experimental constraints. In contrast, the fermion loop contributions
631: $(f V\phi)$ can be non-negligible but depend mainly on $\MA$ and are
632: hardly constrained.
633:
634: It is instructive to explicitly discuss the complete expression for
635: the photon diagrams (see e.g.\ \citere{g-2BarrZee2}):
636: %
637: \BEA
638: \De\amu^{(\sfn \ga \phi),\rm2L} &=& -
639: \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ \frac{G_\mu m_\mu^2}{8\sqrt2\pi^2}
640: \
641: \frac{(N_c Q^2)_{\sfn}\la_{\mu \phi}\la_{\sfn \phi}}{M_\phi^2}
642: \ {\cal F}\left(\frac{m_{\sfn}^2}{M_\phi^2}\right),
643: \EEA
644: %
645: where $\sfn$ can be one of $\tilde{t}_{1,2}$, $\tilde{b}_{1,2}$,
646: $\tilde{\tau}_{1,2}$, and $\phi$ can be one of the $\cp$-even Higgs
647: bosons, $h$ or $H$. The couplings $\lambda$ are defined as ($\sa=\Sa$,
648: $\ca=\Ca$, etc.)
649: %
650: \BEA
651: \la_{\mu\{h,H\}} &=& \{-\sa, \ca\}/\cbe\\
652: \la_{\Stop_i\{h,H\}} &=&
653: 2\mt\Big(\mu\{\sa,-\ca\}+A_t\{\ca,\sa\}\Big)
654: U^{\Stop}_{i 1}U^{\Stop}_{i 2}/\sbe
655: \non\\&&
656: +\frac{6 \cw \mt^2\{\ca,\sa\} + \MW \MZ\sbe(3 - 4\sw^2)\{-\sab,\cab\}}
657: {3\cw \sbe}(U^{\Stop}_{i 1})^2
658: \non\\&&
659: +
660: \frac{ 6\cw\mt^2\{\ca,\sa\} + 4\{-\sab,\cab\}\MW\MZ\sbe \sw^2}
661: {3\cw\sbe}(U^{\Stop}_{i 2})^2
662: \\
663: \la_{\Sbot_i\{h,H\}} &=&
664: 2\mb\Big(-\mu\{\ca,\sa\}+\Ab\{-\sa,\ca\}\Big)
665: U^{\Sbot}_{i 1}U^{\Sbot}_{i 2}/\cbe
666: \non\\&&
667: +\frac{6 \cw \mb^2\{-\sa,\ca\} + \MW \MZ\cbe(-3 + 2\sw^2)\{-\sab,\cab\}}
668: {3\cw \cbe}(U^{\Sbot}_{i 1})^2
669: \non\\&&
670: +
671: \frac{ 6\cw\mb^2\{-\sa,\ca\} - 2\{-\sab,\cab\}\MW\MZ\cbe \sw^2}
672: {3\cw\cbe}(U^{\Sbot}_{i 2})^2
673: \EEA
674: %
675: and similar for $\lambda_{\tilde{\tau}\{h,H\}}$. The matrices
676: $U^{\Stop,\Sbot}$ diagonalize the sfermion mass matrices $M_{\sfn}^2$ in
677: the form $U^{\sfn} M_{\sfn}^2
678: (U^{\sfn})^\dagger=$ diag($m_{\sfn_1}^2,m_{\sfn_2}^2$). The loop function
679: ${\cal F}$ is given by
680: \BEA
681: {\cal F}(z) &=& \int_0^1 dx\frac{x(1-x)\log[z/(x(1-x))]}
682: {z-x(1-x)}.
683: \EEA
684: The result for the $W$ contribution has a similar form.
685:
686: This type of
687: contributions can be particularly enhanced by the ratio of the mass
688: scale of the dimensionful Higgs--Sfermion coupling
689: divided by the mass scale of the particles running in the loop, i.e.\
690: by ratios of the form
691: $\{\mu,A,\frac{\mt^2}{\MW}\}/\{m_{\sfn},M_{h,H}\}$, which can be much
692: larger than one. For
693: large $\tb$ and large sfermion mixing, the leading
694: terms are typically given by the parts of the couplings with the
695: highest power of $\tb$
696: and by the
697: loop with the lightest sfermion.
698: These contributions involve only $H$-exchange, since the
699: $h$-couplings approach the SM-Higgs coupling for not too small $\MA$.
700: They can be very well approximated by the formulas
701: %
702: \BEA
703: \label{stopcontrib}
704: \De\amu^{\Stop,{\rm 2L}} &=&
705: -0.013\times10^{-10}\;\frac{\mt\, \mu \tb}{\mst \MH}{\rm\ sign}(\At), \\
706: \De\amu^{\Sbot,{\rm 2L}} &=&
707: -0.0032\times10^{-10}\;\frac{\mb\, \Ab \tan^2\beta}{\msb \MH}{\rm\ sign}(\mu),
708: \label{sbotcontrib}
709: \EEA
710: %
711: where $\mst$ and $\msb$ are the masses of the lighter $\Stop$ and
712: $\Sbot$, respectively, and $\MH$ is the mass of the heavy $\cp$-even
713: Higgs boson. The formulas use the approximation ${\cal
714: F}(m_{\sfn}^2/\MH^2)/\MH^2\approx0.34/(m_{\sfn}\MH)$ for the loop
715: function, which holds up to few percent if the respective
716: sfermion mass fulfils $m_{\Stop,\Sbot}\lsim\MH$.
717: Since the heavier sfermions also contribute and
718: tend to cancel the contributions of the lighter sfermions, these
719: formulas do not approximate the full result very
720: precisely, but they do provide the right sign and order of magnitude.
721:
722: Equations (\ref{stopcontrib}), (\ref{sbotcontrib}) show that the
723: $\mt$-contributions are enhanced by one power of $\tb$ from the muon
724: Yukawa coupling and by the ratio $\mu/\MH$, whereas the
725: $\mb$-contributions contain an additional power of $\tb$ from the $b$
726: Yukawa coupling and the ratio $\Ab/\MH$. For $\tb=50$ and $\mu$ and
727: $A$ parameters larger than $1 \tev$ both contributions can amount to more
728: than $1\times10^{-10}$. However, $\mu$ is much more constrained by the
729: four experimental bounds in \refta{tab:bounds} than $\Ab$. Therefore,
730: the largest
731: contributions in \reffi{fig:scans} originate from the sbottom loop
732: diagrams and from parameter constellations where ${\Sbot_1}$ is the
733: lightest sfermion.
734:
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
736: \begin{figure}[htb!]
737: \BC
738: \epsfig{figure=MinMax02.bw.eps, width=11cm}
739: \caption{%
740: Maximum contributions of the ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$) and ($\sfn W^\pm H^\mp$)
741: diagrams to $\delamu$ as a function of the lightest squark mass,
742: min\{$\mste$, $\mstz$, $\msbe$, $\msbz$\}. No constraints except for the
743: parameter ranges in eq.\
744: (\ref{bounds}) are taken into account for the outermost curve. Going
745: to the inner curves additional weak constraints (see text) have
746: been applied.
747: }
748: \label{fig:gammaWscan}
749: \EC
750: \end{figure}
751: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
752:
753:
754: Now we study the influence of the individual experimental
755: constraints on the photon and $W$ exchange contributions.
756: Figure~\ref{fig:gammaWscan} is based on a data
757: sample of $\sim300000$ parameter points in the range specified in
758: \refeq{bounds}, on which the weak versions of the bounds in
759: \refta{tab:bounds} are
760: incrementally applied. Figure \ref{fig:gammaWscan_strong} is based on
761: the data points satisfying all weak constraints and shows the effect
762: of strengthening each bound separately.
763:
764: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
765: \begin{figure}[htb!]
766: \BC
767: \epsfig{figure=MinMax04.bw.eps, width=11cm}
768: \caption{%
769: Maximum contributions of the ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$) and ($\sfn W^\pm
770: H^\mp$)
771: diagrams to $\delamu$ as a function of the lightest squark mass,
772: min\{$\mste$, $\mstz$, $\msbe$, $\msbz$\}. The outer curve corresponds
773: to weak bounds for all experimental constraints. Each inner curve
774: takes into account one additional stronger constraint. Strengthening the
775: $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$-bound has a very small impact and
776: is not shown. The inner area consequently corresponds to all strong
777: constraints.
778: }
779: \label{fig:gammaWscan_strong}
780: \EC
781: \end{figure}
782: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
783:
784:
785: The results shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gammaWscan} are the
786: following:
787: \begin{itemize}
788:
789: \item The outer lines show the largest possible results if all
790: experimental bounds are ignored. They show a steep rise of $\delamu$
791: for decreasing $m_{\sfn_1}$; for $m_{\sfn_1} < 150 \gev$ contributions
792: larger than $15 \times 10^{-10}$, corresponding to two standard
793: deviations of the experimental error on $\amu$, are possible.
794:
795: \item The next two lines show the possible results if the bound
796: $\Mh > 106.4\gev$ and then in addition the bound on $\De\rho$ are
797: satisfied. The maximum contributions are very much reduced already
798: by the $\Mh$ bound, and the $\De\rho$ bound reduces further the
799: positive region for small sfermion masses. If both bounds are taken
800: into account, $\delamu > 5 \times 10^{-10}$ and $\delamu < -10 \times
801: 10^{-10}$ is excluded for $m_{\sfn_1} \gsim 100 \gev$.
802:
803: \item The two innermost lines correspond to taking into account in
804: addition the bound on $\br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ and finally also on
805: $\br(B \to X_s\ga)$. In particular taking into account the
806: $\br(B\to X_s\ga)$ bound
807: eliminates most data points with $m_{\sfn_1} \lsim 150 \gev$ and thus
808: leads to a strong reduction of the possible size of the
809: contributions. The largest
810: contributions of $\pm 4 \times10^{-10}$ to $\delamu$, corresponding to
811: $\sim 0.7\si$ of the experimental error, are possible for
812: $m_{\sfn_1} \approx 150 \ldots 200 \gev$.
813:
814: \end{itemize}
815: %
816: In applying all bounds one should be aware that any flavour
817: non-universality in the MSSM parameters could have a strong effect on
818: the predictions for the $b$ decays, whereas the influence on $\Mh$ and
819: $\De\rho^{\SU}$ would be mild. Hence it is interesting that even if
820: the $b$ physics bounds are ignored and only the weak $\Mh$ and
821: $\De\rho$ bounds are taken into account, the largest possible
822: contributions are strongly restricted to
823: \BE
824: -10\times10^{-10}<\delamu<5\times10^{-10}
825: \EE
826: for sfermions heavier than $100 \gev$.
827:
828: Figure \ref{fig:gammaWscan_strong} shows that strengthening the bound
829: on $\Mh$ from $\Mh > 106.4 \gev$ to $\Mh > 111.4 \gev$ has the most
830: significant effect. It cuts off all the regions where
831: $\delamu > 3 \times 10^{-10}$ and $\delamu < -2 \times
832: 10^{-10}$. Strengthening the other bounds has only a marginal
833: effect. This confirms that the
834: $\Mh$-bound is most important for restricting the parameter space.
835:
836:
837:
838: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
840:
841: \section{Non-universal soft SUSY-breaking parameters}
842: \label{sec:nonuniv}
843:
844: Up to now we have found only moderate numerical effects from the two-loop
845: diagrams with a closed (s)fermion loop, even for the photon
846: exchange diagrams. However, the approximation formula
847: eq.\ (\ref{stopcontrib}), $\De\amu^{\Stop,\rm 2L}\propto \mu
848: \mt/(m_{\Stop} \MH)$,
849: shows that values up to $15\times10^{-10}$ should
850: be possible if $\mu\sim3\tev$ and $m_{\Stop}$, $\MH\sim150\gev$ (for
851: $\tb=50$). In Fig.\ \ref{fig:gammaWscan} such contributions indeed
852: appear but they are excluded if the experimental constraints are taken
853: into account. Already imposing only the bound on $\Mh$ reduces the
854: maximum contributions almost by a factor of 3.
855:
856: It is important to keep in mind that all results presented so far were
857: based on the universality assumption $M_Q=M_U=M_D=M_L=M_E=\msusy$ for the
858: soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the MSSM.\footnote{%
859: SU(2) gauge invariance dictates only that the same left-handed squark
860: mass parameter $M_Q$ appears in the stop and sbottom mass matrices (and
861: analogously for $M_L$ in the slepton sector). Apart from this, there is
862: a priori no reason in the unconstrained MSSM to assume equality of the
863: left- and right-handed sfermion mass parameters, except for
864: simplicity. The symmetries of the MSSM allow independent values for
865: $M_{Q,U,D,L,E}$.
866: }
867: In this section we examine the
868: effect of relaxing this assumption. We do not attempt a full scan of
869: the MSSM parameter space but rather investigate which pattern of
870: non-universality
871: can lead to particularly large results.
872:
873: The reason why the large results in Fig.\ \ref{fig:gammaWscan} are
874: excluded is that universality indirectly leads to severe constraints
875: on the $\mu$ parameter. Via universality, the left- and right-handed
876: diagonal elements of the
877: stop and sbottom mass matrices are linked, and if one requires a light
878: stop, there is not much room for an even lighter sbottom. Hence the
879: off-diagonal element in the sbottom sector cannot be much larger than
880: the one in the stop sector, which means for large $\tb$,
881: $\tb \gsim \mt/\mb$:
882: \BE
883: |\mu| \lsim |\At|.
884: \label{mueconstraint}
885: \EE
886: $\At$ is not only restricted by the requirement that all stop squared
887: masses are positive but also by the $\Mh$-bound, which roughly leads
888: to $|\At|\lsim2.5\msusy$. Light stops require $|\mt\At|\approx\msusy^2$
889: and are therefore only possible for
890: $\msusy \lsim 400 \gev$, and thus $|\At|$ can hardly exceed $1
891: \tev$. Because of universality and eq.\ (\ref{mueconstraint}), the
892: bounds on $\At$ hold also for $\mu$, and therefore also $\mu\lsim1\tev$.
893:
894: It is therefore interesting to break up the relation between the stop
895: and sbottom mass parameters and to require only
896: \BE
897: \msusy=M_Q=M_U=M_L\ne M_D=M_E.
898: \EE
899: Thus we can choose small values of $\msusy$ and $\At$, giving rise to a
900: light stop. Choosing $M_D\gg\msusy$ at the same time allows very large
901: $\mu$ without producing a too light sbottom. We will see that these
902: large values of $\mu$ are also compatible with the bound on $\Mh$.
903:
904: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
905: \begin{figure}[t!]
906: \BC
907: \epsfig{figure=ratio_MA400_04.bw.eps, width=9.75cm,height=7.5cm}\\[1.5em]
908: \quad\hspace{-1.5mm}\epsfig{figure=ratio_MA400_03.bw.eps, width=9.5cm,height=7.5cm}
909: \caption{%
910: Possible values of $\mu$ (upper plot) and corresponding contributions
911: to $\delamu$ (lower plot) for the case of
912: non-universality of the soft SUSY-breaking parameters.
913: The plots show $\mu$ and $\delamu$ as a
914: function of $\msusy=M_Q=M_U$ for different values of the ratio
915: $M_D/\msusy$. The other parameters are chosen as
916: $m_{\Stop_1}=150\gev$, $\MA=400\gev$, $\Ab=0$, $\tb=50$.
917: }
918: \label{fig:nonuniversality}
919: \EC
920: %\vspace{-2em}
921: \end{figure}
922: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
923:
924: \reffi{fig:nonuniversality} shows the results for different
925: ratios of $M_D/\msusy$.
926: We choose a light stop mass $m_{\Stop_1}=150\gev$ and a moderate value
927: $\MA=400\gev$ in order to avoid too strong restrictions from $b$
928: decays. For each $\msusy$, $\At$ is determined by
929: $m_{\Stop_1}=150\gev$. The values of $\mu$ are determined as the
930: maximum values compatible with $\Mh>111.4\gev$ and
931: $\De\rho^{\SU}<0.004$.\footnote{%
932: $\Ab$ is set to zero here since the sbottom contributions cannot be
933: expected to increase significantly beyond $\sim5\times10^{-10}$, see
934: eq.\ (\ref{sbotcontrib}).}
935:
936: The upper plot in
937: \reffi{fig:nonuniversality} shows these maximum values of $\mu$
938: as functions of $\msusy$. They significantly increase with
939: $M_D/\msusy$. Already for $M_D/\msusy=3$, values for $\mu$ larger than
940: $1.5\tev$ are
941: possible. For $M_D/\msusy=6$, $\mu=3\tev$ is possible, and for
942: $M_D/\msusy=30$, even $\mu=6\tev$ is possible.
943:
944: The lower plot in \reffi{fig:nonuniversality} shows the
945: corresponding results of the photon exchange diagrams
946: $\De\amu^{(\sfn \ga\{h,H\}),\rm2L}$.
947: We choose $\At<0$ so that the contribution to $\amu$ is
948: positive. The results exhibit a clear correlation with the values of
949: $\mu$, and they are quite precisely given by the approximation
950: (\ref{stopcontrib}).%
951: %
952: \footnote{%
953: Owing to the large values of $\mu$ the loop
954: corrections to the heavy $\cp$-even Higgs mass $\MH$ can be large,
955: and $\MH$, which enters in eq.\ (\ref{stopcontrib}), can be
956: significantly lower than $\MA$.%
957: }%
958: %
959: ~Thus the maximum results with $\mu < 3 \tev$ are about $10 \times
960: 10^{-10}$, and the results for $\mu = 6 \tev$ are larger than $20
961: \times 10^{-10}$.
962:
963: It should be noted that these parameter choices are rather extreme and involve
964: vastly different mass scales for the MSSM parameters. As an example, the
965: largest results are obtained for $\msusy\sim300\gev$, $M_D\sim9\tev$,
966: $\At\sim550\gev$,
967: $\mu\sim 6\tev$.
968: We have checked that all points plotted in
969: \reffi{fig:nonuniversality}
970: with $\msusy=260\ldots390\gev$, where $\mu$ and
971: $\delamu$ are large, satisfy not only the bounds on $\Mh$
972: and $\De\rho$ but also those on $B\to X_s\ga$ and
973: $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$. Only if smaller values, $\MA<400\gev$, are chosen,
974: strong violations of the $b$ decay bounds occur. For larger
975: $\MA$, on the other hand, the $b$ decay constraints are less
976: restrictive, and even larger values for $\mu$ and $\delamu$ than in
977: \reffi{fig:nonuniversality} are possible.
978:
979:
980: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
981: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
982:
983:
984: \section{Conclusions}
985: \label{sec:conclusions}
986:
987: We have obtained results for MSSM \twol\ corrections to the anomalous
988: magnetic moment of the muon. The corrections consist of diagrams where
989: a SM fermion or sfermion loop is inserted into a \onel\ diagram with
990: gauge- and/or Higgs-boson exchange.
991: We have investigated the importance of the individual contributions
992: and the impact of existing experimental constraints on the maximum
993: numerical results.
994:
995: It has been found that the by far
996: most important of the considered
997: diagrams are the ones with a sfermion loop and photon
998: and neutral Higgs exchange ($\sfn \ga \{h,H\}$). They contribute up to
999: about $2.5 \times 10^{-10}$ in the
1000: parameter space allowed by all experimental constraints. This value
1001: has to be compared with the current experimental error of
1002: $6\times10^{-10}$. The diagrams with sfermion loop and $W^\pm$/$H^\mp$
1003: exchange ($\sfn W^\pm H^\mp$) and the fermion loop diagrams ($f V\phi$)
1004: contribute up to $0.3 \times 10^{-10}$ and
1005: $0.6 \times 10^{-10}$, respectively, while the remaining diagrams are
1006: negligible.
1007:
1008:
1009:
1010: Our second result is that taking into account existing experimental
1011: constraints is crucial. We have carefully analyzed the impact of the
1012: constraints on the lightest Higgs-boson
1013: mass, $\De\rho$, $\br(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ and $\br(B\to X_s\ga)$.
1014: If the
1015: experimental constraints were ignored and the $\mu$ and $A$ parameters
1016: were varied up to $3\tev$, contributions of more than
1017: $15\times10^{-10}$, corresponding to $2.5\si$ of the experimental error,
1018: would be possible from the two-loop diagrams. Already if
1019: only the experimental bounds on $\Mh$ and $\De\rho$ are taken into
1020: account, the accessible parameter space for $\mu$, $\At$, and $\Ab$ is
1021: severely restricted, and one obtains
1022: $-10 \times 10^{-10} < \delamu < 5 \times 10^{-10}$. Taking into account
1023: all constraints leads to the relatively small result of
1024: $\delamu \lsim 3 \times10^{-10}$.
1025: This two-loop correction of $\sim 0.5 \, \si$ therefore gives rise to
1026: only a moderate shift of the one-loop SUSY result (which can easily
1027: account for the $\sim 3 \, \si$ deviation between the SM prediction and
1028: the data).
1029:
1030: The results quoted above have been obtained under the assumption of
1031: universal soft SUSY-breaking parameters $M_Q = M_U = M_D$. If one allows
1032: large mass splittings between these parameters, the considered MSSM
1033: \twol\ contributions can have a significantly larger numerical effect
1034: while the existing constraints are still satisfied. We have
1035: analyzed the example of
1036: $M_D>M_Q=M_U$, which can give rise to particularly
1037: large contributions to $\amu$. One needs large ratios $M_D/M_Q>3$ and
1038: at the same time a light stop and extremely large $\mu$ in order to
1039: obtain contributions that are significantly higher than
1040: $5\times10^{-10}$. Though in principle possible, such parameter
1041: constellations look quite artificial, and they should be viewed as an
1042: illustration of how difficult it is to produce larger contributions to
1043: $\amu$. Models with universality at some high scale typically lead
1044: to approximate low-energy universality $M_Q\approx
1045: M_U\approx M_D$ and $M_Q \gg M_L\approx M_E$, which would restrict the
1046: allowed range for $\mu$ even more than low-energy universality.
1047:
1048: The contributions presented in this paper involve the potentially large
1049: enhancement factors $\{\mu,A\}/\{m_{\tilde{f}},\MH\}$ and constitute an
1050: important part of the \twol\ contributions in the MSSM. Our full
1051: result is
1052: included as a Fortran subroutine in the code \fh\ (see:
1053: {\tt www.feynhiggs.de}). It can also be obtained as a {\em Mathematica}
1054: formula from the authors upon request.
1055:
1056: In order to reduce the
1057: theoretical uncertainty of the MSSM prediction for $\amu$ further, the
1058: remaining \twol\ contributions should be analyzed as well. The
1059: technical tools developed in this paper allow such a study, and the
1060: results will be presented in a forthcoming publication.
1061:
1062:
1063:
1064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1065: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1066:
1067: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
1068: We thank A.~Arhrib, A.\ Dedes, K.\ Desch, W.~Marciano, and D.\ Nomura,
1069: for interesting discussions and A.\ Dedes and G.\ Hiller for providing
1070: their codes. D.S. thanks
1071: M.~Steinhauser and A.~Freitas for useful discussions and
1072: checks of \twol\ asymptotic expansion and reduction algorithms.
1073: This work has been supported by the European Community's Human
1074: Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at
1075: Colliders.
1076:
1077:
1078: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1079: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1080:
1081: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1082:
1083: \bibitem{g-2exp} [The Muon g-2 Collaboration],
1084: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89} (2002) 101804
1085: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 129903],
1086: hep-ex/0208001;
1087: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%
1088: {\em AIP Conf. Proc.} {\bf 675} (2003) 13,
1089: hep-ex/0301003;
1090: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0301003;%%
1091: hep-ex/0401008.
1092: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%
1093:
1094: \bibitem{DEHZ} M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~H\"ocker and Z.~Zhang,
1095: {\em Eur.\ Phys.\ J.}\ {\bf C 31} (2003) 503,
1096: hep-ph/0308213.
1097: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308213;%%
1098:
1099: \bibitem{g-2HMNT} K.~Hagiwara, A.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,
1100: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 557} (2003) 69,
1101: hep-ph/0209187;\\
1102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209187;%%
1103: updated by K.~Hagiwara,
1104: talk given at the SUSY03, June 2003, Tucson, USA and\\
1105: T.~Teubner,
1106: talk given at the EPS03, July 2003, Aachen, Germany, see:\\
1107: {\tt eps2003.physik.rwth-aachen.de/data/talks/parallel/11SM/11Teubner.pdf}.
1108:
1109: \bibitem{Jegerlehner} S.~Ghozzi and F.~Jegerlehner,
1110: hep-ph/0310181.
1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310181;%%
1112:
1113: \bibitem{g-2review} A.~Czarnecki and W.~Marciano,
1114: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 64} (2001) 013014,
1115: hep-ph/0102122.
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102122;%%
1117:
1118: \bibitem{g-2review2} M.~Knecht,
1119: hep-ph/0307239.
1120: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307239;%%
1121:
1122: \bibitem{g-2MSSMf1l} T.~Moroi,
1123: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 53} (1996) 6565
1124: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf D 56} (1997) 4424],
1125: hep-ph/9512396.
1126: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512396;%%
1127:
1128: \bibitem{g-2MSSMlog2l} G.~Degrassi and G.~Giudice,
1129: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 58} (1998) 053007,
1130: hep-ph/9803384.
1131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803384;%%
1132:
1133: \bibitem{g-2appl1} J.~Ellis, D.~Nanopoulos and K.~Olive,
1134: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 508} (2001) 65,
1135: hep-ph/0102331;\\
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%
1137: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,
1138: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 505} (2001) 177,
1139: hep-ph/0102344;\\
1140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%
1141: J.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,
1142: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 515} (2001) 348,
1143: hep-ph/0105061;
1144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105061;%%
1145: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0301} (2003) 006,
1146: hep-ph/0211206;\\
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211206;%%
1148: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~Kneur,
1149: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0108} (2001) 055,
1150: hep-ph/0107316.
1151: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%
1152:
1153: \bibitem{g-2appl2} L.~Everett, G.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,
1154: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 3484,
1155: hep-ph/0102145;\\
1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%
1157: J.~Feng and K.~Matchev,
1158: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 3480,
1159: hep-ph/0102146;\\
1160: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%
1161: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
1162: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 5854,
1163: hep-ph/0102157;\\
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%
1165: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
1166: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 506} (2001) 93,
1167: hep-ph/0102204;\\
1168: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%
1169: S.~Martin and J.~Wells,
1170: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 64} (2001) 035003,
1171: hep-ph/0103067;\\
1172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%
1173: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
1174: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 64} (2001) 035004,
1175: hep-ph/0103280;\\
1176: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%
1177: S.~Martin and J.~Wells,
1178: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 67} (2003) 015002,
1179: hep-ph/0209309.
1180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209309;%%
1181:
1182: \bibitem{g-2BarrZee1} C.~Chen and C.~Geng,
1183: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 511} (2001) 77,
1184: hep-ph/0104151.
1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104151;%%
1186:
1187: \bibitem{g-2BarrZee2} A.~Arhrib and S.~Baek,
1188: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 65} (2002) 075002,
1189: hep-ph/0104225.
1190: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104225;%%
1191:
1192: \bibitem{feynarts} J.~K\"ublbeck, M.~B\"ohm, and A.~Denner,
1193: {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 60} (1990) 165; \\
1194: %%CITATION = CPHCB,60,165;%%
1195: T.~Hahn,
1196: {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 140} (2001) 418,
1197: hep-ph/0012260.
1198: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012260;%%
1199:
1200: \bibitem{fa-mssm} T.~Hahn and C.~Schappacher,
1201: {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 143} (2002) 54,
1202: hep-ph/0105349.
1203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105349;%%
1204:
1205: \bibitem{g-2SM2lA} A.~Czarnecki, B.~Krause and W.~Marciano,
1206: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 76} (1996) 3267,
1207: hep-ph/9512369;
1208: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512369;%%
1209: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 52} (1995) 2619,
1210: hep-ph/9506256.
1211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506256;%%
1212:
1213: \bibitem{g-2SM2lB} B.~Krause,
1214: PhD thesis, Universit\"at Karlsruhe, 1997,
1215: Shaker Verlag, ISBN~3-8265-2780-1.
1216:
1217: \bibitem{2lred} G.~Weiglein, R.~Scharf and M.~B\"ohm,
1218: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 416} (1994) 606,
1219: hep-ph/9310358;\\
1220: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310358;%%
1221: G.~Weiglein, R.~Mertig, R.~Scharf and M.~B\"ohm,
1222: in {\it New Computing Techniques in Physics Research 2},
1223: ed.~D.~Perret-Gallix (World Scientific, Singapore,
1224: 1992), p.~617.
1225:
1226: \bibitem{smirnov} V.~Smirnov, {\em Applied Asymptotic Expansions in
1227: Momenta and Masses}, Springer Verlag, Berlin (2002).
1228:
1229: \bibitem{t134} A. Davydychev und J.~Tausk,
1230: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 397} (1993) 123;\\
1231: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B397,123;%%
1232: F. Berends und J.~Tausk,
1233: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 421} (1994) 456.
1234: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B421,456;%%
1235:
1236: \bibitem{a0b0c0d0} G.~Passarino and M.~Veltman,
1237: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 160} (1979) 151.
1238: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
1239:
1240: \bibitem{onshell}
1241: K.~Aoki, Z.~Hioki, M.~Konuma, R.~Kawabe and T.~Muta,
1242: {\em Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.}\ {\bf 73} (1982) 1;\\
1243: %%CITATION = PTPSA,73,1;%%
1244: M.~B\"ohm, W.~Hollik and H.~Spiesberger,
1245: {\em Fortsch. Phys.} {\bf 34} (1986) 687; \\
1246: W.~Hollik, E.~Kraus, M.~Roth, C.~Rupp, K.~Sibold
1247: and D.~St\"ockinger,
1248: %``Renormalization of the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
1249: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B 639} (2002) 3,
1250: hep-ph/0204350.
1251: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204350;%%
1252: \bibitem{feynhiggs} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1253: {\em Comp. Phys. Comm.} {\bf 124} (2000) 76,
1254: hep-ph/9812320;
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%
1256: hep-ph/0002213; \\
1257: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002213;%%
1258: M.~Frank, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and
1259: G.~Weiglein,
1260: hep-ph/0202166.\\
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202166;%%
1262: The codes are accessible via
1263: {\tt www.feynhiggs.de} .
1264:
1265: \bibitem{pdg} Part. Data Group,
1266: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 66} (2002) 010001.
1267: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1268:
1269: \bibitem{mschmitt} M. Schmitt, talk given at {\em LeptonPhoton 2003},
1270: Fermilab, August 2003, see:\\
1271: {\tt
1272: conferences.fnal.gov/lp2003/program/S2/schmitt\_s02.pdf}.
1273:
1274: \bibitem{lephiggs} [LEP Higgs working group],
1275: hep-ex/0107030;
1276: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107030;%%
1277: LHWG Note 2001-4,
1278: see:\\ {\tt lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/} .
1279:
1280: \bibitem{LEPHiggsSM} [LEP Higgs working group],
1281: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 565} (2003) 61,
1282: hep-ex/0306033.
1283: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%
1284:
1285: \bibitem{mhiggsletter} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1286: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 58} (1998) 091701,
1287: hep-ph/9803277;
1288: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803277;%%
1289: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 440} (1998) 296,
1290: hep-ph/9807423.
1291: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807423;%%
1292:
1293: \bibitem{mhiggslong} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1294: {\em Eur. Phys. Jour.} {\bf C 9} (1999) 343,
1295: hep-ph/9812472.
1296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%
1297:
1298: \bibitem{mhiggsAEC} G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik,
1299: P.~Slavich and G.~Weiglein,
1300: {\em Eur. Phys. Jour.} {\bf C 28} (2003) 133,
1301: hep-ph/0212020;\\
1302: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212020;%%
1303: A.~Dedes, G.~Degrassi and P.~Slavich,
1304: %``On the two-loop Yukawa corrections to the MSSM Higgs boson masses at large tan(beta),''
1305: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B 672} (2003) 144
1306: hep-ph/0305127.
1307: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305127;%%
1308:
1309: \bibitem{delrhosusy2loop} A.~Djouadi, P.~Gambino, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik,
1310: C.~J\"unger and G.~Weiglein,
1311: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 78} (1997) 3626,
1312: hep-ph/9612363;
1313: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612363;%%
1314: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 57} (1998) 4179,
1315: hep-ph/9710438;\\
1316: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710438;%%
1317: S.~Heinemeyer and G.~Weiglein,
1318: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0210} (2002) 072,
1319: hep-ph/0209305;
1320: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209305;%%
1321: hep-ph/0301062.
1322: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301062;%%
1323:
1324: \bibitem{bsmumu} F.~Azfar,
1325: hep-ex/0309005;\\
1326: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0309005;%%
1327: M.~Nakao,
1328: talk given at {\em LeptonPhoton 2003}, Fermilab,
1329: August 2003, hep-ex/0312041;\\
1330: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0312041;%%
1331: K.~Babu and C.~Kolda,
1332: {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf 84} (2000) 228,
1333: hep-ph/9909476;\\
1334: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909476;%%
1335: S.~Choudhury and N.~Gaur,
1336: %``Dileptonic decay of B/s meson in SUSY models with large tan(beta),''
1337: {\em Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf B 451} (1999) 86,
1338: hep-ph/9810307;\\
1339: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810307;%%
1340: C.~Bobeth, T.~Ewerth, F.~Kr\"uger and J.~Urban,
1341: {\em Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D 64} (2001) 074014,
1342: hep-ph/0104284;\\
1343: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104284;%%
1344: A.~Dedes, H.~Dreiner and U.~Nierste,
1345: {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251804,
1346: hep-ph/0108037;\\
1347: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108037;%%
1348: G.~Isidori and A.~Retico,
1349: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0111} (2001) 001,
1350: hep-ph/0110121;\\
1351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110121;%%
1352: A.~Dedes and A.~Pilaftsis,
1353: {\em Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D 67} (2003) 015012,
1354: hep-ph/0209306;\\
1355: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209306;%%
1356: A.~Buras, P.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek and L.~Slawianowska,
1357: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B 659} (2003) 3,
1358: hep-ph/0210145;\\
1359: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210145;%%
1360: A.~Dedes,
1361: {\em Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.}\ {\bf A 18} (2003) 2627,
1362: hep-ph/0309233.
1363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309233;%%
1364:
1365: \bibitem{bsg} P.~Cho, M.~Misiak and D.~Wyler,
1366: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 54}, 3329 (1996),
1367: hep-ph/9601360;\\
1368: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601360;%%
1369: A.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,
1370: {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 7} (1999) 5,
1371: hep-ph/9805303;\\
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805303;%%
1373: K.~Chetyrkin, M.~Misiak and M.~M\"unz,
1374: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 400}, (1997) 206,
1375: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf B 425} (1998) 414]
1376: hep-ph/9612313;\\
1377: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612313;%%
1378: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,
1379: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 611} (2001) 338,
1380: hep-ph/0104034;\\
1381: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%
1382: A.~Ali, E.~Lunghi, C.~Greub and G.~Hiller,
1383: %``Improved model-independent analysis of semileptonic and radiative rare B decays,''
1384: {\em Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D 66} (2002) 034002,
1385: hep-ph/0112300;\\
1386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112300;%%
1387: R.~Barate et al.\ [ALEPH Collaboration],
1388: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 429} (1998) 169;\\
1389: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B429,169;%%
1390: S.~Chen et al.\ [CLEO Collaboration],
1391: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87} (2001) 251807,
1392: hep-ex/0108032;\\
1393: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108032;%%
1394: K.~Abe et al.\ [Belle Collaboration],
1395: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 511} (2001) 151,
1396: hep-ex/0103042;\\
1397: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
1398: B.~Aubert et al.\ [BABAR Collaboration],
1399: hep-ex/0207074;
1400: hep-ex/0207076.
1401: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207074;%%
1402: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207076;%%
1403:
1404: \bibitem{tbexcl} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1405: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0006} (2000) 009,
1406: hep-ph/9909540.
1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909540;%%
1408:
1409:
1410: \end{thebibliography}
1411:
1412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1414:
1415:
1416: \end{document}
1417: