1:
2: \title{\bf\boldmath\protect Higgs sector contributions to $\Delta \mbox{\protect $a_\mu$}$ and the
3: constraints on two-Higgs-doublet-model with and without SUSY.}
4:
5: \author{OTTO~C.~W. KONG\footnote{\uppercase{W}ork partially
6: supported by grant \uppercase{NSC}92-2112-\uppercase{M}-008-044 of the
7: \uppercase{N}ational \uppercase{S}cience \uppercase{C}ouncil of \uppercase{T}aiwan.}}
8:
9: \address{Department of Physics, National Central University,
10: Chung-li, TAIWAN 32054\\
11: E-mail: otto@phy.ncu.edu.tw}
12:
13: \maketitle
14:
15: \abstracts{
16: Interesting contributions to $\Delta a_\mu$ from a two-Higgs-doublet-model
17: is coming from a two-loop Barr-Zee diagram for most part of the parameter
18: space --- a fact that has been overlooked by some Higgs/SUSY experts.
19: A definite positive contribution has requirements that go against
20: precision EW data and other known constraints. For the case without SUSY,
21: in particular, this is almost enough to kill the two-Higgs-doublet-model
22: (II). We will discuss the interplay of all the constraints and their
23: implications. }
24:
25: \section{\boldmath\protect $\mbox{$\Delta a_\mu$}$ Anomaly and Higgs Contributions}
26: This talk is based on the suggestion that there is a disagreement between the
27: experimentally measured value of the muon anomalous magnetic moment and
28: that of the SM theoretical value. We are interested in the significance of the
29: Higgs sector contributions within the framework of a two-Higgs-doublet-model (2HDM),
30: with or without SUSY. Apparently, there has been a lack of appreciation for the
31: fact that the dominating Higgs contributions is coming from a two-loop
32: Barr-Zee diagram\cite{as13,007}. We discuss the kind of contributions and
33: their possible role to the explanation of the $\Delta a_\mu$ anomaly.
34:
35: Most of the specific results used for illustrations here are based on our earlier paper\cite{007}.
36: In particular, the $\Delta a_\mu$ anomaly number is taken as
37: \[
38: \Delta a_\mu \equiv a_\mu^{\rm exp} - a_\mu^{\rm SM} = %\left \{
39: \begin{array}{cc}
40: (33.9 \pm 11.2) \times 10^{-10} & \quad\mbox{(based on $e^+e^-$ data)} \;,\\
41: %(17 \pm 11) \times 10^{-10} & \mbox{data set B}
42: \end{array}
43: \]
44: which represents a discrepancy at a $3\,\sigma$ level\cite{smamu}.
45: It should be noted that if the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution within the
46: SM calculations is obtained based on input from $\tau$ data, instead of the
47: $e^+e^-$ data, the discrepancy would be reduced\cite{smamu}.
48: \\
49: \parbox{2.5in}{\ \ Our focus here is the Higgs sector contributions. A 1-loop diagram
50: has a contribution too small to explain the discrepancy for $m_\phi > 10$ GeV\cite{1loop}.
51: However, at the 2-loop level, there is a (photon) Barr-Zee diagram (as shown to the right)
52: with contribution easily {dominates} over the 1-loop result for $m_\phi > 3$ GeV. The
53: diagram may have enhancement from a large $\tan\!\beta$. We have
54: }
55: \begin{minipage}[h]{1in}
56: \vspace*{1.8in}
57: %\begin{figure}[b]
58: \special{psfile=as13-1.ps angle=0 hscale=90
59: vscale=90 hoffset=-190 voffset=-480}
60: %\end{figure}
61: \end{minipage}
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%
63: \vspace*{-.5in}
64: \beq
65: \Delta a_\mu^{\phi} =
66: \frac{N_{\!c}^f \, \alpha_{\mbox{\tiny em}}}{4\pi^3 \,v^2}
67: {m_\mu^2}\;
68: {\mathcal Q}_f^2 \left[ A_\mu \, A_f \,
69: g\!\!\left( \frac{m_f^2}{m_{\phi}^2} \right)
70: - \lambda_\mu \, \lambda_f \,
71: f\!\!\left( \frac{m_f^2}{m_\phi^2} \right) \right] \;,
72: \vspace*{-.3in}
73: \eeq
74: %\vspace*{-.3in}
75: where $\lambda_f$ and $A_f$ represent the effective scalar and pseudoscalar
76: couplings of a fermion $f$ to the Higgs state, with loop functions
77: $f(z)={1\over 2} z \int^1_0 \! dx \;
78: \frac{1-2x(1-x)}{x(1-x)-z} \ln\frac{x(1-x)}{z}$ and
79: $g(z)={1\over 2} z \int^1_0 \! dx \; \frac{1}{x(1-x)-z} \ln\frac{x(1-x)}{z}$.
80: \\
81:
82: The most interesting point to note is that the 2-loop contribution has, in general, an
83: opposite sign to the 1-loop result. It is negative for a real scalar, but positive for a
84: pseudoscalar. With a minimally extended Higgs sector, a 2HDM has two real scalars
85: ($h$ and$H$) and a pseudoscalar ($A$). If the latter contribution dominates, there
86: is a chance that the Higgs sector contributions can account for the $\Delta a_\mu$
87: anomaly. We illustrate in the plot below the result from the contribution of a single
88: pseudoscalar (1-loop + photon Barr-Zee, with SM fermions) with the variations of
89: $m_{\ssc A}$ and $\tan\!\beta$. In the case of a concrete model, the cancellation
90: effect from the negative scalar contributions has also to be taken into account.
91: \\
92: \parbox{2.in}{%\ \
93: \section{On the Two-Higgs-Doublet-Model} %(II)}
94: The 2HDM II is the most appealing Higgs sector extension, and a natural component
95: of the supersymmetric SM. Neglecting the very small admissible CP violation,
96: we have the following results on the relative couplings for $t$, $b$, and $\tau$, respectively :
97: }
98: \begin{minipage}[h]{2.in}
99: %\begin{figure}[b]
100: %\vspace*{.5in}
101: \special{psfile=007-2.ps angle=0 hscale=35
102: vscale=35 hoffset=-5 voffset=-90}
103: %\end{figure}
104: \end{minipage}
105:
106: \eject
107: \noindent
108: \parbox{2.1in}{
109: \small
110: \beqa
111: h \;(\lambda_{f}) & :& \quad \frac{\cos\!\za}{\sin\!\zb}
112: \quad -\frac{\sin\!\za}{{\cos\!\zb}} \quad -\frac{\sin\!\za}{{\cos\!\zb}}
113: \nonumber \\
114: H\; (\lambda_{f}) & :& \quad \frac{\sin\!\za}{\sin\!\zb}
115: \qquad \;\frac{\cos\!\za}{{\cos\!\zb}} \qquad \;\frac{\cos\!\za}{{\cos\!\zb}}
116: \nonumber \\
117: {A} \;(A_{f}) & :& \quad {\cot\!\zb} \qquad \;\;{\tan\!\zb} \qquad \;\,{\tan\!\zb}
118: \;. \quad\nonumber
119: %\nonumber
120: \eeqa
121: \normalsize
122: \ \ From the above, it is clear that for the Higgs sector contributions to account for
123: any substantial part of the $\Delta a_\mu$ anomaly, a light pseudoscalar together
124: with heavy scalars and a relatively large $\tan\!\zb$ would be required. The
125: condition $m_{\ssc A} \!\!< \!\!m_{\ssc h}$ is not admissible in the SUSY case.
126: However, one is still left with the
127: question if the Higgs sector contributions could have a significant role to play, may
128: be giving a substantial negative overall contribution to shift the parameter
129: space solution region from that of the naive 1-loop considerations. While the
130: possible role of the Barr-Zee diagrams, here extended to includes the ones with
131: sfermions running in the upper loop, in the SUSY case for the study of EDM is
132: well documented, the corresponding situation of the magentic moments is largely
133: overlooked. Studies of fitting $\Delta a_\mu$ focused only on the 1-loop chargino
134: and neutralino contributions. Fortunately, we obtained a definite negative
135: result \cite{007}, for a generic choice of SUSY parameters.
136:
137: \ \ For the case without SUSY, while a light pseudosclar is admissible, the fit
138: the required $\Delta a_\mu$ numerical, a substantial splitting between
139: $m_{\scriptscriptstyle A}$ and $m_h\;( < m_{\scriptscriptstyle H}\,)$ is needed\cite{as13}.
140: \ In fact, \ the $\Delta a_\mu$ \ anomaly imposes a}
141: \begin{minipage}[h]{2.in}%{\textwidth}
142: %\twocolumn
143: %\begin{figure}[b]
144: \vspace*{2.5in}
145: \special{psfile=007-5a.ps angle=0 hscale=35
146: vscale=35 hoffset=-10 voffset=0}
147:
148: \vspace*{2.4in}
149: \special{psfile=007-5c.ps angle=0 hscale=35
150: vscale=35 hoffset=-10 voffset=0}
151:
152: \vspace*{2.4in}
153: \special{psfile=007-5d.ps angle=0 hscale=35
154: vscale=35 hoffset=-10 voffset=0}
155: %\end{figure}
156: \vspace*{.1in}
157: {\small \hspace*{.2in}\hbox{Plots of all constraints on 2HDM.}}
158: \end{minipage}
159:
160: \eject
161: \noindent
162: very stringent constraint on the
163: model in a way largely complementary to the precision EW, and other known,
164: constraints. The interplay of all these is very interesting. For example, taking the
165: $3.3\,\sigma$ $\Delta a_\mu$ together with the $R_b$ constraint with a limit
166: $\chi^2 < 4$, the 2HDM would largely be ruled out.
167:
168: \section{Putting Together the Other Constraints}
169: We have performed a comprehensive study of the overall Higgs sector contributions,
170: together with other available constraints on the model\cite{007}. We illustrate a few plots
171: from our result on the previous page. The dark color shaped regions represent
172: solutions to $\chi^2 < 4$ for $\Delta a_\mu$ and the $R_b$ constraints combined.
173: The light color shaped regions have $\chi^2 < 10.3$, the SM value. Here, the $R_b$
174: constraint used is given by
175: $
176: {\Delta R_b} \equiv R_b^{\rm exp} - R_b^{\rm SM} =
177: { 0.000692 \pm 0.00065} \;.
178: $
179: We have, for each plot, pick a choice of values for $\tan\!\zb$ and the scalar Higgs
180: mixing angle $\za$. The heavy scalar $H$ is assumed to be heavy enough for its
181: effects to be neglected, while the charged Higgs mass is set at $500\,\mbox{GeV}$.
182: The charged Higgs contributes, through the
183: charged current interaction with CKM mixings, strongly to $b\to s\,\gamma$.
184: Our choice of $m_{\ssc H^+}$ is then about the lowest admissible value.
185: Our careful analysis of the constraint from the $\rho$-parameter\cite{007}
186: illustrated that the Higgs masses are forced into a very fine-tuned
187: relation, which, for the case of $m_{\ssc A}\!\!<\!\!m_{\ssc h}\ll m_{\ssc H^+}$,
188: requires $m_{\ssc H}$ to be at least a few times $m_{\ssc H^+}$. Hence, it
189: justifies our neglecting $H$ contributions (to $R_b$ and $a_\mu$).
190: Finally, we also lput in the experimental bounds from OPAL and DELPHI\cite{e}.
191: The first two plots shown represent what is close to the best case scenario.
192: Any possible surviving region in the parameter space would have an $\za$
193: value around ${-3\pi/8}$ to ${-\pi/2}$, and a value of $\tan\!\zb$ that
194: is uncomfortably large.
195:
196: {\it This write-up is done while the author is visiting as the Korea Institute for Advanced Study.
197: The institute is to be thanked for the great hospitality. The author is in debt to K.~Cheung,
198: from the collaboration results with whom that the presentation is based.}
199:
200: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
201: \bibitem{as13}
202: K.~Cheung, C.-H.~Chou, and O.C.W.~Kong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, {\it 111301(R)} (2001);
203: see also D.~Chang {\it et.al.}, %W.~Chang, C.~Chou, and W.~Keung,
204: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, {\it 091301(R)} (2001).
205: \bibitem{007}
206: K. Cheung and O.C.W. Kong, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, {\it 053003} (2003).
207: \bibitem{smamu}
208: M. Davis {\it et.al.}, Eur. J. Phys. C {\bf 37}, 493 (2003);
209: K.~Hagiwara {\it et.al.},
210: %A.D. Martin, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner,
211: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 557}, 69 (2003). See K.~Hagiwara {\it et.al.}, hep-ph/0312250
212: for update.
213: \bibitem{1loop}
214: A. Dedes and H. Haber, JHEP {\bf 0105}, 006 (2001).
215: \bibitem{e}
216: OPAL, physics note PN475, 2001;
217: DELPHI, report 2002-037-CONF-571.
218: \end{thebibliography}
219:
220:
221:
222:
223: