1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentstyle[11pt,epsf,fleqn]{article}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \documentclass[12pt,fleqn]{article}
5: %\documentclass[11pt]{article}
6: \usepackage{epsf}
7: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{amssymb}
9: %\documentstyle[11pt,epsf,fleqn]{article}
10: \setlength{\topmargin}{17mm}
11: \setlength{\headheight}{0mm}
12: \setlength{\headsep}{0mm}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{225mm}
14: \setlength{\textwidth}{165mm}
15: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-3mm}
16: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-3mm}
17: \setlength{\parskip}{2.0ex plus0.5ex minus0.5ex}
18: \setcounter{page}{0}
19: \def\figurename{FIGURE}%
20: %\def\refname{REFERENCES}
21: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}.}
22: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
23: %\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}.}
24: %\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\arabic{subsection}.}
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: \begin{document}
27: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
28:
29: \title{Implications of Constraints on Mass Parameters in the Higgs Sector of
30: the Nonlinear Supersymmetric SU(5) Model}
31: \author{Dong Won Lee$^{(a,b)}$, Bjong Ro Kim$^{(b,c)}$, Sun Kun Oh$^{(a,b)}$
32: %,G. Kreyerhoff$^{(c)}$,
33: \\
34: \\
35: {\it $^{(a)}$ Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701,
36: Korea} \\
37: {\it $^{(b)}$ CHEP, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, Korea} \\
38: {\it $^{(c)}$ III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen} \\
39: {\it D-52056 Aachen, Germany} \\
40: \\
41: \\
42: }
43: \date{}
44: %\date{Received: 21.Feb.2001}
45: \maketitle
46: \thispagestyle{empty}
47:
48: \newpage
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: The Higgs sector of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model contains three
52: mass parameters.
53: Although these mass parameters are essentially free at the electroweak scale,
54: they might have particular values if they evolve from a particular constraints
55: at the GUT scale through the RG equations.
56: By assuming a number of simple constraints on these mass parameters at the GUT scale,
57: we obtain their values at the electroweak scale through the RG equations in order
58: to investigate the phenomenological implications.
59: Some of them are found to be consistent with the present experimental data.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \vfil
63:
64: %****************************************************************
65: \section{Introduction}
66: %****************************************************************
67:
68: Although most of the popular supersymmetric models are linear ones,
69: it is still an open question whether supersymmetry is realized in nature
70: in linear or nonlinear way \cite{supersymmetry}.
71: One of us have considered a nonlinear realization of supersymmetry with SU(2) $\times$ U(1)
72: symmetry some years ago \cite{nonlinearSM}.
73: This model requires at least two Higgs doublets and a singlet for its Higgs sector.
74: Thus, at least with respect to the Higgs sector, this nonlinear model may be regarded as
75: an alternative to the linear Next-to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM).
76: Analysis of this nonlinear model show that it is consistent with phenomenology \cite{NMSSM}.
77:
78: An unfavorable aspect of the NMSSM is that its Higgs sector is larger than the simplest
79: linear supersymmetric model, the well-known Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM),
80: which has just two Higgs doublets.
81: The nonlinear alternative that has the same Higgs sector as the MSSM is the minimal nonlinear
82: supersymmetric SU(5) model \cite{nonlinearSU5}.
83: The Higgs potential of the low energy limit of this nonlinear model needs effectively only
84: two Higgs doublets.
85: This model has been investigated in some detail by us \cite{nonlinearSU5,franz1,oneloop,rg}.
86:
87: However, this minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model has a disadvantage compared
88: to the MSSM.
89: That is, it has one more parameter than the MSSM:
90: The Higgs sector of this nonlinear model at the electroweak scale is determined by two
91: Higgs doublets, and the Higgs potential in terms of these Higgs doublets contains
92: in general three mass parameters.
93: These mass parameters are essentially free at the electroweak scale.
94: They are completely independent.
95: On the other hand, the Higgs sector of the MSSM has just two independent parameters.
96:
97: Therefore, it is worthwhile to look for arguments which allow us to remove this
98: disadvantage, that is, to reduce the number of independent parameters.
99: One of the possibility is given by the {\it freedom of fine tuning},
100: that is, to impose some constraints on the mass parameters at the GUT scale.
101: If they are constrained at the GUT scale, their values at the electroweak scale would
102: no longer be free but determined by the renormalization group (RG) equations
103: that govern their evolutions as functions of energy scale.
104:
105: In this article, we investigate the phenomenological implications of imposing constraints
106: on the mass parameters in the Higgs potential of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5)
107: model.
108: By considering a number of simple constraints, which are in fact analogous to the various
109: constrained versions of the MSSM, we examine the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs boson,
110: as well as other Higgs bosons, and their production cross sections in $e^+e^-$ collisions.
111: We find that some of the constraints yield unphysical results or phenomenologically unacceptable
112: results whereas others give results that are consistent with the present experimental data.
113:
114: This article is organized as follows: In the next section, we describe the argument for
115: the possibility of imposing constraints on the mass parameters.
116: In Section 3, we review the results of unconstrained Higgs potential.
117: In Section 4, we consider a number of constraints in the increasing order of complexity.
118: Among them we investigate three particular cases which are phenomenologically interesting.
119: Concluding discussions are given in the last section.
120:
121: %**************************************************************
122: \section{The Higgs Potential without Parameters}
123: %**************************************************************
124:
125: A peculiar aspect of the minimal nonlinear sypersymmetric SU(5) model in its
126: spontaneous symmetry breaking from SU(5) to SU(3)$\times$U(1)
127: is the necessity of {\it manifold fine tuning} in the following sense:
128: In the conventional SU(5) model the spontaneous symmetry breaking of
129: SU(5) to SU(3)$\times$U(1) is induced by the following vacuum expectation
130: values of the diagonal elements of the adjoint Higgs multiplet $H^{24}$
131: \begin{equation}
132: \langle H^{24} \rangle = V_G \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
133: 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
134: 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
135: 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
136: 0 & 0 & 0 & -3+\epsilon & 0 \\
137: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3+\epsilon
138: \end{array} \right),
139: \end{equation}
140: where only one fine tuning parameter, $\epsilon$, is introduced, which is of order
141: $10^{-28}$ GeV, and $V_G$ is of order $10^{16}$ GeV.
142:
143: In case of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model, one needs to introduce
144: three fine tuning parameters such that the vacuum expectation value of $H^{24}$ is given by
145: \begin{equation}
146: \langle H^{24}\rangle = V_G \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
147: 2+\epsilon_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
148: 0 & 2+\epsilon_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
149: 0 & 0 & 2+\epsilon_1 & 0 & 0 \\
150: 0 & 0 & 0 & -3+\epsilon_2 & 0 \\
151: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3+\epsilon_3
152: \end{array} \right),
153: \end{equation}
154: where all of the three fine tuning parameters $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_3$
155: are of order $10^{-28}$.
156: As they satisfy $3 \epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3 = 0$, only two of them are independent.
157: We need fine tune them.
158: In the sense that the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model needs one more free
159: fine tuning parameter than the conventional SU(5) model, it might be said that the former is
160: less natural than the latter, as far as the fine tuning is considered to be unnatural.
161:
162: However, a remarkable merit of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model is that
163: there is a theoretically consistent method to break SU(5) to SU(3)$\times$U(1) with
164: no need of fine tuning.
165: Unfortunately, the result of the low energy limit of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5)
166: model without fine tuning seems to be incompatible with existing experimental data,
167: which will be discussed shortly.
168:
169: The Higgs potential of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model,
170: after the breaking of SU(5) all the way down to SU(3)$\times$U(1),
171: in the low energy limit at the electroweak scale is given at the tree level by
172: \cite{nonlinearSU5,franz1}
173: \begin{eqnarray} \label{tree-potential}
174: V &=& {1 \over 8} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (|H_1|^2 - |H_2|^2)^2
175: + {1 \over 2} g_2^2 |H_1^+ H_2|^2 \cr
176: & &\mbox{} + \lambda^2 (|H_1|^2 |H_2|^2
177: - {1 \over 5} |H_1^T \epsilon H_2|^2) \\
178: & &\mbox{} + m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2
179: + m_3^2 (H_1^T \epsilon H_2 + {\rm h.c.}), \nonumber
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: where three mass parameters $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$ are introduced.
182:
183: These mass parameters are expressed as $m_i = C_i (V_G-\xi_i)$ ($i=1,2,3$), where $\xi_i$
184: is of the same order of $10^{16}$ GeV as $V_G$, and the dimensionless parameter $C_i$ is of
185: order of unity.
186: Generally, both $V_G$ and $\xi_i$ have to be fine tuned such that the difference
187: $V_G - \xi_i$ should be of order of electroweak scale in order to make the model suitable
188: for the electroweak phenomenology.
189: It turns out in the minimal supersymmetric SU(5) model that one can obtain without fine
190: tuning the mass parameters a theoretically consistent model as a low energy limit by
191: breaking first SU(5) to SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) and then breaking dynamically
192: SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) to SU(3)$\times$U(1).
193:
194: First, the breaking of SU(5) to SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) can be, as shown in
195: Ref \cite{nonlinearSU5}, accomplished by the vacuum expectation values of the quintuplets
196: $H^5$ and $\bar{H}^5$ as $\langle H^5 \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \bar{H}^5 \rangle = 0$,
197: respectively, and the vacuum expectation value of $H^{24}$ given independently of
198: $\epsilon_i$ as
199: \begin{equation}
200: \langle H^{24}\rangle = V_G \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
201: 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
202: 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
203: 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
204: 0 & 0 & 0 & -3 & 0 \\
205: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -3
206: \end{array} \right).
207: \end{equation}
208: The extremum conditions with respect to $\langle H^{24} \rangle$,
209: $\langle H^5 \rangle$ and $\langle \bar{H}^5 \rangle$ then imply that
210: the three mass parameters in the above tree-level Higgs potential are all zero:
211: $m_1 = m_2 = m_3 = 0$.
212:
213: Now, for the Higgs potential with $m_1= m_2 = m_3 = 0$, if $\lambda = 0$,
214: SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1) is spontaneously broken to SU(3)$\times$U(1) at the tree level.
215: If, on the other hand, $\lambda \neq 0$, it is not possible for SU(3)$\times$SU(2)$\times$U(1)
216: to be spontaneously broken at the tree level but only possible at the one-loop level.
217: The parameters are evolved from the GUT scale to the electraoweak scale via the RG equations
218: given in Appendix A.
219: We carry out the calculation in the frame of one-loop effective potential given in Appendix B.
220: The renormalization scale is taken to be between 100 GeV and 500 GeV.
221: It turns out that all loop contributions should be included: $b$ and $t$ quark, gauge bosons,
222: and scalar Higgs bosons, where the masses of $b$ and $t$ quark, and the neutral gauge boson
223: are taken as $m_b = 4.3$ GeV, $m_t = 175$ GeV, and $m_Z = 91.187$ GeV, respectively.
224:
225: Prior to the extremum conditions with respect to $\langle H_0\rangle$ and $\langle H_1\rangle$
226: are imposed, the Higgs potential has two independent parameters, namely,
227: $\lambda$ and $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$.
228: After imposing the two extremum conditions, no free parameters are left in the Higgs potential.
229: Therefore, the Higgs potential contains no parameter; it may be called zero-parameter model.
230: For example the Higgs boson masses are uniquely fixed.
231: For $m_{S_1}$ we obtain 35 GeV.
232:
233: In order to examine whether it is possible for these Higgs bosons to escape from experimental
234: detection, the production cross sections of $S_1$ in $e^+e^-$ collisions are calculated.
235: The relevant production channels are
236: \begin{equation}\label{productionchannel}
237: \begin{array}{l}
238: {\rm (i)}~~ e^+ e^- \rightarrow Z \rightarrow ZS_i \rightarrow \bar{f} fS_i \cr
239: {\rm (ii)}~~ e^+ e^- \rightarrow Z \rightarrow \bar{f}f \rightarrow \bar{f} fS_i \cr
240: {\rm (iii)}~~ e^+ e^- \rightarrow Z \rightarrow PS_i \rightarrow \bar{f} fS_i \cr
241: {\rm (iv)}~~ e^+ e^- \rightarrow \gamma \rightarrow \bar{f} f \rightarrow \bar{f} fS_i .
242: \end{array}
243: \end{equation}
244: For $\sqrt{s} = 92$ GeV, we obtain $\sigma_{S_1} = 7$ pb,
245: which is much larger than 1 pb, the discovery limit of LEP1.
246: Therefore, this zero-parameter model is phenomenologically incompatible with the LEP1 data,
247: although it is theoretically interesting in the sense that no fine tuning is required.
248:
249:
250: %*****************************************************************
251: \section{Unconstrained Higgs Potential}
252: %*****************************************************************
253:
254: In this section, we summarize the results of unconstrained Higgs potential, where
255: the three mass parameters may have arbitrary values at the GUT scale,
256: in order to demonstrate the effects of the constraints \cite{franz1,oneloop,rg}.
257:
258: The Higgs potential of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric
259: SU(5) model contains three mass parameters, $m_i$ ($i=1,2,3$).
260: In general, the three mass parameters $m_i = C_i (V_G-\xi_i)$ may take any
261: value between zero and say of order 1000 GeV.
262: If we do not use the {\it freedom of fine tuning}, the three mass parameters are not constrained.
263: In Ref. \cite{franz1}, the phenomenology of this unconstrained model has been treated at the
264: tree level.
265: In Ref. \cite{oneloop}, the analysis has been extended to the one-loop level in the frame
266: of effective potential method, where RG equations have not been used and only top and bottom
267: contributions have been taken into account.
268: In Ref. \cite{rg}, the RG equations have been derived and numerically solved in the
269: $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme.
270: Evolving the parameters of the model from the GUT scale down to the electroweak scale,
271: the allowed regions of the parameters are determined, in particular the quartic coupling
272: constant $\lambda$.
273: The mass bounds, corrections to tree-level mass sum rules and productions of the Higgs
274: bosons at $e^+ e^-$
275: colliders are investigated for up to 2000 GeV of c.m. energy \cite{rg}.
276:
277:
278: We improve the results of these works by employing the RG equations given in Appendix A and
279: including not only top and bottom contributions but also gauge and Higgs self contributions
280: for the masses and cross sections.
281:
282: At the GUT scale, we set the values of parameters to be
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: 0 &\leq& \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2 \cr
285: -1 &\leq& m^2_{i_{\rm GUT}} \,\, (\rm TeV^2) \leq 1 \cr\
286: 1 &\leq& \tan\beta \leq 20,
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: where $i = 1, 2, 3$, and calculate their values at the electroweak scale using
289: the RG equations.
290: At the electroweak scale, we require the square masses of the Higgs bosons to be
291: positive and $\tan \beta$ to be in the range of $1 \leq \tan \beta \leq 20$.
292:
293: We obtain the following numbers for $m_{S_1}, m_{S_2}$ and $m_P$,
294: which are respectively the masses of the Higgs scalars $S_1, S_2$ and pseudoscalar $P$:
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: 31.6 \leq & m_{S_1}~(\rm GeV) & \leq 183.4 \cr
297: 114 \leq & m_{S_2}~(\rm GeV) & \leq 1311 \\
298: 24 \leq & m_P ~(\rm GeV) & \leq 1311. \nonumber
299: \end{eqnarray}
300:
301: We calculate the production cross sections for the lightest scalar Higgs boson $S_1$ in
302: $e^+e^-$ collisions.
303: The relevant channels are the same as eq. (\ref{productionchannel}).
304: As no scalar Higgs boson has discovered at LEP, it might have escaped the detection or
305: its mass is bounded from below.
306: For $\sqrt{s}= 205.9$ GeV, which is the center of mass energy reached finally at LEP2,
307: assuming the discovery limit of 40fb for LEP2, we find that $S_1$ should be heavier than
308: 66 GeV in order to escape the detection at LEP2.
309:
310: Future $e^+e^-$ colliders may discover the Higgs bosons of this unconstrained model.
311: Assuming that at least 10 signal events are necessary to detect the Higgs bosons, we set
312: the necessary minimum luminosity $L_{\rm min}$ for given center of mass energy of the
313: future $e^+e^-$ colliders:
314: For the $S_1$ production, we find that $L_{\rm min}$ is respectively
315: 1.43 fb$^{-1}$, 5.4 fb$^{-1}$, and 21.3 fb$^{-1}$ for $\sqrt{s} = 500$, 1000, and 2000 GeV.
316: For the $S_2$ production, we obtain that $L_{\rm min} = 23.8$ fb$^{-1}$ for
317: $\sqrt{s} = 2000$ GeV, and for the $P$ production, $L_{\rm min} = 77$ fb$^{-1}$
318: for $\sqrt{s} = 2000$ GeV.
319: An integrated luminosity of this order for the future linear collider is sufficiently
320: realistic, as the proposed linear collider project suggests that the baseline luminosity
321: for the $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $e^+e^-$ linear collider is above 10$^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$
322: \cite{GLC}.
323:
324:
325: %****************************************************************
326: \section{Constrained Higgs Potential}
327: %****************************************************************
328:
329: Now, let us use the {\it freedom of fine tuning} at the GUT scale.
330: The simplest form of fine tuning the mass parameters would be such that the number
331: of them is reduced.
332: In other words, we eliminate some of the mass parameters by fine tuning them.
333: %For example, we may eliminate all of them by tuning $m_1 = m_2 = m_3 = 0$, or
334: %two of them by setting either $m_1 = m_2 = 0$ but $m_3 \neq 0$, $m_2 = m_3 = 0$ but
335: %$m_1 \neq 0$, or $m_1 = m_3 = 0$ but $m_2 \neq 0$, and so on.
336: For example, we may eliminate all of them by tuning
337: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, or
338: two of them by setting either $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = 0$ but
339: $m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0$, $m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} = 0$ but
340: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0$, or $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} = 0$
341: but $m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0$, and so on.
342: We find that among them, three cases of fine tunings yield phenomenologically
343: reasonable results:
344: \begin{equation}
345: \begin{array}{l}
346: % ({\rm Case ~A}) ~ m^2_2 = 0, ~m^2_1 m^2_3 \neq 0 \cr
347: % ({\rm Case ~B}) ~ m^2_1 = 0, ~m^2_2 m^2_3 \neq 0 \cr
348: % ({\rm Case ~C}) ~ |m^2_1| = |m^2_2| = |m^2_3| \neq 0
349: %
350: ({\rm Case ~A}) ~ m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = 0, ~m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0, ~m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0 \cr
351: ({\rm Case ~B}) ~ m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0, ~m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0, ~m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}} \neq 0 \cr
352: ({\rm Case ~C}) ~ |m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}| = |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}| = |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}| \neq 0.
353: \end{array}
354: \end{equation}
355: We consider these three cases one by one.
356: Note that we take $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$ at the GUT scale for our
357: analysis and $0 < |m^2_{i_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ for the mass parameters.
358: The other values we take in our calculations at the electroweak scale are
359: $m_b = 4.3$ GeV, $m_t = 175$ GeV, and $m_Z = 91.187$ GeV, and $1 \leq \tan \beta \leq 20$.
360:
361: %****************************************************************
362: \subsection{Two-Parameter Higgs Potential}
363: %****************************************************************
364:
365: {\bf Case A}
366:
367: In Case A, there are two independent mass parameters.
368: We fine tune at the GUT scale one of the mass parameters to be zero, and
369: let the other two mass parameters vary independently.
370: From the GUT scale where we set $m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = 0$,
371: $0 < |m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$,
372: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
373: $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$, the RG equations lead us at the electroweak
374: scale to
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: (107)^2 \leq & m_1^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq ~~~(1176)^2 \cr
377: -(133)^2 \leq & m_2^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq -(52)^2 \cr
378: -(272)^2 \leq & m_3^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq -(45.4)^2 \\
379: 0.005 ~\leq & \lambda & \leq ~~~0.388. \nonumber
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: With these allowed parameters, we calculate the Higgs boson masses at the electroweak
382: scale.
383: We plot $m_{S_1}$ in Fig. \ref{a-1}, where one can see that points are scattered between
384: 104.6 GeV and 183.4 GeV for $m_{S_1}$. In this way, we set the ranges for the Higgs
385: boson masses.
386: The results are:
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: 104.6 \leq & m_{S_1}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 183.4 \cr
389: 129.4 \leq & m_{S_2}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 1178 \\
390: 156 \leq & m_P ~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 1178. \nonumber
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: Note that all the Higgs bosons are heavier than the $Z$ boson mass.
393: The allowed range for $m_{S_1}$ is rather tight compared to the allowed ranges for $m_{S_2}$
394: or $m_P$.
395:
396: Now, the cross sections for the productions of these Higgs bosons are calculated in order
397: to check the possibility of detecting these Higgs bosons in $e^+e^-$ collisions.
398: For $\sqrt{s} = 205.9$ GeV, the center of mass energy of LEP2, the results of our calculations
399: show that the production cross sections for all these Higgs bosons are well below
400: the discovery limit of LEP2.
401: Thus, in Case A, the existing experimental data cannot put any constraints on the masses of
402: the three Higgs bosons in the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model.
403:
404: The cross sections for the productions of these Higgs bosons at the future $e^+e^-$ linear
405: colliders are also calculated.
406: For $S_1$, we plot in Fig.\ref{a-500-s1} $\sigma_{S_1}$ for its production in $e^+e^-$
407: collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV.
408: One can see that $\sigma_{S_1}$ lies between about 7 and 9.8 fb.
409: We also calculate for other center of mass energies.
410: Thus, the results for $S_1$ production in $e^+e^-$ collisions for
411: $\sqrt{s} = 500$ (1000, 2000) GeV are
412: \begin{equation}
413: 7 \,\,(1.85, \, 0.47) \leq \sigma_{S_1} ~{\rm (fb)} \leq 9.8 \,\, (2.4, \,\ 0.5).
414: \end{equation}
415:
416: The lower bounds for $\sigma_{S_2}$ and $\sigma_P$ are nearly zero in $e^+e^-$ collisions
417: at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV.
418: This implies that they might not be discovered for some parameter regions of the minimal
419: nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model.
420: However, the upper bound for $\sigma_{S_2}$ and $\sigma_P$ are comparatively larger than
421: that of $\sigma_{S_1}$: Our calculations yield that $\sigma_{S_2} \le 285.1$ fb and
422: $\sigma_P \le 284.1$ fb at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV.
423:
424: In $e^+e^-$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1000$ GeV, both $S_2$ and $P$ might be produced heftily.
425: The production cross sections for both of them are obtained as
426: \begin{equation}
427: 0 \le \sigma_{S_2, P} ~{\rm (fb)} \le 320,
428: \end{equation}
429: for $\sqrt{s} = 1000$ GeV.
430: Thus, in Case A, there are some parameter regions in the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric
431: SU(5) model where these Higgs bosons might be produced in large quantity at the future high
432: energy $e^+e^-$ linear colliders.
433:
434: Extending our analysis for the future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders with $\sqrt{s} = 2000$ GeV,
435: we obtain that, as can be seen in Fig. \ref{a-lc2000s2p},
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: && \sigma_{S_2} \geq 1.9 ~{\rm fb} \cr
438: && \sigma_P \geq 1.8 ~{\rm fb}.
439: \end{eqnarray}
440:
441:
442: {\bf Case B}
443:
444: The Case B has also only two free mass parameters at the GUT scale.
445: We set $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, and allow other parameters to take values in the following ranges at
446: the GUT scale:
447: \begin{eqnarray}
448: 0 < & |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} & \leq 1 \cr
449: 0 < & |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} & \leq 1 \\
450: 0 \leq & \lambda_{\rm GUT} & \leq 1.2. \nonumber
451: \end{eqnarray}
452: Via RG equations, these parameters evolve from the GUT scale down to the electroweak scale
453: to have values as follows:
454: \begin{eqnarray}
455: (40.6)^2 \leq & m_1^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq ~~(146.7)^2 \cr
456: -(136.8)^2 \leq & m_2^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq -(61.7)^2 \cr
457: -(94.4)^2 \leq & m_3^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq ~~~~ 0 \\
458: 0.013 \leq & \lambda & \leq ~~~0.388 . \nonumber
459: \end{eqnarray}
460: These values for the parameters yield relatively light Higgs bosons.
461: As are illustrated in Fig. \ref{b-ms1}, Fig. \ref{b-ms2} and Fig. \ref{b-mp}, respectively,
462: for $m_{S_1}$, $m_{S_2}$ and $m_P$, we obtain that
463: \begin{eqnarray}
464: 31.6 \leq & m_{S_1}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 162 \cr
465: 118 \leq & m_{S_2}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 191 \\
466: 25.5 \leq & m_P ~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 169 . \nonumber
467: \end{eqnarray}
468:
469: With these mass ranges, $S_1$ and $P$ can be produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions at the center
470: of mass energy of LEP1, whereas $S_2$ production is not allowed kinematically.
471: However, the production of $P$ is suppressed due to the absence of its Higgs-strahlung process,
472: which is the dominant one for $S_1$ at the LEP1 energy.
473: So the no detection at LEP1 of $S_1$ may put a lower bound on $m_{S_1}$ as
474: \begin{equation}
475: 46 \le m_{S_1} ~{\rm (GeV)}.
476: \end{equation}
477:
478: If the $e^+e^-$ center of mass energy is as large as the LEP2, all the three Higgs bosons can
479: be produced.
480: Here, too, the production of $P$ is strongly suppressed by the same reason as given at LEP1.
481: For LEP2 with $\sqrt{s} = 205.9$ GeV we plot $\sigma_{S_1}$ and $\sigma_{S_2}$
482: in Fig. \ref{b-lep206-ms1ms2}.
483: From this figure, assuming the discovery limit of 40 fb for LEP2, one might put a lower bound
484: on the mass of $S_1$ as $m_{S_1} \ge 67.5$ GeV.
485: On the other hand, one can see that $\sigma_{S_2}$ is smaller than 2 fb for the entire region
486: of the parameter space, which is well below the discovery limit of LEP2.
487: Thus, LEP2 cannot put any limit on $m_{S_2}$.
488:
489: In $e^+e^-$ collisions with very high center of mass energy, the channel (iv) in equation
490: (\ref{productionchannel}) is comparably dominant with other channels in size and $\sigma_P$
491: becomes the same order of magnitude as $\sigma_{S_1}$ and $\sigma_{S_2}$.
492: We allow the parameters to vary within the ranges obtained by the RG equations, and calculate
493: the production cross sections.
494: We obtain the following lower bounds for them:
495: For $e^+e^-$ collisions with $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV,
496: \begin{eqnarray}
497: \sigma_{S_1} & \geq & 7 ~{\rm fb} \cr
498: \sigma_{S_2} & \geq & 6.4 ~{\rm fb} \\
499: \sigma_P & \geq & 2 ~{\rm fb} , \nonumber
500: \end{eqnarray}
501: for $e^+e^-$ collisions with $\sqrt{s} = 1000$ GeV,
502: \begin{eqnarray}
503: \sigma_{S_1} & \geq & 1.85 ~{\rm fb} \cr
504: \sigma_{S_2} & \geq & 1.5 ~{\rm fb} \\
505: \sigma_P & \geq & 0.43 ~{\rm fb} , \nonumber
506: \end{eqnarray}
507: and for $e^+e^-$ collisions with $\sqrt{s} = 2000$ GeV,
508: \begin{eqnarray}
509: \sigma_{S_1} & \geq & 0.47 ~{\rm fb} \cr
510: \sigma_{S_2} & \geq & 0.42 ~{\rm fb} \\
511: \sigma_P & \geq & 0.13 ~{\rm fb} . \nonumber
512: \end{eqnarray}
513:
514: %****************************************************************
515: \subsection{One-Parameter Higgs Potential}
516: %****************************************************************
517:
518: Let us consider the Case C.
519: The Higgs potential in the Case C contains only one mass parameter at the GUT scale,
520: namely, $0 < |m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}| = |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}| =
521: |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|\leq 1 \mbox{(TeV$^2$)}$ and we set $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$.
522: The RG equations yield their values at the electroweak scale as
523: \begin{eqnarray}
524: (95)^2 ~\leq & m_1^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq ~~(296.7)^2 \cr
525: -(110.6)^2 ~\leq & m_2^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq -(113)^2 \cr
526: -(214.3)^2 ~\leq & m_3^2~({\rm GeV}^2) & \leq -(56.9)^2 \\
527: 0.004 ~~\leq & \lambda & \leq ~~~0.385 . \nonumber
528: \end{eqnarray}
529: And these values in turn yield the masses of the HIggs bosons as
530: \begin{eqnarray}
531: 85 \leq & m_{S_1}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 173 \cr
532: 141 \leq & m_{S_2}~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 345 \\
533: 136 \leq & m_P ~{\rm (GeV)} & \leq 336 .
534: \nonumber
535: \end{eqnarray}
536:
537: Now we calculate $\sigma_{S_1}$ at the LEP2 energy, $\sqrt{s} = 205.9$ GeV.
538: For given $m_{S_1}$, we search the entire region of the parameter space and select the largest $\sigma_{S_1}$.
539: In Fig. \ref{c-lep206-ms1}, we plot the result as a function of $m_{S_1}$.
540: Assuming the discovery limit of 40fb for LEP2, Fig. \ref{c-lep206-ms1} indicates that there are some parameter
541: regions for $m_{S_1} \le 107.3$ GeV where $S_1$ might be detected at LEP2.
542: Thus, the figure suggests that the lower bound on the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs boson in our model
543: is set as 107.3 GeV by LEP2.
544:
545: In the future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders the cross section for the production of the
546: lightest scalar Higgs boson $S_1$ in this case is
547: \begin{equation}
548: 7.5 \,\,(1.9, \, 0.48) \leq \sigma_{S_1} ~{\rm (fb)} \leq 12.5 \,\, (4.3, \,\ 1.18) ,
549: \end{equation}
550: for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ (1000, 2000) GeV. For other Higgs bosons, we obtain that
551: \begin{eqnarray}
552: && 0 \,\,(1.5, \, 0.42) \leq \sigma_{S_2} {\rm (fb)} \leq 80 \,\, (35, \, 8) \cr
553: && 0 \,\,(1.0, \, 0.28) \leq \sigma_{P} {\rm (fb)} \leq 78 \,\, (35, \, 8) ,
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ (1000, 2000) GeV.
556: The tendency is that the cross sections decrease as the Higgs bosons become heavier
557: and the cross sections increase as the Higgs bosons become lighter.
558: For $S_2$ and $P$, the minimum cross section for producing them
559: at a $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $e^+e^-$ colliding machine is nearly zero.
560: However, the large upper bounds on the production cross sections suggest
561: that they might also be detected at the future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders depending
562: on their masses.
563:
564: Note that these numbers are large enough for the future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders to
565: examine the Case C of the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model.
566: Thus, if the discovery limit for the $e^+e^-$ linear colliders at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV
567: is 10 events, one would need an integrated luminosity of at least about 1.33 fb$^{-1}$.
568: In order to test the model by detecting, for example, $S_1$, the minimum cross section of
569: whose production is about 7.5 fb.
570:
571:
572:
573: %****************************************************************
574: \section{Discussions and Conclusions}
575: %****************************************************************
576:
577: We have investigated if the minimal nonlinear supersymmetric SU(5) model is
578: phenomenologically viable, by fine-tuning the mass parameters of the Higgs potential.
579: We have set some of the mass parameters to be constrained at the GUT scale,
580: and then have evolved them down to the electroweak scale via RG equations.
581: We have found that three cases emerge as acceptable.
582:
583: One of them is the case where $m_2$, the mass term of the Higgs
584: doublet $H_2$, which gives mass to the top-quark, is set to be zero at the GUT scale.
585: A characteristic feature of this case is that the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs boson
586: is predicted as 104.6 $\leq m_{S_1} ~(\rm {GeV}) \leq$ 183.4.
587: Note that the lower bound of $m_{S_1}$ is rather large while the allowed range of $m_{S_1}$
588: is comparatively narrow.
589:
590: Another case is obtained by fine-tuning $m_1$, the mass term of the doublet
591: $H_1$, which gives mass to the bottom-quark, to be zero at the GUT scale.
592: A novel feature of this case is that all scalar Higgs bosons are predicted to be
593: lighter than 200 GeV.
594:
595: The other case has only one mass parameter at the GUT scale.
596: It is obtained by fine-tuning $|m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}|$, $|m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|$ and
597: $|m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|$ to be equal non-zero value at the GUT scale.
598: In this case, all scalar Higgs bosons are predicted to be between 85 GeV and 345 GeV.
599:
600: We have also shown that these three cases are compatible with the data of LEP1 and LEP2.
601: We have calculated the lower bounds for the production cross sections of some Higgs bosons
602: at the future $e^+e^-$ colliders with $\sqrt{s} = 500$, 1000, and 2000 GeV.
603: The numbers are within the range of the discovery limit of the future machines,
604: thus allowing our model to be examined.
605:
606:
607:
608: %******************************************************************
609: \newpage
610:
611: \noindent{\Large \bf Appendix A \\
612: \\
613: RG equations of the nonlinear Supersymmetric SU(5) model}
614: \\
615: \\
616: The RG equations of the parameters of our model are derived as follows:
617: \begin{eqnarray}
618: {d \lambda_1 \over d t } &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2} \Big\{12 \lambda_1^2 +4 \lambda_3^2
619: +4 \lambda_3 \lambda_4 +2\lambda_4^2 +2\lambda_5^2 + 24\lambda_6^2 \cr
620: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ - \lambda_1 (3 g_1^2 +9 g_2^2 -12 h_b^2)
621: +{3 \over 2} g_2^4 \cr
622: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +{3 \over 4} (g_1^2+ g_2^2)^2 -12 h_b^4 \Big\} \cr
623: %
624: {d\lambda_2\over d t }
625: &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2} \Big\{12 \lambda_2^2 +4 \lambda_3^2 +4
626: \lambda_3 \lambda_4 +2\lambda_4^2 +2\lambda_5^2 + 24\lambda_6^2 \cr
627: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ - \lambda_2 (3 g_1^2 +9 g_2^2 -12 h_t^2)
628: +{3 \over 2} g_2^4 \cr
629: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +{3 \over 4} (g_1^2+ g_2^2)^2 -12 h_t^4 \Big\} \cr
630: %
631: {d\lambda_3 \over d t }
632: &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2} \Big\{4 \lambda_3^2 +2 \lambda_4^2 +
633: (\lambda_1 +\lambda_2) (6 \lambda_3 +2 \lambda_4) \cr
634: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ + 2\lambda_5^2 + 4\lambda_6^2 +4\lambda_7^2 + 16\lambda_6\lambda_7 \cr
635: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ - \lambda_3 (3 g_1^2 +9 g_2^2 -6 h_b^2-6 h_t^2) \cr
636: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +{9 \over 4} g_2^4 +{3 \over 4}g_1^4 -12 h_b^2 h_t^2 \Big\} \cr
637: %
638: {d \lambda_4 \over d t } &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2}
639: \Big\{8\lambda_3 \lambda_4 +2 \lambda_4 (\lambda_1+\lambda_2) +4 \lambda_4^2
640: +8\lambda_5^2 \cr
641: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ + 10\lambda_6^2 + 10\lambda_7^2 + 4\lambda_6\lambda_7 \cr
642: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ - \lambda_4 (3 g_1^2 +9 g_2^2 -6 h_b^2 -6 h_t^2) \cr
643: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +12 h_b^2 h_t^2 +3 g_1^2 g_2^2 \Big\} \cr
644: %
645: {d \lambda_5 \over d t } &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2}
646: \Big\{ 2\lambda_5 (\lambda_1+\lambda_2+4\lambda_3+6\lambda_4)
647: +10(\lambda_6^2+\lambda_7^2) \cr
648: & &\mbox{} ~~~~ +4\lambda_6\lambda_7
649: -\frac{1}{2}\lambda_5(18g_2^2+6g_1^2-12(h_t^2+h_b^2))
650: \Big\} \cr
651: %
652: {d \lambda_6 \over d t } &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2}
653: \Big\{ 2\lambda_6 (6\lambda_1+3\lambda_3+4\lambda_4+5\lambda_5) \cr
654: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +2\lambda_7(3\lambda_3+2\lambda_4+\lambda_5) \cr
655: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ -\frac{1}{4}\lambda_6(36g_2^2+12g_1^2-12(h_t^2+3h_b^2))
656: \Big\} \cr
657: %
658: {d \lambda_7 \over d t } &=& {1 \over 16 \pi^2}
659: \Big\{ 2\lambda_7 (6\lambda_2+3\lambda_3+4\lambda_4+5\lambda_5) \cr
660: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ +2\lambda_6(3\lambda_3+2\lambda_4+\lambda_5) \cr
661: & &\mbox{}~~~~~~~~ -\frac{1}{4}\lambda_7(36g_2^2+12g_1^2-12(3h_t^2+h_b^2))
662: \Big\} \cr
663: %
664: {d \mu_1^2 \over d t} &=& {1 \over 32 \pi^2}
665: \Big\{12 \lambda_1 \mu_1^2 +(8 \lambda_3 +4 \lambda_4) \mu_2^2 \cr
666: & &\mbox{} ~~~~+24\lambda_6 \mu_3^2 -2(9g_2^2+3g_1^2-12h_b^2)\mu_1^2
667: \Big\} \cr
668: %
669: {d \mu_2^2 \over d t} &=& {1 \over 32 \pi^2} \Big\{12 \lambda_2 \mu_2^2
670: +(8 \lambda_3 +4 \lambda_4) \mu_1^2 \Big\} \cr
671: & &\mbox{} ~~~~+24\lambda_7 \mu_3^2 -2(9g_2^2+3g_1^2-12h_t^2)\mu_2^2
672: \Big\} \cr
673: %
674: {d \mu_3^2 \over d t} &=& {1 \over 32 \pi^2} \Big\{
675: (4 \lambda_3 +8\lambda_4 +12\lambda_5) \mu_3^2
676: +12\lambda_6 \mu_1^2 \cr
677: & &\mbox{} ~~+ 12\lambda_7 \mu_2^2 - (18g_2^2+6g_1^2 -12h_b^2 -12 h_t^2)\mu_3^2
678: \Big\} \cr
679: %
680: {d h_t \over d t} &=& - { h_t \over 16 \pi^2} \left(
681: 8 g_3^2+{9 \over 4} g_2^2 + {17 \over 12}g_1^2 -{1 \over 2} h_b^2
682: - {9 \over2} h_t^2 \right) \cr
683: %
684: {d h_b \over d t} &=& - { h_b \over 16 \pi^2} \left(
685: 8 g_3^2+{9 \over 4} g_2^2 + {5 \over 12}g_1^2 -{1 \over 2} h_t^2
686: - {9 \over2} h_b^2 \right) ,
687: \end{eqnarray}
688: where the following redefinition of the parameters are used
689: \begin{eqnarray}
690: \lambda_1 (M_{\rm GUT})
691: &=& { g^2_1 (M_{\rm GUT}) +g^2_2 (M_{\rm GUT}) \over 4} \cr
692: \lambda_2 (M_{\rm GUT})
693: &=& { g^2_1(M_{\rm GUT}) +g^2_2 (M_{\rm GUT}) \over 4} \cr
694: \lambda_3 (M_{\rm GUT})
695: &=& { g^2_2 (M_{\rm GUT}) -g^2_1(M_{\rm GUT}) \over 4}
696: +\lambda^2 (M_{\rm GUT}) \cr
697: \lambda_4 (M_{\rm GUT})
698: &=& -{1 \over 2} g^2_2(M_{\rm GUT}) - {1 \over 5}
699: \lambda^2 (M_{\rm GUT}) \cr
700: \lambda_5 (M_{\rm GUT})
701: &=& \lambda_6 (M_{\rm GUT}) = \lambda_7 (M_{\rm GUT}) = 0 \cr
702: \mu_i ^2 (M_{\rm GUT}) &=& m_i^2 (M_{\rm GUT}),
703: \nonumber
704: \end{eqnarray}
705: where $i = 1, 2, 3$.
706: Note that $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are eventually eliminated from the potential
707: by the extremum conditions.
708:
709: From the known values of the gauge couplings at $m_Z$ scale \cite{datagroup}
710: we obtain $g_1^2(m_Z) = 0.1283$, $g_2^2(m_Z) = 0.4273$ and $g_3^2(m_Z)
711: = 1.4912$ in the $\overline{\rm DR}$ renormalization scheme.
712: Through their RG evolution from $m_Z$ scale to $m_t$ scale with five quarks
713: and one Higgs doublet, the top-quark Yukawa coupling is obtained from
714: $m_t^{\rm pole} = {1\over\sqrt{2}}h_t(m_t) v_2(m_t) \\
715: (1+{5\over 3\pi} \alpha_s(m_t))$
716: in the $\overline{\rm DR}$ renormalization scheme at $m_t = 175$ GeV
717: \cite{mtpole}, where for the evolution of the gauge couplings we use
718: their two-loop $\beta$-functions \cite{twoloopbeta}.
719: In this way, the values of the gauge and the Yukawa couplings at $M_{\rm GUT}$ scale are
720: obtained using RG equations.
721: Then by applying these values and the remaining input parameters, $\lambda$
722: and $m_i^2$, as the boundary conditions for the RG equations at $M_{\rm GUT}$ scale,
723: the numerical values of the relevant parameters at the electroweak scale are
724: obtained through the RG evolution from $M_{\rm GUT}$ scale.
725: \\
726: \\
727:
728: \noindent{\Large \bf Appendix B \\
729: \\
730: One-loop effective Higgs potential}
731: \\
732: \\
733: The effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ at the one-loop level may conveniently
734: be decomposed as
735: \begin{equation}
736: V_{\rm eff} =V_0 + V_b + V_t + V_g + V_s,
737: \end{equation}
738: where $V_0$ denotes the tree-level potential, the equation (\ref{tree-potential}),
739: $V_b(V_t)$ the $b$-quark ($t$-quark) contribution, $V_g$ the gauge boson
740: contribution, and $V_s$ the contribution of the Higgs bosons. As
741: for $V_s$ we first calculate the full field-dependent squared mass
742: matrix, then omit terms containing charged Higgs fields, which do
743: not contribute to the physical mass matrix of the Higgs bosons.
744: Then $V_s$ can be expressed as a sum of $V_{sc}$ and $V_{sn}$,
745: whereby $V_{sc}$ is the contribution of the field-dependent squared mass
746: matrix of the charged Higgs bosons, $V_{sn}$ that of the neutral Higgs bosons.
747: They are given by
748: %\begin{eqnarray}
749: % V_0 &=& {1 \over 8} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (|H_1|^2 - |H_2|^2)^2
750: % + {1 \over 2} g_2^2 |H_1^{\dag} H_2|^2
751: % + \lambda^2 (|H_1|^2 |H_2|^2
752: % - {1 \over 5} |H_1^T \epsilon H_2|^2) \cr
753: % & &\mbox{} + m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2
754: % + m_3^2 (H_1^T \epsilon H_2 + {\rm h. c.})
755: %\end{eqnarray}
756: %where $g_1$ and $g_2$ are the coupling constants of U(1) and SU(2),
757: %respectively, $\lambda$ the dimensionless self coupling constant which comes
758: %from the coupling of Higgs quintuplets at the GUT scale \cite{franz1},
759: %$m_1^2$, $m_2^2$, $m_3^2$ the mass parameters, and $H_1^T = (H_1^0 , H_1^-)$
760: %and $H_2^T = (H_2^+ , H_2^0)$ Higgs doublets, and
761: \begin{eqnarray} \label{higgs-self-eff}
762: V_b &=& - {3 {\cal M}_b^4 \over 16 \pi^2}
763: \left (\log { {\cal M}_b^2 \over \mu^2} - {3 \over 2}
764: \right ) \cr
765: V_t &=& - {3 {\cal M}_t^4 \over 16 \pi^2}
766: \left (\log {{\cal M}_t^2 \over \mu^2} - {3 \over 2}
767: \right ) \cr
768: V_g &=& {3 {\cal M}_W^4 \over 32 \pi^2}
769: \left ( \log {{\cal M}_W^2 \over \mu^2} - {3 \over 2} \right)
770: + {3 {\cal M}_Z^4 \over 16 \pi^2}
771: \left ( \log { {\cal M}_Z^2 \over \mu^2} - {3 \over 2} \right) \cr
772: \cr
773: V_s &=& V_{sc} + V_{sn} \cr
774: \cr
775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
776: V_{sc} &=& {1 \over 32 \pi^2}
777: Str \left [{\cal M}_C^2 {\cal M}_C^2 \left \{\log \left
778: ({{\cal M}_C^2 \over \mu^2} \right)
779: - {3 \over 2}\right \} \right] \cr
780: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
781: V_{sn} &=& {\sum_{{\cal H}=S,P} \over 64 \pi^2}
782: Str \left [{\cal M}_{\cal H}^2 {\cal M}_{\cal H}^2 \left \{
783: \log \left ({{\cal M}_{\cal H}^2 \over \mu^2} \right) - {3 \over 2}\right \}
784: \right ],
785: \end{eqnarray}
786: where $\mu$ the renormalization scale and ${\cal M}$ denote the field-dependent
787: mass matrices for the particles \cite{rg}.
788: The Higgs doublets of the potential $V_0$, the equation (\ref{tree-potential}), can
789: be defined as follows
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: H_1 = \left(\begin{array}{c}
792: {1 \over \sqrt {2}} (S_1 + i P_1) \\
793: H_1^-
794: \end{array} \right) ,~
795: H_2 = \left(\begin{array}{c}
796: H_2^+ \\
797: {1 \over \sqrt{2}} (S_2 + i P_2)
798: \end{array} \right) .
799: \end{eqnarray}
800:
801:
802:
803: %*****************************************************************
804: \vskip 0.3 in
805:
806: \noindent
807: {\Large {\bf Acknowledgments}}
808:
809: B. R. Kim was supported by the Brain Pool Program of KOSEF. He would like to
810: thank the hospitality of CHEP, Kyungpook National University.
811: %\vskip 0.3 in
812: \vfil\eject
813:
814:
815:
816: \vspace{1cm}
817: %******************************************************************
818: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
819: \bibitem{supersymmetry} J. Wess and J. Bagger, \textit{Supersymmetry and Supergravity},
820: (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991).
821: \bibitem{nonlinearSM} B.R. Kim, Z. Phys. {\bf C67} (1995) 337.
822: \bibitem{NMSSM} S.W. Ham, B.R. Kim, G. Kreyerhoff and S.K. Oh, Phy. Lett. {\bf B441}
823: (1998) 215.
824: \bibitem{nonlinearSU5} P. John and B.R. Kim, Z. Phys. {\bf C73} (1996) 169.
825: \bibitem{franz1} H. Franz, B.R. Kim, and M. Weber, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C1}
826: (1998) 649.
827: \bibitem{oneloop} H. Franz, B.R. Kim, and M. Weber, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C8}
828: (1999) 679.
829: \bibitem{rg} D.W. Lee, B.R. Kim and S.K. Oh, J. Phys. G {\bf 30}
830: (2004) 359.
831: \bibitem{GLC} K. Abe {\it et al.}, GLC Project Report (2003) 36.
832: \bibitem{datagroup} Particle Data Group 2000, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15} (2000) 1.
833: \bibitem{mtpole} D.M. Pierce, J.A. Bagger, K.T. Matchev and Ren-Jie Zhang
834: 1997 {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 491} 3.
835: \bibitem{twoloopbeta} S.P. Martin and M.T. Vaughn, Phy. Lett. {\bf B318} (1993) 331.
836: \end{thebibliography}
837: \vfil\eject
838: %*************************************************************************
839:
840: %***********************************************************************************
841: %Figure Captions
842: %***********************************************************************************
843: \newpage
844:
845: {\bf Figure Captions}
846: \vskip 0.3 in
847:
848: \noindent
849: Fig. \ref{a-1}: \ The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_1$
850: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
851: $m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
852: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.
853: \vskip 0.2 in
854:
855: \noindent
856: Fig. \ref{a-500-s1}: \ The plot against $m_{S_1}$ of $S_1$ production cross sections
857: at the one-loop level with the RG-improved effective potential
858: $V_{\rm eff}$ at future $e^+e^-$ collider for $\sqrt{s} = 500 ~{\rm GeV}$
859: in the Case A.
860: \vskip 0.2 in
861:
862: \noindent
863: Fig. \ref{a-lc2000s2p}: \ The plot against $m_{S_2}$ and $m_P$ of $\sigma_{S_2}$ and
864: $\sigma_P$, respectively, at the one-loop level with the RG-improved
865: effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ at future $e^+e^-$ collider for
866: $\sqrt{s} = 2000 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the Case A.
867: \vskip 0.2 in
868:
869: \noindent
870: Fig. \ref{b-ms1}: \ The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_1$
871: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
872: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
873: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.
874: \vskip 0.2 in
875:
876: \noindent
877: Fig. \ref{b-ms2}: \ The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_2$
878: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
879: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
880: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.
881: \vskip 0.2 in
882:
883: \noindent
884: Fig. \ref{b-mp}: \ The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $P$
885: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
886: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
887: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.
888: \vskip 0.2 in
889:
890: \noindent
891: Fig. \ref{b-lep206-ms1ms2}: \ The plot against $m_{S_1}$ and $m_{S_2}$ of $\sigma_{S_1}$
892: and $\sigma_{S_2}$, respectively, at the one-loop level with the RG-improved
893: effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ at LEP2 for $\sqrt{s} = 205.9 ~{\rm GeV}$
894: in the Case B.
895: \vskip 0.2 in
896:
897: \noindent
898: Fig. \ref{c-lep206-ms1}: \ The plot of the largest $\sigma_{S_1}$
899: for given $m_{S_1}$ in the entire region of the parameter space
900: at the one-loop level with the RG-improved effective potential
901: $V_{\rm eff}$ at LEP2 for $\sqrt{s} = 205.9 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the Case C.
902: %***********************************************************************************
903: %***********************************************************************************
904: % Figures
905: %***********************************************************************************
906: %***********************************************************************************
907:
908: %\newpage
909: %Fig.1
910: \begin{figure}[ht]
911: \begin{center}
912: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
913: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
914: \epsffile{fig1.eps}}
915: %\centerline{\includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{/@thesis/ch3fig/fig2a.eps}}
916: \caption{The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_1$
917: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
918: $m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
919: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.}
920: \label{a-1}
921: %\vspace*{-1.cm}
922: \end{center}
923: \end{figure}
924: %***********************************************************************************
925: %Fig.2
926: \begin{figure}[hb]
927: \begin{center}
928: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
929: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
930: \epsffile{fig2.eps}}
931: %\centerline{\includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{/@thesis/ch3fig/fig2a.eps}}
932: \caption{The plot against $m_{S_1}$ of $S_1$ production cross sections
933: at the one-loop level with the RG-improved effective potential
934: $V_{\rm eff}$ at future $e^+e^-$ collider for $\sqrt{s} = 500 ~{\rm GeV}$
935: in the Case A.}
936: \label{a-500-s1}
937: %\vspace*{-0.3cm}
938: \end{center}
939: \end{figure}
940: %***********************************************************************************
941: \newpage
942: %Fig.3
943: \begin{figure}[h]
944: \begin{center}
945: \vspace*{-0.cm}
946: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
947: \epsffile{fig3a.eps}} \\
948: %\vspace*{.5cm}
949: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
950: \epsffile{fig3b.eps}}
951: %\vspace*{0.4cm}
952: %\centerline{\includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{/@thesis/ch3fig/fig2a.eps}}
953: \caption{The plot against $m_{S_2}$ and $m_P$ of $\sigma_{S_2}$ and
954: $\sigma_P$, respectively, at the one-loop level with the RG-improved
955: effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ at future $e^+e^-$ collider for
956: $\sqrt{s} = 2000 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the Case A.}
957: \label{a-lc2000s2p}
958: %\vspace*{-1.3cm}
959: \end{center}
960: \end{figure}
961: %***********************************************************************************
962: %Fig.4
963: \begin{figure}[hp]
964: \begin{center}
965: %\vspace*{-0.0cm}
966: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
967: \epsffile{fig4.eps}}
968: \caption{The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_1$
969: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
970: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
971: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.}
972: \label{b-ms1}
973: \end{center}
974: \end{figure}
975: %***********************************************************************************
976: %Fig.5
977: \begin{figure}[hb]
978: \begin{center}
979: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
980: \epsffile{fig5.eps}}
981: %\vspace*{1.cm}
982: \caption{The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $S_2$
983: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
984: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
985: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.}
986: \label{b-ms2}
987: \end{center}
988: \end{figure}
989: %***********************************************************************************
990: %Fig.6
991: \begin{figure}[tbp]
992: \begin{center}
993: \vspace*{-0.1cm}
994: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
995: \epsffile{fig6.eps}}
996: \caption{The plot of the RG-improved mass at the one-loop level of $P$
997: against $\lambda_{\rm GUT}$, for $0 \leq \lambda_{\rm GUT} \leq 1.2$,
998: $m^2_{1_{\rm GUT}} = 0$, $0 < |m^2_{2_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ and
999: $0 < |m^2_{3_{\rm GUT}}|~\mbox{(TeV$^2$)} \leq 1$ at the GUT scale.}
1000: \label{b-mp}
1001: %\vspace*{-0.cm}
1002: \end{center}
1003: \end{figure}
1004: %***********************************************************************************
1005: %Fig.7
1006: \begin{figure}[h]
1007: \begin{center}
1008: %\vspace*{-0.1cm}
1009: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
1010: \epsffile{fig7a.eps}} \\
1011: \vspace*{.5cm}
1012: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
1013: \epsffile{fig7b.eps}}
1014: %\centerline{\includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{/@thesis/ch3fig/fig2a.eps}}
1015: \caption{The plot against $m_{S_1}$ and $m_{S_2}$ of $\sigma_{S_1}$
1016: and $\sigma_{S_2}$, respectively, at the one-loop level with the RG-improved
1017: effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ at LEP2 for $\sqrt{s} = 205.9 ~{\rm GeV}$
1018: in the Case B.}
1019: \label{b-lep206-ms1ms2}
1020: %\vspace*{-10.3cm}
1021: \end{center}
1022: \end{figure}
1023: %\newpage
1024: %***********************************************************************************
1025: %Fig.8
1026: \begin{figure}[h]
1027: \begin{center}
1028: %\vspace*{-0.1cm}
1029: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8cm \epsfysize=8cm
1030: \epsffile{fig8.eps}}
1031: %\centerline{\includegraphics*[scale=0.5]{/@thesis/ch3fig/fig2a.eps}}
1032: \caption{The plot of the largest $\sigma_{S_1}$
1033: for given $m_{S_1}$ in the entire region of the parameter space
1034: at the one-loop level with the RG-improved effective potential
1035: $V_{\rm eff}$ at LEP2 for $\sqrt{s} = 205.9 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the Case C.}
1036: \label{c-lep206-ms1}
1037: %\vspace*{-10.3cm}
1038: \end{center}
1039: \end{figure}
1040: %\newpage
1041:
1042: %***********************************************************************************
1043: \end{document}
1044: %***********************************************************************************
1045: