1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,epsf]{article}
2: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.5in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.85in}
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.0in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{.3in}
4:
5:
6: \title{{Effects of R-parity Violation on the Charged Higgs Boson Decays}}
7: \author{Yi Ping Song, Chong Sheng Li\footnote{csli@pku.edu.cn}\,,\ Qiang Li and Jian Jun Liu\\
8: {\small Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871,
9: China} }
10: \def\baselinestretch{1.6}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13: \pagestyle{plain} \setcounter{page}{1} \baselineskip=0.3in
14: %\begin{titlepage}
15: %\begin{flushright}
16: %PKU-TH-2000-68\\
17: %\end{flushright}
18: %\vspace{.5cm}
19:
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \vspace{.2in}
23: \begin{footnotesize}
24: \begin{center}\begin{minipage}{5in}
25: \baselineskip=0.25in
26: \begin{center} ABSTRACT \end{center}
27: We calculate one-loop R-parity-violating couplings corrections to
28: the processes $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ and
29: $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$. We find that the corrections to the
30: $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ decay mode are generally about
31: $0.1\%$, and can be negligible. But the corrections to the
32: $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ decay mode can reach a few percent for
33: the favored parameters.
34:
35: \end{minipage}\end{center}
36: \vspace{3.5cm}
37:
38: \end{footnotesize}
39: \noindent PACS number: 14.80.Cp, 14.80.Ly, 12.38.Bx
40:
41: \noindent Keywords: Radiative correction, Charged Higgs decay,
42: R-parity violating, Supersymmetry
43:
44: %\end{titlepage}
45:
46: \eject \baselineskip=0.3in
47: \begin{center} {\Large 1. Introduction}\end{center}
48:
49: The minimal supersymmeytic standard model(MSSM) takes the minimal
50: Higgs structure of two doublets\cite{MSSMHiggsForm}, which
51: predicts the existence of three neutral and two charged Higgs
52: bosons $h^0,H^0,A^0,$ and $H^{\pm}$. When the Higgs boson of the
53: Standard Model(SM) has a mass below 130-140 Gev and the $h^0$ of
54: the MSSM are in the decoupling limit (which means that $H^\pm$ is
55: too heavy anyway to be possibly produced), the lightest neutral
56: Higgs boson may be difficult to be distinguished from the neutral
57: Higgs boson of the standard model(SM). But charged Higgs bosons
58: carry a distinctive signature of the Higgs sector in the MSSM.
59: Therefore, the search for charged Higgs bosons is very important
60: for probing the Higgs sector of the MSSM, and will be one of the
61: prime objectives of the CERN Large Hadron Collider(LHC).
62:
63: Current bounds on charged Higgs mass can be obtained at the
64: Tevatron, by studying the top decay $t\to bH^+$, which already
65: eliminates some region of parameter space \cite{LHC}, whereas the
66: combined LEP experiments gives a low bounds approximately
67: $m_{H^+}>78.6$GeV at $95\%$CL\cite{LEP}. In the MSSM, we have
68: $m_{H^{\pm}}\ge 120$ GeV from the mass bounds from LEP--II for the
69: neutral pseudoscalar $A^0$ of the MSSM ($m_{A^0}\ge 90.5$
70: GeV)\cite{H+mass}.
71:
72: %Charged Higgs production at hadron colliders was studied long ago
73: %\cite{ldcysampay}, and recently more systematic calculations of
74: %production processes at LHC have been presented \cite{newhcprod}.
75: Decays of a charged Higgs boson have been studied in the
76: literature\cite{H+decay}, which have shown that the dominate decay
77: modes of the charged Higgs boson for large $\tan\beta$ are
78: $H^\pm\rightarrow tb$ and $\tau\nu_\tau$, while $H^\pm\rightarrow
79: tb$, $\tau\nu_\tau$ and $Wh$ for small $\tan\beta$. For example,
80: for $m_{H^+}$ = 250 GeV, we have $Br(H^+ \to t\bar b) = 0.90$ and
81: $Br(H^+ \to \tau^+\nu_\tau) = 0.06$ for $\tan\beta = 5$, and
82: $Br(H^+ \to t\bar b) = 0.64$ and $Br(H^+ \to \tau^+\nu_\tau) =
83: 0.36$ for $\tan\beta = 30$. Moreover, if charged Higgs boson mass
84: $m_{H^\pm}$ is very heavy, the decay of $H^\pm$ into
85: $\tilde{{\chi}^\pm_i}\tilde{{\chi}^0_j}$ are also
86: important\cite{H+chi}.
87:
88: For all these decay channels, the one-loop Electroweak, QCD and
89: SUSY-QCD corrections have been studied in detail in the previous
90: literatures, for example see \cite{radiativec}. However, those
91: one-loop effects were studied only in the MSSM with the discrete
92: multiplicative symmetry of R-parity$\cite{RP}$, and without
93: R-parity, the effects of one-loop R-parity violating couplings on
94: the decays of charged Higgs boson have not reported in the
95: literatures so far. In this paper, we try to fill this gap and
96: present the calculation of the R-parity violating effects to the
97: process $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ and $H^-\rightarrow
98: \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$, which arise from the virtual effects of
99: R-parity Violating couplings. The most general superpotential of
100: the MSSM consistent with the $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
101: symmetry and supersymmetry contains R-violating interactions,
102: which are given by\cite{RPTerm}
103: \begin{eqnarray}
104: {\cal W}_{\not
105: R}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{ijk}L_iL_jE_k^c+\lambda'_{ijk}\delta^{\alpha\beta}L_iQ_{j\alpha}D^c_{k\beta}
106: +\frac{1}{2}\lambda^{''}_{ijk}\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}U^c_{i\alpha}D^c_{j\beta}D^c_{k\gamma}+\mu_iL_iH_2.
107: \end{eqnarray}
108: \noindent Here $L_i (Q_i)$ and $E_i (U_i, D_i)$ are, respectively,
109: the left-handed lepton (quark) doublet and right-handed lepton
110: (quark) singlet chiral superfields, and $H_{1,2}$ are the Higgs
111: chiral superfields. The indices $i, j, k$ denote generations and
112: $\alpha$ $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the color indices, and the
113: superscript $c$ denotes charge conjugation. The $\lambda$ and
114: $\lambda'$ are the coupling constants of L(lepton
115: number)-violating interactions and $\lambda^{''}$ those of
116: B(baryon number)-violating interactions. The non-observation (so
117: far) of the proton decay imposes very strong constraints on the
118: product of L-violating and B-violating couplings. It is thus
119: conventionally assumed in the phenomenological studies that only
120: one type of these interactions (either L- or B-violating) exists.
121: Some constraints on these R-parity violating couplings have been
122: obtained from various analysis of their phenomenological
123: implications based on experiment\cite{rpc}.
124: % It is important that the R-parity violation is much
125: %less constrained in general for the $3$-rd fermion-sfermion
126: %generation compared to the first two generations.
127:
128: \begin{center} {\Large 2. Calculations}\end{center}
129:
130: The tree-level amplitudes of the two decay modes of charged Higgs
131: boson, as shown in Fig.1(a), are given by
132: \begin{eqnarray}
133: M^{(0)}_1=\frac{ie\tan\beta m_\tau}{\sqrt{2}m_Ws_W}\bar{u}_\tau
134: P_Lv_{\nu}
135: \end{eqnarray}
136: \noindent for $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$, and
137: \begin{eqnarray}
138: M^{(0)}_2=\frac{ie}{\sqrt{2}m_Ws_W}\bar{u}_b(m_b\tan\beta
139: P_L+m_t/\tan\beta P_R)v_t
140: \end{eqnarray}
141: \noindent for $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$, where
142: $s_W\equiv\sin\theta_W=1-m_W^2/m_Z^2$,
143: $P_{R,L}\equiv(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$.
144:
145: The above amplitudes lead to the tree-level decay width of the
146: form
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: \Gamma^{(0)}_s =\frac{{\overline{\sum}}{|M^{(0)}|}^2\lambda^{1/2}
149: (m_{H^-}^2, a^2_s, b^2_s)}{16\pi m_{H^-}^3},
150: \end{eqnarray}
151: where ${\overline{\sum}}{|M^{(0)}|}^2$ is the squared matrix
152: element, which has been summed the colors and spins of the out
153: going particles, $\lambda(x,y,z)=(x-y-z)^2-4yz$, and s=(1,2)
154: corresponds to the decays into $\tau\bar{\nu_\tau}, b\bar{t}$,
155: with $a_1=m_\tau$, $b_1=0$, and $a_2=m_b$, $b_2=m_t$,
156: respectively.
157:
158: Feynman diagrams contributing to the R-parity violating
159: corrections to $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}, b\bar{t}$ are
160: shown in Fig.1(b)--(c).
161: % Note in this paper we only considered the
162: %$\lambda^\prime_{331},\lambda^\prime_{332},\lambda^\prime_{333}$
163: %and $\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{313},\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{323}$
164: %interactions for the decay into $\tau\nu_{\tau}$ and $b\bar{t}$,
165: %respectively.
166:
167: We carried out the calculation in the t'Hooft-Feynman gauge and
168: used dimensional reduction, which preserves supersymmetry, for
169: regularization of the ultraviolet divergences in the virtual loop
170: corrections using the on-mass-shell renormalization
171: scheme\cite{on-mass}, in which the fine-structure constant
172: $\alpha_{ew}$ and physical masses are chosen to be the
173: renormalized parameters, and finite parts of the counterterms are
174: fixed by the renormalization conditions. The coupling constant $g$
175: is related to the input parameters $e$, $m_W,$ and $m_Z$ via $g^2=
176: e^2/s^2_W$ and $s^2_w=1-m^2_w/m^2_Z$.
177:
178:
179: The relevant renormalization constants in the calculations of the
180: processes $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}, b\bar{t}$ are
181: defined as
182: \begin{eqnarray}
183: && m_{f0}=m_{f} +\delta m_{f}, \ \ (f=\tau,t,b) \\
184: && \psi_{f0}=(1+\delta Z_{fL})^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{fL}+(1+\delta
185: Z_{fR})^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi_{fR}, \ \ (f=\tau,\nu,t,b)\\
186: && \tan\beta_0=(1+\delta Z_\beta)\tan\beta.
187: \end{eqnarray}
188: For $\delta Z_\beta$, we use
189: the on-shell fixing condition\cite{tbeta}
190: \begin{eqnarray}
191: \rm{Im} \{ \hat{\Pi}_{A^0Z^0}(m^2_{A^0}) \}=0,
192: \end{eqnarray} where
193: $\hat{\Pi}_{A^0Z^0}(m_{A^0}^2)$ is the renormalized self--energy
194: for the mixing of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson $A^0$ and the $Z^0$
195: boson, then we have
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \delta Z_{\beta}=\rm{Im} \{ \Pi_{A^0Z^0}(m^2_{A^0})
198: \}/(m_{Z^0}\sin 2\beta).
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: Apparently, there are no R-parity violating contributions to
201: $\Pi_{A^0Z^0}$ in our case, which leads to $\delta Z_{\beta}=0$.
202:
203: Taking into account the R-parity violating corrections, the
204: renormalized amplitudes for $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau},
205: b\bar{t}$ can be written as
206: \begin{equation}
207: M^{ren}_s=M^{(0)}_s +\delta M^{(v)}_s +\delta M^{(c)}_s,
208: \end{equation}
209: where $\delta M^{(v)}_s$ and $\delta M^{(c)}_s$ are the vertex
210: corrections and the counterterms, respectively. The calculations
211: of the vertex corrections from Fig.1(b)-1(c) result in
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: &&\delta
214: M^{(v)}_{s=1}=\frac{ig}{16\sqrt{2}\pi^2m_W}(\lambda^\prime_{333})^2\bigg\{\sum_{m=1}^2\bar{u}_\tau
215: \big\{[-\gamma_\mu(m^2_t/\tan\beta+m^2_b\tan\beta)C_\mu\nonumber\\
216: &&
217: \hspace{1.0cm}+(\not{\!p}_1m^2_b\tan\beta-\not{\!p}_2m^2_t/\tan\beta)C_0](m^2_\tau,m^2_{H^-},0,m^2_{\tilde{b}_m},
218: m^2_t,m^2_b)\big\}P_Lv_\nu\nonumber\\
219: &&\hspace{1.0cm}+\sum^{2}_{m,n=1}G_{mn}\bar{u}_\tau[(\gamma_\mu
220: P_L)C_\mu(m^2_\tau,m^2_{H^-},0,m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{\tilde{b}_n})]v_\nu\bigg\},
221: \\
222: &&\delta
223: M^{(v)}_{s=2}=\frac{ig}{16\sqrt{2}\pi^2m_w}(\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{332})^2\bigg\{\sum_{m=1}^22(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2\bar{u}_b
224: [-\gamma_\mu(m_tm_b\cot\beta+m_tm_b\tan\beta)C_{\mu}\nonumber\\
225: &&
226: \hspace{1.0cm}+(\not{\!p}_1m_tm_b\cot\beta-\not{\!p}_2m_tm_b\tan\beta)C_0](m^2_b,m^2_{H^-},m^2_t,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_t,m^2_b)P_Rv_{t}\nonumber\\
227: &&\hspace{1.0cm}+\sum^{2}_{m,n=1}R^{\tilde{t}}_{m2}R^{\tilde{b}}_{n2}G_{mn}\bar{u}_b[\gamma_{\mu}C_{\mu}]
228: (m^2_b,m^2_{H^-},m^2_t,0,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{\tilde{b}_n})P_Rv_{t}\bigg\},
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: with
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: &&\hspace{-1.2cm}G_{mn}=-m_b(\mu+A_b\tan\beta)\tan\beta
233: R^{\tilde{b}}_{m2}R^{\tilde{t}}_{n1}-m_t(A_t+\mu\tan\beta)R^{\tilde{t}}_{n2}R^{\tilde{b}}_{m1}
234: \nonumber\\&&\hspace{-0.9cm}+m_tm_b(1+\tan^2\beta)R^{\tilde{t}}_{n2}R^{\tilde{b}}_{m2}
235: +\left\{[\tan\beta(m^2_w\sin\,2\beta-m^2_{b}\tan\beta
236: )-m^2_{t}]R^{\tilde{b}}_{m1}R^{\tilde{t}}_{n1}\right\},
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: where $C_0,C_\mu$ are the three-point Feynman
239: integrals\cite{denner},
240: %with
241: %\begin{eqnarray}
242: %C_\mu(p^2_1,(p_1-p_2)^2,p^2_2,m^2_1,m^2_2,m^2_3)=
243: %-p_{1\mu}C_{11}+(p_{1\mu}+p_{2\mu})C_{12}.\nonumber
244: %\end{eqnarray}
245: $A_{t,b}$ are soft SUSY-breaking parameters, $\mu$ is the higgsino
246: mass parameter, $m_{\tilde{t}(\tilde{b},\tilde{s})_{1,2}}$ are the
247: stop(sbottom, sstrange) masses, and $R^{\tilde t({\tilde b})}$ are
248: $2\times 2$ matrix, which are defined to transform the
249: stop(sbottom) current eigenstates to the mass eigenstates.
250:
251: The counterterms can be expressed as
252: \begin{eqnarray}
253: \delta M_{s=1}^{(c)}&=&\frac{ig\tan\beta
254: m_{\tau}}{\sqrt{2}m_w}\left(\frac{\delta
255: m_{\tau}}{m_{\tau}}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_{\tau R}+\frac{1}{2}\delta
256: Z_{\nu L}\right)\bar{u}_{\tau}P_Lv_{\nu},\\
257: \delta
258: M_{s=2}^{(c)}&=&\frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}m_w}\left[m_b\tan\beta\left(\frac{\delta
259: m_b}{m_b}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_{bR}+\frac{1}{2}\delta
260: Z_{tL}\right)\bar{u}_bP_Lv_{\nu}\right.\nonumber\\
261: &&\left.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ +m_t\cot\beta\left(\frac{\delta
262: m_t}{m_t}+\frac{1}{2}\delta Z_{bL}+\frac{1}{2}\delta
263: Z_{tR}\right)\bar{u}_bP_Rv_{\nu}\right].
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: Calculating the self-energy diagrams in Fig.2, we can get the
266: explicit expressions of the renormalization constants as follows:
267: \begin{eqnarray}
268: \frac{\delta
269: m_{\tau}}{m_{\tau}}&=&\frac{1}{32\pi^2}(\lambda'_{333})^2\times\nonumber\\&&\sum^{2}_{m=1}
270: \left\{(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m1})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_{\tau},m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{b})+
271: (R^{\tilde{b}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_{\tau},m^2_{\tilde{b}_m},m^2_t)\right\},\nonumber\\\\
272: \delta Z^{\tau}_R &=&
273: -\frac{m^2_{\tau}}{16\pi^2}(\lambda'_{333})^2\times\nonumber\\
274: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}
275: \left\{(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m1})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_{\tau},m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_b)+
276: (R^{\tilde{b}}_{m2})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_{\tau},m^2_{\tilde{b}_m},m^2_t)\right\},\nonumber\\
277: \\
278: \delta Z^{\nu}_L &=&
279: \frac{-1}{16\pi^2}(\lambda'_{333})^2\times\nonumber\\
280: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}
281: \left\{(R^{\tilde{b}}_{m1})^2[B_1+B_0](0,m^2_{\tilde{b}_m},m^2_b)+
282: (R^{\tilde{b}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](0,m^2_{\tilde{b}_m},m^2_b)\right\},\nonumber\\
283: \\
284: \frac{\delta
285: m_b}{m_b}&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}(\lambda^{''}_{332})^2\times\nonumber\\
286: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}\left\{(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{t})
287: \right.\left.+\frac{1}{4}(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{s})\right\},\nonumber\\
288: \\
289: \delta
290: Z_{bL}&=&-\frac{m^2_b}{8\pi^2}(\lambda^{''}_{332})^2\times\nonumber\\
291: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}\left\{(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{t})\right.
292: \left.+\frac{1}{4}(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m2})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{s})\right\},\nonumber\\
293: \\
294: \delta
295: Z_{bR}&=&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}(\lambda^{''}_{332})^2\times\nonumber\\
296: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}\left\{(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{t})\right.
297: \left.+\frac{1}{4}(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m2})^2[B_1+B_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{s})\right\}\nonumber\\
298: &&-\frac{m^2_b}{8\pi^2}(\lambda^{''}_{332})^2\times\nonumber\\
299: &&\sum^{2}_{m=1}\left\{(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{t})\right.
300: \left.+\frac{1}{4}(R^{\tilde{t}}_{m2})^2[B'_1+B'_0](m^2_b,m^2_{\tilde{t}_m},m^2_{s})\right\},\nonumber\\
301: \\
302: \frac{\delta
303: m_t}{m_t}&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\sum^{2}_{m=1}(\lambda''_{332})^2(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2
304: [B_1+B_0](m^2_t,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{b}),\\
305: \delta
306: Z_{tL}&=&-\frac{m^2_t}{8\pi^2}\sum^{2}_{m=1}(\lambda''_{332})^2(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2
307: [B'_1+B'_0](m^2_t,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{b}),\\
308: \delta
309: Z_{tR}&=&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\sum^{2}_{m=1}(\lambda''_{332})^2(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2
310: [B_1+B_0](m^2_t,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{b})\nonumber\\
311: &&-\frac{m^2_t}{8\pi^2}\sum^{2}_{m=1}(\lambda''_{332})^2(R^{\tilde{s}}_{m2})^2
312: [B'_1+B'_0](m^2_t,m^2_{\tilde{s}_m},m^2_{b}),
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: where $B_0,B_1$ are the two-point Feynman integrals\cite{denner},
315: and $B^\prime_1(p^2,m^2_1,m^2_2)$ $=$ $\partial B_1/\partial p^2$,
316: $B^\prime_0(p^2,m^2_1,m^2_2)$ $=$ $\partial B_0/\partial p^2$.
317:
318: Above we have shown the expressions of the contributions from the
319: couplings $\lambda^{'}_{333}$ and $\lambda^{''}_{332}$, while the
320: ones from the couplings $\lambda^{'}_{331}$, $\lambda^{'}_{332}$
321: and $\lambda^{''}_{331}$ are similar, and can be obtained
322: straightforwardly by substituting the corresponding particle
323: masses.
324:
325: Finally, the renormalized decay width is then given by
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \Gamma_s=\Gamma^{(0)}_s +\delta \Gamma^{(v)}_s +\delta
328: \Gamma^{(c)}_s
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: with
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: \delta \Gamma^{(h)}_s =\frac{\lambda^{1/2}(m_{H^-}^2, a_{s}^2,
333: b_{s}^2)}{8\pi m_{H^-}^3} {\rm Re} \{{\sum}{M^{(0)\ast}_s \delta
334: M^{(h)}_s\}} \ \ \ \ \ (h=v,c).
335: \end{eqnarray}
336: \vspace{0.1cm}\\
337: \begin{center}{\Large 3. Numerical results and conclusions}\end{center}
338:
339: We now present some numerical results for the R-parity violating
340: effects on the processes $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ and
341: $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu}_\tau$. The SM input parameters in
342: our calculations were taken to be $\alpha_{ew}(m_Z)=1/128.8$,
343: $m_W=80.419$GeV and $m_Z=91.1882$GeV\cite{SM}, and
344: $m_t=178.0$GeV\cite{top} and $m_b(m_b)=4.25$GeV\cite{mb}.
345:
346: In our calculation, we take the running mass $m_b(Q)$ and $m_t(Q)$
347: evaluated by the NLO formula \cite{runningmb}:
348: \begin{eqnarray}
349: &&m_b(Q)=U_6(Q,m_t)U_5(m_t,m_b)m_b(m_b),\nonumber\\
350: &&m_t(Q)=U_6(Q,m_t)m_t(m_t).
351: \end{eqnarray}
352: The evolution factor $U_f$ is
353: \begin{eqnarray}
354: U_f(Q_2,Q_1)=\bigg(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_2)}{\alpha_s(Q_1)}\bigg)^{d^{(f)}}
355: \bigg[1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q_1)-\alpha_s(Q_2)}{4\pi}J^{(f)}\bigg], \nonumber \\
356: d^{(f)}=\frac{12}{33-2f}, \hspace{1.0cm}
357: J^{(f)}=-\frac{8982-504f+40f^2}{3(33-2f)^2}.
358: \end{eqnarray}
359: In addition, in order to improve the perturbation calculations,
360: especially for large $\tan\beta$, we made the following
361: replacement in the tree-level couplings \cite{runningmb}:
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: && m_b(Q) \ \ \rightarrow \ \ \frac{m_b(Q)}{1+\Delta m_b},
364: \label{deltamb}
365: \\
366: && \Delta m_b=\frac{2\alpha_s}{3\pi}M_{\tilde{g}}\mu\tan\beta
367: I(m_{\tilde{b}_1},m_{\tilde{b}_2},M_{\tilde{g}})
368: +\frac{h_t^2}{16\pi^2}\mu A_t\tan\beta
369: I(m_{\tilde{t}_1},m_{\tilde{t}_2},\mu) \nonumber \\
370: && \hspace{1.0cm} -\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\mu M_2\tan\beta
371: \sum_{i=1}^2 \bigg[(R^{\tilde{t}}_{i1})^2
372: I(m_{\tilde{t}_i},M_2,\mu) + \frac{1}{2}(R^{\tilde{b}}_{i1})^2
373: I(m_{\tilde{b}_i},M_2,\mu)\bigg] \label{deltamb1}
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: with
376: \begin{eqnarray}
377: I(a,b,c)=\frac{1}{(a^2-b^2)(b^2-c^2)(a^2-c^2)}
378: (a^2b^2\log\frac{a^2}{b^2} +b^2c^2\log\frac{b^2}{c^2}
379: +c^2a^2\log\frac{c^2}{a^2}),
380: \end{eqnarray}
381: where $M_2$ is the parameter in the chargino and neutralino
382: matrix, and in our calculation, we always set $M_2=200$GeV.
383: $m_{\tilde{g}}$ is the gluino mass, which is related to $M_2$ by
384: $m_{\tilde{g}}=(\alpha_s(m_{\tilde{g}})/\alpha_2)M_2$\cite{Hidaka}.
385:
386: %We take $m_{A^0}$ and $\tan\beta$ as the two independent input
387: %parameters for the Higgs sector.
388: The two-loop leading-log relations\cite{Higgsss} of the neutral
389: Higgs boson masses and mixing angles in the MSSM were used. For
390: $m_{H^-}$ the tree-level formula was used.
391:
392: Other parameters are determined as follows:
393:
394: (i) For the parameters $m^2_{\tilde{Q},\tilde{U},\tilde{D}}$ and
395: $A_{t,b}$ in squark mass matrices
396: \begin{eqnarray}
397: M^2_{\tilde{q}} =\left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{LL}^2 & m_q M_{LR}\\
398: m_q M_{RL} & M_{RR}^2 \end{array} \right)
399: \end{eqnarray}
400: with
401: \begin{eqnarray}
402: &&M_{LL}^2 =m_{\tilde{Q}}^2 +m_q^2 +m_Z^2\cos 2\beta(I_q^{3L}
403: -e_q\sin^2\theta_W), \nonumber
404: \\&& M_{RR}^2 =m_{\tilde{U},\tilde{D}}^2 +m_q^2 +m_Z^2
405: \cos 2\beta e_q\sin^2\theta_W, \nonumber
406: \\&& M_{LR} =M_{RL} =\left(\begin{array}{ll} A_t -\mu\cot\beta &
407: (\tilde{q} =\tilde{t}) \\ A_b -\mu\tan\beta & (\tilde{q}
408: =\tilde{b}) \end{array} \right),
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: to simplify the calculation we assumed
411: $M_{\tilde{Q}}=M_{\tilde{U}} =M_{\tilde{D}}$ and $A_t=A_b$, and we
412: used $m_{\tilde t_1}$, $m_{\tilde b_1}$, $A_t=A_b$ and $\mu$ as
413: the input parameters. We also assume $m_{{\tilde
414: d}_{1,2}}=m_{{\tilde s}_{1,2}}=m_{{\tilde b}_{1,2}}+500$GeV, and
415: $m_{{\tilde u}_{1,2}}=m_{{\tilde c}_{1,2}}=m_{{\tilde
416: t}_{1,2}}+500$GeV. Such assuming of the relation between the
417: squark masses is done merely for simplicity, and actually, our
418: numerical results are not sensitive to the squark masses of the
419: first and second generation.
420: %, as shown below.
421:
422: (ii)According to the experimental upper bound on the couplings in
423: the R-parity violating interaction\cite{rpc}, we take the relevant
424: %\mbox{$\rlap{\kern0.3em/}R$ }
425: R-parity violating parameters as $
426: \lambda^{'}_{333}=\lambda^{'}_{332}= \lambda^{'}_{331}=0.3$,\ $
427: \lambda^{''}_{323}=-\lambda^{''}_{332}=0.9$,$ \lambda^{''}_{313}=
428: -\lambda^{''}_{331}=0.9$, the remainder values of $\lambda^{'}$
429: and $\lambda^{''}$ are set to zero. Otherwise, the numerical
430: results may become small because of the cancellation among the
431: contributions of the involved different $\lambda^{'}$ and
432: $\lambda^{''}$ parameters.
433:
434: Fig.3 presents the dependence of the tree level decay widths on
435: $m_{H^-}$, where we have included the QCD and SUSY running effects
436: of top and bottom quark masses. From this Figure one sees that
437: tree level decay widths get larger with the increasing of
438: $m_{H^-}$.
439:
440: In Fig.4 we present the relevant R-parity violating corrections to
441: the tree-level decay widths as the functions of $m_{H^-}$. In
442: general the corrections to the $\tau\bar{\nu}$ mode are negligible
443: small. In fact, the maximum of the corrections to $H^-\rightarrow
444: \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ are of order $0.1\%$ only. For $H^-\rightarrow
445: b\bar{t}$, when $m_{H^-}>230$GeV, the corrections can be larger
446: than $4\%$. There are many dips and peaks on the curves, arising
447: from the threshold effects from the vertex corrections at the
448: threshold point $m_{H^-}=m_{{\tilde t}_i}+m_{{\tilde b}_j}$. For
449: example, as shown in Fig.4(2), at $m_{H^-}=245.9$GeV, we have
450: $m_{H^-}=m_{\tilde{t}_1}+m_{\tilde{b}_1}$ for $\tan\beta=40$, and
451: the correction to $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ can get its maximal
452: value of $10\%$.
453:
454: Fig.5 show the dependence of the R-parity violating corrections on
455: $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$. In general, the corrections increase with the
456: decreasing of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$. For example, when
457: $m_{\tilde{t}_1}=100$GeV, the correction to $H^-\rightarrow
458: \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ is $0.4\%$ for $\tan\beta=4$, while the one to
459: $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ is $4\%$ for $\tan\beta=40$, and when
460: $m_{\tilde{t}_1}=300$GeV, above corrections are both about 0.1\%.
461:
462: In Fig.6 we present the R-parity violating corrections as a
463: function of $\tan\beta$. We find that the corrections are
464: relatively larger for low and high values of $\tan\beta$,
465: respectively, while become smaller for intermediate values of
466: $\tan\beta$, which is due to the fact that there are no enhanced
467: effects from the Yukawa couplings $H^-b\bar{t}$ and
468: $H^-\tilde{t}\tilde{b}$ at medium $\tan\beta$.
469:
470: In conclusion, we have calculated the R-parity violating effects
471: on the processes $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ and
472: $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$. These corrections arise from the
473: virtual effects of R-parity violating couplings. We find that the
474: corrections to the $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$ decay mode
475: are generally about $0.1\%$, and can be negligible. But the
476: corrections to the $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ decay mode can reach
477: a few percent in our chosen parameter space. Compared to the
478: SUSY-QCD or SUSY-EW corrections, the typical values of which can
479: be over 10\%\cite{radiativec}, the R-parity violating effects on
480: the process $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$ are smaller, but not
481: negligible in some region of the parameter space.
482:
483: \section*{Acknowledgements}
484: \vspace{.5cm} This work was supported in part by the National
485: Natural Science Foundation of China and Specialized Research Fund
486: for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education. \vspace{.5cm}
487: \newpage
488: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
489: \bibitem{MSSMHiggsForm} J.F.~Gunion, H.E.~Haber, G.L.~Kane and S.~Dawson, {\it The Higgs
490: Hunter's Guide} (Addison--Wesley, Reading, 1990).
491: \bibitem{LHC} D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott {\sl et al}.
492: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} (1999) 4975; CDF Collaboration, F. Abe
493: {\sl et al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79} (1997) 357; CDF
494: Collaboration et al, Phys.Rev.D.{\bf62} (2000),012004.; D0
495: Collaboratio et al, Phys.Rev.Lett.{\bf 88} (2002),151803.
496: \bibitem{LEP} LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches Collaboration, hep-ex/0107031;
497: For the latest combined experimental limits see:\\
498: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/index.html
499: \bibitem{H+mass} M. Drees, E.A. Ma, P.N. Pandita, D.P. Roy and S.K. Vempati,
500: Phys. Lett. {\bf B433} (1998) 346; A.G.Akeroyd et al,
501: hep-ph/0002288.
502: \bibitem{H+decay} A.Djouadi et al, Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 108},
503: (1998) 56; J.Gunion, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 32} (1994) 125; D.J.Miller
504: et al, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 055011; S.Moretti et al, Phys.
505: Lett. B {\bf 481} (2000) 49; K.A.Assamagan et al, hep-ph/0002258,
506: 0406013 .
507: \bibitem{H+chi} M.Bisset et al, DESY-00-150, TUHEP-Th-00124,
508: RAL-TR-2000-029, December 2000.
509: \bibitem{radiativec} C.S.Li and R.J.Oakes, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}
510: (1991) 855; J.M.Yang and C.S.Li, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47} (1993)
511: 2872; J.M.Yang and C.S.Li, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 497} (2000) 101;
512: W.L.H et al, hep-ph/0107089.
513: \bibitem{RP} G.Farrar, P.Fayet, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 76} (1978) 575.
514: \bibitem{RPTerm} S.Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 26} (1982) 287; N.Sakai, T.Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 197} (1982) 133.
515: \bibitem{rpc}B.Allanach et al, hep-ph/0309196,9906209,9906224; Shaouly Bar-Shalom et al,
516: hep-ph/0201244.
517: \bibitem{on-mass} S. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D22}, 971 (1980);
518: W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, {\sl ibid.} {\bf D22}, 2695 (1980);
519: {\bf D31}, 213(E) (1985);
520: A. Sirlin and W.J. Marciano, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B189}, 442 (1981);
521: K.I. Aoki et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. {\bf 73}, 1 (1982).
522: \bibitem{tbeta} Ayres Freitas, Talk presented at the SUSY02 conference (2002), hep-ph/0205281.
523: \bibitem{denner} A. Denner, Fortschr. Phys. 41 (1993) 4.
524: \bibitem{SM} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara, et al, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002)
525: 1.
526: \bibitem{top} D0 Collaboration, Nature 429 (2004) 638.
527: \bibitem{mb} M. Beneke and A. Signer, Phys. Lett. B 471 (1999) 233;
528: A.H. Hoang, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 034005.
529: \bibitem{runningmb} M. Carena, D. Garcia, U. Nierste, C.E.M.
530: Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B 577 (2000) 88.
531: \bibitem{Hidaka} K. Hidaka and A. Bartl, Phys. Lett. {\bf B501}, 78 (2001).
532: \bibitem{Higgsss} M. Carena, M. Quir$\acute{\rm o}$s, C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys.
533: {\bf B461}, 407 (1996).
534: \end{thebibliography}
535: \newpage
536:
537: \begin{figure}[h!]
538: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=fmdiagram.eps,
539: width=420pt}} \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to R-parity
540: violating corrections to $H^-\rightarrow
541: \tau\nu_{\tau}(b\bar{t})$: $(a)$ tree-level diagram; $(b)-(c)$ are
542: one-loop vertex corrections.}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545: \begin{figure}[h!]
546: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=fmdiagram2.eps,
547: width=320pt}} \caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to
548: renormalization constants.}
549: \end{figure}
550:
551: \begin{figure}[h!]
552: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=mchtree.eps, width=280pt}}
553: \caption{Dependence of the tree level decay widths on $m_{H^-}$
554: for (1) $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$, assuming:
555: $\mu=-400$GeV, $A_t=A_b=600$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV;
556: (2) $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$, assuming: $\mu=600$GeV,
557: $A_t=A_b=800$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV. $m_{H^-}$ runs
558: from 121GeV to 900GeV and 188GeV to 900GeV for (1) and (2),
559: respectively.}
560: \end{figure}
561:
562: \begin{figure}[h!]
563: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=mch.eps, width=280pt}}
564: \caption{The R-parity violating corrections as functions of
565: $m_{H^-}$ for (1) $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$, assuming:
566: $\mu=-400$GeV, $A_t=A_b=600$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV;
567: (2) $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$, assuming: $\mu=600$GeV,
568: $A_t=A_b=800$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV. $m_{H^-}$ runs
569: from 121GeV to 900GeV and 188GeV to 900GeV for (1) and (2),
570: respectively.}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573:
574: \begin{figure}[h!]
575: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=mst.eps, width=280pt}}
576: \caption{ The R-parity violating corrections as functions of
577: $m_{{\tilde t}_1}$ for (1) $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$,
578: assuming: $\mu=-400$GeV, $A_t=A_b=600$GeV, and $m_{A^0}=350$GeV;
579: (2) $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$, assuming: $\mu=600$GeV,
580: $A_t=A_b=800$GeV, and $m_{A^0}=200$GeV.}
581: \end{figure}
582:
583:
584: \begin{figure}[h!]
585: \vspace{1.0cm} \centerline{\epsfig{file=tgb.eps, width=300pt}}
586: \caption{The R-parity violating corrections as functions of
587: $\tan\beta$ for (1) $H^-\rightarrow \tau\bar{\nu_\tau}$, assuming:
588: $A_t=A_b=600$GeV, $m_{A^0}=350$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV;
589: (2) $H^-\rightarrow b\bar{t}$, assuming: $A_t=A_b=800$GeV,
590: $m_{A^0}=600$GeV, and $m_{{\tilde t}_1}=100$GeV.}
591: \end{figure}
592:
593:
594: \end{document}
595: