1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsf,epsfig,rotating}
3: \textheight 230 mm
4: \textwidth 160 mm
5: \hoffset -0.5 cm
6: \voffset -2.0 cm
7: \pagestyle{plain}
8: \pagenumbering{arabic}
9: \setcounter{page}{1}
10:
11:
12: \def\emline#1#2#3#4#5#6{%
13: \put(#1,#2){\special{em:moveto}}%
14: \put(#4,#5){\special{em:lineto}}}
15: \def\newpic#1{}
16:
17: %******************* new commands *********************************
18:
19: \newcommand{\idnty}{1\hspace{-0.85mm}\mbox{l}}
20: %\newcommand{\lsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
21: %\newcommand{\gsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
22: \newcommand{\nn}{\noindent}
23: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}
24: \newcommand{\tb}{\mbox{tg$\beta$}}
25: \newcommand{\s}{\hat{s}}
26: \renewcommand{\t}{\hat{t}}
27: \renewcommand{\u}{\hat{u}}
28: \newcommand{\mc}{m_c^2}
29: \newcommand{\mcc}{m_c^4}
30: \newcommand{\md}{m_d^2}
31: \newcommand{\mq}{m_Q^2}
32: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
33: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
34: \newcommand{\ff}{\frac}
35:
36: \newcommand{\pht}{\phantom{\frac{1}{1}}\!\!\!\!}
37:
38: %************************* appendix new commands ****************
39:
40: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
41: \newcommand{\imag}{\Im {\rm m}}
42: \newcommand{\real}{\Re {\rm e}}
43: \newcommand{\tanb}{\tan \! \beta}
44: \newcommand{\cotb}{\cot \! \beta}
45: \newcommand{\mto}{m^2_{\tilde{t}_1}}
46: \newcommand{\mttt}{m^2_{\tilde{t}_2}}
47: \newcommand{\mbo}{m^2_{\tilde{b}_1}}
48: \newcommand{\mbt}{m^2_{\tilde{b}_2}}
49: \newcommand{\ghat}{\hat{g}^2}
50: \newcommand{\htop}{\left| h_t \right|^2}
51: \newcommand{\hb}{\left| h_b \right|^2}
52: \newcommand{\lsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
53: \newcommand{\gsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$ \\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
54:
55:
56:
57: \begin{document}
58:
59:
60: \begin{center}
61:
62: {\Large \bf Higgs Bosons in the Two-Doublet Model
63: with {\itshape CP} Violation\\
64: } \vspace{4 mm}
65:
66: E. Akhmetzyanova$^{\$}$, M. Dolgopolov$^{\$}$, M. Dubinin$^\#$
67:
68: \vspace{4 mm}
69:
70: $^{\$}$Samara State University, Physics Department, Russia;\\
71: $^\#$Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University,
72: Russia.\\
73:
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76: We consider the effective two-Higgs-doublet potential
77: with complex parameters, when the $CP$ invariance is broken
78: both explicitly and spontaneously.
79: Diagonal mass term in the local
80: minimum of the potential is constructed
81: for the physical basis of Higgs fields,
82: keeping explicitly the limiting case of $CP$-conservation,
83: if the parameters are taken real.
84: For special case of the two-doublet Higgs sector of the
85: minimal supersymmetric model, when $CP$ invariance is violated by the
86: Higgs bosons interaction with scalar quarks of the third generation,
87: we calculate by means of the effective potential method
88: the Higgs boson masses and evaluate
89: the two-fermion Higgs boson decay widths and the widths of rare
90: one-loop mediated decays $H\rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, $H\rightarrow gg$.
91: \end{abstract}
92:
93: \end{center}
94:
95: \section{Introduction}
96:
97: It is well-known that the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
98: mixing matrix
99: %\cite{[1]}
100: originates from
101: the Standard Model (SM) Lagrangian terms, describing the Higgs boson
102: interaction with quarks (the Yukawa terms)
103: \begin{eqnarray}
104: L&=&- g^u_{ij} \,{\bar{\psi}}^{i\prime}_L \, H \,u^{j\prime}_R
105: - g^d_{ij} \,{\bar{\psi}}^{i\prime}_L
106: \, \tilde{H} \, d^{j\prime}_R \, +\mbox{h.c.},
107: \label{yukawaterms}
108: \end{eqnarray}
109: where $\bar{\psi}^{1\prime}_L=(\bar{u'}, \bar{d'})_L$,
110: $\bar{\psi}^{2\prime}_L=(\bar{c'}, \bar{s'})_L$,
111: $\bar{\psi}^{3\prime}_L=(\bar{t'}, \bar{b'})_L$,
112: $u^{1\prime}_R=u_R'$, $u^{2\prime}_R=c_R'$, $u^{3\prime}_R=t_R'$,
113: $d^{1\prime}_R=d_R'$, $d^{2\prime}_R=s_R'$, $d^{3\prime}_R=b_R'$,
114: and $H$ denotes the scalar complex field doublet,
115: $\tilde{H}_k=\epsilon_{kl}H^*_l$ and $g^u_{ij}$, $g^d_{ij}$ are the
116: 3$\times$3 matrices with matrix elements that are generally
117: speaking complex and defined with an uncertainty coming from
118: the phases of $CP$ transformation
119: \footnote{Let us remind, for example, that from the definition
120: of the $P$ transformation $P a^+_{\sigma} (\vec{p}) P^+= \eta_{\sigma}
121: a^+_{\sigma} (-\vec{p})$, where the complex factor $|\eta_{\sigma}|=$1
122: contains the $P$ transformation phase, and $\sigma=$0 or 1/2,
123: it follows that
124: $P \phi(x) P^+ = \stackrel{*} \eta_0 \phi(x^{'})$, $P
125: \psi(x) P^+ = \stackrel{*} \eta_{1/2} \gamma_0 \psi(x^{'})$, where
126: $x^{'}=Px$.}
127: for the quark spinor fields and the Higgs boson scalar field.
128: In order to diagonalize the quark mass term after spontaneous
129: symmetry breaking $H\to(0,v/\sqrt{2})$, the unitary transformations
130: of the $u^{i\prime}$ and $d^{i\prime}$ quark fields
131: $u^i_{L,R}=U_{L,R} \,u^{i\prime}_{L,R}$, $d^i_{L,R}=D_{L,R}\,
132: d^{i\prime}_{L,R}$ are needed. After the diagonalization
133: of the quark mass term the unitary matrices $U_L$ and $D_L$
134: do not appear neither in the Yukawa Lagrangian terms (\ref{yukawaterms})
135: nor in the quark neutral current interactions, but arise
136: in the quark $u^{i\prime}$, $d^{i\prime}$ charged current interaction
137: terms $g
138: \bar{u}_L' \gamma_{\mu} d_L' W^{\mu}= g \bar{u}_L \gamma_{\mu} U_L
139: D^\dagger_L d_L W^{\mu}$. The product $V_{CKM}=U_L D^\dagger_L$ defines
140: the complex CKM matrix, which decribes $CP$ violation in the
141: quark charged currents sector.
142: In the framework of the SM the $CP$ violation takes place since
143: it is generally speaking not possible to get the mixing matrix
144: with real matrix elements using $CP$ transformations for six
145: up- and down- quarks. In other words, $CP$~violation takes place in the SM
146: because the number of quark generations is exactly three.
147:
148: There are other sources of $CP$ violation besides the CKM mechanism. It is
149: possible to introduce explicitly $CP$ noninvariant
150: hermitian Lagrangians \cite{[2]} for the system of several scalar fields.
151: For example, if we have three complex scalar fields
152: $\varphi_1, \, \varphi_2, \, \varphi_3$
153: \begin{eqnarray*}
154: L= \lambda \varphi_1 \varphi^*_2 \varphi^*_3+
155: \lambda^* \varphi^*_1 \varphi_2 \varphi_3 , &&
156: CP\, L\, P^+ C^+=L^{CP}= \lambda e^{i\alpha} \varphi^*_1 \varphi_2
157: \varphi_3
158: + \lambda^* e^{-i\alpha} \varphi_1 \varphi^*_2 \varphi^*_3 ,
159: \end{eqnarray*}
160: where $\lambda$ is complex parameter and $\alpha$ is the $CP$
161: transformation phase, not essential in this case. It can be rotated
162: away by the phase transformation of the fields, related to charge
163: conservation. One can see that $L$ and $L^{CP}$ have different
164: signs of the imaginary part of $\lambda$. In this simple example
165: the difference in the sign does not lead to any observable consequences,
166: because the phase of $\lambda$ can be also rotated away by the
167: $U(1)_Q$ transformation. However for the system with trilinear interactions
168: of the four complex scalar fields it is generally speaking not possible
169: to rotate away all phase factors. It is easy to show that the Lagrangian
170: of such a system will be $CP$ invariant only if the phases of the
171: four parameters $\lambda_i$ respect certain conditions, which ensure
172: the possibility to remove them by $U(1)$ rotations of the fields
173: $\varphi_{i}$. From this point of view the models with extended
174: Higgs sector, where $CP$ invariance of the Higgs potential
175: with complex parameters is explicitly broken, are of particular interest.
176: The simplest example is represented by the two-doublet Higgs potential
177: of the MSSM, including (if the possibility of spontaneous
178: $CP$ violation \cite{[3]} is not considered) ten parameters,
179: four of them can be complex. In the framework of MSSM
180: the dominant loop-mediated contributions from the third
181: generation scalar quarks could lead to substantial violation of
182: $CP$ invariance of the two-doublet effective Higgs potential
183: \cite{PilaftsisWagner}. Various models with radiatively induced
184: $CP$ violation in the two-doublet Higgs sector have been studied
185: \cite{overall,Dubinin02}.
186:
187: In this paper we develop further on our approach to the Higgs
188: boson phenomenology in the scenario with $CP$ violation considered
189: in \cite{Dubinin02}. In Section 2, after brief introductory remarks, we
190: calculate the effective $\lambda_i$ parameters of the two-doublet
191: MSSM Higgs potential at the $m_{top}$ scale. In section 3 we consider in
192: details the
193: diagonalization
194: of the mass term for the two-doublet Higgs potential with $CP$
195: invariance broken both explicitly and spontaneously. In the Appendix
196: some numerical results for the Higgs boson masses and the two-particle
197: Higgs decay widths are presented. Our numerical results are compared
198: with the output of other approaches.
199:
200:
201: \section{The effective two-doublet Higgs potential with {\itshape CP}
202: violation}
203:
204: In the general two-Higgs-doublet model (THDM)
205: two $SU(2)$ doublets of complex scalar fields are introduced:
206: \beq
207: \Phi_1 = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \phi_{1}^+(x)\\[2mm]
208: \phi_{1}^0(x) \end{array}\right)= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
209: - \, i\omega_1^+\\[2mm]
210: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(v_1 + \eta_1 + i\chi_1) \end{array}\right) \, ,
211: \label{eq:Phi1} \eeq \beq \Phi_2 = e^{\,i\,\xi} \, \left(
212: \begin{array}{cc}
213: \phi_{2}^+(x)\\[2mm]
214: \phi_{2}^0(x) \end{array}\right) = e^{\,i\,\xi} \, \left( \begin{array}{cc}
215: - \, i\omega_2^+\\[2mm]
216: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(v_2 e^{\,i\,\zeta} + \eta_2 + i\chi_2) \end{array}\right)
217: \label{eq:Phi2}
218: \eeq
219: Their vacuum expectation values (VEV's) \beq
220: \langle \Phi_1 \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \left( \begin{array}{cc} 0\\
221: v_1 \end{array}\right) , \qquad
222: \langle \Phi_2 \rangle = \frac{e^{\,i\,\xi}}{\sqrt 2}\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0\\
223: v_2 \, e^{\,i\,\zeta} \end{array}\right) \equiv
224: \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0\\
225: v_2 \, e^{\,i\,\theta} \end{array}\right) . \label{eq:vev} \eeq
226: where $v_1$ and $v_2$ are real.
227: The phases $\zeta$, relative phase of the
228: VEV's, and $\xi$, relative phase of the $SU(2)$ doublets, are
229: introduced to consider the general case, their sum $\theta$
230: will be used for convenience of notations (section 3.3).
231: For special case $\xi=$0
232: the analysis of Yukawa
233: sector with the two fermion generations can be found in \cite{W87},
234: where somewhat simpler form without the dimension
235: 2 terms $\Phi^\dagger_1 \Phi_2+\Phi^\dagger_2 \Phi_1$ and
236: real $\mu^2_{12}$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
237: parameters of the THDM potential with spontaneous violation of $CP$ invariance
238: ($\zeta=\theta \neq 0$) has been considered in the context of superweak
239: (i.e. flavor-changing Higgs boson exchage mediated) $CP$ violation in
240: meson decays.
241:
242: The most general renormalizable hermitian $SU(2)\times U(1)$
243: invariant Lagrangian for the system of scalar fields
244: (\ref{eq:Phi1}),~(\ref{eq:Phi2})
245: can be written as
246: \beq {\cal L}_H=({\cal D}_\nu \Phi_1)^\dagger {\cal
247: D}^{\,\nu} \Phi_1 + ({\cal D}_\nu \Phi_2)^\dagger {\cal D}^{\,\nu}
248: \Phi_2 + \kappa\,({\cal D}_\nu \Phi_1)^\dagger {\cal D}^{\,\nu}
249: \Phi_2 + \stackrel{*}{\kappa}({\cal D}_\nu \Phi_2)^\dagger {\cal
250: D}^{\,\nu} \Phi_1 - U(\Phi_1,\Phi_2) , \label{eq:kinet} \eeq ÇÄÅ
251: where
252: \beq U(\Phi_1,\Phi_2) =
253: %%\nonumber
254: - \, \mu_1^2 (\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1) - \, \mu_2^2 (\Phi_2^\dagger
255: \Phi_2) - \mu_{12}^2 (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2) -
256: \stackrel{*}{\mu_{12}^2} (\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1) + \label{eq:genU}
257: \eeq
258: $$ + \lambda_1
259: (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1)^2
260: +\lambda_2 (\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2)^2
261: + \lambda_3 (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1)(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2) +
262: \lambda_4 (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2)(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1) + $$
263: $$ + \frac{\lambda_5}{2}
264: (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2)(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2)
265: +\frac{\stackrel{*}{\lambda}_5}{2}
266: (\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1)(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1) + $$
267: $$
268: + \lambda_6
269: (\Phi^\dagger_1 \Phi_1)(\Phi^\dagger_1 \Phi_2)+
270: \stackrel{*}{\lambda}_6(\Phi^\dagger_1 \Phi_1)(\Phi^\dagger_2
271: \Phi_1) + \lambda_7 (\Phi^\dagger_2 \Phi_2)(\Phi^\dagger_1 \Phi_2)
272: +\stackrel{*}{\lambda}_7(\Phi^\dagger_2 \Phi_2)(\Phi^\dagger_2
273: \Phi_1) \label{eq:genU} $$
274: The parameters $\mu_{12}^2$,
275: $\lambda_{\,5}$, $\lambda_{\,6}$ É $\lambda_{\,7}$ are complex.
276: Complex parameter $\kappa$ could be introduced to describe
277: an interesting possibility of a mixing in the kinetic term
278: \cite{ginzkraw}. However, strong
279: restrictions on the real part of $\kappa$ are imposed by
280: precise experimental data on the gauge boson masses $m_{W,Z}$.
281: Moreover, mixing in the kinetic term does not allow to construct
282: the diagonal 4$\times$4 matrix of the Higgs boson kinetic terms
283: consistently with the diagonal matrix for their mass
284: terms\footnote{We analysed these conditions written in the form of ten
285: linear
286: equations, having the solution practically only in the case $\kappa=0$.
287: The mixed term is not obligatory to ensure the renormalizability.
288: It is shown below that the contributions of
289: self-energy diagrams absorbed by the Higgs boson wave-function
290: renormalization to the effective
291: parameters $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ are zero, see also \cite{HH1993}. }.
292: In the following we consider the case
293: $\kappa=0$.
294:
295: Special case of the two-Higgs-doublet potential is the potential
296: of the MSSM Higgs sector. At the energy scale $M_{SUSY}$ (i.e. at the
297: energy of the order of the sparticle masses) the tree level parameters
298: $\lambda_{1,...,7}$ are real and can be expressed through the $SU(2)\times U(1)$
299: gauge couplings $g_1$ and $g_2$ \cite{Inoue}
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: \label{eq:lMSUSY} &\lambda_1(M_{SUSY}) = \lambda_2(M_{SUSY}) =
302: \ff{1}{8}(g_2^2(M_{SUSY})+ g_1^2(M_{SUSY})) ,& \\ \nonumber
303: &\lambda_3(M_{SUSY}) = \ff{1}{4}(g_2^2(M_{SUSY})-g_1^2(M_{SUSY}))
304: , \qquad \lambda_4(M_{SUSY}) = - \, \ff{1}{2}g_2^2(M_{SUSY}) ,& \\
305: \nonumber &\lambda_5(M_{SUSY}) = \lambda_6(M_{SUSY})=
306: \lambda_7(M_{SUSY}) = 0.&
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: At the scale $M_{SUSY}$ the potential is $CP$ invariant.
309: However, the potential parameters of any model depend, generally speaking,
310: on the energy scale where they are fixed or measured. The dependence
311: is described by the renormalization group equations (RGE). The conditions
312: (\ref{eq:lMSUSY}) are the boundary conditions for the RGE. At the energies
313: smaller than $M_{SUSY}$ they are affected by large quantum corrections
314: \cite{RGE91} where the main contribution is coming from
315: the Higgs bosons - third generation quarks and scalar quarks interaction
316: (the interactions with the first and second generations are suppressed).
317: The potential of the Higgs bosons - scalar quarks interaction
318: can be written in the form \cite{HH1993}
319: \beq {\cal V}^{\,0} =
320: {\cal V}_M + {\cal V}_\Gamma + {\cal V}_\Lambda + {\cal
321: V}_{\widetilde Q}\,, \label{eq:HHpot}
322: \eeq
323: where
324: \beq {\cal V}_M =
325: (-1)^{i+j}m_{ij}^2\Phi_i^{\dag}\Phi_j+ M_{\widetilde
326: Q}^{\,2}\left(\widetilde
327: Q^{\,\dag}\widetilde Q\right)
328: +M_{\widetilde U}^{\,2}\widetilde U^*\widetilde U +M_{\widetilde
329: D}^{\,2}\widetilde D^*\widetilde D\,, \eeq \beq {\cal V}_\Gamma =
330: \Gamma_i^D\left(\Phi^{\dag}_i\widetilde Q\right)\widetilde D
331: +\Gamma_i^U\left(i\Phi_i^T\sigma_2\widetilde Q\right)\widetilde U
332: +\stackrel{*}{\Gamma_i^D}\left({\widetilde
333: Q}^{\,\dag}\Phi_i\right)\widetilde D^*
334: -\stackrel{*}{\Gamma_i^U}\left(i\widetilde
335: Q^{\,\dag}\sigma_2\Phi_i^*\right) \widetilde U^* \, ,
336: \label{eq:VGamma}
337: \eeq
338: \beq
339: {\cal V}_\Lambda =
340: \Lambda_{ik}^{jl}\left(\Phi^{\dag}_i\Phi_j\right)
341: \left(\Phi^{\dag}_k\Phi_l\right) +\left(\Phi^{\dag}_i\Phi_j\right)
342: \left[\Lambda_{ij}^Q\left(\widetilde Q^{\,\dag}\widetilde Q\right)
343: +\Lambda_{ij}^U \widetilde U^*\widetilde U +\Lambda_{ij}^D
344: \widetilde D^*\widetilde D\,\right] + \label{eq:VL} \eeq
345: $$\quad+
346: %%\bar
347: \overline\Lambda_{\,ij}^{\,Q}\left(\Phi^{\dag}_i\widetilde
348: Q\right) \left(\widetilde Q^{\,\dag}\Phi_j\right)
349: +\ff{1}{2}\left[\Lambda\epsilon_{ij}
350: \left(i\Phi_i^T\sigma_2\Phi_j\right)\widetilde D^*\widetilde
351: U+h.c.\right]\,, \quad i,j,\,k,l=1,2 \,, $$ ${\cal V}_{\widetilde
352: Q}$
353: denotes the four scalar quarks interaction terms, Pauli matrix
354: $\sigma_2\equiv\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & i\\ - i &
355: 0\end{array}\right)$.
356: The Yukawa coupligs for the third generation of scalar quarks are
357: defined in a standard way
358: $h_{\,t} = \frac{\sqrt{2}\, m_{\,t}}{v \sin\beta }$, $h_{\,b} =
359: \frac{\sqrt{2}\, m_b }{v \cos\beta }$. Following
360: \cite{CEPW0003180}
361: \footnote{For the case of $CP$ conservation, considered in
362: \cite{HH1993}, the trilinear parameters in (\ref{eq:VGamma})
363: are real. Then
364: $\Gamma_{\{1;\, 2\}}^{\,U} \equiv h_U\, \{-\mu; A_U\}, \,\,
365: \Gamma_{\{1;\, 2\}}^D \equiv h_D \,\{A_D\,; -\mu\}$.}:
366: \beq \Gamma_{\{1; \,2\}}^{\,U} = h_U\, \{-\mu^*; A_U\}, \qquad
367: \Gamma_{\{1; \,2\}}^{\,D} = h_D \,\{A_D\,; -\mu^*\} ,
368: \label{eq:Gammi} \eeq
369: they are complex in the case under consideration.
370: One can observe $CP$ violating terms of the structure similar
371: to (\ref{yukawaterms}) in the sector of Higgs-scalar quark interactions,
372: so complex mixing matrices are expected to appear there.
373: The trilinear parameters $A_t$, $A_b$ and the Higgs
374: mass parameter $\mu$ should be taken complex,
375: the
376: imaginary parts of the mixing matrix elements could be large.
377:
378: In the framework of the effective field theory approach \cite{HH1993}
379: the MSSM potential (\ref{eq:HHpot}) which explicitly describes sparticle
380: interactions at the energy
381: scale above $M_{SUSY}$ is matched to an effective Standard Model-like
382: Lagrangian at the energy scale below $M_{SUSY}$, where the sparticles
383: decouple.
384: So the MSSM effective Higgs potential at the energy scale
385: $m_{top}$, much smaller than $M_{SUSY}$,
386: is represented by the general two-Higgs-doublet model potential
387: (6), the parameters of the latter are expressed
388: by means of the Higgs bosons - scalar quarks interaction parameters
389: (\ref{eq:Gammi}) and the scalar quark masses, playing the role of
390: ultraviolet
391: Pauli-Villars regulators.
392: The RGE boundary conditions (\ref{eq:lMSUSY}) modified
393: by the interactions of the third generation squarks with the Higgs
394: bosons (these modifications are sometimes called the "threshold" effects,
395: since the stops decouple at the $M_{SUSY}$ scale),
396: are imposed at the energy scale $M_{SUSY}$.
397: They affect the evolution of $\lambda_i$ parameters, the Yukawa
398: couplings $h_{t,b}$ and the gauge couplings $g_{1,2}$. We
399: calculated radiative
400: corrections to the boundary conditions (\ref{eq:lMSUSY}) for
401: $\lambda_i$ parameters at the scale $m_{top}$
402: using the effective potential method \cite{Quiros97}. The squark
403: mass matrices
404: $({\cal M}_X^2)_{ab} \equiv
405: \frac{\partial^2 {\cal V}_X}{\partial \tilde Q_a\, \partial \,
406: \tilde Q_b^* }$
407: defined by (\ref{eq:HHpot}) were calculated and then
408: substituted to the one-loop effective potential
409: \begin{eqnarray*}
410: {\cal V} ={\cal V}^0 + \frac{N_C}{32\pi^2} \mbox{tr}{\cal M}^4
411: \left[\ln\left(\frac{{\cal M}^2}{\sigma^2}\right) - \, \frac{3}{2}\right]
412: \, ,
413: \end{eqnarray*}
414: decomposed in the inverse powers of $M_{SUSY}$.
415: Taking into account
416: the one-loop wave-function renormalization terms (i.e. terms
417: introduced to absorb the contributions of self-energy diagrams to the
418: Higgs bosons kinetic term, which are
419: beyond the
420: calculation by means of the effective potential method),
421: the effective parameters can be evaluated as
422: follows:
423: \begin{eqnarray}
424: \label{eq:lambda1} \lambda_1 &=& \, \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{8} +
425: \frac{3}{32\pi^2} \Big[ h^4_b \frac{|A_b|^2}{M^2_{\rm
426: SUSY}}\left(2-\frac{|A_b|^2}{6 M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\right)
427: -h^4_t\frac{|\,\mu|^4}{6 M^{\,4}_{\rm SUSY}}\,+\,2 h_b^4 l + \\
428: \nonumber && +\,\frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{4\,M^{\,2}_{\rm
429: SUSY}}(h^2_t|\,\mu|^2-h^2_b|A_b|^2) \Big] \, +\\
430: \nonumber && + \,
431: \Delta\,\lambda_{\,1}^{field}\,+\ff{1}{768\pi^2}\,
432: \left(11 g_1^4 + 9g_2^4 - 36 \,(g_1^2+g_2^2)\,h_b^2\right) l , \\
433: \nonumber \lambda_2 &=& \lambda_1 \,\,(\,t \longleftrightarrow b)
434: ,
435: %%\, \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{8} + \frac{3}{32\pi^2}
436: %%\left[h^4_t \frac{|A_t|^2}{M^2_{\rm SUSY}}\left(2-\frac{|A_t|^2}{6
437: %%M^2_{\rm SUSY}}\right) -h^4_b\frac{|\mu|^4}{6 M^4_{\rm
438: %%SUSY}}\,+\right.\eeq \beq\left.
439: %%+\frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{4}(h^4_b|\mu|^2-h^4_t|A_t|^2)\right]
440: \label{eq:lambda2} \\
441: \lambda_3 &=&
442: \, \frac{g_2^2-g_1^2}{4}\left[1-\,\ff{3}{16\pi^2}\,(h_t^2+h_b^2)\, l
443: \right] +
444: \ff{3}{8\pi^2}\,h_t^2h_b^2\left[l+\ff{1}{2} X_{tb}\right]\, + \\
445: \nonumber
446: \label{eq:lambda3}
447: && +\, \frac{3}{96\pi^2}\, \ff{|\mu|^2}{M^2_{\rm
448: SUSY}} \left[ h^4_t\, \left(\, 3\, -\, \frac{|A_t|^2}{M^2_{\rm
449: SUSY}}\,
450: \right)\,
451: +\, h^4_b\, \left(\, 3\, -\, \frac{|A_b|^2}{M^2_{\rm SUSY}}\,
452: \right)\right] \, +
453: \\ \nonumber
454: && + \,
455: \ff{3(g_2^2-g_1^2)\left[h_b^2(|\mu|^2-|A_b|^2)+h_t^2(|\mu|^2-|A_t|^2)\right]}
456: {128\, \pi^2 M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}} +\, \Delta\,\lambda_{\,3}^{field}
457: + \,\ff{9g_2^4 - 11g_1^4}{384 \,\pi^2} \,l , \\
458: %%\nonumber
459: \lambda_4 &=& - \, \frac{g_2^2}{2}
460: \left[1-\,\ff{3}{16\pi^2}\,(h_t^2+h_b^2)\, l \right] -
461: \ff{3}{8\pi^2}\,h_t^2h_b^2\left[l+\ff{1}{2} X_{tb}\right]\, +
462: \label{eq:lambda4}
463: \\ \nonumber
464: && +\, \frac{3}{96\pi^2}\, \ff{|\mu|^2}{M^2_{\rm
465: SUSY}} \left[ h^4_t\, \left(\, 3\, -\, \frac{|A_t|^2}{M^2_{\rm
466: SUSY}}\,
467: \right)\,
468: +\, h^4_b\, \left(\, 3\, -\, \frac{|A_b|^2}{M^2_{\rm SUSY}}\,
469: \right)\right] \, -
470: \\ \nonumber
471: && - \,\, \ff{3
472: g_2^2\left[h_b^2(|\mu|^2-|A_b|^2)+h_t^2(|\mu|^2-|A_t|^2)\right]}{64
473: \pi^2 M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}+\, \Delta\,\lambda_{\,4}^{field}\, - \,
474: \ff{3 g_2^4}{64 \pi^2} \,\,l \,, \label{eq:add4}
475: \end{eqnarray}
476: where
477: \beq
478: X_{tb}\equiv\ff{|A_t|^2+|A_b|^2+2{\tt Re}(A_b^*A_t)}{2M^{\,2}_{\rm
479: SUSY}}-\,\ff{|\mu|^2}{M^{\,2}_{\rm
480: SUSY}}-\,\ff{||\mu|^2-A_b^*A_t|^2}{6M^{\,4}_{\rm SUSY}}\, .
481: \eeq
482: The effective complex parameters $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
483: \begin{eqnarray}
484: \label{eq:lambda5} \lambda_5= \, -
485: \,\Delta\lambda_{\,5} &=& - \,
486: \frac{3}{96\,\pi^2}\, \left(h^4_t\,
487: \left(\frac{\mu A_t}{M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\right)^2\,
488: +\, h^4_b\, \left(\frac{\mu A_b}{M^{\,2}_{\rm
489: SUSY}}\right)^2\right) ,
490: \end{eqnarray}
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: \label{eq:l6g}
493: %%\label{eq:lambda6}
494: \lambda_6= \, - \,\Delta\lambda_{\,6} &=& \,
495: \frac{3}{96\,\pi^2}\, \left[h^4_t\,
496: \frac{|\mu|^2 \mu A_t}{M^{\,4}_{\rm SUSY}}\,
497: -\, h^4_b\, \frac{\mu A_b}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}\,
498: \Big(\, 6\, -\, \frac{|A_b|^2}{M^{\,2}_{\rm
499: SUSY}}\, \Big)\,\, + \right.\\ \nonumber
500: && \left. + \,\, (h^2_b A_b - h^2_t A_t)\, \frac{ 3\, \mu
501: }{M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\, \frac{g_2^2\, +\, g_1^2}{4} \right],
502: \end{eqnarray}
503: \begin{eqnarray}
504: \label{eq:lambda7}
505: \lambda_7= \, - \,\Delta\lambda_7 &=& \,
506: \frac{3}{96\,\pi^2}\, \left[h^4_b\,
507: \frac{|\mu|^2 \mu A_b}{M^{\,4}_{\rm SUSY}}\,
508: -\, h^4_t\, \frac{\mu A_t}{M_{\rm SUSY}^{\,2}}\,
509: \Big(\, 6\, -\,
510: \frac{|A_t|^2}{M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\,\Big)\,\, +
511: \right.\\ \nonumber && \left. + \,\, (h^2_t A_t - h^2_b A_b)\,
512: \frac{ 3\, \mu }{M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\, \frac{g_2^2\, +\, g_1^2}{4}
513: \right] .
514: \end{eqnarray}
515: Some details of the calculation can be found in \cite{qfthep1}.
516: The one-loop wave-function renormalization terms in
517: (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda4}) are
518: \beq
519: \Delta\,\lambda_{\,1}^{field} = \ff{1}{2} (g_1^2+g_2^2) A'_{11} ,
520: \qquad \Delta\,\lambda_{\,2}^{field} = \ff{1}{2} (g_1^2+g_2^2)
521: A'_{22} , \label{eq:frc}
522: \eeq
523: $$ \Delta\,\lambda_{\,3}^{field} = -\,\ff{1}{4}
524: (g_1^2-g_2^2) (A'_{11}+A'_{22}) , \qquad
525: \Delta\,\lambda_{\,4}^{field} = -\,\ff{1}{2} g_2^2
526: (A'_{11}+A'_{22}) , $$
527: $$ \Delta\,\lambda_{\,5}^{field} =0, $$
528: $$ \Delta\,\lambda_{\,6}^{field} = \ff{1}{8} (g_1^2+g_2^2)
529: (A'_{12}-{A'_{21}}^*) = 0, \qquad \Delta\,\lambda_{\,7}^{field} =
530: \ff{1}{8} (g_1^2+g_2^2) (A'_{21}-{A'_{12}}^*) = 0 . $$
531: They are similar to the case of $CP$ conservation \cite{HH1993}
532: containing the logarithmic contributions and imaginary parameters as a
533: consequence of
534: (\ref{eq:Gammi}), and can be written as
535: \beq A'_{\,ij} = - \, \ff{3}{96\,\pi^2
536: \,M_{\,SUSY}^{\,2}} \left[h_t^2 \left[\begin{array}{cc} |\mu|^2 &
537: - \mu^* A_t^*\\ - \mu A_t & |A_t|^2 \end{array}\right] \,+\, h_b^2
538: \left[\begin{array}{cc} |A_b|^2 & - \mu^* A_b^*\\ - \mu A_b &
539: |\mu|^2
540: \end{array}\right]\right] \, \times \eeq
541: $$ \times \, \left(1-\,\ff{1}{2}\, l\,\right) \,.
542: $$
543: Here and in the formulas given below
544: $l\equiv\ln\left(\ff{ M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}{\sigma^2}\right) $, where
545: $\sigma=m_{top}$ is the renormalization scale.
546: The one-loop wave-function renor\-ma\-lization does not yield a
547: $CP$ violating contribution to $\lambda_i$.
548: For convenience we introduce the notation for the deviations of
549: effective
550: parameters $\lambda_i$ from $\lambda^{SUSY}_i=\lambda_i (M_{SUSY})$
551: following \cite{Dubinin02}:
552: \beq \lambda_{1, 2} \equiv
553: \lambda_{1, 2}^{SUSY}-\Delta\lambda_{1, 2}/2 , \quad \lambda_{3,
554: 4} \equiv \lambda_{3, 4}^{SUSY}-\Delta\lambda_{3, 4} , \quad
555: \lambda_{5, 6, 7} \equiv - \,\Delta\lambda_{5, 6, 7} ,
556: \label{eq:effsc} \eeq \beq \mbox{where}\,
557: \qquad \Delta\lambda_{\,i} \equiv
558: \Delta\lambda_{\,i}^{eff. pot.} - \Delta\lambda_{\,i}^{field} \,,
559: \qquad \Delta\,\lambda_{\,i}^{\{eff. pot.; \,field\}} \equiv
560: \Delta\lambda_{\,i}^{log} +
561: \Delta\lambda_{\,i}^{finite}\,,\label{eq:wheredelta}\eeq \beq
562: \mbox{ÐÒÉÞÅÍ} \qquad \Delta\,\lambda_{\,5, 6, 7}^{log} = 0 \,,
563: \qquad \Delta\,\lambda_{\,5, 6, 7}^{field} =0\,.
564: \eeq
565:
566: In the end of this section we would like to make some general
567: comments as well as some comments in connection with results obtained
568: by other authors. Like in the existing effective field theory approach
569: \cite{HH1993}
570: we are using the standard scheme of leading logarithmic
571: terms resummation by means of RGE, additionally taking into account
572: in the boundary conditions at the scale $M_{SUSY}$ the effects
573: of Higgs bosons - third generation of scalar quarks interaction.
574: The one-loop effective parameters (\ref{eq:lambda1}) - (\ref{eq:lambda7})
575: satisfy the boundary conditions defined by (\ref{eq:lMSUSY}) and
576: modified by the soft supersymmetry breaking potential terms (\ref{eq:HHpot})
577: ("threshold effects").
578: The terms with the logarithmic factor $l$ describe the
579: parameters evolution
580: from the energy scale $M_{SUSY}$ down to the scale $\sigma=m_{top}$.
581: Finite power term threshold corrections to $\lambda_{1,...,7}$ appear from
582: the
583: so-called $F$-terms (the trilinear interaction terms in (\ref{eq:VGamma}))
584: and $D$-terms (contained in (\ref{eq:VL})). The corrections to
585: $\lambda_{5}$
586: come from the $F$-terms only. Radiative corrections to the
587: parameters $\lambda_{1...,7}$ of the effective two-Higgs-doublet
588: potential have been considered earlier in \cite{PilaftsisWagner}
589: for the case of broken $CP$ invariance and in \cite{HH1993}, \cite{CEQW}
590: for the case of $CP$ conservation. Phenomenological consequences
591: of the two-doublet system are usually analysed assuming for simplicity
592: $A_t=A_b$ and introducing the universal phase ${\tt arg}\mu A_{t,b}$,
593: so that $\lambda_{\,5} = |\,\lambda_{\,5}| \, \exp\,[ i \,2 \,
594: {\tt arg} (\mu A) ]$, $\lambda_{\,6} = |\,\lambda_{\,6}| \,
595: \exp\,[ i\, {\tt arg} (\mu A) ]$, $\lambda_{\,7} =
596: |\,\lambda_{\,7}| \, \exp\,[ i\, {\tt arg} (\mu A) ]$.
597:
598: \begin{table}[t]
599: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
600: \hline
601: $i$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ \\
602: \hline\hline
603: only ${\cal O}(h_t^4)$ terms \cite{Quiros97} & 0.907 & -0.203 & 0.057 &
604: 0.057 & 0.227 &
605: -0.453 & 0.057 \\
606: \hline
607: $\Delta\lambda_{\,i}$ & 0.860 & -0.182 & 0.054 & 0.072 & 0.227 & -0.442 &
608: 0.046 \\
609: \hline
610: 1-loop~\cite{PilaftsisWagner} & 0.907 & -0.191 & 0.064 & 0.043 & 0.227 &
611: -0.453 & 0.057 \\
612: \hline 1-loop + 2-loop \cite{PilaftsisWagner} & 0.761 & -0.152
613: & 0.052 & 0.032 & 0.135 & -0.371 & 0.044 \\ \hline
614: 2-loop~\cite{PilaftsisWagner} & -0.146 & 0.039 & -0.012 & -0.011
615: & -0.092 & 0.082 & -0.013 \\
616: \hline
617: 1-loop(D+wfr) & -0.047 & 0.009 & -0.010 & 0.028 & 0 & 0.011 & -0.011 \\
618: \hline
619: $\ff{\Delta\lambda(\mbox{D+wfr})}{\Delta\lambda(\mbox{2-loop})}$
620: &0.32 & 0.23 & 0.83 & -2.55 & 0 &
621: 0.13 & 0.85 \\ \hline
622: 1-loop+2-loop
623: + 1-loop(D+wfr) & 0.715 & -0.143 & 0.042 & 0.061 & 0.135 & -0.360 &
624: 0.033 \\ \hline
625: \end{tabular}
626: \label{tab:lambdas}
627: \caption{Numerical comparison of various corrections to the
628: $\lambda_{\,i}$ parameters at the scale $m_{top}$. For convenience of
629: the following Higgs boson masses comparison, the same parameter values
630: as in the package CPsuperH \cite{CPsuperH} are chosen here: $m_Z
631: =91.19$\,GeV, $m_b=3$\,GeV, $m_t=175$\,GeV, $m_W=79.96$\,GeV,
632: $g_2=0.6517$, $g_1=0.3573$,
633: $v=245.4$\,GeV, $G_F=1.174\cdot10^{-5}$\,GeV$^{-2}$,
634: $\alpha_S(m_t)=0.1072$, $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{SUSY}=500$\,GeV,
635: $\sigma=m_t$, $m_{H^{\pm}}=300$\,çÜ÷, $|A_t|=|A_b|=A=1000$\,GeV,
636: $|\mu|=2000$\,GeV, $\varphi\equiv{\tt arg}(\mu A_{t, b})=0$. The
637: abbreviation 'wfr' stands for the 'wave-function renormalization'.}
638: \end{table}
639:
640: Only the leading $D$-term contributions were
641: calculated in \cite{PilaftsisWagner},
642: \cite{CEQW}. In our expressions for the effective parameters
643: (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda7}) the nonleading $D$-term
644: contributions are
645: represented by the power terms containing gauge couplings $g^2_1$, $g^2_2$.
646: The one-loop contributions of the wave-function renor\-ma\-lization
647: $\Delta \lambda^{field}_{1,...,4}$
648: are neglected in \cite{PilaftsisWagner}, \cite{CEQW}.
649: However, the QCD and weak corrections to Yukawa couplings up to two loops,
650: not calculated in our case, have been included there.
651: The expressions for
652: $\lambda_{1,2,3,4}$ (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda4}) do not
653: contain imaginary parts up to the two-loop approximation
654: and coincide with the results of \cite{PilaftsisWagner}, \cite{CEQW}
655: if we omit the contributions of nonleading $D$-terms and
656: $\Delta \lambda^{field}_{1,...,4}$ terms. If $\mu$ and $A$ are real, the
657: expressions (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda7})
658: are consistent with the results of \cite{HH1993}, where the $D$-terms
659: contribution was calculated\footnote{In (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda4})
660: we kept the terms of the order of $g^4_{1,2}$.}.
661: Let us note that it is not possible
662: to generalize the expressions for real $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ in the case of
663: $CP$ violating potential by the straightforward replacement of
664: the real $\mu$, $A$ parameters to the complex ones.
665:
666: If we neglect the contributions of $D$-terms, the wave-function
667: renormalization terms $\Delta \lambda^{field}_{1,...,4}$ and the terms
668: of the order of $h^2_b$ for the $b$-quark couplings, only the one-loop
669: corrections of the order of ${\cal O}(h_t^4)$ remain.
670: This approximation was discussed in \cite{CEQW,Quiros97}. For example,
671: $\lambda_2$ is given by
672: \begin{equation}
673: \label{eq:lam2approx} \lambda_2 \approx \, \frac{g_2^2+g_1^2}{8} +
674: \frac{3}{32\,\pi^2} \left[h^4_t \frac{|A|^2}{M^{\,2}_{\rm
675: SUSY}}\left(2-\frac{|A|^2}{6 M^{\,2}_{\rm SUSY}}\right) \,+\,2
676: h_t^4 l \right]\,,\eeq
677: The beta-function for $\lambda_2$
678: contains large negative contribution $-6h^4_t$ \cite{HH1993}, or
679: equivalently, $\lambda_2$
680: (13) contains the large logarithmic term $6 h^4_t \, l \,/(32 \pi^2)$
681: which was observed in the first calculations \cite{RGE91}. In
682: the following the negative $\Delta \lambda_2$ defined by (22) gives large
683: positive contribution to the light Higgs boson mass in (38).
684:
685: Numerical comparison of the $\lambda_i$ parameters evaluated
686: using different approximations is presented in the Table 1,
687: where for our case in the second line of the Table
688: $$ \Delta\lambda_{\,i} = \{\mbox{one-loop contribution}\} +
689: \{\mbox{one-loop}(D
690: -\mbox{terms}+\mbox{wave-func.renormalization})\} .
691: $$
692: One can conclude that the one-loop corrections from $D$-terms
693: and wave-function renormalization can be of the order of the leading
694: two-loop corrections.
695: Difference of the effective $\lambda_i$ of the order of 10$^{-1}$
696: may result in the deviation of Higgs boson masses around 5 GeV and
697: even more.
698:
699: \section{Diagonalization of the effective potential mass term
700: in the local minimum}
701:
702: \subsection{Complex $\mu^2_{12}$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ parameters,
703: $\theta=$0}
704: \vskip 3mm
705: The components $\omega_i$, $\eta_i$, $\chi_i$ of the $SU(2)$ doublets
706: (\ref{eq:Phi1}), (\ref{eq:Phi2}) are not a physical Higgs fields
707: (mass eigenstates). In order to extract the Higgs boson masses
708: and the self-interaction of the physical fields from the potential
709: (\ref{eq:genU}) it is necessary to diagonalize the mass term of
710: the latter in the local minimum. This problem has been considered
711: in \cite{Dubinin02} for the case of complex $\mu^2_{12}$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
712: parameters and the zero phase of the $\Phi_2$ VEV $\theta=$0.
713: The diagonalization of the mass term is performed in two stages.
714: First the $CP$-even fields $h$,$H$, the $CP$-odd field $A$ ('pseudoscalar')
715: \footnote{The fields $h$,$H$,$A$ are the physical fields at
716: $\varphi={\tt arg}(\mu A_{t,b})=0,\, n\pi$.}
717: and the Goldstone field $G^0$ are defined by the linear transformation
718: \beq h = - \, \eta_1\sin\alpha +
719: \eta_2\cos\alpha , \label{eq:MSSMh} \eeq \beq H = \eta_1\cos\alpha
720: + \eta_2\sin\alpha , \label{eq:MSSMH}\eeq \beq A = - \,
721: \chi_1\sin\beta + \chi_2\cos\beta , \label{eq:MSSMA}\eeq \beq G^0
722: = \chi_1\cos\beta + \chi_2\sin\beta ,\label{eq:MSSMG}
723: \eeq
724: where
725: ${\tt tg}\beta=v_2/v_1$ and
726: \begin{eqnarray}
727: {\tt tg} 2\alpha &\hspace{-3mm} =& \hspace{-5mm}
728: \frac { s_{2\beta} (m^2_A + m^2_Z) +v^2 ((\Delta
729: \lambda_3 + \Delta \lambda_4) s_{2\beta}+2c^2_{\beta}
730: {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_6
731: + 2s^2_{\beta} {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7) }
732: {c_{2\beta}(m^2_A - m^2_Z) +v^2 (\Delta
733: \lambda_1 c^2_{\beta} - \Delta \lambda_2 s^2_{\beta} - {\tt Re}
734: \Delta \lambda_5 c_{2\beta}+({\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_6- {\tt Re}
735: \Delta \lambda_7)s_{2\beta} )}\,. \label{t2b}
736: \end{eqnarray}
737: Here the relations $g^2_1+g^2_2=g^2m^2_Z/m^2_W$,
738: $g^2_2-g^2_1=g^2_1 \, (2-m^2_Z/m^2_W)$ are used.
739: Then we substitute to the effective potential
740: the real parameters $\mu_{1,2}$, $\lambda_{1,2,3,4}$
741: and the real parts ${\tt Re}\mu^2_{12}$, ${\tt Re}\lambda_{5,6,7}$,
742: which are related by linear transformation
743: \cite{Dubinin02,Dubinin01,GunionHaber}:
744: \begin{eqnarray}
745: \label{diaglambda1}
746: \lambda_1& =&
747: \frac{1}{2v^2}
748: [(\frac{s_{\alpha}}{c_{\beta}})^2 m_h^2
749: + (\frac{c_{\alpha}}{c_{\beta}})^2 m_H^2
750: - \frac{s_{\beta}}{c^3_{\beta}}{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2 ]
751: +\frac{1}{4}( {\tt Re} \lambda_7 {\tt tg}^3 {\beta}
752: -3 {\tt Re} \lambda_6{\tt tg} {\beta}) , \\
753: %\nonumber
754: \lambda_2& =&
755: \frac{1}{2v^2}
756: [(\frac{c_{\alpha}}{s_{\beta}})^2 m_h^2
757: + (\frac{s_{\alpha}}{s_{\beta}})^2 m_H^2
758: - \frac{c_{\beta}}{s^3_{\beta}}{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2 ]
759: +\frac{1}{4}({\tt Re} \lambda_6 {\tt ctg}^3 {\beta}
760: -3 {\tt Re} \lambda_7 {\tt ctg} {\beta}) , \\
761: %\nonumber
762: \label{diaglambda3}
763: \lambda_3& =&
764: \frac{1}{v^2}[2m^2_{H^\pm}
765: - \frac{{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2}{s_{\beta} c_{\beta}}
766: +\frac{s_{2\alpha}}{s_{2\beta}} (m_H^2-m_h^2)]
767: -\frac{{\tt Re} \lambda_6}{2} {\tt ctg}\beta
768: - \frac{{\tt Re} \lambda_7}{2} {\tt tg}\beta , \\
769: %\nonumber
770: \lambda_4& =&
771: \frac{1}{v^2}(\frac{{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2}{s_{\beta} c_{\beta}}
772: +m^2_A- 2 m^2_{H^\pm} )
773: -\frac{{\tt Re} \lambda_6}{2} {\tt ctg}\beta -
774: \frac{{\tt Re} \lambda_7}{2} {\tt tg}\beta , \\
775: %\nonumber
776: \label{diaglambda5}
777: {\tt Re} \lambda_5& = &
778: \frac{1}{v^2} (\frac{{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2}{s_{\beta} c_{\beta}}
779: -m^2_{A} )
780: -\frac{{\tt Re} \lambda_6}{2} {\tt ctg}\beta - \frac{{\tt Re}
781: \lambda_7}{2} {\tt
782: tg}\beta , \\
783: %\nonumber
784: \label{diagmu1}
785: \mu^2_{1}& = &
786: \lambda_1 v^2_1+( \lambda_3+
787: \lambda_4+{\tt Re} \lambda_5)\frac{v^2_2}{2}
788: - {\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2 {\tt tg}\beta
789: +\frac{v^2 s^2_{\beta}}{2}
790: (3 {\tt Re} \lambda_6 {\tt ctg} \beta + {\tt Re} \lambda_7 {\tt tg}
791: \beta) , \\
792: %\nonumber
793: \label{diagmu2}
794: \mu^2_{2}& = & {\hskip -2mm}
795: \lambda_2 v^2_2+( \lambda_3+
796: \lambda_4+{\tt Re} \lambda_5)\frac{v^2_1}{2} - {\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2
797: {\tt ctg}\beta +\frac{v^2 c^2_{\beta}}{2} ( {\tt Re} \lambda_6
798: {\tt ctg}\beta + 3 {\tt Re} \lambda_7 {\tt tg} \beta ) .
799: %\nonumber
800: \end{eqnarray}
801: At the purely real parameters (in the following we shall name
802: this case of $\varphi=0$ as the $CP$-conserving limit,
803: ${\tt Re} \lambda_i=|\lambda_i|$, ${\tt Re}
804: \Delta \lambda_i=|\Delta \lambda_i|$)
805: the relations (\ref{diagmu1}), (\ref{diagmu2})
806: set to zero the potential terms which are
807: linear in the fields, so they are the minimization conditions.
808: It follows from the equations (\ref{diaglambda1})-(\ref{diaglambda5}) that
809: in the $CP$ conserving limit the $CP$-even Higgs boson masses
810: and the real part of the $\mu^2_{12}$ parameter can be expressed as
811: \begin{eqnarray}
812: m^2_h&=&s^2_{\alpha+\beta} m^2_Z + c^2_{\alpha-\beta} m^2_A - \\
813: \nonumber &&\hspace{-16mm} - v^2 (\Delta \lambda_1 s^2_{\alpha}
814: c^2_{\beta} +\Delta
815: \lambda_2
816: c^2_{\alpha} s^2_{\beta}- 2(\Delta \lambda_3+\Delta
817: \lambda_4)c_{\alpha}
818: c_{\beta} s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}+ {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_5
819: (s^2_{\alpha} s^2_{\beta} +c^2_{\alpha} c^2_{\beta}) - \\
820: \nonumber && -2 c_{\alpha+\beta} ({\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_6
821: s_{\alpha} c_{\beta}
822: -{\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7 c_{\alpha} s_{\beta})) , \\
823: m^2_H&=&c^2_{\alpha+\beta} m^2_Z + s^2_{\alpha-\beta} m^2_A - \\
824: \nonumber &&\hspace{-16mm}
825: -v^2 (\Delta \lambda_1 c^2_{\alpha} c^2_{\beta} +\Delta
826: \lambda_2
827: s^2_{\alpha} s^2_{\beta}+ 2(\Delta \lambda_3+\Delta
828: \lambda_4)c_{\alpha}
829: c_{\beta} s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}+ {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_5
830: (c^2_{\alpha} s^2_{\beta} +s^2_{\alpha} c^2_{\beta}) + \\
831: \nonumber && +2 s_{\alpha+\beta} ({\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_6
832: c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}
833: +{\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta})) , \\
834: %%\nonumber
835: m^2_{H^\pm}&=&m^2_W+m^2_A-\frac{v^2}{2}( {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_5-
836: \Delta
837: \lambda_4) , \\
838: \nonumber {\tt Re}\mu^2_{12}&=&s_{\beta}
839: c_{\beta}[m^2_A-\frac{v^2}{2}(2 {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_5+{\tt Re}
840: \Delta \lambda_6 {\tt ctg} \beta+{\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7 {\tt tg}
841: \beta)] . \nonumber
842: \end{eqnarray}
843: After the substitution of (\ref{diaglambda1})-(\ref{diaglambda5}),
844: (\ref{diagmu1}), (\ref{diagmu2}) to (\ref{eq:genU})
845: we find the mass term of the effective potential
846: \begin{eqnarray}
847: \label{massterm}
848: U_{mass}(h,H,A)& =& c_0 A + c_1 hA + c_2 HA + \\ \nonumber
849: &&+ \frac{m^2_h}{2} h^2 + \frac{m^2_H}{2} H^2 +\frac{m^2_A}{2} A^2
850: + m^2_{H^\pm} {H^+ H^-} .
851: \end{eqnarray}
852: The minimization condition $c_0=$0 fixes the imaginary part of the
853: $\mu^2_{12}$ parameter
854: \begin{eqnarray}
855: \label{immu12}
856: {\tt Im} \mu^2_{12}&=&
857: \frac{v^2}{2} ( s_{\beta} c_{\beta} {\tt Im} \lambda_5 +c^2_{\beta}
858: \; {\tt Im} \lambda_6
859: +s^2_{\beta} \; {\tt Im} \lambda_7) ,
860: \end{eqnarray}
861: and the factors in front of the nondiagonal terms $hA$ and $HA$
862: in the local minimum $c_0=0$ have the form
863: \begin{eqnarray}
864: \label{c1c2}
865: c_1&=&\frac{v^2}{2}( s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}-c_{\alpha} c_{\beta})
866: {\tt Im} { \lambda_5}
867: +v^2 \, (s_{\alpha} c_{\beta} {\tt Im} { \lambda_6} -
868: c_{\alpha} s_{\beta} {\tt Im} { \lambda_7}) ,
869: \\ \nonumber
870: c_2&=&-\frac{v^2}{2}( s_{\alpha} c_{\beta}+c_{\alpha} s_{\beta})
871: {\tt Im} { \lambda_5}
872: -v^2 \, (c_{\alpha} c_{\beta} {\tt Im} { \lambda_6} +
873: s_{\alpha} s_{\beta} {\tt Im} { \lambda_7}) .
874: \nonumber
875: \end{eqnarray}
876: They include only the imaginary parts of the parameters
877: ${\tt Im}\mu^2_{12}$, ${\tt Im}\lambda_{5,6,7}$. The nondiagonal
878: term $hH$ does not appear in (\ref{massterm}), so in the mixing matrix
879: (\ref{matrix}) $M_{12}=M_{21}=0$.
880:
881: At the second stage in order to remove the nondiagonal terms $hA$ and $HA$
882: we perform the orthogonal transformation in the $h$, $H$, $A$ sector
883: \begin{eqnarray}
884: (h,H,A) \; M^2 \; \left( \begin{array}{c} h\\ H\\ A
885: \end{array} \right)
886: &=& (h_1, h_2, h_3) \; a^T_{ik} \; M^2_{kl} \; a_{lj} \;
887: \left( \begin{array}{c} h_1 \\ h_2\\ h_3
888: \end{array} \right) \, ,
889: \end{eqnarray}
890: where the mass matrix is
891: \begin{eqnarray}
892: \label{matrix}
893: M^2 & = & \frac{1}{2} \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
894: m^2_h & 0 & c_1 \\
895: 0 & m^2_H & c_2 \\
896: c_1 & c_2 & m^2_A
897: \end{array} \right) \, ,
898: \end{eqnarray}
899: and get the physical Higgs bosons $h_1$, $h_2$, $h_3$
900: without a definite $CP$ parity\footnote{Note that this picture is
901: different from the well-known description of
902: weak $CP$ violation in meson decays, when the mass splitting $\Delta m$ of
903: the states is given by 2${\tt Re}M_{12}$, $M_{12}$ the off-diagonal
904: elements of the complex 2$\times$2 mass matrix, and the meson mixing
905: $\epsilon$ parameter is ${\tt Im}M_{12}/(\sqrt{2} \Delta m)$.
906: The meson decay formalism uses
907: the non-hermitian effective Hamiltonian and not precisely orthogonal mass
908: 'eigenstates'.}.
909: The eigenvalues of the $M^2$
910: matrix
911: define their masses squared and the components of normalized eigenvectors
912: are the matrix elements in the rows of the mixing matrix $a_{ij}$.
913: The squared masses of Higgs bosons are
914: ($m^2_{h_1}\leq m^2_{h_2}\leq m^2_{h_3}$)
915: \begin{eqnarray}
916: %%\nonumber
917: m^2_{h_1} &=& 2 \sqrt{(-q)} \cos \left(\frac{ \Theta+ 2
918: \pi}{3}\right) - \, \frac{a_2}{3} \,\, , \label{eq:massi123} \\
919: \nonumber m^2_{h_2} &=& 2 \sqrt{(-q)} \cos \left(\frac{ \Theta + 4
920: \pi}{3}\right) - \,
921: \frac{a_2}{3} \,\, , \\
922: \nonumber m^2_{h_3} &=& 2 \sqrt{(-q)} \cos \left(\frac{
923: \Theta}{3}\right) - \, \frac{a_2}{3} \,\, , \nonumber
924: \end{eqnarray}
925: where
926: \begin{eqnarray*}
927: \Theta = \arccos \frac{r}{\sqrt{(-q^3)}} \,\, ,&& \\
928: r=\frac{1}{54}(9 a_1 a_2 -27 a_0 - 2 a^3_2) \,\, ,&& \,\,\,
929: q=\frac{1}{9}(3 a_1-a^2_2) \,\, ,
930: \\
931: a_1=m^2_{ h} m^2_{ H}+m^2_{ h}
932: m^2_{ A}+m^2_{ H} m^2_{ A}-
933: { c}^2_1-{ c}^2_2 \,\, , && \,\,\,
934: a_2=-m^2_{ h}-m^2_{ H}-m^2_{ A} \,\, ,\\
935: a_0={ c}^2_1 m^2_{ H}+{ c}^2_2
936: m^2_{ h}-m^2_{ h} m^2_{ H}
937: m^2_{ A} \,\, .&&
938: \end{eqnarray*}
939: The normalized eigenvector components $(h,H,A)=a_{ij} h_j$,
940: $a_{ij}=a^{'}_{ij}/n_j$ are given by
941: \begin{eqnarray*}
942: a^{'}_{11}=((m^2_H-m^2_{h_1})(m^2_A-m^2_{h_1})-c^2_2), \;
943: a^{'}_{21}=c_1 c_2, \;
944: a^{'}_{31}=-c_1 (m^2_H-m^2_{h_1}) \\
945: a^{'}_{12}=-c_1 c_2, \;
946: a^{'}_{22}=-((m^2_h-m^2_{h_2})(m^2_A-m^2_{h_2})-c^2_1), \;
947: a^{'}_{32}=c_2 (m^2_h-m^2_{h_2}), \\
948: a^{'}_{13}=-c_1 (m^2_H-m^2_{h_3}), \; a^{'}_{23}=-c_2
949: (m^2_h-m^2_{h_3}), \;
950: a^{'}_{33}=(m^2_h-m^2_{h_3})(m^2_H-m^2_{h_3}),
951: \end{eqnarray*}
952: $n_i=\sqrt{(a^{'2}_{1i}+a^{'2}_{2i}+a^{'2}_{3i})}$.
953: The Higgs boson masses $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$, $m_{h_3}$ and
954: the mixing matrix elements $a_{ij}$, which describe the mixed states,
955: are shown in Fig.2-4 as a function of the $A_{t,b}$, $\mu$ parameters
956: and/or
957: the universal phase $\varphi={\tt arg} (\mu A_{t,b})$.
958: Different to the figures in \cite{Dubinin02}, the $m_{H^\pm}$, ${\tt tg}\beta$
959: parametrization is used for the convenience of comparison with \cite{CPsuperH}
960: and \cite{feynh}.
961: The parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ can change a sign with the variation of the phase
962: $\varphi$, the ranges of positively or negatively defined $c_1$ and $c_2$
963: depend on the primary choice of the $m_{H^\pm}$, ${\tt tg}\beta$, $A$, $\mu$ and $M_{SUSY}$
964: in the $CP$ conserving limit. When we pass the zeroes of $c_1$ and $c_2$,
965: the matrix elements $a_{ij}$ are expected to change their signs respecting the requirement
966: of the left orthonormal basis for the eigenvectors. It is essential that
967: $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$ and $m_{h_3}$ are positioned in the mass matrix along
968: the diagonal from the upper left to the lower right corner, satisfying in the
969: limiting case $c_1=c_2=0$ the correspondences $m_{h_1} \to min(m_h,m_H,m_A)$,
970: $m_{h_3} \to max(m_h,m_H,m_A) $ ("the mass ordering"). Note also that as
971: $\Delta \lambda_i$ increases, the denominator of (\ref{t2b}) can change sign,
972: so for the mass ordering one must define the angle $\alpha(\varphi)$
973: consistently with the boundary condition at the scale $M_{SUSY}$,
974: which has the known form $m^2_A+m^2_Z=-{\tt sin}2\alpha/ {\tt sin}2\beta(m^2_H-m^2_h)$,
975: following from (\ref{diaglambda1})-(\ref{diaglambda5}) and (\ref{eq:lMSUSY}).
976:
977: Some numerical values for the Higgs boson masses $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$,
978: $m_{h_3}$ as a function of the phase
979: $\varphi$ in our approach,
980: and masses of the states $H_1$, $H_2$, $H_3$ evaluated by means of
981: CPsuperH \cite{CPsuperH} and FeynHiggs \cite{feynh} packages are shown in
982: the Table 2. These packages are using the
983: renormalization group improved diagrammatic calculation that uncludes
984: radiative corrections to Yukawa couplings up to two-loops. Detailed
985: general
986: discussion on the conciliation of results obtained in the frameworks
987: of the diagrammatic and the effective field theory approaches can be found
988: in \cite{conciliate}. Different renormalization schemes in which
989: calculations in the two approaches are performed, may lead to the
990: deviations of results evaluated with parameters taken at different
991: renormalization scales, so the untrivial reevaluation of parameters is
992: needed for consistency.
993: Besides this it is important to notice that
994: in the CPsuperH and FeynHiggs packages
995: the $SU(2)$ eigenstates $\eta_{1,2}$, $\xi_{1,2}$
996: are directly transformed
997: to the Higgs boson mass eigenstates, which is different from
998: our procedure, when we first transform to the states of the
999: $CP$-conserving limit and then rotate to $h_{1,2,3}$.
1000: The 'intermediate'
1001: Higgs boson states $(h,H,A)$ of the $CP$ conserving limit are not
1002: used, so the $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$ mixing angle $\alpha$ is
1003: not introduced there.
1004: For this reason at
1005: $\varphi=$0 the analogue of the mixing matrix $a_{ij}$, see (44),
1006: has nonzero off-diagonal matrix elements $a_{12}=a_{21} \neq$0 and
1007: in the analogue of the mass matrix (47) $m_{12}$ and $m_{21}$ (the $hH$
1008: mixing terms in our notation) are also nonzero. In the framework
1009: of the 'direct' diagonalization procedure the matrix elements of
1010: (45) have the form
1011: \begin{eqnarray*}
1012: m_{11} &=& m^2_A \, s^2_{\beta} + v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_5 \, s^2_{\beta}
1013: + v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_6 \, s_{2\beta} + 2 v^2
1014: \lambda_1 c^2_{\beta}, \\
1015: m_{22} &=& m^2_A \, c^2_{\beta} + v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_5 \, c^2_{\beta}
1016: + v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_7 \, s_{2\beta} + 2 v^2
1017: \lambda_2 s^2_{\beta}, \\
1018: m_{12} &=& v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_6 \, c^2_{\beta} +
1019: s_{\beta}\, (v^2 {\tt Re} \lambda_7 s_{\beta} + c_{\beta}
1020: \, (-m^2_A + v^2 \lambda_3 + v^2 \lambda_4)), \\
1021: m_{13} &=& -\frac{1}{2} v^2 (2 \, {\tt Im} \lambda_6 c_{\beta}
1022: + {\tt Im} \lambda_5 s_{\beta}), \\
1023: m_{23} &=& -\frac{1}{2} v^2 ( {\tt Im} \lambda_5 c_{\beta}
1024: + 2 \, {\tt Im} \lambda_7 s_{\beta}), \\
1025: m_{33} &=& m^2_A
1026: \end{eqnarray*}
1027: and the parameters $a_0$, $a_1$, $a_2$ in (46) should be redefined as
1028: follows
1029: \begin{eqnarray*}
1030: a_0 &=& m^2_{12} \, m_{33} + m^2_{23} \, m_{11} + m^2_{13} m_{22}
1031: - 2 \, m_{12} \, m_{23} \, m_{13}
1032: - m_{11} \, m_{22} \, m_{33}, \\
1033: a_1 &=& m_{11} \, m_{22} + m_{11} \, m_{33} + m_{22} \, m_{33}
1034: - m^2_{12} - m^2_{13} - m^2_{23}, \\
1035: a_2 &=& - \, m_{11} - \, m_{22} - \, m_{33}
1036: \end{eqnarray*}
1037: We checked that both the 'two-step' and the 'direct' diagonalization
1038: methods lead within our procedure, as expected, to the same
1039: masses of Higgs states $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$, $m_{h_3}$ (see Table 2).
1040: For the parameter values in the comparison, Table 2, the benchmark point
1041: of the maximal CP violation 'CPX scenario' \cite{cpx} at $M_{SUSY}=$500
1042: GeV was used.
1043: Extended list of numbers (Table 5) including also the rare one-loop
1044: mediated decay
1045: widths
1046: $h_1\rightarrow \gamma \gamma$, $h_1\rightarrow g g$
1047: and the tree-level two-particle decays $h_1\rightarrow f \bar f$
1048: can be found in the Appendix. Good qualitative
1049: agreement of results is observed, but diversity of
1050: approaches to the calculation of radiative corrections makes precise
1051: numerical comparisons difficult.
1052: \begin{table}[t]
1053: %%[ht!]
1054: \begin{center}
1055: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1056: \hline
1057: & $\varphi=0$ & $\pi/6$ & $\pi/3$ & $\pi/2$ & $2\pi/3$ &
1058: $5\pi/6$ & $\pi$ \\
1059: \hline\hline
1060: $m_{h_1}$ & 115.4 & 118.7 & 125.9 & 131.4 & 130.7 & 125.2 & 122.0 \\
1061: $m_{H_1}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 106.8 & 109.0 & 113.9 & 117.4 & 114.9 & 105.7
1062: & 99.4 \\
1063: $m_{H_1}$ \cite{feynh} & 115.8 & 118.8 & 125.5 & 130.2 & 123.2 & 98.2
1064: & 78.0 \\
1065: \hline
1066: $m_{h_2}$ & 295.5 & 289.6 & 279.7 & 269.3 & 262.2 & 259.8 & 259.6 \\
1067: $m_{H_2}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 302.2 & 297.8 & 290.9 & 282.2 & 273.9 & 268.3
1068: & 264.4 \\
1069: $m_{H_2}$ \cite{feynh} & 295.6 & 290.0 & 279.1 & 264.3 & 249.2 & 239.7
1070: & 236.9 \\
1071: \hline
1072: $m_{h_3}$ & 297.1 & 299.5 & 300.4 & 299.9 & 298.8 & 297.6 & 297.1 \\
1073: $m_{H_3}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 302.3 & 304.4 & 305.0 & 304.5 & 303.5 & 302.4
1074: & 302.0 \\
1075: $m_{H_3}$ \cite{feynh} & 297.6 & 300.0 & 301.1 & 301.3 & 300.9 & 300.4
1076: & 300.2 \\
1077: \hline \hline
1078: \end{tabular}
1079: \end{center}
1080: \label{tab:MandD} \caption{The Higgs boson masses (GeV)
1081: in our case and calculated by the packages CPsuperH \cite{CPsuperH}
1082: and FeynHiggs \cite{feynh} (in the one-loop regime)
1083: at the same parameter values $\alpha_{EM}(m_Z)=0.7812\cdot$10$^{-2}$,
1084: $\alpha_S(m_Z)=0.1172$, $G_F=1.174\cdot10^{-5}$\,GeV$^{-2}$,
1085: $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{SUSY}=500$\,GeV, $|A_t|=|A_b|=A$,
1086: $|\mu|=2000$\,GeV, $A=1000$\,GeV, $m_{H^{\pm}}=300$\,GeV.}
1087: \end{table}
1088:
1089: \subsection{Real $\mu^2_{12}$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ parameters,
1090: $\theta\neq$0}
1091:
1092: If the parameters $\mu_{12}^2$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ of the effective
1093: potential (\ref{eq:genU}) are real, the latter is $CP$ invariant.
1094: It is easy to show
1095: \cite{PilaftsisWagner, Dubinin02, GunionHaber},
1096: that the phases of complex parameters $\mu_{12}^2$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
1097: can be rotated away by the $U(1)_Y$ hypercharge transformation if
1098: the conditions
1099: \begin{eqnarray}
1100: \label{conditions}
1101: &{\tt Im}({\mu}^4_{12} \stackrel{*}{ \lambda_5})=0, \quad
1102: {\tt Im}({\mu}^2_{12} \stackrel{*}{ \lambda_6})=0, \quad
1103: {\tt Im}({\mu}^2_{12} \stackrel{*}{ \lambda_7})=0.&
1104: \end{eqnarray}
1105: are satisfied. Insofar as the physical motivation of these 'fine tuning'
1106: conditions is not available, the case of real parameters and nonzero
1107: phase $\theta$ of the VEV, when $CP$ is broken spontaneously, looks rather artificial.
1108: The local minimum of the effective potential (\ref{eq:genU}) occurs
1109: at $\lambda_{\,5}> 0$ (i.e. purely imaginary $\mu A$, see (\ref{eq:lambda5}))
1110: and
1111: \beq \cos\theta = \ff{\mu_{12}^2-\ff{v_1^2}{2}\lambda_6-
1112: \ff{v_2^2}{2}\lambda_7}{\lambda_{\,5}v_1v_2} \, . \label{eq:Recos}
1113: \eeq
1114: Combining this equation with the diagonalization condition
1115: (\ref{diaglambda5}) we get
1116: \beq
1117: \cos\theta = \ff{m_{A}^2}{\lambda_{\,5}v^2} + 1 \, ,
1118: \label{eq:Reco2}
1119: \eeq
1120: so there is no minimum if $m_A^2>0$. In the case $\lambda_{\,5}< 0$
1121: (\ref{eq:Recos}) corresponds to the maximum, the absolute minimum
1122: is achieved at the endpoints $\cos\theta=\pm 1$. For example,
1123: the absolute minimum at $\theta=$0 (taking into account again the
1124: diagonalization condition (\ref{diaglambda5})) is absent if
1125: \beq
1126: m_A^2>2|\lambda_{\,5}|v^2 .
1127: \eeq
1128: and it follows that for the case of real $\mu_{12}^2$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
1129: and $CP$ broken spontaneously there are no mass eigenstates in the
1130: framework of our diagonalization procedure, at least if $m_A$ is not
1131: extremely small.
1132:
1133: \subsection{Complex $\mu^2_{12}$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ parameters,
1134: $\theta\neq$0}
1135:
1136: In the case of complex parameters and the nonzero phase of
1137: $\Phi_2$ vacuum expectation value
1138: \footnote{The upper component of $\langle \Phi_2 \rangle$ in (\ref{eq:vev}) is taken to
1139: be zero.
1140: Otherwise additional constraint for the VEV components should be imposed to ensure
1141: the existence of the massless gauge field (photon) \cite{Veltman}}
1142: , the $CP$
1143: invariance of the potential is broken both explicitly and spontaneously.
1144: The condition to set to zero the derivative $\partial U/ \partial \theta$
1145: includes both the real and the imaginary parts of $\mu_{12}^2$ and
1146: $\lambda_{5,6,7}$:
1147: \beq \cos\theta ( 2 {\tt Im}\mu_{12}^2 - v_1^2
1148: {\tt Im}\lambda_6 - v_2^2 {\tt Im}\lambda_7 )
1149: - v_1v_2 {\tt Im}\lambda_{\,5} \cos2\theta + \label{eq:comcos} \eeq
1150: $$ + \sin\theta ( 2 {\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2 - v_1^2
1151: {\tt Re}\lambda_6 - v_2^2 {\tt Re}\lambda_7 ) - v_1v_2
1152: {\tt Re}\lambda_{\,5} \sin2\theta = 0 . $$
1153: The condition of the extremum for ${\tt Im}\mu_{12}^2$
1154: depends on the phase between the VEV's $\theta$, while
1155: the diagonalization condition for ${\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2$
1156: depends also on the relative phase $\xi$ (see (\ref{eq:Phi2}), (\ref{eq:vev}))
1157: of the $SU(2)$ doublets. At the real $\mu_{12}^2$, $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
1158: and $\theta\not=0$ the equation (\ref{eq:comcos}) is reduced to
1159: (\ref{eq:Recos}).
1160:
1161: For convenience we present the extremum conditions
1162: $\partial U/ \partial \eta=0$,
1163: $\partial U/ \partial \xi=0$ in the cases of zero and nonzero $\theta$
1164: in the form of Tables 3 and 4, where the factors in front of the potential
1165: parameters are shown. Bulky condition for the real part of $\mu^2_{12}$ to define the
1166: pseudoscalar mass $m_A$
1167: for the general case of nonsero phases can explicitly be evaluated as
1168: follows:
1169: \begin{table}[ht!]
1170: \begin{center}
1171: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|}
1172: \hline
1173: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{ } & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ } \\[-3mm]
1174: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\mu_1^2$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\mu_2^2$}
1175: \\ \cline{2-5}
1176: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1177: & $\theta \not= 0$ & $\theta = 0$ & $\theta \not= 0$ & $\theta = 0$
1178: \\ \hline\hline
1179: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1180: $\lambda_1$ & $v_1^2$ & $v_1^2$ & 0 & 0 \\[1mm] \hline
1181: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1182: $\lambda_2$ & 0 & 0 & $v_2^2$ & $v_2^2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1183: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1184: $\lambda_3$ & $\frac{1}{2}v_2^2$ & $\frac{1}{2}v_2^2$
1185: & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1186: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1187: $\lambda_4$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$
1188: & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1189: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1190: ${\tt Re} \lambda_{\,5}$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$
1191: & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1192: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1193: ${\tt Im} \lambda_{\,5}$ & $-\ff{1}{2}v_2^2 \mbox{tg}\theta$ & 0
1194: & $-\ff{1}{2}v_1^2 \mbox{tg}\theta$ & 0 \\[1mm] \hline
1195: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1196: ${\tt Re} \lambda_6$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1 v_2 (2+\cos 2\theta)\sec\theta$ &
1197: $\ff{3}{2}v_1 v_2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2\sec\theta \mbox{ctg}\beta$
1198: & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2 \mbox{ctg}\beta$ \\[1mm] \hline
1199: ${\tt Im} \lambda_6$ & $-v_1 v_2 \sin\theta$ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
1200: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1201: ${\tt Re} \lambda_7$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2\sec\theta \mbox{tg}\beta$ &
1202: $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2\mbox{tg}\beta$
1203: & $\ff{1}{2}v_1 v_2 (2+\cos 2\theta)\sec\theta$ &
1204: $\ff{3}{2} v_1 v_2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1205: ${\tt Im} \lambda_7$ & 0 & 0 & $-v_1 v_2 \sin\theta$ & 0 \\ \hline
1206: & & & & \\[-3mm]
1207: ${\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2$ & $- \mbox{tg}\beta \sec\theta$ & $- \mbox{tg}\beta$ &
1208: $- \mbox{ctg}\beta \sec\theta$ & $- \mbox{ctg}\beta$ \\[1mm] \hline
1209: \end{tabular}
1210: \end{center}
1211: \caption{The factors of the extremum conditions for $\mu_1^2$ É $\mu_2^2$ at
1212: zero and nonzero $\theta$.}
1213: \end{table}
1214: \begin{table}[ht!]
1215: \begin{center}
1216: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|}
1217: \hline
1218: & & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ } \\[-3mm]
1219: & ${\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2$ &
1220: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{${\tt Im} \mu_{12}^2$}\\ \cline{2-4}
1221: & & & \\[-3mm]
1222: & $\theta=0$ É $\xi = 0$
1223: %%% \raisebox{1.5ex}[0cm][0cm]{${\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2$}
1224: & $\theta \not= 0$ & $\theta = 0$ \\ \hline\hline $\lambda_1$ &
1225: 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline $\lambda_2$ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1226: \hline $\lambda_3$ & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline $\lambda_4$ & 0 & 0 & 0
1227: \\ \hline ${\tt Re} \lambda_{\,5}$ & $v_1 v_2$ & $v_1 v_2 \sin\theta$
1228: & 0 \\ \hline
1229: & & & \\[-3mm]
1230: ${\tt Im} \lambda_{\,5}$ & 0 & $\ff{1}{2}v_1 v_2 \cos 2\theta
1231: \sec\theta$ &
1232: $\ff{1}{2}v_1 v_2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1233: & & & \\[-3mm]
1234: ${\tt Re} \lambda_6$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2 \mbox{tg}\theta$ &
1235: 0 \\[1mm] \hline
1236: & & & \\[-3mm]
1237: ${\tt Im} \lambda_6$ & 0 & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_1^2$\\[1mm] \hline
1238: & & & \\[-3mm]
1239: ${\tt Re} \lambda_7$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2 \mbox{tg}\theta$ &
1240: 0 \\[1mm] \hline
1241: & & & \\[-3mm]
1242: ${\tt Im} \lambda_7$ & 0 & $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ &
1243: $\ff{1}{2}v_2^2$ \\[1mm] \hline
1244: & & & \\[-3mm]
1245: $m_A^2$ & $\sin\beta\cos\beta$ & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
1246: & & & \\[-3mm]
1247: ${\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2$ & -- & $ - \mbox{tg}\theta$ & 0 \\ \hline
1248: \end{tabular}
1249: \end{center}
1250: \caption{The factors of the extremum condition for ${\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2$ at
1251: $\theta=0$ and for ${\tt Im} \mu_{12}^2$ for zero and nonzero $\theta$.
1252: }
1253: %%\vspace*{2.5mm}
1254: \end{table}
1255: \beq
1256: {\tt Re} \mu_{12}^2 = \label{eq:Remu12} \eeq
1257: $$ = - \lambda_2 \, \ff{v^2\cos\theta\sin^3(2\beta)\sin^2(\theta+\xi))}
1258: {3+(1-\cos\theta\cos\xi)(\cos^4\beta-\ff{3}{2}\sin^2(2\beta))+\sin^4\beta+
1259: \cos\theta\cos\xi(1-\sin^4\beta)}\,+ $$
1260: $$ + \, {\tt Re}\lambda_{\,5} \, \ff{v^2(\cos^4\beta\cos^2\xi+\cos^2\theta\sin^4\beta
1261: +\cos\beta\cos(\theta-\xi)\sin\beta\sin(2\beta)}
1262: {\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1263: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta} \, - $$
1264: $$ - \, {\tt Im}\lambda_{\,5} \, \ff{v^2(\sin^2(2\beta)\sin(\theta-\xi)+
1265: \sin^4\beta(\sin(2\theta)+\mbox{tg}\theta)+
1266: \cos^4\beta(\mbox{tg}\theta-\sin(2\xi))}
1267: {2(\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1268: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta)} + $$
1269: $$ + \,{\tt Re}\lambda_6 \, \ff{1}{2} v^2 \cos^2\beta \, + $$
1270: $$ + \,{\tt Im}\lambda_6 \, \ff{v^2\cos^3\beta\sin\beta\sin\xi}
1271: {\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1272: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta} + $$
1273: $$ + {\tt Re}\lambda_7 \,
1274: \left(\ff{v^2\cos^4\beta(4\cos(\theta+2\xi)-
1275: 2\cos(2\theta)\sec\theta)\mbox{tg}\beta}
1276: {4(\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1277: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta)} + \right.$$
1278: $$ \left. + \ff{v^2(2\sin^2(2\beta)\cos\xi+2\sec\theta\sin^4\beta-
1279: \cos(2\theta+\xi)\sin^2(2\beta))\mbox{tg}\beta}
1280: {4(\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1281: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta)}\right) + $$
1282: $$ + {\tt Im}\lambda_7 \, \ff{v^2\sin(2\beta)(2\cos^2\beta\cos\xi
1283: \sin(\theta+\xi)+\sin^2\beta(2\sin\xi+\sin(2\theta+\xi)))}
1284: {2(\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1285: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta)} \, - $$
1286: $$ - \, {\tt Im}\mu_{12}^2 \, \ff{\sin(2\beta)\sin\xi}
1287: {\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+\cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+
1288: \sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta} + $$
1289: $$ + m_A^2 \,
1290: \ff{1}{\cos^2\beta\mbox{ctg}\beta\sec\theta+
1291: \cos\xi\sin(2\beta)+\sec\theta\sin^2\beta\mbox{tg}\beta} \, . $$
1292:
1293: If we set $\theta = 0$ and $\xi=0$, the formulas coincide with
1294: the special case of only the explicit $CP$ violation (\ref{diaglambda5}), (\ref{immu12}).
1295: The substitution of the extremum conditions corresponding to
1296: Tables 3 and 4 to (\ref{eq:comcos}) gives an identity independently
1297: on the expression (\ref{eq:Remu12}) for $\mbox{\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2$.
1298: The extremum is a minimum if the second derivative in $\theta$
1299: is positively defined
1300: \beq -
1301: \sin\theta ( 2 {\tt Im}\mu_{12}^2 - v_1^2 {\tt Im}\lambda_6 -
1302: v_2^2 {\tt Im}\lambda_7 )
1303: + 2v_1v_2 {\tt Im}\lambda_{\,5} \sin2\theta + \label{eq:extmin} \eeq
1304: $$ + \cos\theta ( 2 {\tt Re}\mu_{12}^2 - v_1^2
1305: {\tt Re}\lambda_6 - v_2^2 {\tt Re}\lambda_7 ) - 2v_1v_2
1306: {\tt Re}\lambda_{\,5} \cos2\theta \, > \, 0 . $$
1307: Numerical investigation shows that this condition is fullfilled
1308: in a rather wide range of the MSSM parameter space. If for simplicity we
1309: set $\xi=$0 then the second
1310: derivative is positively defined in any region of the parameter space,
1311: so no restrictions on the phase of spontaneous $CP$ breaking appear in
1312: this special case from the minimization.
1313:
1314: The diagonalization of the effective potential mass term
1315: in the local minimum for the general case $\theta\not=0$
1316: and $\xi\not=0$ is performed analogously to the procedure
1317: described in section 3.1 using the following scheme:
1318: (1) we define the four $\widetilde h$, $\widetilde H$, $\widetilde A$,
1319: ${\widetilde G}^0$ linear combinations of independent fields
1320: $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$, $\chi_1$, $\chi_2$ that are contained in the
1321: two-doublet system (\ref{eq:Phi1}),~(\ref{eq:Phi2}), where
1322: for the Goldstone field ${\widetilde G}^0$ we define zero row
1323: of matrix elements and zero column of matrix elements in the symmetric mass
1324: matrix 4$\times$4. In other words, the Goldstone mode is introduced
1325: as the linear combination, orthogonal to the plane defined by
1326: the "directions" in the complex scalar fields space, parallel to
1327: the VEV's $v_1$ and $v_2\exp \, \{i(\xi+\zeta)\}$. Then the mass
1328: matrix 4$\times$4 includes the symmetric 3$\times$3 block with zero
1329: matrix elements in the power of the extremum conditions
1330: from Tables 3 and 4; (2) we define an orthogonal transformation
1331: for the 3$\times$3 submatrix fixing the mixing angle $\widetilde\alpha$
1332: in the sector $\widetilde h-\widetilde H$ to set to zero the
1333: $\widetilde h \widetilde H$ nondiagonal term. In the framework of this
1334: procedure for the case of nonzero phases $\xi \neq$0, $\theta \neq 0$
1335: (when the fields are denoted by the symbol " $\; \widetilde { } \;$")
1336: the limiting cases of zero phases $\xi=\theta=$0 (when the notation
1337: for the fields does not contain the symbol " $\; \widetilde { } \;$")
1338: and also the $CP$ conserving limit in the mass basis $h$, $H$, $A$,
1339: are clearly seen.
1340: %õÞÅÔ ÄÅÊÓÔ×ÉÔÅÌØÎÏÓÔÉ ÌÉÂÏ ËÏÍÐÌÅËÓÎÏÓÔÉ ÐÁÒÁÍÅÔÒÏ× ÜÆÆÅËÔÉ×ÎÏÇÏ
1341: %ÐÏÔÅÎÃÉÁÌÁ ÂÕÄÅÍ ÐÒÏ×ÏÄÉÔØ ÐÒÉ ÄÉÁÇÏÎÁÌÉÚÁÃÉÉ ÍÁÔÒÉÃÙ Ë×ÁÄÒÁÔÏ×
1342: %ÍÁÓÓ ÄÌÑ ÌÏËÁÌØÎÏÇÏ ÍÉÎÉÍÕÍÁ ÜÆÆÅËÔÉ×ÎÏÇÏ ÐÏÔÅÎÃÉÁÌÁ.
1343: For the physical Higgs fields in the case {$\xi=0$, $\theta\not=0$}
1344: we finally obtain the representation
1345: \begin{eqnarray}
1346: \widetilde h &=&
1347: -\eta_1\sin\widetilde\alpha +
1348: (\chi_2\sin\theta+\eta_2\cos\theta)\cos\widetilde\alpha , \\ \nonumber
1349: \widetilde H &=& \eta_1\cos\widetilde\alpha +
1350: (\chi_2\sin\theta+\eta_2\cos\theta)\sin\widetilde\alpha , \\ \nonumber
1351: \widetilde A &=& -\chi_1\sin\beta +
1352: (\chi_2\cos\theta-\eta_2\sin\theta)\cos\beta , \\ \nonumber
1353: {\widetilde G}^0 &=& \chi_1\cos\beta +
1354: (\chi_2\cos\theta-\chi_2\sin\theta)\sin\beta .
1355: \end{eqnarray}
1356: We checked explicitly, using the symbolic calculation packages, that
1357: direct substitution of these
1358: fields to the potential (\ref{eq:genU}) gives the symmetric
1359: 4$\times$4 squared mass matrix with zero row and column,
1360: corresponding to the Goldstone mode. The non-diagonal matrix elements
1361: of the 3$\times$3 block, corresponding to the nondiagonal terms
1362: $\widetilde h\widetilde A$ É $\widetilde H\widetilde A$ in the
1363: local minimum, can be written in the form
1364: \begin{equation}
1365: {\widetilde c}_1 = - \frac{v^2}{2}(
1366: \cos(\widetilde\alpha+\beta) \cos(2\theta){\tt Im} \,
1367: {\lambda_{\,5}} - 2 \sin\widetilde\alpha \cos\beta \cos\theta {\tt
1368: Im} \, {\lambda_6} + 2 \cos\widetilde\alpha \sin\beta \cos\theta
1369: {\tt Im} \, {\lambda_7} - \eeq
1370: $$ - \cos(\widetilde\alpha+\beta) \sin(2\theta) {\tt Re} \,
1371: {\lambda_{\,5}} - 2 \sin\widetilde\alpha \cos\beta \sin\theta
1372: {\tt Re} \, {\lambda_6} + 2 \cos\widetilde\alpha \sin\beta
1373: \sin\theta{\tt Re} \, {\lambda_7}) , $$ \beq {\widetilde c}_2 = -
1374: \frac{v^2}{2}( \sin(\widetilde\alpha+\beta) \cos(2\theta){\tt Im}
1375: \, {\lambda_{\,5}} - 2 \cos\widetilde\alpha \cos\beta \cos\theta
1376: {\tt Im} \, {\lambda_6} + 2 \sin\widetilde\alpha \sin\beta
1377: \cos\theta {\tt Im} \, {\lambda_7} + \eeq $$+
1378: \cos(\widetilde\alpha+\beta) \sin(2\theta) {\tt Re} \,
1379: {\lambda_{\,5}} - 2 \cos\widetilde\alpha \cos\beta \sin\theta{\tt
1380: Re} \, {\lambda_6} + 2 \sin\widetilde\alpha \sin\beta
1381: \sin\theta{\tt Re} \, {\lambda_7}) . $$
1382: %%\end{center}
1383: In the case $\theta=0$ they coincide with (\ref{c1c2}).
1384:
1385: The same scheme is suitable for
1386: the case $\xi \neq$0, $\theta \neq$0
1387: when the relative phase $\xi$ between the $SU(2)$ doublets
1388: appears in the mass eigenstates, which are obtained by the
1389: replacement $\theta$ $\rightarrow$ $\theta-\xi$:
1390: \begin{eqnarray}
1391: \widetilde h &=& -\eta_1\sin\widetilde\alpha +
1392: (\chi_2\sin(\theta-\xi)+\eta_2\cos(\theta-\xi))\cos\widetilde\alpha
1393: , \\ \nonumber
1394: \widetilde H &=& \eta_1\cos\widetilde\alpha +
1395: (\chi_2\sin(\theta-\xi)+\eta_2\cos(\theta-\xi))\sin\widetilde\alpha
1396: , \\ \nonumber
1397: \widetilde A &=& -\chi_1\sin\beta +
1398: (\chi_2\cos(\theta-\xi)-\eta_2\sin(\theta-\xi))\cos\beta , \\ \nonumber
1399: {\widetilde G}^0 &=& \chi_1\cos\beta +
1400: (\chi_2\cos(\theta-\xi)-\chi_2\sin(\theta-\xi))\sin\beta .
1401: \end{eqnarray}
1402:
1403:
1404: \section{Summary}
1405: %%\setcounter{equation}{0}
1406: %%$\,$
1407:
1408: The potential of a two-Higgs-doublet model
1409: in the general case is not $CP$ invariant and the parameters
1410: $\mu^2_{12}$ and $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ of the two-doublet MSSM
1411: Higgs sector should be taken complex. The choice of purely
1412: real parameters implicitly assumes that the fine-tuning conditions
1413: (\ref{conditions}) are additionally imposed without clear physical
1414: motivation. In the MSSM the complex parameters naturally appear
1415: if we allow the $CP$ invariance violating mixings in the squark-Higgs boson
1416: sector of the MSSM, analogous to the CKM mixings for the three quark
1417: generations in the charged current sector of the Standard Model.
1418: If these mixings lead to a strong $CP$ parity violation\footnote{Recent
1419: discussion of the weak $CP$ violation scenarios can be found in
1420: \cite{GinzV}.}
1421: and the scalar sector of the MSSM is coupled strongly enough (i.e.
1422: large imaginary parts of the parameters $\mu^2_{12}$ and $\lambda_{5,6,7}$
1423: appear), the deviations of the observable effects in the scenario with $CP$ violation
1424: from the phenomenology of the standard scenario can be substantial.
1425: The deviations are particularly strong if the power terms
1426: $A_{t,b}/M_{SUSY}$, $\mu / M_{SUSY}$ are large and the charged Higgs boson
1427: mass does not exceed 150-200 GeV, being rahter weakly dependent on the
1428: value of ${\tt tg}\beta$.
1429: Such models could lead in principle to a reconsideration of the
1430: experimental
1431: priorities \cite{cmsnote} for the signals of Higgs bosons production
1432: in the channels $\gamma \gamma$, $b \bar b$, $W^+ W^-$, $ZZ$, $ttH$, $bbH$
1433: etc. at the LHC. The scenario with light Higgs boson $m_{h_1}\sim70-80$
1434: GeV that could escape the detection at LEP2 \cite{LEP2}, the analysis
1435: of $h_1$ signal at Tevatron and the high-luminosity linear colliders
1436: \cite{colliders} demonstrate that physical possibilities in the
1437: framework of $CP$ violating
1438: scenarios could be considerably modified in comparison with the
1439: traditional $CP$ conserving limit.
1440:
1441: The comparison of our results for the masses of scalars $m_{h_1}$,
1442: $m_{h_2}$ and $m_{h_3}$ and their two-particle decay widths with
1443: outputs of the CPsuperH \cite{CPsuperH} and the FeynHiggs
1444: \cite{feynh} packages demonstrates rather good qualitative agreement.
1445: However, is some cases high
1446: sensitivity of the observables to the magnitude of radiatively induced
1447: correction terms in the effective two-Higgs-doublet potential shows up,
1448: so careful complementary analysis of the theoretical uncertainties is
1449: appropriate.
1450:
1451: The relative phase of the $SU(2)$ scalar doublet $\zeta$
1452: and the VEV phase $\xi$ (\ref{eq:vev}) could be constrained
1453: on the basis of the conditions for the mass term diagonalization
1454: and the potential minimization (Section 3.3). In principle these
1455: conditions could lead
1456: to some nontrivial relations between the $\zeta$, $\xi$ and the variables
1457: of the MSSM parameter space. However, at the first sight it is questionable
1458: to expect some direct relations of this type connecting the CKM phase
1459: and the $\zeta$, $\xi$ phases of the THDM, which seem to describe the $CP$ violation of
1460: different origin. Returning to the notations of the Introduction, we
1461: can write the THDM type II Yukawa term as
1462: \begin{eqnarray}
1463: - \, L&=&\eta^u_{ij} \,{\bar{\psi}}^{i\prime}_L u^{j\prime}_R \Phi_1+
1464: \xi^d_{ij} \,{\bar{\psi}}^{i\prime}_L
1465: d^{j\prime}_R\tilde{\Phi_2}+\mbox{h.c.},
1466: \label{yukawaterms2}
1467: \end{eqnarray}
1468: where $\eta_{ij}^{u}$ É $\xi_{ij}^{d}$ "--- nondiagonal
1469: complex $3\times 3$ matrices ($i,j=1,2,3$). As mentioned in the
1470: Introduction, in order to define the quark fields mass eigenstates
1471: the untary mixing matrix $V_{u^i,d^j}$ should be introduced in
1472: the Lagrangian terms of the charged Higgs boson interaction with quarks
1473: \beq
1474: \ff{M_d\mbox{tg}\beta}{\sqrt{2}v}\,{\overline u^i_L}
1475: V_{u^i,d^j}{d^j_R} H^{\,+} \, + \,
1476: \ff{M_u}{\sqrt{2}v\mbox{tg}\beta}\,{\overline d^i_L}
1477: V_{u^i,d^j}^\dagger {u^j_R} H^{\,-} \, . \eeq
1478: If we extract the universal phase factor from the mixing matrix
1479: elements $V_{u^i,d^j} \rightarrow
1480: e^{i \varphi} \left|V_{u^i,d^j}\right|$, $V_{u^i,d^j}^\dagger
1481: \rightarrow e^{-i \varphi} \left|V_{u^i,d^j}\right|$, the Yukawa
1482: interaction terms take the form
1483: \beq
1484: \ff{M_d\mbox{tg}\beta}{\sqrt{2}v}\,{\overline u^i_L} e^{i
1485: \varphi} \left| V_{u^i,d^j} \right|{d^j_R} H^{\,+} \, + \,
1486: \ff{M_u}{\sqrt{2}v\mbox{tg}\beta}\,{\overline d^i_L} e^{-i
1487: \varphi} \left| V_{u^i,d^j} \right| {u^j_R} H^{\,-}
1488: ,\label{eq:Yuk1} \eeq
1489: so we can identify the universal phase $\varphi$ as the relative
1490: phase $\xi$ of the $SU(2)$ doublets. The structure of this sort, however,
1491: does not look like the weak charged current sector mixing matrix,
1492: where the universal complex factor is not suitable to
1493: describe the effects of $CP$ violation in meson decays.
1494: \newpage
1495: \vspace{3mm}
1496: \begin{center}
1497: {\large \bf Acknowledgments}
1498: \end{center}
1499: \vspace{3mm}
1500: M.D. (MSU) is grateful to S.~Heinemeyer and J.S.~Lee for useful
1501: discussions. He also thanks very much
1502: A.~Semenov for help with LanHEP calculations.
1503: E. Akhmetzyanova thanks
1504: the "Dynasty" foundation and ICPPM for partial financial support.
1505: The work of M.Dolgopolov and M.Dubinin was partially supported by
1506: RFBR grant 04-02-17448. The work of M.Dubinin was partially supported by
1507: INTAS 03-51-4007, UR 02.03.028 and NS 1685.2003.2.
1508:
1509: %*********************** Appendix **************************
1510: \newpage
1511:
1512: \section*{Appendix}
1513:
1514: The decay width $h_i \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ can be written as
1515: \begin{eqnarray}
1516: \Gamma(h_i\rightarrow
1517: \gamma\gamma)=\frac{M_{h_i}^3\alpha^2}{256\pi^3\,v^2}
1518: \left[\,\left|S^\gamma_i(M_{h_i})\right|^2
1519: +\left|P^\gamma_i(M_{h_i})\right|^2\right]\,,
1520: \end{eqnarray}
1521: where the scalar and the pseudoscalar factors are given by
1522: \cite{CPsuperH,GGN}
1523: \begin{eqnarray}
1524: S^\gamma_i(M_{h_i})&=&2\sum_{f=b,t,\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1,\tilde{\chi}^\pm_2}
1525: N_C\, Q_f^2\,
1526: g^{S}_{h_i\bar{f}f}\,\frac{v}{m_f} F_{sf}(\tau_{if}) \nonumber \\
1527: && -
1528: \sum_{\tilde{f}_j=\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{t}_2,\tilde{b}_1,\tilde{b}_2,
1529: \tilde{\tau}_1,\tilde{\tau}_2}
1530: N_C\, Q_f^2g_{h_i\tilde{f}^*_j\tilde{f}_j}
1531: \frac{v^2}{2m_{\tilde{f}_j}^2} F_0(\tau_{i\tilde{f}_j})
1532: \nonumber \\
1533: &&- g_{_{h_iVV}}F_1(\tau_{iW})- g_{_{h_iH^+H^-}}\frac{v}{2
1534: M_{H^\pm}^2} F_0(\tau_{iH^\pm})
1535: \,, \nonumber \\
1536: P^\gamma_i(M_{h_i})&=&2\sum_{f=b,t,\tilde{\chi}^\pm_1,\tilde{\chi}^\pm_2}
1537: N_C\,Q_f^2\,g^{P}_{h_i\bar{f}f} \,\frac{v}{m_f} F_{pf}(\tau_{if})
1538: \,.
1539: \end{eqnarray}
1540: %
1541: $\tau_{ix}=M_{h_i}^2/4m_x^2$, $N_C=3$ for squarks and
1542: $N_C=1$ for stau and chargino, respectively. The vertex factors
1543: $g_{h_i f \bar f}$ can be easily extracted from Table 6, where
1544: we list also the triple vertices with $h_i$ and gauge bosons.
1545: The threshold corrections induced by the exchanges of gluinos
1546: and charginos \cite{LEP2,thresh} are not included in the following
1547: calculation.
1548:
1549: The factors $F_{sf}$, $F_{pf}$, $F_0$ É $F_1$ \cite{factors} are expressed
1550: by means of the
1551: dimensionless function $f(\tau)$
1552: \begin{eqnarray}
1553: F_{sf}(\tau)&=&\tau^{-1}\,[1+(1-\tau^{-1}) f(\tau)]\,,~~
1554: F_{pf}(\tau)=\tau^{-1}\,f(\tau)\,,\\
1555: F_0(\tau)&=&\tau^{-1}\,[-1+\tau^{-1}f(\tau)]\,, \hspace{1.2 cm}
1556: F_1(\tau)=2+3\tau^{-1}+3\tau^{-1} (2-\tau^{-1} )f(\tau)
1557: \,,\nonumber \label{formfactor}
1558: \end{eqnarray}
1559: %
1560: with an integral repesentation
1561: %
1562: \begin{eqnarray}
1563: f(\tau)=-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^1\frac{{\rm d}y}{y}\ln\left[1-4\tau
1564: y(1-y)\right]
1565: =\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1566: {\rm arcsin}^2(\sqrt{\tau}) \,: & \qquad \tau\leq 1\,, \\
1567: -\frac{1}{4}\left[\ln \left(\frac{\sqrt{\tau}+\sqrt{\tau-1}}{
1568: \sqrt{\tau}-\sqrt{\tau-1}}\right)
1569: -i\pi\right]^2\,: & \qquad \tau\geq 1\,.
1570: \end{array}\right.
1571: \end{eqnarray}
1572: QCD corrections in the large mass limit can be found in \cite{SDGZ}
1573: \begin{equation}
1574: J^\gamma_q=1-\frac{\alpha_s(M_{h_i}^2)}{\pi}\,, \hspace{1 cm}
1575: J^\gamma_{\tilde{q}}=1+\frac{8\alpha_s(M_{h_i}^2)}{3\pi}\,.
1576: \end{equation}
1577: Chargino contributions depend on the couplings
1578: \begin{eqnarray}
1579: g_{h_1\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1}^{S}&=&V_{11}U_{12}\,GS_1+V_{12}U_{11}\,GS_2\,,
1580: \nonumber \\
1581: g_{h_1\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1}^{P} &=&
1582: V_{11}U_{12}\,GP_1+V_{12}U_{11}\,GP_2\,,
1583: \end{eqnarray}
1584: \begin{eqnarray}
1585: g_{h_1\tilde{\chi}^+_2\tilde{\chi}^-_2}^{S}&=&
1586: V_{21}U_{22}\,GS_1+V_{22}U_{21}\,GS_2\,,
1587: \nonumber \\
1588: g_{h_1\tilde{\chi}^+_2\tilde{\chi}^-_2}^{P}
1589: &=&V_{21}U_{22}\,GP_1+V_{22}U_{21}\,GP_2\,,
1590: \end{eqnarray}
1591: for $h_1$ we have $GS_1=-\sin\alpha\,a_{11} + \cos\alpha\,a_{21}$,
1592: $GS_2=\cos\alpha\,a_{11}+ \sin\alpha\,a_{21}$, $GP_1=\sin\beta\, a_{31}$,
1593: $GP_2=\cos\beta\,a_{31}$, and the matrix elements $U_{ij}$
1594: %~\cite{vestnic}
1595: \begin{eqnarray}
1596: & & U_{12} = U_{21} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
1597: \sqrt{1 + \frac{M^2_2 - \mu^2 - 2\,m_W^2\cos 2\beta}{W}} \\[2mm]
1598: & & U_{22} = -U_{11} = \frac{\varepsilon _{B}}{\sqrt{2}}\,
1599: \sqrt{1 - \frac{M^2_2 - \mu^2 - 2\,m_W^2\cos 2\beta}{W}} \\[2mm]
1600: & & V_{21} = -V_{12} = \frac{\varepsilon _{A}}{\sqrt{2}}\,
1601: \sqrt{1 + \frac{M^2_2 - \mu^2 + 2\,m_W^2\cos 2\beta}{W}} \\[2mm]
1602: & & V_{22} = V_{11} = \frac{4}{\sqrt{2}}\,
1603: \sqrt{1 - \frac{M^2_2 - \mu^2 + 2\,m_W^2\cos 2\beta}{W}}
1604: \end{eqnarray}
1605: where
1606: \begin{equation}
1607: W = \sqrt{(M^2_2+\mu^2+2\,m_W^2)^2 - 4\,(M_2\!\cdot\!\mu -m_W^2\sin
1608: 2\beta)^2},
1609: \end{equation}
1610: \begin{equation}
1611: \varepsilon_{A} = {\rm sign}(M_2 \sin\beta + \mu\,\cos\beta),
1612: \hspace{6mm}
1613: \varepsilon_{B} = {\rm sign}(M_2 \cos\beta + \mu\,\sin\beta).
1614: \end{equation}
1615: Chargino masses are given by
1616: %\cite{vestnic}
1617: $$
1618: m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^+}^2 = \frac{1}{2}|\sqrt{(M_2^2-\mu^2)^2+2m_W^2(1+\sin 2\beta)}
1619: $$
1620: \begin{equation}
1621: -\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu^2)^2+2m_W^2(1-\sin 2\beta)}|,
1622: \end{equation}
1623: $$
1624: m_{\tilde{\chi}_2^+}^2 = \frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{(M_2^2-\mu^2)^2+2m_W^2(1+\sin
1625: 2\beta)}
1626: $$
1627: \begin{equation}
1628: +\sqrt{(M_2^2+\mu^2)^2+2m_W^2(1-\sin 2\beta)}).
1629: \end{equation}
1630: Sfermion contributions depend on the couplings
1631: $$ g_{h_1\tilde{f}^*_j\tilde{f}_j}
1632: =\frac{1}{v}\left(\Gamma^{\alpha\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}}\right)_{\beta\gamma}
1633: a_{\alpha 1}U^{\tilde{f}*}_{\beta j} U^{\tilde{f}}_{\gamma j}\,,
1634: $$
1635: Ó $\alpha=(1,2,a)$, $\beta,\gamma = L, R$,
1636: $i=(h_1,h_2,h_3)=(1,2,3)$ É $j,k=1,2$,
1637: \begin{eqnarray}
1638: U^{\tilde{f}}= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1639: \cos\theta_{\tilde{f}} & -\sin\theta_{\tilde{f}}\, {\rm e}^{-i\phi_{\tilde{f}}}\\
1640: \sin\theta_{\tilde{f}}\, {\rm e}^{+i\phi_{\tilde{f}}}&
1641: \cos\theta_{\tilde{f}}
1642: \end{array}
1643: \right)\,,
1644: \end{eqnarray}
1645: $$
1646: \Gamma^{1\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}}=-\Gamma^{{\phi_1}\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}}
1647: \sin\alpha+\Gamma^{{\phi_2}\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}} \cos\alpha,
1648: $$
1649: $$
1650: \Gamma^{2\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}}=\Gamma^{{\phi_1}\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}}
1651: \cos\alpha+\Gamma^{{\phi_2}\tilde{f}^*\tilde{f}} \sin\alpha,
1652: $$
1653: where
1654: \begin{eqnarray}
1655: \Gamma^{a\tilde{b}^*\tilde{b}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
1656: \begin{array}{cc}
1657: 0 & i\,h_b^*(s_\beta A_b^*+c_\beta \mu) \\
1658: -i\,h_b(s_\beta A_b+c_\beta \mu^*) & 0
1659: \end{array} \right)\,,
1660: \nonumber \\
1661: %
1662: \Gamma^{\phi_1\tilde{b}^*\tilde{b}} &=& \left(
1663: \begin{array}{cc}
1664: -|h_b|^2vc_\beta+ \frac{1}{4}\left(g_2^2+\frac{1}{3}g^{
1665: 2}_1\right)vc_\beta&
1666: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b^*A_b^* \\
1667: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_bA_b & -|h_b|^2vc_\beta+
1668: \frac{1}{6}g^{2}_1 vc_\beta
1669: \end{array} \right)\,,
1670: \nonumber \\
1671: %
1672: \Gamma^{\phi_2\tilde{b}^*\tilde{b}} &=& \left(
1673: \begin{array}{cc}
1674: - \frac{1}{4}\left(g^2_2+\frac{1}{3}g^{2}_1\right)vs_\beta&
1675: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b^*\mu \\
1676: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_b\mu^* & -\frac{1}{6}g^{2}_1 vs_\beta
1677: \end{array} \right)\,,
1678: \nonumber \\
1679: %
1680: %higgs-stop-stop
1681: %
1682: \Gamma^{a\tilde{t}^*\tilde{t}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
1683: \begin{array}{cc}
1684: 0 & i\,h_t^*(c_\beta A_t^*+s_\beta \mu) \\
1685: -i\,h_t(c_\beta A_t+s_\beta \mu^*) & 0
1686: \end{array} \right)\,,
1687: \nonumber \\
1688: %
1689: \Gamma^{\phi_1\tilde{t}^*\tilde{t}} &=& \left(
1690: \begin{array}{cc}
1691: - \frac{1}{4}\left(g^2_2-\frac{1}{3}g^{2}_1\right)vc_\beta&
1692: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_t^*\mu \\
1693: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_t\mu^* & -\frac{1}{3}g^{2}_1 vc_\beta
1694: \end{array} \right)\,,
1695: \nonumber \\
1696: %
1697: \Gamma^{\phi_2\tilde{t}^*\tilde{t}} &=& \left(
1698: \begin{array}{cc}
1699: -|h_t|^2vs_\beta+ \frac{1}{4}\left(g^2_2-\frac{1}{3}g^{
1700: 2}_1\right)vs_\beta&
1701: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_t^*A_t^* \\
1702: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_tA_t & -|h_t|^2vs_\beta+
1703: \frac{1}{3}g^{2}_1 vs_\beta
1704: \end{array} \right)\,,
1705: \nonumber \\
1706: %
1707: %higgs-stau-stau
1708: %
1709: \Gamma^{a\tilde{\tau}^*\tilde{\tau}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
1710: \begin{array}{cc}
1711: 0 & i\,h_\tau^*(s_\beta A_\tau^*+c_\beta \mu) \\
1712: -i\,h_\tau(s_\beta A_\tau+c_\beta \mu^*) & 0
1713: \end{array} \right)\,,
1714: \nonumber \\
1715: %
1716: \Gamma^{\phi_1\tilde{\tau}^*\tilde{\tau}} &=& \left(
1717: \begin{array}{cc}
1718: -|h_\tau|^2vc_\beta+ \frac{1}{4}\left(g^2_2-g^{2}_1\right)
1719: vc_\beta&
1720: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_\tau^*A_\tau^* \\
1721: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_\tau A_\tau & -|h_\tau|^2vc_\beta+
1722: \frac{1}{2}g^{2}_1 vc_\beta
1723: \end{array} \right)\,,
1724: \nonumber \\
1725: %
1726: \Gamma^{\phi_2\tilde{\tau}^*\tilde{\tau}} &=& \left(
1727: \begin{array}{cc}
1728: -\frac{1}{4}\left(g^2_2- g^{2}_1\right) vs_\beta&
1729: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_\tau^*\mu \\
1730: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_\tau\mu^* & -\frac{1}{2}g^{2}_1 vs_\beta
1731: \end{array} \right)\,.
1732: \end{eqnarray}
1733: In these formulas $h_{t,b,\tau}$ are real variables.\\
1734: Sfermion masses are given by
1735: %\cite{Kraml}
1736: \begin{equation}
1737: m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)_{1,2}}^2 =
1738: \frac{1}{2} \left( m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)L}^2 +
1739: m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)R}^2
1740: \mp \sqrt{(m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)L}^2
1741: - m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)R}^2)^2 + 4\, |a_{q(l)}|^2 m_{q(l)}^2 }
1742: \,\right),
1743: \label{eq:sqmasseigenvalues}
1744: \end{equation}
1745: where
1746: $$
1747: m_{\tilde{q}L}^2 = M^2_{\tilde{Q}_3}\, +\, m^2_q\, +\, c_{2\beta}
1748: m^2_Z\, ( T^q_z\, -\, Q_q s_W^2 ),
1749: $$
1750: $$
1751: m_{\tilde{q}R}^2 = M^2_{\tilde{R}_3}\, +\, m^2_q\, +\, c_{2\beta}
1752: m^2_Z\, Q_q s^2_W,
1753: $$
1754: $$
1755: a_q m_q=h_q v_q (A_q - \mu^* R_q)/\sqrt{2},
1756: $$
1757: $$
1758: m_{\tilde{l}L}^2 = M^2_{\tilde{L}_3}\, +\, m^2_\tau\, +\,
1759: c_{2\beta} m^2_Z\, (s_W^2-1/2 ),
1760: $$
1761: $$
1762: m_{\tilde{l}R}^2 = M^2_{\tilde{E}_3}\, +\, m^2_\tau\, -\,
1763: c_{2\beta} m^2_Z\, s^2_W,
1764: $$
1765: $$
1766: a_l m_l=h_\tau v_1 (A_\tau - \mu^* \tan\beta )/\sqrt{2}.
1767: $$
1768: Here the Yukawa couplings of quarks $h_q$, $q=t,b$, $R=U,D$, $T^t_z = -
1769: T^b_z = 1/2$, $Q_t = 2/3$, $Q_b
1770: = -1/3$, $R_b = {\tt tg}\beta = v_2/v_1$, $R_t = {\tt ctg}\beta$,
1771: the mixing angles are
1772: $$
1773: \cos\theta_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)} =
1774: \frac{- |a_{q(l)}|
1775: m_{q(l)}}{\sqrt{(m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)L}^2-m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)_1}^2)^2 +
1776: |a_{q(l)}|^2 m_{q(l)}^2}},
1777: $$
1778: \begin{equation}
1779: \sin\theta_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)}=
1780: \frac{m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)L}^2-m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)_1}^2}
1781: {\sqrt{(m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)L}^2
1782: -m_{\tilde{q}(\,\tilde{l}\,)_1}^2)^2 + |a_{q(l)}|^2 m_{q(l)}^2}}.
1783: \end{equation}
1784: %***************************************************************************
1785: %Charged Higgs boson contributions depend on the couplings
1786: %\begin{equation}
1787: %g_{_{h_1H^+H^-}}\ =\ \sum_{\alpha =1}^3 a_{\alpha 1}\, g_{_{\alpha
1788: %H^+H^-}}\,, \end{equation}
1789: %where
1790: %$$
1791: %g_{_{1 H^+H^-}}=-g_{_{{\phi_1} H^+H^-}} \sin\alpha+g_{_{{\phi_2}
1792: %H^+H^-}} \cos\alpha,
1793: %$$
1794: %$$
1795: %g_{_{2 H^+H^-}}=g_{_{{\phi_1} H^+H^-}} \cos\alpha+g_{_{{\phi_2}
1796: %H^+H^-}} \sin\alpha,
1797: %$$
1798: %$$
1799: %g_{_{3 H^+H^-}}\equiv g_{_{a H^+H^-}}.
1800: %$$
1801: %The effective couplings $g_{_{\alpha H^+H^-}}$~\cite{CHL}
1802: %
1803: %\begin{eqnarray}
1804: %g_{_{\phi_1H^+H^-}} \!\!&=& 2s^2_\beta c_\beta\lambda_1\: +\:
1805: %c^3_\beta\lambda_3\: -\: s^2_\beta c_\beta \lambda_4\: -\:
1806: %2s^2_\beta c_\beta\, \tt Re \lambda_5\:
1807: %+\: s_\beta (s^2_\beta - 2c^2_\beta)\, \tt Re \lambda_6\nonumber\\
1808: %&&+\: s_\beta c^2_\beta \tt Re \lambda_7\, ,\nonumber\\
1809: %g_{_{\phi_2 H^+H^-}} \!\!&=& 2s_\beta c^2_\beta \lambda_2\: +\:
1810: %s^3_\beta\lambda_3\: -\: s_\beta c^2_\beta \lambda_4\: -\:
1811: %2s_\beta c^2_\beta \, \tt Re \lambda_5\:
1812: %+\: s^2_\beta c_\beta \, \tt Re \lambda_6\nonumber\\
1813: %&&+\: c_\beta (c^2_\beta - 2s^2_\beta)\, \tt Re \lambda_7\, ,\nonumber\\
1814: %g_{_{aH^+H^-}} \!\!&=& 2s_\beta c_\beta\, \tt Im \lambda_5\: -\:
1815: %s^2_\beta\, \tt Im \lambda_6\: -\: c^2_\beta\, \tt Im \lambda_7\, .
1816: %\end{eqnarray}
1817: %*********************************************************************************
1818:
1819: Charged Higgs boson contribution depends on
1820: the effective triple self-couplings $g_{_{ H^+H^- h_i}}$ which can be
1821: written as
1822: \begin{eqnarray*}
1823: g_{H^+{}_{} \phantom{-} H^-{}_{} \phantom{-} h_1{}_{} \phantom{-}} &=&
1824: -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{ s_{2\beta}{}^2 \cdot v}\big(4 (
1825: s_{\alpha}
1826: \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3+ c_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta}
1827: m_H{}^2 a_{21}
1828: -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{21} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1829: && -8 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{21} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12}-8 c_{\beta+\alpha}
1830: c_{\beta}{}^2 a_{11} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12}-8 c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{11}
1831: {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1832: && - c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{21} {\tt Re} \lambda_6 v{}^2 +4
1833: c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha-\beta} a_{21} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1834: && +4 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 +4 c_{\alpha}
1835: c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\
1836: & & +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta} a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1837: +4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^5 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1838: & & +4 ( c_{\alpha} \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3- s_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta}
1839: m_h{}^2 a_{11}- s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{21}
1840: {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1841: & & -4 s_{\alpha-\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{21} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1842: +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha}
1843: s_{\beta}{}^5 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1844: & & -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1845: -4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1846: & & -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1847: +4 c_{\beta-\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^2 m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{21}
1848: -4 s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha-\beta} m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{11}
1849: \\[2mm]
1850: & & - s_{2\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta+\alpha} m_A{}^2 a_{21}
1851: - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 m_A{}^2 a_{11}-
1852: s_{2\beta}{}^3
1853: s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{21} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1854: & & - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 a_{11} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2
1855: +8 c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{31} {\tt Im} \lambda_5
1856: v{}^2 -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{31} {\tt Im}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1857: & & -8 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{31} {\tt Im}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \big)
1858: \end{eqnarray*}
1859: \begin{eqnarray*}
1860: g_{H^+{}_{} \phantom{-} H^-{}_{} \phantom{-} h_2{}_{} \phantom{-}} &=&
1861: -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{ s_{2\beta}{}^2 \cdot v}\big(4 (
1862: s_{\alpha} \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3
1863: + c_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta} m_H{}^2 a_{22}
1864: -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{22} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1865: && -8 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{22} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12}
1866: -8 c_{\beta+\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^2 a_{12} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12}
1867: -8 c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{12} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1868: && - c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{22}
1869: {\tt Re} \lambda_6 v{}^2
1870: +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha-\beta} a_{22} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1871: && +4 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1872: +4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\
1873: && +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta} a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1874: +4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^5 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1875: && +4 ( c_{\alpha} \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3
1876: - s_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta} m_h{}^2 a_{12}
1877: - s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{22} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1878: && -4 s_{\alpha-\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{22} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1879: +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^5 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1880: && -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1881: -4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1882: && -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1883: +4 c_{\beta-\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^2 m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{22}
1884: -4 s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha-\beta} m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{12} \\[2mm]
1885: && - s_{2\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta+\alpha} m_A{}^2 a_{22}
1886: - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 m_A{}^2 a_{12}
1887: - s_{2\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{22} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1888: && - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 a_{12} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2
1889: +8 c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{32} {\tt Im}\lambda_5 v{}^2
1890: -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{32} {\tt Im}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1891: && -8 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{32} {\tt Im}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \big)
1892: \end{eqnarray*}
1893: \begin{eqnarray*}
1894: g_{H^+{}_{} \phantom{-} H^-{}_{} \phantom{-} h_3{}_{} \phantom{-}} &=&
1895: -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{ s_{2\beta}{}^2 \cdot v}\big(4 (
1896: s_{\alpha}
1897: \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3+ c_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta}
1898: m_H{}^2 a_{23}
1899: -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{23} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1900: & & -8 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{23} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12}
1901: -8 c_{\beta+\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^2 a_{13} {\tt Re}
1902: \mu^2_{12}-8 c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{13} {\tt Re} \mu^2_{12} \\[2mm]
1903: & & - c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{23} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1904: +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha-\beta} a_{23} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1905: & & +4 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1906: +4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\
1907: & & +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta} a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2
1908: +4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^5 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1909: & & +4 ( c_{\alpha} \cdot c_{\beta} {}^3
1910: - s_{\alpha} \cdot s_{\beta} {}^3) s_{2\beta} m_h{}^2 a_{13}-
1911: s_{2\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta+\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{23} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1912: & & -4 s_{\alpha-\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{23} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1913: +4 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^5 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1914: & & -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta} s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1915: -4 s_{\alpha} s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1916: & & -4 c_{\alpha} c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_7 v{}^2
1917: +4 c_{\beta-\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^2 m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{23}-4 s_{2\beta}{}^2
1918: s_{\alpha-\beta} m_{H^\pm}{}^2 a_{13} \\[2mm]
1919: & & - s_{2\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta+\alpha} m_A{}^2 a_{23}
1920: - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 m_A{}^2 a_{13}
1921: - s_{2\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta+\alpha} a_{23} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1922: & & - c_{\beta+\alpha} s_{2\beta}{}^3 a_{13} {\tt Re}\lambda_5 v{}^2
1923: +8 c_{\beta}{}^3 s_{\beta}{}^3 a_{33} {\tt Im}\lambda_5
1924: v{}^2 -8 c_{\beta}{}^2 s_{\beta}{}^4 a_{33} {\tt Im}\lambda_6 v{}^2 \\[2mm]
1925: & & -8 c_{\beta}{}^4 s_{\beta}{}^2 a_{33} {\tt Im}\lambda_7 v{}^2 \big)
1926: \end{eqnarray*}
1927: This representation uses the mass basis for $CP$ even/odd Higgs fields
1928: $(h,H,A)$ then rotated by matrix $a_{ij}$ in the three-dimensional
1929: $(h,H,A)$ isospace, and
1930: for this reason includes $m_h$, $m_H$, $m_A$ and $m_{H^\pm}$ of the
1931: $CP$ conserving limit, calculated with one-loop MSSM corrections from the
1932: squark sector.
1933: In this sense the vertices above are MSSM effective one-loop Higgs
1934: self-interaction vertices. If the imaginary parts in these vertices are
1935: set to zero they are reduced to the self-interaction vertices of the
1936: $CP$ conserving limit, when $m_h$, $m_H$, $m_A$ and $m_{H\pm}$ are the
1937: masses of physical states. Various extremal cases (decoupling limits)
1938: are clearly seen.
1939: Equivalent representation of the triple couplings can be written in the
1940: $\lambda_i$ basis (see details on the representations in mass and
1941: $\lambda_i$ basis in \cite{Dubinin02}). For example
1942: \begin{eqnarray*}
1943: g_{_{h_1H^+H^-}} & =& -\, v \, \sum_{\alpha =1}^3 a_{\alpha 1}\,
1944: g_{_{\alpha H^+H^-}}\,,
1945: \end{eqnarray*}
1946: \vspace{-4mm}
1947: where
1948: \begin{eqnarray*}
1949: g_{_{1 H^+H^-}}&=&
1950: \, {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_5\, s_\beta c_\beta \,
1951: c_{\alpha+\beta} -
1952: \, {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_6\, c_\alpha
1953: \, s^2_\beta \, c_\beta \\
1954: && + \, {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_6 \,
1955: s_\alpha \, s^3_\beta +
1956: \, {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7\, c_\beta \,
1957: \left(
1958: s_\alpha \, s_\beta \, c_\beta \, \right.
1959: - \left. c_\alpha \,\left( c^2_\beta -
1960: 2\, s^2_\beta \right) \right) \\
1961: && - \, {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_6 \,
1962: s_\alpha \, s_{2\,\beta} \, c_\beta
1963: - 2\, s_\alpha \, s^2_\beta \, c_\beta \,
1964: {{\lambda }_1} + 2\, c_\alpha \, s_\beta \,
1965: {c^2_\beta }\, {{\lambda }_2} \\
1966: && - \,{c^3_\beta }\, s_\alpha \,
1967: {{\lambda }_3}
1968: + \, c_\alpha \,{s^3_\beta }\,
1969: {{\lambda }_3} - \, c_\alpha \, c^2_\beta \,
1970: s_\beta \,{{\lambda }_4} +
1971: \, c_\beta \, s_\alpha \, s^2_\beta \,
1972: {{\lambda }_4}, \\
1973: g_{_{2 H^+H^-}}&=&
1974: \, {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_5\, s_\beta c_\beta \,
1975: s_{\alpha+\beta}
1976: + 2 \, {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_6\, c_\alpha
1977: \, s_\beta \, c^2_\beta
1978: - \, {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_6 \,
1979: c_\alpha \, s^3_\beta \\
1980: && - \, {\tt Re} \Delta \lambda_6 \,
1981: s_\alpha \, s^2_\beta c_\beta
1982: -\, \, {\tt Re}\Delta \lambda_7\, c_\beta \,
1983: \left(
1984: c_\alpha \, s_\beta \, c_\beta \, \right.
1985: + \left. s_\alpha \,\left( c^2_\beta -
1986: 2\, s^2_\beta \right) \right) \\
1987: && +2 \, \, c_\alpha \, s^2_\beta \, c_\beta \lambda_1 \,
1988: +2 \, \, s_\alpha \, s_\beta \, c^2_\beta \lambda_2 \,
1989: + \, c_\alpha \, c^3_\beta \lambda_3 \, \\
1990: && + \, s_\alpha \, s^3_\beta \lambda_3 \,
1991: - \, c_\alpha s^2_\beta c_\beta \lambda_4 \,
1992: - \, s_\alpha s_\beta c^2_\beta \lambda_4, \\
1993: g_{_{3 H^+H^-}} & = &
1994: \, c^2_\beta \, {\tt Im} \Delta \lambda_7 \,
1995: - \, s_\beta \, c_\beta \, {\tt Im} \Delta \lambda_5 \,
1996: + \, s^2_\beta \, {\tt Im} \Delta \lambda_6 \,
1997: \end{eqnarray*}
1998: In this representation the scalar masses of the $CP$ conserving limit do
1999: not explicitly participate. The magnitude of the coupling $g_{H^+ \, H^-
2000: \, h_1}$
2001: is shown in Fig.\ref{fg:ggfi}.
2002: \begin{figure}[ht]
2003: \begin{center}
2004: \hspace{-0.8cm} \epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth
2005: \centerline{\psfig{figure=coupHpm1.eps,height=6.5cm,width=6.5cm}}
2006: \end{center}
2007: \vspace{4mm}
2008: \caption{ \label{fg:ggfi}
2009: Triple Higgs boson interaction vertex $g_{H^+ \, H^- \, h_1}$ (GeV) {\it
2010: vs} the phase
2011: ${\tt Arg}(\mu A)$ at the parameter values $M_{SUSY}=$500 GeV, ${\tt
2012: tg}\beta=$5, $A_{t,b}=$1000 GeV, $\mu=$2000 GeV. Dashed line
2013: $m_{H^\pm}=$300 GeV,
2014: solid line $m_{H^\pm}=$200 GeV. }
2015: \end{figure}
2016:
2017:
2018: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2019: The decay width $h_i\rightarrow gg$ has the form
2020: \begin{eqnarray}
2021: \Gamma(h_i\rightarrow gg)\ =\
2022: \frac{M_{h_i}^3\alpha^2_S}{32\pi^3\,v^2}
2023: \left[\,K^g_{H}\, \left|S^g_i(M_{h_i})\right|^2\:
2024: +\: K^g_{A}\, \left|P^g_i(M_{h_i})\right|^2\right]\,,
2025: \end{eqnarray}
2026: where
2027: \begin{eqnarray}
2028: S^g_i(M_{h_i})&=&\sum_{f=b,t}
2029: g^{S}_{h_if\bar{f}}\,\frac{v}{m_f} F_{sf}(\tau_{if})
2030: -\sum_{\tilde{f}_j=\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{t}_2,\tilde{b}_1,\tilde{b}_2}
2031: g_{h_i\tilde{f}^*_j\tilde{f}_j}
2032: \frac{v^2}{4m_{\tilde{f}_j}^2} F_0(\tau_{i\tilde{f}_j}) \,, \nonumber \\
2033: P^g_i(M_{h_i})&=&\sum_{f=b,t}
2034: g^{P}_{h_if\bar{f}}\,\frac{v}{m_f} F_{pf}(\tau_{if}) \,
2035: \end{eqnarray}
2036: and QCD $K$-factors are
2037: \begin{eqnarray}
2038: \label{KgHA}
2039: K^g_H &=& 1\ +\ \frac{\alpha_S (M^2_{h_i})}{\pi}\,
2040: \bigg(\,\frac{95}{4} \: -\: \frac{7}{6}\,N_F\,\bigg)\nonumber\\
2041: K^g_A &=& 1\ +\ \frac{\alpha_S (M^2_{h_i})}{\pi}\,
2042: \bigg(\,\frac{97}{4} \: -\: \frac{7}{6}\,N_F\,\bigg)\,,
2043: \end{eqnarray}
2044: %
2045: $N_F=5$ is the number of quark flavors with masses less than $m_{h_1}$.
2046:
2047: The decay width of Higgs boson to the two fermions
2048: $h_1\rightarrow f\bar{f}$ can be written as
2049: \beq \Gamma_{h_1 \rightarrow f \bar{f}} = \ff{N_C g_f^2
2050: m_{h_1} \beta_k^{\ff{3}{2}}}{8 \pi} \, \left\{\begin{array}{l}
2051: (s_\alpha a_{21}- c_\alpha a_{11})^2 \ff{1}{s_\beta^2}
2052: +{\tt ctg}^2\beta\, a_{31}^2\, ,
2053: \quad f\equiv u, c, t,\\
2054: (c_\alpha a_{21}- s_\alpha a_{11})^2 \ff{1}{c_\beta^2}+
2055: {\tt tg}^2\beta\, a_{31}^2\, , \quad f\equiv b, d, s, e, \mu, \tau ,
2056: \end{array}
2057: \right. \label{eq:decferm}
2058: \eeq
2059: where $\beta_k=1-4 k$,
2060: $k=\frac{m_f^2}{m_{h_1}^2}$, $g_f=\ff{g m_f}{2 m_W}$ and
2061: $N_C=$3 (1) for quarks (leptons).
2062:
2063: In the following Table 5 we list the Higgs boson masses
2064: $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$, $m_{h_3}$ which are calculated
2065: using the
2066: effective $\lambda_i$ parameters (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda7}),
2067: Section 2,
2068: and the mass term diagonalization method described in Section 3.1.
2069: The
2070: decay widths $\Gamma_{h_1\to
2071: gg}$, $\Gamma_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}$ (unprimed) include only the leading
2072: one-loop
2073: contributions of $t$, $b$ quarks and $W^\pm$ bosons. For an illustration
2074: of
2075: the sensitivity
2076: of $m_{h_1}$, $m_{h_2}$, $m_{h_3}$ and their decay widths to the
2077: values of $\lambda_i$ we computed
2078: Higgs boson masses $m'_{h_1,\,h_2,\,h_3}$ and the leading one-loop
2079: decay widths $\Gamma'_{h_1\to gg}$,
2080: $\Gamma'_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}$ (include $t$, $b$ and $W$ contributions
2081: only)
2082: using
2083: the effectife potential parametrization with both the one-loop and
2084: two-loop contributions to $\lambda_i$ from the paper
2085: \cite{PilaftsisWagner}.
2086: Finally, the decay widths
2087: $\Gamma''_{h_1\to gg}$, $\Gamma''_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}$ are found
2088: using the effective parameters (\ref{eq:lambda1})-(\ref{eq:lambda7}) and
2089: taking into accout all possible
2090: one-loop fermion ($t$, $b$), gauge boson $W^\pm$,
2091: sfermion ($\tilde t$,
2092: $\tilde b$), chargino and charged Higgs boson contributions,
2093: with $K$-factors introduced in the expressions for decay widths.
2094:
2095: Table 5 contains also the output of the CPsuperH \cite{CPsuperH} package
2096: and the FeynHiggs \cite{feynh} package with the input parameter
2097: values taken the same as used in our
2098: parameter set. The two-loop evaluation in the CPsuperH
2099: and the one-loop evaluation in the FeynHiggs 2.1beta
2100: has been performed.
2101: Note that physical Higgs bosons $H_1$, $H_2$, $H_3$ of the
2102: CPsuperH and FeynHiggs are evaluated in the way that is technically
2103: different from the construction of our
2104: mixed states $h_1$, $h_2$, $h_3$,
2105: however a difference of numbers (which is
2106: from several percent to 40\% in the majority of cases) is
2107: caused mainly by theoretical uncertainties of the effective two-doublet
2108: potential representation,
2109: not by different definitions of the Higgs boson eigenstates in the
2110: generic basis of scalar doublets, as demonstrated explicitly in section
2111: 3.1.
2112:
2113: In Fig.5 and Figs.6-9 we show the variation of the light Higgs boson
2114: mass and the variations of $\Gamma({h_1\to gg})$, $\Gamma({h_1\to
2115: \gamma \gamma})$ decay widths in different regions of the parameter
2116: space ($\varphi$, $m_{H^\pm}$, $A_{t,b}$, $\mu$, ${\tt tg}\beta$).
2117: At the parameter set ( 0, 300 GeV, 1000 GeV, 2000 GeV, 5 )
2118: the decay widths of $h_1$ to $\gamma \gamma$ and $gg$ are not far from
2119: the decay widths of the SM Higgs boson with $m_H=$120 GeV. Largest
2120: sensitivity
2121: of the widths to the charged Higgs mass is observed. At $m_{H^\pm}$
2122: around 200 GeV (Fig.6a, Fig.8a) we observe the suppression of the
2123: branchings of $h_1$
2124: to $gg$ and $\gamma \gamma$ of more than 10 times at $\varphi\sim \pi$,
2125: which takes place in CPsuperH and FeynHiggs at higher
2126: masses of $m_{H^\pm}$ around 300 GeV.
2127:
2128: Our approach is algorithmized in the form of the model in CompHEP 41.10
2129: format \cite{comphep}, where the symbolic expressions for vertices are a
2130: starting level for calculation of the complete tree-level sets of
2131: diagrams with the following cross section/decay width calculations
2132: and the generation of unweighted events.
2133:
2134:
2135: %*********************************************************************************
2136:
2137: \newpage
2138: \begin{table}[h!]
2139: \begin{center}
2140: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2141: \hline & $\varphi=0$ & $\pi/6$ & $\pi/3$ & $\pi/2$ &
2142: $2\pi/3$ & $5\pi/6$ &
2143: $\pi$ \\
2144: \hline\hline
2145: $m_{h_1}$,~çÜ÷ & 115.4 & 118.7 & 125.9 & 131.4 & 130.7 & 125.2 & 122.0 \\
2146: $m'_{h_1}$ & 112.1 & 114.4 & 119.7 & 124.2 & 125.0 & 123.0 & 121.6 \\
2147: $m_{H_1}$ \cite{feynh} & 115.8 & 118.8 & 125.5 & 130.2 & 123.2
2148: & 98.2 & 78.0 \\
2149: $m_{H_1}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 106.8 & 109.0 & 113.9 & 117.4 & 114.9
2150: & 105.7 & 99.4
2151: \\
2152: \hline
2153: $m_{h_2}$ & 295.5 & 289.6 & 279.7 & 269.3 & 262.2 & 259.8 & 259.6 \\
2154: $m'_{h_2}$ & 294.4 & 291.0 & 283.9 & 276.2 & 270.6 & 268.1 & 267.6 \\
2155: $m_{H_2}$ \cite{feynh} & 295.6 & 290.0 & 279.1 & 264.3 & 249.2
2156: & 239.7 & 236.9\\
2157: $m_{H_2}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 302.2 & 297.8 & 290.9 & 282.2 & 273.9
2158: & 268.3 & 264.4 \\ \hline
2159: $m_{h_3}$ & 297.1 & 299.5 & 300.4 & 299.9 & 298.8 & 297.6 & 297.1 \\
2160: $m'_{h_3}$ & 298.2 & 299.1 & 299.2 & 298.2 & 296.7 & 295.1 & 294.4 \\
2161: $m_{H_3}$ \cite{feynh} & 297.6 & 300.0 & 301.1 & 301.3 & 300.9
2162: & 300.4 & 300.2\\
2163: $m_{H_3}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 302.3 & 304.4 & 305.0 & 304.5 & 303.5
2164: & 302.4 &
2165: 302.0 \\
2166: \hline \hline $\Gamma_{h_1\to gg}\times 10^4$ & 1.378 & 1.529 &
2167: 1.907 & 2.220 & 2.101 & 1.707
2168: & 1.516 \\
2169: $\Gamma'_{h_1\to gg}\times 10^4$ & 1.283 & 1.381 & 1.624 & 1.841 &
2170: 1.846 & 1.687
2171: & 1.597 \\
2172: $\Gamma''_{h_1\to gg}\times 10^4$ & 2.103 & 2.355 & 3.024 & 3.643
2173: & 3.397 & 2.412
2174: & 1.889 \\
2175: $\Gamma_{H_1\to gg}\times 10^4$ \cite{feynh} & 2.040 & 2.187 &
2176: 2.462 & 2.225
2177: & 0.863 & 0.037 & 0.110 \\
2178: $\Gamma_{H_1\to gg}\times 10^4$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 1.878 & 1.964 &
2179: 2.107 & 1.961
2180: & 1.262 & 0.503 & 0.263 \\
2181: \hline $\Gamma_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}\times 10^6$ & 7.703 & 8.593 &
2182: 10.981 & 13.313 &
2183: 12.953 & 10.645 & 9.508 \\
2184: $\Gamma'_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}\times 10^6$ & 6.887 & 7.447 & 8.896
2185: & 10.369 &
2186: 10.683 & 9.935 & 9.460 \\
2187: $\Gamma''_{h_1\to\gamma\gamma}\times 10^6$ & 7.470 & 8.371 &
2188: 10.832 & 13.321 &
2189: 12.945 & 10.274 & 8.887 \\
2190: $\Gamma_{H_1\to\gamma\gamma}\times 10^6$ \cite{feynh} & 6.373 &
2191: 7.058 & 9.038 & 11.217 &
2192: 9.983 & 5.336 & 3.021 \\
2193: $\Gamma_{H_1\to\gamma\gamma}\times 10^6$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 5.796 &
2194: 6.287 & 7.605 & 8.996 &
2195: 8.969 & 7.223 & 6.101 \\ \hline
2196: \hline &&&&&&
2197: \\[-3mm]
2198: %$\Gamma_{h_1\to e \bar{e}}\times 10^{-10}$ & 0.469 & 0.449 & 0.394
2199: %& 0.365 & 0.481 & 0.672 &
2200: %0.672 \\
2201: %$\Gamma_{H_1\to e \bar{e}}\times 10^{-10}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 0.345
2202: %&
2203: %0.335 & 0.310 & 0.329 & 0.385 & 0.529 & 0.592 \\ \hline
2204: $\Gamma_{h_1\to \mu \bar{\mu}}\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.212 &
2205: 0.204 & 0.179 & 0.166
2206: & 0.218 & 0.304 & 0.341 \\
2207: $\Gamma_{H_1\to \mu \bar{\mu}}\times 10^{-5}$ \cite{CPsuperH} &
2208: 0.157 &
2209: 0.152 & 0.141 & 0.137 & 0.175 & 0.240 & 0.269 \\
2210: \hline $\Gamma_{h_1\to \tau \bar{\tau}}\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.591 &
2211: 0.567 & 0.498 & 0.461
2212: & 0.607 & 0.848 & 0.950 \\
2213: $\Gamma_{H_1\to \tau \bar{\tau}}\times 10^{-3}$ \cite{CPsuperH}&
2214: 0.435 & 0.423 & 0.391 & 0.382
2215: & 0.485 & 0.668 & 0.746 \\
2216: \hline \hline & & & & & &
2217: &\\[-3mm]
2218: %$\Gamma_{h_1\to u \bar{u}}\times 10^{-8}$ & 0.194 & 0.201 & 0.217
2219: %& 0.228
2220: %& 0.223 & 0.205 & 0.194 \\
2221: %$\Gamma_{H_1\to u \bar{u}}\times 10^{-8}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 0.237
2222: %& 0.242 & 0.263 & 0.260
2223: %& 0.251 & 0.225 & 0.208 \\ \hline
2224: $\Gamma_{h_1\to d \bar{d}}\times
2225: 10^{-7}$ & 0.202 & 0.194 &
2226: 0.170 & 0.158
2227: & 0.208 & 0.290 & 0.325 \\
2228: $\Gamma_{H_1\to d \bar{d}}\times 10^{-7}$ \cite{CPsuperH}& 0.193 &
2229: 0.187 & 0.171 & 0.167
2230: & 0.212 & 0.297 & 0.335 \\
2231: \hline $\Gamma_{h_1\to s \bar{s}}\times 10^{-5}$ & 0.744 & 0.713 &
2232: 0.626 & 0.580
2233: & 0.764 & 1.066 & 1.195 \\
2234: $\Gamma_{H_1\to s \bar{s}}\times 10^{-5}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 0.709
2235: & 0.687 & 0.629 & 0.612
2236: & 0.780 & 1.089 & 1.230 \\
2237: \hline $\Gamma_{h_1\to c \bar{c}}\times 10^{-3}$ & 0.083 & 0.086 &
2238: 0.093 & 0.097
2239: & 0.095 & 0.088 & 0.083 \\
2240: $\Gamma_{H_1\to c \bar{c}}\times 10^{-3}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 0.101
2241: & 0.103 & 0.108 & 0.111
2242: & 0.107 & 0.096 & 0.089 \\
2243: \hline
2244: $\Gamma_{h_1\to b \bar{b}}\times 10^{-2}$ &
2245: 0.504 & 0.483 & 0.424 & 0.393 & 0.518 & 0.724 &
2246: 0.810 \\
2247: $\Gamma_{H_1\to b \bar{b}}\times 10^{-2}$ \cite{CPsuperH} & 0.481
2248: & 0.469 & 0.426 & 0.414
2249: & 0.528 & 0.737 & 0.832 \\
2250: \hline
2251: \end{tabular}
2252: \label{tab:MandD1}
2253: \end{center}
2254: \vspace{-3mm}
2255: \caption{{\scriptsize Higgs boson mases and their two-particle decay
2256: widths. The
2257: parameter set $\alpha_{EM}(m_Z)=0.7812\cdot$10$^{-2}$,
2258: $\alpha_S(m_Z)=$0.1172, $G_F=1.174\cdot10^{-5}$\,GeV$^{-2}$, $m_b=$3 GeV,
2259: ${\tt tg} \beta=$5, $M_{SUSY}=500$\,GeV,
2260: $|A_{\,t}|=|A_{\,b}|=A=1000$\,GeV, $|\mu|=2000$\,GeV, $m_{H^{\pm}}
2261: = 300$\,GeV. Our results together with CPsuperH [17] and FeynHiggs [18]
2262: with options 2003011100 (the one-loop regime). $m_{h_i}$, $\Gamma$ denote
2263: our results with the $\lambda_i$ at one-loop, $m'_{h_i}$, $\Gamma'$
2264: our results with the two-loop terms \cite{PilaftsisWagner} introduced to
2265: $\lambda_i$,
2266: $\Gamma$/$\Gamma''$ are the decay widths in our case when sparticles
2267: are not involved/included.}
2268: }
2269: \end{table}
2270:
2271: \newpage
2272:
2273: \input{frules.tex}
2274:
2275:
2276: %*************************************************************************************
2277: \newpage
2278:
2279:
2280: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2281:
2282: \bibitem{[2]} H.~Georgi, Hadr. J. Phys. {\bf 1}, 155 (1978).
2283:
2284: \bibitem{[3]} T.D.~Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8}, 1226 (1973).
2285:
2286: \bibitem{PilaftsisWagner}
2287: A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B553}, 3 (1999)
2288: (hep-ph/9902371)
2289: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902371;%%
2290:
2291:
2292: \bibitem{overall}
2293: M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B625},
2294: 345 (2002) (hep-ph/0111245)\\
2295: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111245;%%
2296: S.~Heinemeyer, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C22}, 521 (2001)
2297: (hep-ph/0108059) \\
2298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108059;%%
2299: S.Y.~Choi, J.S.~Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 015003 (2000)
2300: (hep-ph/9907496) \\
2301: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907496;%%
2302: S.Y.~Choi, M.~Drees, J.S.~Lee, Phys. Lett. {\bf B481}, 57 (2000)
2303: (hep-ph/0002287)
2304: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002287;%%
2305: D.A.~Demir, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 055006 (1999) (hep-ph/9901389)
2306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901389;%%
2307:
2308: \bibitem{Dubinin02}
2309: M.N.~Dubinin, A.V.~Semenov,
2310: Eur.~J.~Phys. {\bf C28}, 223 (2003) (hep-ph/0206205)
2311: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206205;%%
2312:
2313: \bibitem{W87} J.~Liu, L.~Wolfenstein,
2314: Nucl.~Phys. {\bf B289}, 1 (1987)\\
2315: Y.L.~Wu, L.~Wolfenstein,
2316: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 73}, 1762 (1994);
2317: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 73}, 2809 (1994)
2318:
2319: \bibitem{ginzkraw}
2320: I.~Ginzburg, M.~Krawczyk, hep-ph/0408011
2321:
2322: \bibitem{Inoue}
2323: K.~Inoue, A.~Kakuto, H.~Komatsu, S.~Takeshita,
2324: Progr.~Theor.~Phys. {\bf 67}, 1889 (1982);
2325: Progr.~Theor.~Phys. \textbf{68}, 927 (1982)\\
2326: R.A.~Flores, M.~Sher, Ann.~Phys. (N.Y.) \textbf{148}, 95 (1983)
2327:
2328: \bibitem{RGE91}
2329: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi, T.~Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B262}, 54 (1991)\\
2330: J.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi, F.~Zwirner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B257}, 83 (1991)\\
2331: H.E.~Haber, R.~Hempfling, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 1815 (1991)\\
2332: R.~Barbieri, M.~Frigeni, F.~Caravaglios, Phys. Lett. {\bf B258}, 167
2333: (1991)
2334:
2335: \bibitem{HH1993}
2336: H.E.~Haber, R.~Hempfling, Phys.~Rev. {\bf D48}, 4280 (1993)
2337:
2338: \bibitem{CEPW0003180}
2339: M.~Carena, J.R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner, Nucl.~Phys. {\bf
2340: B586}, 92 (2000) (hep-ph/0003180)
2341: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003180;%%
2342:
2343: \bibitem{Quiros97} M.~Quiros,
2344: in: Perspectives on Higgs physics II, Ed. by G.L.~Kane (World
2345: Scientific. 1998), p.148 (hep-ph/9703412)
2346: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703412;%%
2347:
2348: \bibitem{qfthep1}
2349: E.~Akhmetzyanova, M.~Dolgopolov, M.~Dubinin
2350: in: Proceedings of the International Workshop "Supersymmetries and
2351: Quantum Symmetries - SQS'03", Dubna, 2003; in:
2352: Proceedings of XVII Workshop on High Energy Physics and Quantum
2353: Field Theory (QFTHEP 2003), Samara-Saratov,
2354: 2003.
2355:
2356: \bibitem{CEQW} M.~Carena, J.R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros, C.E.M.~Wagner,
2357: Phys.Lett. {\bf B355}, 209 (1995)
2358:
2359: \bibitem{Dubinin01}
2360: M.~Dubinin, A.~Semenov, SNUTP report 98-140, hep-ph/9812246\\
2361: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812246;%%
2362: F.~Boudjema, A.~Semenov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}, 095007 (2002)
2363: (hep-ph/0201219)
2364: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201219;%%
2365:
2366: \bibitem{GunionHaber} J.F.~Gunion, H.E.~Haber, Phys.~Rev. {\bf D67},
2367: 075019 (2003) (hep-ph/0207010)
2368: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207010;%%
2369:
2370: \bibitem{CPsuperH} J.S.~Lee, A.~Pilaftsis, M.~Carena, S.Y.~Choi, M.~Drees,
2371: J.R.~Ellis, C.E.M.~Wagner, Comput.Phys.Commun. {\bf 156}, 283 (2004)
2372: (hep-ph/0307377)
2373: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307377;%%
2374:
2375: \bibitem{feynh}
2376: M. Frank, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, in: Hamburg 2002,
2377: Supersymmetry and unification of fundamental interactions (SUSY02),
2378: vol.2, p.637 (hep-ph/0212037)
2379: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212037;%%
2380:
2381: \bibitem{conciliate}
2382: M.~Carena, H.E.~Haber, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, C.E.M.~Wagner,
2383: G.~Weiglein,
2384: Nucl.Phys. {\bf B580}, 29 (2000) (hep-ph/0001002)\\
2385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001002;%%
2386: J.~R.~Espinosa, R.~J.~Zhang, JHEP {\bf 0003} 026 (2000)
2387: (hep-ph/9912236)
2388:
2389: \bibitem{cpx}
2390: M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis, C.~Wagner, Phys.Lett. {\bf} B495 155
2391: (2000) (hep-ph/0009212)
2392:
2393: \bibitem{Veltman}
2394: M.J.G. Veltman, CERN report 97-05, 1997
2395:
2396: \bibitem{GinzV} I.F.~Ginzburg, M.V.~Vychugin,
2397: in: Proceedings of XVI Workshop on High Energy Physics and Quantum
2398: Field Theory (QFTHEP 2001), Moscow, 2002, p.~64 (hep-ph/0201117)
2399: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201117;%%
2400:
2401: \bibitem{cmsnote}
2402: S.~Abdullin et.al., CMS Note 2003/033.
2403:
2404: \bibitem{LEP2}
2405: M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, S.~Mrenna, A.~Pilaftsis, C.E.M.~Wagner,
2406: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B659}, 145 (2003) (hep-ph/0211467)
2407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211467;%%
2408:
2409: \bibitem{colliders}
2410: P.~Niezurawski, A.F.~Zarnecki, M.~Krawczyk, hep-ph/0403138\\
2411: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403138;%%
2412: R.M.~Godbole, S.D.~Rindani, R.K.~Singh, Phys. Rev. {\bf D67}, 095009
2413: (2003) (hep-ph/0211136) \\
2414: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211136;%%
2415: A.~Dedes, S.~Moretti, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B576}, 29 (2000) (hep-ph/9909418)
2416: \\
2417: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909418;%%
2418: A.~Dedes, S.~Moretti, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 22 (2000)
2419: (hep-ph/9908516)\\
2420: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908516;%%
2421: B.~Grzadkowski, J.F.~Gunion, J.~Kalinowski, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 075011
2422: (1999) (hep-ph/9902308)
2423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902308;%%
2424:
2425: \bibitem{GGN}
2426: J.~Gunion, G.~Gamberini and S.~Novaes, Phys. Rev. {\bf D38},
2427: 3481 (1988)
2428:
2429: \bibitem{thresh}
2430: H.~Eberl, K.~Hidaka, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto, Y.~Yamada,
2431: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 055006 (2000) (hep-ph/9912463)
2432: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912463;%%
2433:
2434: \bibitem{factors}
2435: J.~Ellis, M.K.~Gaillard, D.V.~Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B106}, 292
2436: (1976) \\
2437: A.I.~Vainshtein, M.B.~Voloshin, V.I.~Zakharov, M.A.~Shifman,
2438: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, 711 (1979) (Yad. Fiz. {\bf 30}, 1368 (1979))
2439:
2440: \bibitem{SDGZ} M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P. M. Zerwas,
2441: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B453}, 17 (1995) (hep-ph/9504378) \\
2442: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504378;%%
2443: M. Spira, Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 46}, 203 (1998) (hep-ph/9705337)
2444: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705337;%%
2445:
2446: \bibitem{comphep}
2447: E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin, L. Dudko, V. Edneral, V. Ilyin, A.
2448: Kryukov, V. Savrin, A. Semenov, A. Sherstnev, CompHEP 4.4,
2449: hep-ph/0403113;
2450: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403113;%%
2451: A. Pukhov et.al., CompHEP 3.3, hep-ph/9908288.
2452: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908288;%%
2453:
2454: \bibitem{lanhep}
2455: A.~Semenov, Nucl. Instr. and Meth., {\bf 389}, 293 (1997)
2456: (hep-ph/9608488)
2457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608488;%%
2458:
2459: \end{thebibliography}
2460:
2461:
2462:
2463: \input figures.tex
2464:
2465:
2466:
2467: \end{document}
2468: