1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{pdproc}
4:
5: %--------------------START OF DATA FILE----------------------------------
6: \makeatletter
7: \def\@cite#1{[#1]}
8: \makeatother
9: \textwidth 16cm
10: \textheight 23cm
11: \pagestyle{empty}
12: \topmargin -0.25truein
13: % \oddsidemargin 0.30truein
14: % \evensidemargin 0.30truein
15: \oddsidemargin 0.0truein
16: \evensidemargin 0.0truein
17: \parindent=1.5pc
18: \baselineskip=15pt
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
22:
23: \title{
24: Radiative corrections in SUSY phenomenology
25: \footnote{Talk at the 12th International Conference
26: on Supersymmetry and Unification of Fundamental
27: Interactions (SUSY 2004), Tsukuba, Japan, June 17--23, 2004.}
28: %\footnote{Talk at SUSY 2004, Tsukuba, Japan, June 17--23, 2004.}
29: }
30:
31: \author{ YOUICHI YAMADA}
32:
33: \address{
34: Department of Physics, Tohoku University \\
35: Sendai 980-8578, Japan
36: %%%%% You may comment out the e-mail address line below.
37: \\ {\rm E-mail: yamada@tuhep.phys.tohoku.ac.jp}}
38:
39: \abstract{
40: We discuss some aspects of the radiative corrections in
41: the phenomenology of the minimal SUSY standard model, by reviewing
42: two recent studies.
43: (1) The full one-loop corrections to the Higgs boson decays
44: into charginos are presented,
45: with emphasis on the renormalization of the chargino sector, including
46: of their mixing matrices. (2) The two-loop
47: $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections to the $b\to s\gamma$ decay
48: in models with large $\tan\beta$, mainly those
49: to the charged Higgs boson contributions, are discussed.
50: Exact two-loop result is compared to an approximation
51: used in previous studies.
52: }
53:
54: \normalsize\baselineskip=15pt
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: There are many cases where the radiative corrections
59: become important in the phenomenology of the
60: minimal supersymmetric (SUSY) standard model (MSSM) \cite{mssm}.
61:
62: (1) Of course, the radiative corrections become large when
63: they are enhanced by large coupling constants and/or
64: large logarithms. For example, QCD corrections to the processes
65: involving quarks, gluon, and their superpartners,
66: are indispensable in the study of the SUSY particles at
67: hadron colliders.
68:
69: (2) Corrections to the observables which may be precisely
70: measured in present or future experiments are also important.
71: For example, electroweak precision measurements have provided
72: a powerful tool to impose constraints on the SUSY particles.
73: Also, the masses and couplings of several lighter SUSY particles
74: are expected to be precisely measured at future linear
75: colliders~\cite{LCexp}.
76:
77: (3) Radiative corrections may generate couplings
78: which are strongly suppressed or even forbidden at
79: lower levels of perturbation.
80: As is well-known, the flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) is
81: forbidden at the tree-level of the standard model and
82: sensitive to various types of new physics, including the SUSY particles.
83: An example specific to the MSSM is the self-couplings of the
84: Higgs bosons. The SUSY relation between the self-couplings and
85: the electroweak gauge couplings is violated by loop corrections,
86: resulting significant increase of the
87: mass of the lightest Higgs boson $h^0$ \cite{mhiggs} beyond the
88: theoretical upper limit at the tree-level.
89:
90: In this talk, we review two interesting recent studies of the radiative
91: corrections in the MSSM phenomenology.
92: In section 2, as a case of the class (2) listed above,
93: the full one-loop corrections to the decays of heavier Higgs bosons
94: into charginos are discussed, following Ref.~\cite{EMY}. The role of the
95: renormalization of the chargino sector, including their mixing
96: matrices, is explained in detail.
97: In section 3, as a case of the class (3),
98: two-loop $O(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$ SUSY QCD corrections to
99: the ($b\to s\gamma$, $b\to sg$) decays in models with
100: large $\tan\beta\equiv \langle H_U\rangle/\langle H_D \rangle$,
101: especially the corrections to the charged Higgs boson
102: contribution~\cite{BGY}, is discussed.
103: Validity of the approximated calculation of the two-loop integrals,
104: used in previous studies, is examined by comparison with
105: the exact two-loop calculation.
106:
107: \section{One-loop Correction to the Chargino-Higgs boson Couplings}
108:
109: Most of new particles in the MSSM, such as the SUSY particles and
110: Higgs bosons, are mixtures of several gauge eigenstates \cite{mssm,GH}.
111: Mixings of particles therefore play a crucial role in
112: phenomenological studies of these particles.
113:
114: As an example, the charged SU(2) gauginos $\widetilde{W}^{\pm}_L$ and
115: higgsinos $(\widetilde{H}_D^-, \widetilde{H}_U^+)_L$ mixes with each other
116: to form two mass eigenstates $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_i(i=1,2)$,
117: charginos, as
118: \begin{equation}
119: \tilde{\chi}_{iL}^+ = V_{i\alpha}\left( \begin{array}{c}
120: \widetilde{W}^+_L \\ \widetilde{H}_{UL}^+ \end{array} \right)_{\alpha}, \;\;\;
121: \tilde{\chi}_{iL}^- = U_{i\alpha}\left( \begin{array}{c}
122: \widetilde{W}^-_L \\ \widetilde{H}_{DL}^- \end{array} \right)_{\alpha}
123: \;\;\; (i=1,2).
124: \end{equation}
125: At the tree-level, the mixing matrices $(V,U)$ are determined to
126: diagonalize the mass matrix
127: \begin{equation}
128: X = \left( \begin{array}{cc} M & \sqrt{2}m_W\sin\beta \\
129: \sqrt{2}m_W\cos\beta & \mu \end{array} \right) =
130: U^T \left( \begin{array}{cc} m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_1} & 0 \\
131: 0 & m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_2} \end{array} \right) V .
132: \label{eq:chi+mat}
133: \end{equation}
134: $M$ and $\mu$ are the mass parameters of the SU(2) gaugino and
135: higgsinos, respectively.
136: Couplings of the charginos are generally dependent on $(V,U)$.
137:
138: In future colliders, the masses and interactions of the charginos
139: are expected to be measured precisely \cite{LCexp,LCs,charginomeasure}.
140: It is therefore very interesting to study the radiative corrections to
141: chargino interactions. In calculating the radiative corrections,
142: we need to renormalize the chargino parameters, including the
143: mixing matrices $(V,U)$.
144: The renormalization of the chargino sector has been studied
145: for different processes, such as
146: $e^+e^-\to\tilde{\chi}^+\tilde{\chi}^-$ \cite{eechch,eechch2,eechch3},
147: $\tilde{f}\to f'\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}(f=q,l)$ \cite{sqch},
148: $H^+\to\tilde{\chi}^+\tilde{\chi}^0$ \cite{hpchne},
149: and
150: $\tilde{\chi}^+\to\tilde{\chi}^0W^+$ \cite{chtow}.
151:
152: In this talk, we consider the decays of the heavier Higgs bosons
153: ($H^0$, $A^0$) into chargino pair,
154: \begin{equation}
155: (H^0, A^0) \to \tilde{\chi}^+_i + \tilde{\chi}^-_j \, ,
156: \label{eq:Hk0cha}
157: \end{equation}
158: with $i,j=(1,2)$. If $\tan\beta$ is not much larger than one,
159: the decays (\ref{eq:Hk0cha}) may have non-negligible branching
160: ratios \cite{tree1,tree2,tree3}.
161: These decays are also interesting because
162: they are very sensitive to the mixings of charginos.
163: Detailed studies of these decays, including radiative
164: corrections, would therefore
165: provide useful information about the chargino sector,
166: complementary to the pair production processes
167: $e^+e^-\to\tilde{\chi}^+_i\tilde{\chi}^-_j$
168: ~\cite{chaproduction,LCs,charginomeasure}.
169:
170: The tree-level widths of the decays (\ref{eq:Hk0cha}) are
171: ($H^0_{\{1,2,3\}}\equiv\{h^0, H^0, A^0\}$)
172: \begin{eqnarray}
173: && \hspace{-5mm} \Gamma^{\rm tree}(H_k^0 \to
174: \tilde{\chi}^+_i \tilde{\chi}^-_j) =
175: \frac{g^2}{16 \pi\, m^{3}_{H_{k}^0} }\,
176: \kappa(m_{H_{k}^0}^2,m^{2}_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i},m^{2}_{\tilde{\chi}^+_j}) \,
177: \nonumber \\
178: && \hspace{5mm} \times
179: \left[
180: \left( m^{2}_{H_{k}^0} - m^{2}_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i} -
181: m^{2}_{\tilde{\chi}^+_j} \right)
182: (F_{ijk}^2 + F_{jik}^2 ) \,
183: - 4 \eta_k m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i} m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_j}
184: F_{ijk} F_{jik} \right] \, ,
185: \end{eqnarray}
186: Here $\kappa(x,y,z)\equiv ((x-y-z)^2-4yz)^{1/2}$ and
187: $\eta_k$ is the CP eigenvalue of $H_k^0$ ($\eta_{1,2}=1, \eta_3=-1$).
188: Here we assume that the contributions of CP violation and
189: generation mixings of the quarks and squarks are negligible.
190: The tree-level couplings $gF_{ijk}$ of the Higgs bosons and
191: charginos $H_k^0 \overline{\tilde{\chi}^+_{iL}} \tilde{\chi}_{jR}^+$ come
192: from the gaugino-higgsino-Higgs boson couplings and
193: take the forms \cite{GH}
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: gF_{ijk} &=& \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}
196: \left( e_k\, V_{i1}U_{j2} - d_k\, V_{i2}U_{j1} \right) \\
197: e_k&=&
198: \Big(-\sin\alpha,\,\hphantom{-}\cos\alpha,
199: \,-\sin\beta,\,\hphantom{-}\cos\beta \Big)_k\, ,
200: \nonumber\\
201: d_k&=&
202: \Big(-\cos\alpha,\,-\sin\alpha,\,
203: \hphantom{-}\cos\beta,\,\hphantom{-}\sin\beta \Big)_k\, .
204: \label{eq:Fchtree}
205: \end{eqnarray}
206: Here $\alpha$ is the mixing angle for $(h^0, H^0)$.
207: The Nambu-Goldstone mode $H^0_4\equiv G^0$ is included here
208: for later convenience.
209:
210: The one-loop correction to the coupling $gF_{ijk}$ is
211: expressed as
212: \begin{equation}
213: gF^{\rm corr.}_{ijk} =
214: gF_{ijk}+ \delta (gF^{(v)}_{ijk}) + g \delta F^{(w)}_{ijk} +
215: \delta (gF^{(c)}_{ijk}) \, ,
216: \label{eq:Fren}
217: \end{equation}
218: where $\delta (gF^{(v)}_{ijk})$, $g\delta F^{(w)}_{ijk}$, and
219: $\delta (gF^{(c)}_{ijk})$ are
220: the proper vertex correction, the wave function correction to
221: the external particles, and the
222: counterterm by the renormalization of the
223: parameters $(g,V,U,\alpha,\beta)$ in the tree-level coupling
224: (\ref{eq:Fchtree}), respectively.
225: The corrections from quarks and squarks in
226: the third generation were calculated in Ref.~\cite{Zhang}.
227: Here we present the full one-loop corrections
228: shown in Ref.~\cite{EMY}, and show some numerical results for
229: the $(A^0,H^0)\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ decays.
230:
231: We discuss the wave function corrections $\delta F^{(w)}_{ijk}$
232: in detail. They are expressed as
233: \begin{equation}
234: \delta{F}_{ijk}^{(w)}\,=\, \frac{\,1}{\,2}\,\bigg[\,
235: \delta{Z}^{H^0}_{lk}{F}_{ijl}+ \delta{Z}_{i'i}^{+L}{F}_{i'jk}
236: +\delta{Z}_{j'j}^{+R}{F}_{ij'k}\bigg]
237: \, .
238: \label{eq:dFw}
239: \end{equation}
240: $\delta{Z}^{+L}$ and $\delta{Z}^{+R}$ are corrections for the
241: charginos, while $\delta{Z}^{H^0}_{lk}$ is for the Higgs bosons with
242: $l=(1,2)$ for $k=(1,2)$ and $l=(3,4)$ for $k=3$.
243: They are given in terms of the self-energies of
244: the relevant particles. Explicit form of
245: $\delta{Z}_{j'j}^{+L}$, wave function correction to the
246: left-handed chargino $\tilde{\chi}^+_{jL}$, is given by
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: %\hspace*{-1cm}
249: \lefteqn{\delta{Z}^{+L}_{ii} = } && \nonumber\\
250: && \hspace*{-5mm} - {\rm Re}\,
251: \bigg\{\Pi^{\tilde{\chi} L}_{ii}(m_i^2)+ m_i\,
252: \Big[m_i\dot{\Pi}^{\tilde{\chi} L}_{ii}(m_i^2)
253: +m_i\dot{\Pi}^{\tilde{\chi} R}_{ii}(m_i^2)
254: +2\dot{\Pi}^{\tilde{\chi} S,L}_{ii}(m_i^2)
255: \Big]\bigg\}\, ,
256: \label{eq:dZchpp}
257: \\
258: %[3mm]
259: %\hspace*{-1cm}
260: \lefteqn{ \delta{Z}^{+L}_{pi} = } && \nonumber \\
261: && \hspace*{-5mm}\frac{2}{m_p^2-m_i^2}\;
262: {\rm Re}\left\{
263: m_i^2 \Pi^{\tilde{\chi} L}_{pi}(m_i^2)
264: + m_i m_p \Pi^{\tilde{\chi} R}_{pi}(m_i^2) +
265: m_p \Pi^{\tilde{\chi}\,S,L}_{pi}(m_i^2)
266: + m_i \Pi^{\tilde{\chi}\,S,R}_{pi}(m_i^2) \right\}
267: \, ,
268: \label{eq:dZchps}
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: where $p\neq i$ and
271: \begin{equation}
272: \Pi^{\tilde{\chi}}_{ij}(p)=\Pi^{\tilde{\chi} L}_{ij}(p^2)
273: {p \hspace{-1.8mm} \slash} P_L
274: +\Pi^{\tilde{\chi} R}_{ij}(p^2)
275: {p \hspace{-1.8mm} \slash} P_R
276: +\Pi^{\tilde{\chi}\,S,L}_{ij}(p^2)P_L+\Pi^{\tilde{\chi}\,S,R}_{ij}(p^2)P_R \, ,
277: \label{eq:charginoselfe}
278: \end{equation}
279: are the self-energies of the charginos $\tilde{\chi}^+$.
280: $\delta Z^{+R}$ for the right-handed chargino $\tilde{\chi}^+_R$
281: is obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dZchpp}, \ref{eq:dZchps})
282: by the exchange $L\leftrightarrow R$.
283: We used the CP symmetry relation ${\rm Re}\Pi^{\tilde{\chi} S,L}_{ii}
284: ={\rm Re}\Pi^{\tilde{\chi} S,R}_{ii}$
285: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dZchpp}).
286: The corrections $\delta{Z}^{H^0}$ are
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \label{eq:dZHkk}
289: \delta{Z}^{H^0}_{kk}&=&
290: -\;{\rm Re}\,\dot{\Pi}^{H^0}_{kk}(m_{H_k^0}^2)\, ,
291: \hspace{30mm} k=1,2,3, \\
292: \label{eq:dZHlk}
293: \delta{Z}^{H^0}_{ab}&=& \frac{2}{m^2_{H^0_a}-m^2_{H^0_b}}\, {\rm
294: Re}\, \Pi^{H^0}_{ab}(m^2_{H^0_b}) \, ,
295: \hspace{10mm} a,b=(1,2), \; a\neq b \\
296: \label{eq:dZAG}
297: \delta{Z}^{H^0}_{43}&=& -\frac{2}{m_{A^0}^2}\, {\rm
298: Re}\, \Pi^{H^0}_{43}(m_{A^0}^2) \, .
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: The Higgs boson self-energies $\Pi^{H^0}(k^2)$ in
301: Eqs. (\ref{eq:dZHkk}, \ref{eq:dZHlk}, \ref{eq:dZAG}) include
302: momentum-independent contributions from the
303: tadpole shifts~\cite{oshiggs} and leading
304: higher-order corrections.
305: The latter contribution is numerically relevant for
306: $h^0$ and $H^0$.
307: Note that $\delta{Z}^{H^0}_{43}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dZAG})
308: includes both the $A^0-G^0$ and $A^0-Z^0$ mixing contributions.
309:
310: The off-diagonal part of the wave function correction
311: $\delta Z_{ij}(i\neq j)$ is generated by the mixing between
312: the tree-level mass eigenstates at the one-loop level, and
313: closely related to the renormalization of the mixing matrices.
314: To see this point, we focus on the contribution of
315: $\delta{Z}_{i'i}^{+L}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dFw}) and
316: decompose $\delta{Z}^{+L}$ into hermitian and
317: anti-hermitian parts, to obtain
318: \begin{eqnarray}
319: \frac{1}{2} ( \delta{Z}_{ii}^{+L}{F}_{ijk} + \delta{Z}_{pi}^{+L}{F}_{pjk})
320: &=&
321: \frac{1}{2}\delta{Z}_{ii}^{+L}{F}_{ijk} +
322: \frac{1}{4}[ \delta{Z}_{pi}^{+L} + (\delta{Z}_{ip}^{+L})^* ] {F}_{pjk}
323: \nonumber \\
324: && + \frac{1}{4}[ \delta{Z}_{pi}^{+L} - (\delta{Z}_{ip}^{+L})^* ] {F}_{pjk} .
325: \label{cancellation}
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: The ultraviolet (UV) divergence of the hermitian part in the
328: first line is cancelled by that of the vertex correction
329: $\delta F_{11k}^{(v)}$ and the counterterm $\delta g$.
330: On the other hand, the divergence of the anti-hermitian part
331: in the second line is cancelled by the counterterm $\delta V$ for
332: the mixing matrix $V$ of $\tilde{\chi}^+_L$, giving
333: \begin{equation}
334: \delta F^{(c)}_{ijk}(\delta V) =
335: (\delta V\cdot V^{\dagger})_{ip} F_{pjk} .
336: \label{cancellation2}
337: \end{equation}
338: The matrix $\delta V\cdot V^{\dagger}$ should be anti-hermitian
339: for the unitarity of $V$ and $V^{\rm bare}\equiv V+\delta V$.
340: Similarly, the UV divergences of the anti-hermitian
341: parts of $\delta Z^{+R}$ and $\delta Z^{H^0}$ are cancelled by
342: renormalization of $U$ and
343: $\alpha$ (for $H^0$, $h^0$) or $\beta$ (for $A^0$), respectively.
344: This relation between the UV divergence of the anti-hermitian part
345: of the wave function corrections $\delta Z$ and
346: the renormalization of the corresponding mixing
347: matrix holds for general cases \cite{earlier,gaugedepavoid,later}.
348:
349: To fix the chargino sector, we have to specify two input parameters
350: corresponding to two parameters ($M$, $\mu$) in the mass
351: matrix (\ref{eq:chi+mat}), in addition to $\tan\beta$ which is
352: determined by the Higgs boson sector.
353: The pole masses $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}$ and
354: renormalized mixing matrices $(V,U)^{(ren)}$ are
355: then given as functions of these input parameters.
356: We also need to fix a definition of the renormalized
357: mixing matrices, or the UV finite parts of
358: the counterterms ($\delta V$, $\delta U$).
359: In previous studies of the corrections to chargino interactions,
360: several schemes has been proposed for the
361: renormalization of the charginos, as listed below:
362:
363: (A) We may just use the running mass parameters $(M,\mu)$ in the
364: $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme at a scale $Q$ as inputs, as in
365: Ref.~\cite{eechch}.
366: Renormalized $(V,U)$ are fixed to diagonalize
367: the tree-level mass matrix. The pole masses $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}$ are
368: shifted from their $Q$-dependent tree-level values.
369: The effect of this mass shift has to be
370: taken into account for a proper treatment of the radiative corrections
371: to chargino processes.
372:
373: (B) On the other hand, one may fix the chargino sector by
374: specifying the pole masses of two charginos $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}(i=1,2)$,
375: as in Ref.~\cite{chmasscorr3}.
376: Renormalized $(M,\mu)$ are then defined as tree-level functions of
377: the pole masses. Again, renormalized $(V,U)$ diagonalize the
378: tree-level mass matrix. In this scheme, the pole masses of charginos are
379: identical to their tree-level values by definition.
380: However, one should note that the shift of the masses is unavoidable
381: when the neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}^0_i(i=1-4)$ appear in the analysis,
382: since there are only three free parameters $(M,\mu,M')$ to
383: describe two charginos and four neutralinos.
384:
385: (C) Alternatively, we may start from the ``on-shell mixing matrices''
386: $(V,U)^{\rm OS}$ \cite{earlier,chmasscorr1},
387: defined such that their counterterms
388: completely cancel the anti-hermitian part of the
389: corresponding wave function corrections. For example, the
390: second line of Eq.~(\ref{cancellation}) is
391: dropped by adding Eq.~(\ref{cancellation2}) with on-shell $\delta V$.
392: The renormalized $(M,\mu)$ are then given as diagonal elements of the
393: ``on-shell mass matrix'' $X^{OS}$ of the charginos \cite{chmasscorr1}
394: given as
395: \begin{equation}
396: X^{\rm OS} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} M^{\rm OS} & X^{\rm OS}_{12} \\
397: X^{\rm OS}_{21} & \mu^{\rm OS} \end{array} \right)
398: \equiv
399: (U^{\rm OS})^T \left( \begin{array}{cc} m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_1} & 0 \\
400: 0 & m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_2} \end{array} \right)_{\rm pole}
401: V^{\rm OS}
402: \end{equation}
403: The off-diagonal elements $(X_{12}, X_{21})^{\rm OS}$ include
404: some information of the loop corrections to the mixings and,
405: as a result, deviate from their tree-level
406: values $\sqrt{2}m_W(\sin\beta,\cos\beta)$.
407: In this scheme, however,
408: both the masses $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}$ and mixing matrices ($V$, $U$)
409: are shifted from their tree-level values.
410: Problem from the gauge parameter dependence of the
411: on-shell mixing matrices \cite{gaugedep,gaugedepavoid,later}
412: may be avoided by improving relevant self energies
413: by the pinch technique \cite{gaugedepavoid,espinosa}.
414:
415: We conclude this section with several numerical results,
416: adopted from Ref.~\cite{EMY},
417: for the decay widths of $(A^0,H^0)\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1+\tilde{\chi}^-_1$
418: in the renormalization scheme (C) shown above.
419: Calculation was done by using the packages
420: {\it FeynArts, FormCalc,} and {\it LoopTools} \cite{FeynArts}.
421: We use the SPS1a parameter point \cite{SPS1a} as reference point:
422: Chargino and neutralino sectors are specified by
423: the on-shell parameters $M=197.6$~GeV, $\mu=353.1$~GeV, $M'=98$~GeV,
424: and the on-shell parameters for Higgs boson sector, defined as
425: Ref.~\cite{oshiggs}, are $\tan\beta=10$ and $m_{A^0}=393.6$~GeV.
426: The SUSY-breaking sfermion-Higgs boson trilinear couplings
427: $(A_t,A_b,A_\tau)=(-487,-766,-250)$~GeV are given in the
428: $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme at the parent particle.
429: Other mass parameters for sfermions are
430: $(M_{\tilde Q_{1,2}},M_{\tilde U_{1,2}},M_{\tilde D_{1,2}},
431: M_{\tilde L_{1,2}},M_{\tilde E_{1,2}}) =
432: (558.9,540.5,538.5,197.9,137.8)$~GeV
433: for the first and second generations and
434: $(M_{\tilde Q_{3}},M_{\tilde U_{3}},$ $M_{\tilde D_{3}},
435: M_{\tilde L_{3}},M_{\tilde E_{3}}) =
436: (512.2, 432.8, 536.5, 196.4, 134.8)$~GeV
437: for the third generation.
438: We used these values in the figures of this section,
439: if not specified otherwise.
440: Using HDECAY program \cite{HDECAY}, the tree-level branching ratios
441: ${\rm Br}(A^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1)$ and
442: ${\rm Br}(H^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1)$
443: at this point are estimated to be 21\% and 4\%, respectively,
444: which are not negligible.
445:
446: In Fig.~\ref{figa1}, we show the decay widths of
447: $A^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ and
448: $H^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$
449: as functions of the parent particle,
450: and compare three definitions of the widths:
451: the naive tree-level width $\Gamma^{\rm naive}$ with
452: the tree-level $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}$ and $(V,U)$,
453: the tree-level width $\Gamma^{\rm tree}$ using
454: the pole masses $m_{\tilde{\chi}^+_i}$ and $(V,U)^{OS}$,
455: and the full one-loop corrected width $\Gamma^{\rm corr}$ which also
456: includes real photon emission
457: $(A^0,H^0)\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1\gamma$
458: to cancel infrared divergence.
459: We see that the full one-loop corrections amount up to $\sim -12$\%.
460: %
461: \begin{figure}[htb]
462: \begin{center}
463: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig2a.eps}
464: \hspace{4mm}
465: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig2b.eps}
466: \caption{%
467: Naive tree-level (dotted), tree-level (dashed), and
468: one-loop corrected (solid) widths of
469: $A^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ (a) and
470: $H^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ (b)
471: as functions of the parent particle. }
472: \label{figa1}
473: \end{center}
474: \end{figure}
475:
476: In Fig.~\ref{figa2} we compare the contributions from the (s)fermion
477: loops~\cite{Zhang} (loops with quarks, leptons, and their superpartners)
478: and the full one-loop contributions, relative to $\Gamma^{\rm naive}$,
479: for Fig.~\ref{figa1}(a).
480: Corrections to the chargino mass matrix are shown by
481: the dash-dotted line for the (s)fermion loops while
482: the dotted line is for the full correction.
483: The solid (dashed) line shows the total correction
484: including full ((s)fermion) one-loop contributions.
485: Figure \ref{figa2} shows that the (s)fermion loop corrections and
486: other corrections are of comparable order, both for the chargino
487: mass matrix and for the conventional loop corrections (\ref{eq:Fren}).
488: %
489: \begin{figure}[htb]
490: \begin{center}
491: \includegraphics*[width=10cm]{fig2c.eps}
492: \caption{%
493: Indivisual one-loop corrections to the decay width of
494: $A^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ relative to the
495: naive tree-level width. Explanation of each line is seen in the text.
496: %Dash-Dotted: (s)fermions, through $\delta X$,
497: %Dotted: full loops, through $\delta X$,
498: %Dashed: (s)fermions, total,
499: %Solid: full loops, total
500: }
501: \label{figa2}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: Fig.~\ref{fig:Adependence} shows the corrections to the decay
506: widths of $(A^0,H^0)\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1+\tilde{\chi}^-_1$
507: as a function of $A_t = A_b = A_\tau$,
508: with the other parameters unchanged.
509: The dashed lines denote $\Gamma^{\rm tree}/\Gamma^{\rm naive}-1$ and
510: show the effect of the chargino mass matrix correction.
511: The solid lines show the total correction
512: $\Gamma^{\rm corr}/\Gamma^{\rm naive}-1$.
513: The dotted lines stand for $\Gamma^{\rm corr}/\Gamma^{\rm tree}-1$,
514: the conventional loop correction in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Fren}).
515: One sees that the $A_t$ dependence of the corrected widths
516: mainly comes through the shifts of the masses and
517: mixing matrices of the charginos from the tree-level values.
518: %
519: \begin{figure}[htb]
520: \begin{center}
521: \hspace*{2mm}
522: \includegraphics[width=73mm]{fig8a.eps}
523: \hspace{5mm}
524: \includegraphics[width=73mm]{fig8b.eps}
525: \caption{ %
526: Relative corrections for the decays
527: $A^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1+\tilde{\chi}^-_1$~(a)
528: and $H^0\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1+\tilde{\chi}^-_1$~(b)
529: as functions of $A_t=A_b=A_{\tau}$.
530: The dashed lines, solid lines, and dotted lines
531: denote $\Gamma^{\rm tree}/\Gamma^{\rm naive}-1$,
532: $\Gamma^{\rm corr}/\Gamma^{\rm naive}-1$, and
533: $\Gamma^{\rm corr}/\Gamma^{\rm tree}-1$, respectively. }
534: \label{fig:Adependence}
535: \end{center}
536: \end{figure}
537:
538: \section{Two-loop $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ Corrections
539: to $b\to s\gamma$}
540:
541: There are many cases where two-loop and even higher order
542: radiative corrections are necessary in the MSSM phenomenology.
543: As a well-known example, the correction to the mass of the
544: lightest Higgs boson $h^0$ is so large that the two-loop
545: contribution~\cite{mhiggs2,mhiggs2v} is still larger than
546: the expected error in future measurements.
547:
548: Here we consider the two-loop $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ SUSY QCD corrections to
549: the $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to sg$ decays in models with large $\tan\beta$.
550: These decays describe the inclusive decay
551: width ${\rm Br}(\bar{B}\to X_s \gamma)$ very well ~\cite{NLOSM},
552: up to the nonperturbative hadronic corrections which are small
553: and well under control.
554:
555: In the standard model, the decays $b\to(s\gamma, sg)$
556: occur through $W^{\pm}$ boson loops. These decays are
557: important to prove possible new physics beyond the standard model since
558: the new physics may contribute at the same level of perturbation as
559: the standard model one.
560:
561: In the MSSM, these decays receive new
562: contributions~\cite{BSGinSUSYproposal,BSGcontributions}
563: from loops with the charged Higgs boson $H^\pm$,
564: charginos $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}$, gluino $\tilde{g}$,
565: and neutralino. Their contributions are often comparable to
566: or even larger than the $W^{\pm}$ loop,
567: and sensitive to the masses and couplings
568: of these new particles. The leading order
569: QCD corrections to these new contributions
570: have been calculated~\cite{gluino} for generic models.
571: Higher-order QCD and SUSY QCD corrections have been evaluated
572: for specific models~\cite{NLO-SUSY1,NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}.
573:
574: Here we are interested in the $b\to(s\gamma,sg)$ decays in
575: models with very large $\tan\beta$~\cite{bsglargeTB1,bsglargeTB2}.
576: One important finding is that the SUSY QCD may induce
577: ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections~\cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b}
578: to the contributions of the charged Higgs boson and of charginos.
579: These two-loop corrections may be comparable to the leading
580: one-loop contributions, as shown below, and significantly affect the
581: experimental constraints~\cite{bsglargeTB1,bsglargeTB2} on the new particles.
582: In this talk, we mainly consider the corrections to the contribution of
583: the charged Higgs boson $H^+$, following Ref.~\cite{BGY}.
584:
585: At the one-loop level, dominant contribution by $H^{\pm}$ exchange
586: comes from the diagram
587: in Fig.~\ref{CH-0} with initial $b_R$.
588: \begin{figure}[h]
589: \vspace{0.3truecm}
590: \begin{center}
591: \includegraphics[width= 6.5cm]{CH0.eps}
592: \end{center}
593: \caption[f1]{
594: $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to sg$ decays by
595: the one-loop $H^{\pm}$ exchange.
596: The photon or gluon is to be attached at the $t$ or $H^-$
597: lines.}
598: \label{CH-0}
599: \end{figure}
600: Couplings of $H^{\pm}$ to quarks are derived from the tree-level
601: lagrangian
602: \begin{equation}
603: {\cal L}_{\rm int} = -h_b \bar{b}_R q_L H_D
604: -h_t \bar{t}_R q_L H_U +({\rm h.c.}),
605: \label{treelag}
606: \end{equation}
607: where only quarks in the third generation $(t,b)$ are included
608: for simplicity.
609: At the tree-level, the couplings of $H_U$ to $b_R$ and of $H_D$ to
610: $t_R$ are forbidden by SUSY and the Peccei-Quinn symmetry
611: under $(q_L,t_R,H_U)\to(q_L,t_R,H_U)$, $(b_R,H_D)\to (-b_R,-H_D)$.
612: However, squark-gluino loops with breakings of both symmetries
613: may induce effective couplings \cite{dmb,carenaH0,Ambrosio}
614: \begin{equation}
615: \Delta {\cal L}_{\rm eff. int} =
616: -h_b\Delta_b \bar{b}_Rq_L H_U -h_t\Delta_t \bar{t}_Rq_L H_D
617: +({\rm h.c.}) .
618: \label{efflag}
619: \end{equation}
620: $\Delta_q(q=b,t)$ are one-loop functions of
621: $O(\alpha_s \mu m_{\tilde{g}}/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$, where squarks and gluino
622: masses are around the scale $M_{\rm SUSY}$. There are also
623: $O(h_t^2)$ contributions to Eq.~(\ref{efflag}) from squark-higgsino
624: loops. Note that $\Delta_q$ do not
625: decouple in large $M_{\rm SUSY}$ limit \cite{dmb}.
626:
627: Although $|\Delta_q|$ themselves are sufficiently smaller than
628: unity, their contributions to the $H^+$ couplings are
629: enhanced by $\tan\beta$ relative to the tree-level,
630: as shown below, and may give large corrections
631: in large $\tan\beta$ models.
632:
633: (i) Correction from counterterm to $m_b$ \cite{dmb}:
634: The QCD running mass $m_b({\rm SM})$ within the standard model
635: is given by Eqs.~(\ref{treelag}, \ref{efflag}) as
636: \begin{eqnarray}
637: m_b({\rm SM}) &=&
638: \frac{h_b\bar{v}}{\sqrt{2}}\cos\beta[1+\Delta_b \tan\beta ] \\
639: &=& m_b({\rm MSSM})+\delta m_b .
640: \label{eq:dmb}
641: \end{eqnarray}
642: The squark-gluino correction $\delta m_b$
643: lift tree-level suppression of $m_b$ by $\cos\beta$ and may become
644: comparable to the tree-level contribution.
645: As a result, the $H^+\bar{t}_Lb_R$ coupling $y_b$ may significantly
646: deviate from the tree-level as
647: \begin{eqnarray}
648: y_b(H^+\bar{t}_Lb_R)({\rm eff}) &=&
649: V_{tb}h_b\sin\beta(1-\Delta_b \cot\beta) \nonumber \\
650: &\rightarrow &
651: V_{tb}\frac{\sqrt{2}m_b({\rm SM})}{\bar{v}}\tan\beta
652: \frac{1}{1+\Delta_b \tan\beta } .
653: \end{eqnarray}
654: The large correction $\Delta_b\tan\beta$ is originated from that
655: the $H^+\bar{t}_Lb_R$ coupling receives very small contribution from
656: Eq.~(\ref{efflag}) because of
657: $H^+=\sin\beta H^+_D+\cos\beta H^+_U\sim H_D^+$.
658: Similarly, $\delta m_b$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmb}) also induce
659: $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections
660: to the couplings of $b_R$ to heavier Higgs bosons
661: ($H^0$, $A^0$) and to the higgsino $\widetilde{H}_D$.
662:
663: (ii) Correction to the $H^-\bar{b}_Lt_R$ coupling $y_t$
664: comes from $\Delta_t$ through the proper vertex correction as
665: \cite{carenaH0,Ambrosio,Burashuge}
666: \begin{eqnarray}
667: y_t(H^+\bar{b}_Lt_R)({\rm eff}) &=&
668: V_{tb}^*h_t\cos\beta(1-\Delta_t \tan\beta) \\
669: &\to &
670: V_{tb}^*\frac{\sqrt{2}m_t}{\bar{v}}\cot\beta
671: (1-\Delta_t \tan\beta) .
672: \end{eqnarray}
673:
674: In general, Eq.~(\ref{efflag}) has mixing terms between quarks
675: in different generations, which are induced by the squark-higgsino
676: loops and squark-gluino loops with squark generation
677: mixings \cite{dmb,Burashuge}.
678: These mixing terms may generate $\tan\beta$-enhanced
679: corrections to the CKM matrix $V$
680: and flavor-changing couplings of ($H^0$, $A^0$). The latter couplings
681: induce the decays $B_s\to \mu^+\mu^-$ \cite{btomumu,Burashuge}
682: and $(H^0,A^0)\to b\bar{s}$ \cite{htobs}.
683:
684: Two-loop ${\cal O}(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections to the
685: $b\to (s\gamma, sg)$ decays has been calculated in Refs.
686: \cite{NLO-SUSY1,NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b,Burashuge}.
687: Here we discuss the $H^{\pm}$ contributions
688: to the Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)(i=7,8)$,
689: defined in the effective Hamiltonian
690: \begin{equation}
691: H_{\rm eff} \supset
692: -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V^*_{ts}V_{tb}
693: \left( C_7(\mu) {\cal O}_7(\mu) + C_8(\mu) {\cal O}_8(\mu)
694: \right) \, ,
695: \end{equation}
696: with
697: \begin{equation}
698: {\cal O}_7(\mu) =
699: \frac{e}{16\pi^2} m_b(\mu)\bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu} b_R F_{\mu\nu}\,,
700: \hspace{0.8truecm}
701: {\cal O}_8(\mu) =
702: \frac{g_s}{16\pi^2}m_b(\mu)\bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu}T^a b_RG^a_{\mu\nu}\,.
703: \label{O7and8}
704: \end{equation}
705: The $H^{\pm}$ contributions $C_{i,H}(i=7,8)$ to $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$
706: at the scale $\mu_W=m_W$ are expressed as
707: \begin{equation}
708: C_{i,H}(\mu_W) = \frac{1}{1+\Delta_{b_R,b} \tan\beta}
709: \left[ C_{i,H}^0(\mu_W) + \Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W) \right] \, .
710: \label{defWC}
711: \end{equation}
712: %
713: Here $C_{i,H}^0(\mu_W)$ and $\Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W)$
714: are the contributions of the one-loop diagram
715: and the two-loop diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}, respectively.
716: The overall factor $1/(1+\Delta_{b_R,b} \tan\beta)$ represents
717: the correction from $\delta m_b$. The one-loop integral
718: $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ improves $\Delta_b$ in
719: Eq.~(\ref{efflag}) by inclusion of the SU(2)$\times$U(1)
720: breaking for the masses and couplings of
721: squarks \cite{NLO-SUSY2a,Burashuge,BGY}.
722: %
723: \begin{figure}[t]
724: \begin{center}
725: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{CHphtop.eps}
726: \hspace{5mm}
727: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{CHphH.eps}
728: \end{center}
729: \begin{center}
730: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{CHphst.eps}
731: \hspace{5mm}
732: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{CHphss.eps}
733: \hspace{5mm}
734: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{CHglgl.eps}
735: \end{center}
736: \vspace{-0.2truecm}
737: \caption{ $H^\pm$ mediated diagrams contributing
738: at order ${\cal O}(\alpha_s \tan \beta)$ to the decays
739: $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to s g$. The photon must be replaced by a
740: gluon and vice versa, whenever possible.}
741: \label{CHexch2loops}
742: \end{figure}
743:
744: In previous studies~\cite{NLO-SUSY1,NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b},
745: the $O(\alpha_s \tan\beta)$ SUSY QCD corrections were evaluated in terms of
746: an effective two-Higgs-doublet lagrangian, in which squarks and gluino
747: are integrated out. This approach is called the
748: ``nondecoupling approximation'' in Ref.~\cite{BGY} since it preserves
749: all $O(M_{\rm SUSY}^0)$ contributions of the original two-loop
750: integrals.
751: For the corrections (i) from $\delta m_b$, this approximation allows
752: us to resum higher-order $O((\alpha_s\tan\beta)^n)$ terms
753: (Carena et al. in Ref.~\cite{carenaH0}), by putting
754: $\Delta_{b_R,b}$ in the denominator as in Eq.~(\ref{defWC}).
755: In contrast, for the proper vertex corrections (ii)
756: to the $H^-\bar{s}_Lt$ coupling in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops},
757: the nondecoupling approximation retains only diagrams (a) and (b), and the
758: squark-gluino subloops are evaluated at vanishing external momenta.
759: The $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ result (\ref{defWC}) is then
760: approximated by a rather simple form
761: \begin{equation}
762: C_{i,H}(\mu_W)|_{\rm nondec} =
763: \frac{1-\Delta_{t_R,s}\tan\beta }{1+\Delta_{b_R,b} \tan\beta}
764: C_{i,H}^0(\mu_W) \, .
765: \label{defWCnondec}
766: \end{equation}
767: The one-loop integral $\Delta_{t_R,s}$, defined in Ref.~\cite{BGY},
768: corresponds to $\Delta_t$ in Eq.~(\ref{efflag}) applied for the
769: $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_R$ coupling, including the SU(2)$\times$U(1)
770: breaking effect \cite{Burashuge}.
771:
772: However, the momentum dependence of the squark-gluino subloops in
773: Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a,b), as well as the
774: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}c-e)
775: ignored in the nondecoupling approximation, are expected to give
776: $O((m_{\rm weak}^2, m_{H^{\pm}}^2)/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ contributions,
777: where $m_{\rm weak}\sim(m_W,m_t)$, and, therefore, cause
778: significant deviation of the exact two-loop result from
779: the nondecoupling approximation
780: when $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is not much larger than
781: $m_{\rm weak}$ and/or $m_{H^{\pm}}$.
782: It is important to examine, in such cases,
783: how large the deviation is and how far the nondecoupling
784: approximation may be applied beyond the restriction
785: $(m_{\rm weak}^2, m_{H^{\pm}}^2)\ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2$.
786:
787: We perform an exact evaluation of the two-loop diagrams in
788: Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}
789: and compare the results to those in the nondecoupling approximation.
790: In Fig.~\ref{figb1}, we show the numerical
791: results of $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)$ as functions of $m_{H^{\pm}}$,
792: for a SUSY particle spectrum
793: $(m_{\tilde{s}_L},M_{\tilde{Q}_3},M_{\tilde{U}_3},M_{\tilde{D}_3})$
794: $=(250,230,210,260)$ GeV, $A_t=70$ GeV, $A_b=0$,
795: $\tan\beta=30$, $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV, and $\mu=250$ GeV.
796: \begin{figure}[htb]
797: \begin{center}
798: \includegraphics*[width= 7cm]{c7L.eps}
799: %\hspace{2mm}
800: \includegraphics*[width= 7cm]{c8L.eps}
801: \end{center}
802: \caption{%
803: $C_{7,H}(\mu_W)$ and $C_{8,H}(\mu_W)$ as functions of $m_H$.
804: The dotted, dashed, and solid lines show the one-loop result,
805: nondecoupling approximation, and exact two-loop result, respectively.
806: Parameters for the SUSY particles are shown in the text.
807: }
808: \label{figb1}
809: \end{figure}
810: %
811: We see that the $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections are numerically
812: comparable to the one-loop results and must be included
813: in realistic analysis. The deviation of the exact two-loop results
814: is $O(m_{\rm weak}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$, the same order as
815: the SU(2)$\times$U(1) breaking effects in the squark-gluino
816: subloops~\cite{Burashuge}, and not negligible,
817: especially for $C_{8,H}$. However, contrary to the
818: naive expectation, the deviation does not show
819: significant increase for $m_{H^{\pm}} > M_{\rm SUSY}$. This is
820: more clearly seen in the left plot of Fig.~\ref{figb2} where
821: the relative difference between the exact
822: two-loop result and the nondecoupling approximation,
823: \begin{equation}
824: r_i(\mu_W) \equiv
825: \frac{ C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm nondec} -C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm exact} }
826: { C_{i,H}(\mu_W)\vert_{\rm exact} } \hspace*{5truemm} (i = 7,8) ,
827: \end{equation}
828: is shown. For reference, the right plot of Fig.~\ref{figb2}
829: shows the results for a heavier SUSY spectrum
830: $(m_{\tilde{s}_L},M_{\tilde{Q}_3},M_{\tilde{U}_3},M_{\tilde{D}_3})=
831: (700,450,435,470)\,$GeV, $A_t = 150\,$GeV, $A_b=0$,
832: $\tan\beta=30$, $m_{\tilde{g}}=600\,$GeV, and $\mu=550\,$GeV.
833: $r_i$ is very small in the whole range of $m_{H^{\pm}}$.
834: In both cases, the main part of the deviation comes from the
835: diagram in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}a) and, for $C_{8,H}$, also
836: from the diagram in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops}e).
837: %
838: \begin{figure}[htb]
839: \begin{center}
840: \includegraphics*[width=7cm]{r78l.eps}
841: \hspace{4mm}
842: \includegraphics*[width=7cm]{r78h.eps}
843: \caption{%
844: Relative difference $r_i(\mu_W)(i=7,8)$ between the
845: exact two-loop results and
846: the nondecoupling approximations of $C_{i,H}(\mu_W)$, for
847: the SUSY spectrum as in Fig.~\ref{figb1} (left) and heavier spectrum (right).
848: }
849: \label{figb2}
850: \end{center}
851: \end{figure}
852:
853: To understand this unexpected result for $m_{H^\pm}>M_{\rm SUSY}$
854: qualitatively, we consider the diagram (a) in Fig.~\ref{CHexch2loops},
855: with chirality flip on the top quark line.
856: When $m_{H^\pm}$ is sufficiently larger than $m_t$,
857: this diagram gives the largest contribution
858: to $\Delta C_{i,H}^1(\mu_W)$. The contribution is
859: proportional to the loop integral
860: %
861: \begin{equation}
862: \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
863: I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm}, m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}) =
864: \int\frac{d^4 k}{(2 \pi)^4} \
865: \frac{k^2}
866: {\left[k^2 -m_t^2\right]^3 \left[k^2 - m_{H^\pm}^2\right]}
867: \,
868: Y_{ti2}\left(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}
869: \right),
870: \label{eq-Iint}
871: \end{equation}
872: %
873: where $Y_{ti2}(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}})$
874: represents the squark-gluino subdiagram contribution to the
875: effective vertex $H^-\bar{s}_Lt_R$ and is given by
876: %
877: \begin{equation}
878: Y_{ti2}(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}}) =
879: \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
880: \left[-2 F + (k^2-m_t^2) G\right]
881: \left(k^2;m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2\right),
882: \label{eq-Ydef}
883: \end{equation}
884: %
885: with
886: %
887: \begin{eqnarray}
888: F(k^2; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2)
889: & = &
890: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
891: \frac{1}{ \left[ (l+k)^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2 \right]
892: \left[ l^2 -\!m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
893: \left[ l^2-m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right] },
894: \label{eq-Fdef}
895: \\
896: k^{\mu}
897: G(k^2; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2)
898: & = &
899: \int\frac{d^4 l}{(2 \pi)^4} \
900: \frac{l^{\mu}}{ \left[ (l+k)^2 - m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2 \right]
901: \left[ l^2 -\!m_{\tilde{s}}^2 \right]
902: \left[ l^2-m_{\tilde{g}}^2 \right]^2}.
903: \label{eq-Gdef}
904: \end{eqnarray}
905:
906: In the nondecoupling approximation, the form factor
907: $Y_{ti2}(k^2; m_{\tilde{t}_i},m_{\tilde{s}},m_{\tilde{g}})$
908: in Eq.~(\ref{eq-Iint}) is replaced by
909: %
910: \begin{equation}
911: Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec} =
912: - 2 \mu m_{\tilde{g}}
913: F (0; m_{\tilde{t}_i}^2,m_{\tilde{s}}^2,m_{\tilde{g}}^2),
914: \label{eq-Yapprox}
915: \end{equation}
916: %
917: which is independent of $k^2$.
918: For simplicity, we
919: hereafter set $m_{\tilde{t}_i}$, $m_{\tilde{s}}$, $m_{\tilde{g}}$, and
920: $\mu$ equal to $M_{\rm SUSY}$.
921:
922: For $|k^2|$ much smaller or larger than $M_{\rm SUSY}^2$,
923: $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ behaves as
924: %
925: \begin{equation}
926: Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2) \to
927: \left\{
928: \begin{array}{ll}
929: Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec} +
930: O\left(
931: \displaystyle{\frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}},
932: \displaystyle{\frac{m_t^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}} \right)
933: &
934: (\vert k^2 \vert \ll M_{\rm SUSY}^2),
935: \\[1.8ex]
936: O\left(\displaystyle{\frac{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}{k^2}
937: \ln \frac{k^2}{M_{\rm SUSY}^2}} \right)
938: &
939: (\vert k^2 \vert \gg M_{\rm SUSY}^2),
940: \end{array}
941: \right.
942: \label{eq-deviation}
943: \end{equation}
944: %
945: which supports the naive expectation that a substantial deviation of
946: $I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm},M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ from
947: $I_{ti2}(m_t,m_{H^\pm},M_{\rm SUSY}^2)\vert_{\rm nondec}$ may
948: arise from the region $|k^2| > M_{\rm SUSY}^2$.
949:
950: However, the factor multiplying $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^{2})$ in
951: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-Iint}) drops as $d^4k/k^6$ for $|k^2|\gg m_{H^\pm}^2$.
952: In fact, the bulk of the integral $I_{ti2}$ is determined by the
953: small $|k^2|$ region up to $|k^2|=O(m_t^2)$. If $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is
954: sufficiently larger than $m_t$,
955: $Y_{ti2}(k^2; M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$ does not
956: deviate substantially from $Y_{ti2}\vert_{\rm nondec}$ in this region.
957: This explains the smallness of the deviation for
958: $m_{H^\pm}> M_{\rm SUSY}$ shown in Figs.~\ref{figb1} and \ref{figb2}.
959:
960: We comment on the SUSY QCD corrections to other
961: one-loop contributions to the $b\to(s\gamma, sg)$ decays.
962: As already mentioned, the chargino contributions
963: receive the $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ correction
964: to the $\tilde{\chi}^+b_R\tilde{t}^*_L$
965: coupling \cite{NLO-SUSY2a,NLO-SUSY2b} from $\delta m_b$ in
966: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmb}), through the coupling $h_b$ of the
967: higgsino component $\widetilde{H}_D$ of $\tilde{\chi}^+$ to $b_R$.
968: Other gluino
969: corrections are not enhanced by $\tan\beta$ relative to the one-loop
970: contribution. In contrast, the $W^{\pm}$ contributions
971: do not receive $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections
972: in the nondecoupling approximation.
973: However, two-loop diagrams with effective $W^+\bar{t}b_R$
974: or $G^+\bar{t}b_R$ couplings, some of which are shown
975: in Fig.~\ref{figb4}, give decoupling
976: $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta \, m_{\rm weak}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$
977: contributions and may become nonnegligible for
978: light $M_{\rm SUSY}\sim m_{\rm weak}$. Numerical study of
979: these contributions
980: will be presented in Ref.~\cite{BGYfuture}.
981: \begin{figure}[htb]
982: \begin{center}
983: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{Wphtop.eps}
984: \hspace{5mm}
985: \includegraphics[width= 6.0cm]{GphGBWB.eps}
986: \hspace{5mm}
987: \end{center}
988: \caption{%
989: Examples of the two-loop diagrams for the $O(\alpha\tan\beta)$
990: corrections to the $W^{\pm}$ contributions to $b\to s\gamma$.
991: }
992: \label{figb4}
993: \end{figure}
994:
995: In addition, there are also contributions to $b\to s\gamma$ coming from
996: the mixings of squarks $\tilde{b}$ and $\tilde{s}$, such as
997: the one-loop squark-gluino
998: contribution \cite{BSGcontributions,bsglargeTB1,gluino}.
999: One should note that squark generation mixings may be induced by
1000: the running of squark mass parameters \cite{squarkrunning},
1001: $O(\tan\beta)$ corrections to the quark Yukawa
1002: matrices \cite{bsggluino1}, corrections to the
1003: squark-($\gamma,g$) couplings \cite{bsggluino2}, and
1004: other loop corrections.
1005: Studies of such contributions need consistent treatment of
1006: the squark sector renormalization including generation mixings,
1007: similar to the discussion in Section 2.
1008:
1009: \section{Conclusion}
1010:
1011: We have discussed some aspects of
1012: the radiative corrections in the MSSM phenomenology,
1013: using two recent studies.
1014: First, the full one-loop corrections to the Higgs boson decays
1015: into charginos were presented. Especially,
1016: the renormalization of the chargino sector,
1017: including their mixing matrices, was discussed in detail.
1018: Numerical result was shown for the
1019: $(A^0,H^0)\to\tilde{\chi}^+_1\tilde{\chi}^-_1$ decays.
1020: Second, the two-loop $O(\alpha_s\tan\beta)$ corrections to
1021: the $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to sg$ decays were discussed in models with
1022: large $\tan\beta$. Validity of the nondecoupling approximation,
1023: used in previous calculations, was examined for the $H^{\pm}$ contribution,
1024: by exact evaluation of the two-loop diagrams.
1025: The deviation was shown to be $O(m_{\rm weak}^2/M_{\rm SUSY}^2)$,
1026: but, contrary to naive expectation, not increase
1027: as $m_{H^\pm}$ even for $m_{H^{\pm}}> M_{\rm SUSY}$.
1028: A qualitative explanation for this unexpected behavior
1029: was presented in terms of the structure of the
1030: relevant two-loop integral.
1031:
1032:
1033: \section{Acknowledgements}
1034:
1035: I thank Helmut Eberl, Walter Majerotto, Francesca Borzumati, and
1036: Christoph Greub for fruitful collaborations on which this talk is
1037: based on.
1038: This work was supported by the
1039: Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education,
1040: Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan, No.~14740144.
1041:
1042: \bibliographystyle{plain}
1043: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1044: %
1045: \bibitem{mssm}
1046: H. P. Nilles, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 110}, 1 (1984);
1047: H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 117}, 75 (1985);
1048: R. Barbieri, {\it Riv. Nuov. Cim.} {\bf 11}, 1 (1988);
1049: S. P. Martin, hep-ph/9709356.
1050: %
1051: \bibitem{LCexp}
1052: E. Accomando {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 299}, 1 (1998);
1053: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.}
1054: [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration],
1055: {\it TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$ Linear
1056: Collider}, hep-ph/0106315;
1057: T. Abe {\it et al.}
1058: [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],
1059: {\it Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001.
1060: 2: Higgs and supersymmetry studies}, hep-ex/0106056;
1061: K. Abe {\it et al.}
1062: [ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],
1063: {\it Particle physics experiments at JLC},
1064: hep-ph/0109166.
1065: %
1066: \bibitem{mhiggs}
1067: Y. Okada, T. Yanagida, and M. Yamaguchi,
1068: {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 85}, 1 (1991);
1069: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 262}, 54 (1991);
1070: H. Haber and R. Hempfling,
1071: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 66}, 1815 (1991);
1072: J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner,
1073: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 257}, 83 (1991).
1074: %
1075: \bibitem{EMY}
1076: H. Eberl, W. Majerotto, and Y. Yamada,
1077: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 597}, 275 (2004).
1078: %
1079: \bibitem{BGY}
1080: F. Borzumati, C. Greub, and Y. Yamada,
1081: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 69}, 055005 (2004);
1082: hep-ph/0305063; Y. Yamada, hep-ph/0312288.
1083: %
1084: \bibitem{GH}
1085: J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber,
1086: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 272}, 1 (1986);
1087: {\bf 402}, 567 (1993) (erratum).
1088: %
1089: \bibitem{LCs}
1090: %Linear colliders
1091: T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi, and Y. Okada,
1092: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 51}, 3153 (1995);
1093: J. L. Feng, M. E. Peskin, H. Murayama, and X. Tata,
1094: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 52}, 1418 (1995);
1095: H. Baer, R. Munroe, and X. Tata,
1096: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 54}, 6735 (1996);
1097: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 56}, 4424 (1997) (erratum);
1098: %K. Desch {\it et al.},
1099: K. Desch, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat-Pick, M. M. Nojiri, and
1100: G. Polesello,
1101: %``SUSY parameter determination in combined analyses at LHC/LC,''
1102: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0402}, 035 (2004).
1103: %
1104: \bibitem{charginomeasure}
1105: %Precision measurements of charginos in future colliders.
1106: % Beam polarization
1107: G.~Moortgat-Pick, H.~Fraas, A.~Bartl, and W.~Majerotto,
1108: %``Spin correlations in production and decay of charginos,''
1109: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 7}, 113 (1999);
1110: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 18}, 379 (2000);
1111: S. Y. Choi, A. Djouadi, H. K. Dreiner, J. Kalinowski, and P. M. Zerwas,
1112: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 7}, 123 (1999);
1113: S.~Y.~Choi, A.~Djouadi, H.~S.~Song, and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1114: %``Determining SUSY parameters in chargino pair-production in e+ e-
1115: %collisions,''
1116: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 8}, 669 (1999);
1117: S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Guchait, J.~Kalinowski, and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1118: %``Chargino pair production at e+ e- colliders with polarized beams,''
1119: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 479}, 235 (2000);
1120: S. Y. Choi {\it et al.},
1121: %S. Y. Choi, A. Djouadi, M. Guchiat, J. Kalinowski, H. S. Hong, and
1122: %P. M. Zerwas,
1123: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 14}, 535 (2000).
1124: %
1125: \bibitem{eechch}
1126: M.~A.~D\'{\i}az, S.~F.~King, and D.~A.~Ross,
1127: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 529}, 23 (1998);
1128: %``Radiative corrections to chargino production in electron positron
1129: %collisions with polarized beams,''
1130: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 017701 (2001);
1131: % Large higher-order corr.
1132: M.~A.~D\'{\i}az and D.~A.~Ross,
1133: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0106}, 001 (2001); hep-ph/0205257.
1134: %
1135: \bibitem{eechch2}
1136: S. Kiyoura, M. M. Nojiri, D. M. Pierce, and Y. Yamada,
1137: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 58}, 075002 (1998).
1138: %
1139: \bibitem{eechch3}
1140: %Full one-loop corr.
1141: T. Blank and W. Hollik, hep-ph/0011092.
1142: %in *2nd ECFA/DESY Study 1998-2001* 1248-1260;
1143: %
1144: \bibitem{sqch}
1145: J.~Guasch, W.~Hollik, and J.~Sol\`a,
1146: %``Fermionic decays of sfermions: A complete discussion at one-loop order,''
1147: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0210}, 040 (2002).
1148: %
1149: \bibitem{hpchne}
1150: L.-H. Wan, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, and Y. Jiang,
1151: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 115004 (2001).
1152: %
1153: \bibitem{chtow}
1154: R.-Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, and L.-H. Wan,
1155: {\it J. Phys.} G {\bf 28}, 169 (2002).
1156: %
1157: \bibitem{tree1}
1158: H. Baer, D. Dicus, M. Drees, and X. Tata,
1159: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 36}, 1363 (1987);
1160: J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 307}, 445 (1988);
1161: {\bf 402}, 569 (1993) (erratum);
1162: K. Griest and H. E. Haber, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 37}, 719 (1988).
1163: %
1164: \bibitem{tree2}
1165: A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and P. M. Zerwas,
1166: {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 57}, 569 (1993);
1167: A. Djouadi, P. Janot, J. Kalinowski, and P. M. Zerwas,
1168: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 376}, 220 (1996); % LEP 2
1169: A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, P. Ohmann, and P. M. Zerwas,
1170: {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 74}, 93 (1997). % SUGRA, comment on neu2 -> neu1 h0
1171: %
1172: \bibitem{tree3}
1173: H. Fraas, F. Franke, G. Moortgat-Pick, F. von der Pahlen, and
1174: A. Wagner, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 29}, 587 (2003).
1175: % precision measurement of Higgs-chargino couplings at muon colliders
1176: %
1177: \bibitem{chaproduction}
1178: A. Bartl, H. Fraas, and W. Majerotto,
1179: {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 30}, 441 (1986);
1180: A.~Bartl, H.~Fraas, W.~Majerotto, and B.~M\"osslacher,
1181: {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 55}, 257 (1992).
1182: %
1183: \bibitem{Zhang} % H -> cha cha /neu neu, t-b loops
1184: R.-Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, L.-H. Wan, and Y. Jiang,
1185: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 075018 (2002).
1186: %
1187: \bibitem{oshiggs}
1188: P. H. Chankowski, S. Pokorski, and J. Rosiek,
1189: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 274}, 191 (1992);
1190: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 423}, 437 (1994); {\bf 423}, 497 (1994);
1191: A.~Dabelstein, {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 67}, 495 (1995);
1192: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 456}, 25 (1995).
1193: %
1194: \bibitem{earlier}
1195: A. Denner and T. Sack, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 347}, 203 (1990);
1196: B. A. Kniehl and A. Pilaftsis, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 474}, 286 (1996).
1197: %
1198: \bibitem{gaugedepavoid}
1199: Y.~Yamada, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 036008 (2001).
1200: %
1201: \bibitem{later}
1202: A.~Pilaftsis,
1203: %``Gauge and scheme dependence of mixing matrix renormalization,''
1204: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 115013 (2002).
1205: %
1206: \bibitem{chmasscorr3}
1207: T. Fritzsche and W. Hollik, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 24}, 619 (2002).
1208: %
1209: \bibitem{chmasscorr1}
1210: H. Eberl, M. Kincel, W. Majerotto, and Y. Yamada,
1211: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 115013 (2001);
1212: %\bibitem{chmasscorr2}
1213: W. \"Oller, H. Eberl, W. Majerotto, and C. Weber,
1214: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 29}, 563 (2003).
1215: %
1216: \bibitem{gaugedep}
1217: P. Gambino, P. A. Grassi, and F. Madricardo,
1218: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 454}, 98 (1999);
1219: B. A. Kniehl, F. Madricardo, and M. Steinhauser,
1220: %gauge-indep. Gamma_W
1221: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 62}, 073010 (2000);
1222: A. Barroso, L. Br\"ucher, and R. Santos,
1223: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 62}, 096003 (2000);
1224: K.-P. O. Diener and B. A. Kniehl,
1225: % ON MASS SHELL RENORMALIZATION OF FERMION MIXING MATRICES.
1226: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 617}, 291 (2001).
1227: %
1228: \bibitem{espinosa}
1229: J. R. Espinosa and Y. Yamada, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 036003 (2003).
1230: %
1231: \bibitem{FeynArts}
1232: T. Hahn, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} B {\bf 89}, 231 (2000);
1233: {\it Comp. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 140}, 418 (2001);
1234: {\it FeynArts User's Guide, FormCalc User's Guide} and
1235: {\it LoopTools User's Guide}, available at http://www.feynarts.de.
1236: %T. Hahn and C. Schappacher, Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 143} (2002) 54.
1237: % ``MSSM version''
1238: %
1239: \bibitem{SPS1a}
1240: B. C. Allanach {\it et al.}, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002).
1241: %
1242: \bibitem{HDECAY}
1243: A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira,
1244: {\it Comp. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 108}, 56 (1998).
1245: %
1246: \bibitem{mhiggs2}
1247: S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein,
1248: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 58}, 091701 (1998);
1249: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 440}, 296 (1998);
1250: {\it Eur. Phys. J.} C {\bf 9}, 343 (1999);
1251: S. P. Martin,
1252: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 016005 (2004);
1253: %``Strong and Yukawa two-loop contributions to Higgs scalar boson
1254: % self-energies and pole masses in supersymmetry,''
1255: hep-ph/0405022.
1256: %
1257: \bibitem{mhiggs2v}
1258: R. Zhang, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 447}, 89 (1999);
1259: J. Espinosa and R. Zhang,
1260: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0003}, 026 (2000);
1261: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 586}, 3 (2000);
1262: G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and F. Zwirner,
1263: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 611}, 403 (2001);
1264: A. Brignole, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and F. Zwirner,
1265: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 631}, 195 (2002); {\bf 643}, 79 (2002);
1266: %S.~P.~Martin,
1267: %``Two-loop effective potential for the minimal supersymmetric standard
1268: %model,''
1269: %{\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 66}, 096001 (2002); {\bf 67}, 095012 (2003);
1270: A.~Dedes, G.~Degrassi and P.~Slavich,
1271: %``On the two-loop Yukawa corrections to the MSSM Higgs boson masses at large
1272: %tan(beta),''
1273: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 672}, 144 (2003).
1274: %
1275: \bibitem{NLOSM}
1276: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, and A.~Masiero,
1277: %``QCD Enhancement Of Radiative B Decays,''
1278: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 59}, 180 (1987);
1279: N.~G.~Deshpande, P.~Lo, J.~Trampetic, G.~Eilam, and P.~Singer,
1280: %``B $\to$ K* Gamma And The Top Quark Mass,''
1281: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 59}, 183 (1987);
1282: A.~J.~Buras and M.~Misiak,
1283: %``Anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma after completion of the NLO QCD calculations,''
1284: {\it Acta Phys. Polon.} B {\bf 33}, 2597 (2002);
1285: P.~Gambino, M.~Gorbahn, and U.~Haisch,
1286: %``Anomalous dimension matrix for radiative and rare semileptonic
1287: % B decays up to three loops,''
1288: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 673}, 238 (2003).
1289: %
1290: \bibitem{BSGinSUSYproposal}
1291: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
1292: %``New Constraints On Squark And Gluino Masses From Radiative B Decays,''
1293: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 192}, 437 (1987).
1294: %
1295: \bibitem{BSGcontributions}
1296: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,
1297: %``Supersymmetric Enhancement Of Noncharmed B Decays,''
1298: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 294}, 321 (1987);
1299: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,
1300: %``Effects Of Supergravity Induced Electroweak Breaking
1301: %On Rare B Decays And Mixings,''
1302: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 353}, 591 (1991).
1303: %
1304: \bibitem{gluino}
1305: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub, T.~Hurth, and D.~Wyler,
1306: %``Gluino contribution to radiative B decays: Organization of QCD corrections
1307: % and leading order results,''
1308: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 62}, 075005 (2000).
1309: %
1310: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY1}
1311: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, and G.~F.~Giudice,
1312: %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''
1313: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 534}, 3 (1998).
1314: %
1315: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY2a}
1316: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino, and G.~F.~Giudice,
1317: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions
1318: %beyond the leading order,''
1319: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0012}, 009 (2000).
1320: %
1321: \bibitem{NLO-SUSY2b}
1322: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1323: %``b $\to$ s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''
1324: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 499}, 141 (2001).
1325: %
1326: \bibitem{bsglargeTB1}
1327: N.~Oshimo, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 404}, 20 (1993);
1328: F.~M.~Borzumati, {\it Z. Phys.} C {\bf 63}, 291 (1994).
1329: %
1330: \bibitem{bsglargeTB2}
1331: F.~M.~Borzumati, M.~Olechowski, and S.~Pokorski,
1332: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 349}, 311 (1995);
1333: H.~Murayama, M.~Olechowski, and S.~Pokorski,
1334: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 371}, 57 (1996);
1335: R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 501}, 297 (1997);
1336: F.~M.~Borzumati, hep-ph/9702307;
1337: T. Bla\v{z}ek and S. Raby,
1338: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 59}, 095002 (1999);
1339: D. A. Demir and K. A. Olive, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 034007 (2002).
1340: %
1341: \bibitem{dmb}
1342: T.~Banks, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 303}, 172 (1988);
1343: R.~Hempfling, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 49}, 6168 (1994);
1344: L.~J.~Hall, R.~Rattazzi, and U.~Sarid,
1345: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 50}, 7048 (1994);
1346: M.~Carena, M.~Olechowski, S.~Pokorski, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1347: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 426}, 269 (1994);
1348: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, S.~Raby, and S.~Pokorski,
1349: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 52}, 4151 (1995);
1350: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~T.~Matchev, and R.~j.~Zhang,
1351: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 491}, 3 (1997);
1352: F.~Borzumati, G.~R.~Farrar, N.~Polonsky, and S.~Thomas,
1353: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 555}, 53 (1999).
1354: %
1355: \bibitem{carenaH0}
1356: M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1357: %``MSSM Higgs boson phenomenology at the Tevatron collider,''
1358: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 60}, 075010 (1999);
1359: K.~S.~Babu and C.~F.~Kolda,
1360: %``Signatures of supersymmetry and Yukawa unification in Higgs decays,''
1361: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 451}, 77 (1999);
1362: F.~Borzumati, G.~R.~Farrar, N.~Polonsky, and S.~Thomas,
1363: in Ref.~\cite{dmb};
1364: %
1365: H.~Eberl, K.~Hidaka, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto, and Y.~Yamada,
1366: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 62}, 055006 (2000);
1367: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1368: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 577}, 88 (2000);
1369: H.~E.~Haber {\it et al.},
1370: %H.~E.~Haber, M.~J.~Herrero, H.~E.~Logan, S.~Pe\~naranda,
1371: %S.~Rigolin, and D.~Temes,
1372: %``SUSY-QCD corrections to the MSSM h0 b anti-b vertex
1373: %in the decoupling limit,''
1374: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 63}, 055004 (2001);
1375: H.~E.~Logan,
1376: %``Supersymmetric radiative corrections at large tan(beta),''
1377: {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 101}, 279 (2001);
1378: M.~J.~Herrero, S.~Pe\~naranda, and D.~Temes,
1379: %``SUSY-QCD decoupling properties in H+ $\to$ t anti-b decay,''
1380: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 115003 (2001).
1381: %
1382: \bibitem{Ambrosio}
1383: G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori, and A.~Strumia,
1384: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 645}, 155 (2002).
1385: %
1386: \bibitem{Burashuge}
1387: A.~J.~Buras, P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Rosiek, and \L.~S{\l}awianowska,
1388: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 659}, 3 (2003).
1389: %
1390: \bibitem{btomumu}
1391: S. R. Choudhury and N. Gaur, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 451}, 86 (1999);
1392: K. S. Babu and C. Kolda, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 228 (2000);
1393: P.~H.~Chankowski and \L.~S{\l}awianowska,
1394: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 63}, 054012 (2001);
1395: C. Bobeth, A. J. Buras, F. Kr\"uger, and J. Urban,
1396: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 630}, 87 (2002).
1397: %
1398: \bibitem{htobs}
1399: A.~M.~Curiel, M.~J.~Herrero, and D. Temes,
1400: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 075008 (2003);
1401: A.~Dedes,
1402: %``The Higgs penguin and its applications: An overview,''
1403: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 18}, 2627 (2003);
1404: D. A. Demir, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 571}, 193 (2003);
1405: A.~M.~Curiel, M.~J.~Herrero, W.~Hollik, F.~Merz, and S.~Pe\~naranda,
1406: %``SUSY - electroweak one-loop contributions to flavour-changing Higgs-boson
1407: %decays,''
1408: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 69}, 075009 (2004);
1409: S.~B{\'e}jar, F.~Dilm\'e, J.~Guasch, and J.~Sol\`a,
1410: %``Higgs boson flavor-changing neutral decays into bottom quarks in
1411: %supersymmetry,''
1412: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0408}, 018 (2004).
1413: %
1414: \bibitem{BGYfuture}
1415: F. Borzumati, C. Greub, and Y. Yamada, in progress.
1416: %
1417: \bibitem{squarkrunning}
1418: M. J. Duncan, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 221}, 285 (1983);
1419: J.~F.~Donoghue, H.~P.~Nilles, and D.~Wyler,
1420: %``Flavor Changes In Locally Supersymmetric Theories,''
1421: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 128}, 55 (1983).
1422: %
1423: \bibitem{bsggluino1}
1424: K. Okumura and L. Roszkowski,
1425: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0310}, 024 (2003).
1426: %
1427: \bibitem{bsggluino2}
1428: C. H. Chen and C. Q. Geng, hep-ph/0403188.
1429:
1430: \end{thebibliography}
1431:
1432: \end{document}
1433:
1434: