1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \textheight 650pt \textwidth 16.5cm \hoffset -1.8cm \voffset
5: -1.9cm
6: \parskip=4pt plus 1pt
7:
8: \newcommand{\Frac}[2]{\frac{\displaystyle #1}{\displaystyle #2}}
9: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\beqns}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
14: \newcommand{\eeqns}{\end{eqnarray*}}
15:
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \begin{titlepage}
19: \begin{center}
20:
21: \hfill USTC-ICTS-04-22\\
22:
23:
24: \vspace{2.5cm}
25:
26: {\large {\bf Angular distribution asymmetry in
27: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0 \nu_\tau$ decay
28: in the two-Higgs-doublet model with large $\tan\beta$}}\\
29: \vspace*{1.0cm}
30: {Dao-Neng Gao$^\dagger$} \vspace*{0.3cm} \\
31: {\it\small Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study,
32: University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
33: China
34: %\\ and\\
35: %Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at M\"unchen, Sektion Physik,\\
36: %Theresienstra\ss e 37, D-80333 Munich, Germany
37: }
38:
39: \vspace*{1cm}
40: \end{center}
41: \begin{abstract}
42: \noindent We study possible scalar type interactions in
43: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay. One finds that an angular
44: distribution asymmetry, ${\cal A}(s)$, can be induced from the
45: interference between the scalar part and vector part amplitudes in
46: this decay. Our analysis shows that, in the two-Higgs-doublet
47: model of type II with large $\tan\beta$, the charged Higgs
48: contribution could make ${\cal A}(s)$ up to $4\times 10^{-3}$
49: without conflict with present experimental constraints. Thus in
50: the future precise experiments in $\tau$-charm factories, this
51: angular distribution asymmetry may be an interesting observable
52: either to be helpful in searching for the signal of the charged
53: Higgs boson or to impose the significant bound on it.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \vfill
57: \noindent
58:
59: $^{\dagger}$ E-mail:~gaodn@ustc.edu.cn
60: \end{titlepage}
61:
62: The $\tau$ lepton is the only known lepton massive enough to decay
63: into hadrons. Its semi-leptonic decay into a $\tau$ neutrino and a
64: hadron system provides an ideal tool for testing the standard
65: model (SM), in both the electroweak and the strong sectors
66: \cite{Mar95, Pich97, Gan01}. With the increased experimental
67: sensitivities achieved already or in the future, some interesting
68: limits on possible new physics contributions to the $\tau$ decay
69: amplitudes may also be expected \cite{Pich97, Nelson96}. The main
70: purpose of the present paper is to explore this possibility in
71: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay. In particular, within the
72: two-Higgs-doublet model (2HDM) we will analyze an angular
73: distribution asymmetry induced from this transition, and it is
74: interesting that this asymmetry may be very useful either to
75: search for the signal of the charged Higgs boson or to impose the
76: significant bound on it. Meanwhile, as a byproduct of our
77: calculation, we will show below that the problem with the pion
78: form factor \cite{AH04, Morse04} could not be solved by including
79: the charged Higgs contribution.
80:
81: The final two-pseudoscalar mesons in the decay
82: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ could have spin-parity number
83: $J^{P}=0^{+}$ or $1^{-}$. Conservation of the vector current (CVC)
84: however forbids the production of $0^+$ non-strange states, thus
85: the decay is expected to be dominated by the low-lying vector
86: resonance contributions at low energies \cite{CLEO00, PP01}. It is
87: known that, in the limit of exact isospin symmetry, CVC relates
88: properties of the $\pi^-\pi^0$ system produced in $\tau$ decay to
89: those of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ produced in the reaction
90: $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$, which implies the CVC relation
91: \beqn\label{CVC1}
92: \Frac{d\Gamma(\tau\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau)}{ds}=\Frac{3
93: \Gamma^{(0)}_e \cos^2\theta_C}{2\pi \alpha^2 m_\tau^2}s
94: (1-\frac{s}{m_\tau^2})^2(1+\frac{2s}{m_\tau^2})~\sigma_{e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-}(s)\eeqn
95: with $$\Gamma^{(0)}_{e}=\frac{G_F^2 m_\tau^5}{192\pi^3},\;\;\;
96: s=(p_{\pi^-}+p_{\pi^0})^2, $$ $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling
97: constant, and $\theta_C$ is the Cabibbo angle. By comparison of
98: $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-$ data and the $\tau\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$
99: data, one finds that the CVC relation (\ref{CVC1}) works very well
100: for the low $s$, except in the higher $s$ region \cite{CLEO00,
101: CVCdata, AH04}. It is thought that some of the discrepancy between
102: them may be understood by including the isospin symmetry breaking
103: effects \cite{DGJ}. However, it has been pointed out by A.
104: H\"ocker \cite{AH04}, corrections due to the isospin violation
105: from the SU(2)-breaking sources including the mass and width
106: differences of the charged and neutral $\rho(770)$ mesons, can
107: improve the agreement between $\tau$ and $e^+e^-$ data in the
108: $\rho$ peak region, while these cannot correct the discrepancy in
109: the tails, as shown in Fig. 1 of Ref. \cite{AH04}.
110:
111: More recently, the author of Ref. \cite{Morse04} proposed that the
112: scalar contribution through the interference with the vector part
113: could be up to the percent level at $s\simeq$ 1 GeV$^2$, which
114: may solve the above discrepancy. However, it will be shown below
115: this scalar type contribution has been overestimated in Ref.
116: \cite{Morse04}; but there is another interesting observable, the
117: angular distribution asymmetry, induced by the scalar contribution
118: in $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay. More interestingly, this
119: asymmetry may be enhanced in the 2HDM with large $\tan\beta$.
120:
121: The general scalar and pseudoscalar type interactions in
122: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay have been investigated by the
123: authors of Ref. \cite{TH93}, and the general invariant amplitude
124: for this decay, by assuming only left-handed neutrinos, can be
125: parameterized as \beqn\label{IA1}{\cal
126: M}=G_F\cos\theta_C~\left[F_V (p_{\pi^-}-p_{\pi^0})_\mu
127: \bar{u}(p_{\nu_\tau})\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)u(p_\tau)\right.\nonumber
128: \\\left.+F_S m_\tau \bar{u}(p_{\nu_\tau})(1+\gamma_5)u(p_\tau)\right],\eeqn
129: where $F_V$ is the vector form factor, and $F_S$ the scalar one.
130: It is straightforward to get the differential decay rate
131: \beqn\label{width1} \frac{d\Gamma(\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau)}{d
132: s}=\frac{\cos^2\theta_C\Gamma^{(0)}_e}{2m_\tau^2}\lambda^{1/2}(1,
133: m_{\pi^0}^2/s, m_{\pi^-}^2/s)
134: \left(1-\frac{s}{m_\tau^2}\right)\nonumber\\
135: \times \left\{|F_V|^2\left[\lambda(1,m_{\pi^0}^2/s, m_{\pi^-}^2/s
136: )\left(1+\frac{2s}{m_\tau^2}\right)+\frac{3(m_{\pi^-}^2-m_{\pi^0}^2)^2}{s^2}\right]\right.\nonumber\\
137: \left. +3|F_S|^2-6 {\rm Re}(F_V
138: F^*_S)\frac{m_{\pi^-}^2-m_{\pi^0}^2}{s}\right\},\eeqn where
139: $\lambda(a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^2-2 ab-2 bc-2 ca$. Since $F_S$ is very
140: small, in general one cannot expect the term proportional to
141: $|F_S|^2$ would give a significant contribution to $d\Gamma/d s$,
142: which should be below the percent level. It is easy to see that,
143: in the limit of the exact isospin symmetry $m_{\pi^-}=m_{\pi^0}$,
144: the interference term between the scalar and vector amplitudes in
145: eq. (\ref{width1}) will vanish. Using the experimental value,
146: $m_{\pi^-}-m_{\pi^0}=4.5936\pm 0.0005$ MeV \cite{pdg04}, we have
147: \beqn \frac{m_{\pi^-}^2-m_{\pi^0}^2}{s}\sim 10^{-3}\eeqn for
148: $s\simeq 1{\rm GeV}^2$. Therefore, contributions to $d\Gamma/d s$
149: from the scalar interaction cannot be expected to reach the
150: percent level in $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay, which thus
151: disagrees with the conclusion obtained in Ref. \cite{Morse04} [our
152: following analysis in the 2HDM can explicitly lead to this
153: conclusion by using eqs. (\ref{width1}), (\ref{FV}), (\ref{FS}),
154: and the limits (\ref{bound})]. On the other hand, one can expect
155: another interesting observable induced from the interference
156: between the scalar and vector interactions in this decay. It is
157: seen that, in the limit of $m_{\pi^-}=m_{\pi^0}$, the differential
158: decay rate in terms of $s$ and $\theta$, the angle between the
159: three-momentum of $\pi^-$ and the three-momentum of $\tau^-$ in
160: the $\pi^-\pi^0$ rest frame, can be written as
161: \beqn\label{width2}\frac{d^2\Gamma}{d s ~d\cos\theta}=\frac{3
162: \Gamma^{(0)}_e \cos^2\theta_C}{4
163: m_\tau^2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}}\left(1-\frac{s}{m_\tau^2}\right)^2\left\{|F_S|^2+|F_V|^2
164: \left(1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}\right)
165: \right.\nonumber\\
166: \left.
167: \times\left[\frac{s}{m_\tau^2}+\left(1-\frac{s}{m_\tau^2}\right)\cos^2\theta\right]+2
168: {\rm Re}(F_V
169: F_S^*)\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}}\cos\theta\right\},\eeqn and the
170: phase space is given by $$4 m_\pi^2\le s\le m_\tau^2,\;\;\;\;
171: -1\le\cos\theta\le 1 .$$ Note that the interference term between
172: $F_V$ and $F_S$ in eq. (\ref{width2}) is proportional to
173: $\cos\theta$, and will vanish after integrating over $\theta$ in
174: the full phase space, which is consistent with eq. (\ref{width1})
175: in the isospin limit. However, this term can lead to an angular
176: distribution asymmetry, which is defined as \beq\label{asym1}
177: {\cal A}(s)=\Frac{\int^1_0 \left(\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dsd\cos\theta}\right)d\cos\theta-\int^0_{-1}
178: \left(\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dsd\cos\theta}\right)d\cos\theta}{\int^1_0 \left(\frac{d^2\Gamma}
179: {dsd\cos\theta}\right)d\cos\theta+\int^0_{-1}
180: \left(\frac{d^2\Gamma}{dsd\cos\theta}\right)d\cos\theta}.\eeq
181: Thus together with eq. (\ref{width2}), we have \beq\label{asym2}
182: {\cal A
183: }(s)=\frac{3\Gamma^{(0)}_e\cos^2\theta_{C}}{2m_\tau^2}\left(1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}\right)
184: \left(1-\frac{s}{m^2_\tau}\right)^2{\rm Re}(F_V
185: F_S^*)\left(\frac{d\Gamma}{d s}\right)^{-1},\eeq where
186: \beq\label{width3}\frac{d\Gamma}{d s}=\frac{\Gamma^{(0)}_e
187: \cos^2\theta_{C}}{2m_\tau^2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}}\left(1-\frac{s}{m_\tau^2}\right)^2\nonumber\\
188: \left[|F_V|^2\left(1+\frac{2s}{m_\tau^2}\right)\left(1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}\right)+3
189: |F_S|^2 \right].\eeq
190:
191: It is known that, in the low energy region $\sqrt{s}\le 1$ GeV,
192: $F_V$ can be well described by the $\rho(770)$ meson dominance
193: \cite{CLEO00, PP01}, which reads
194: \beq\label{FV}F_V=\frac{m_\rho^2}{m_\rho^2-s-im_\rho\Gamma_\rho(s)}
195: \eeq with \beq \Gamma_\rho(s)=\frac{m_\rho s}{96\pi
196: f_\pi^2}\left\{\left({1-\frac{4m_\pi^2}{s}}\right)^{3/2}\theta(s-4m_\pi^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(1-
197: \frac{4m_K^2}{s}\right)^{3/2}\theta(s-4m_K^2) \right\}.\eeq
198: In order to get a significant asymmetry ${\cal A}(s)$ in
199: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay, a sizable contribution to
200: $F_S$ must be generated. Theoretically, $F_S$ in the SM is an
201: isospin symmetry breaking effect \cite{CEN01}. Experimentally
202: there is no $(\pi\pi)$ scalar resonance observed so far in this
203: low energy region of this decay \cite{Morse04} (future precise
204: experiments are expected but not available yet so far). Large mass
205: scalar particles in the high energy region may give contributions
206: to $F_S$, however, which in general will be strongly suppressed by
207: the inverse of their large mass squared. Therefore it seems
208: difficult to observe the scalar effects in this decay in the low
209: energy region both from $d\Gamma/d s$ and from ${\cal A}(s)$. This
210: situation may be changed in the 2HDM however, in which a
211: significant charged Higgs contribution to $F_S$ could be expected
212: with the large value of $\tan\beta$.
213:
214: In the minimal version of the SM only one Higgs doublet is
215: required, and a single physical neutral Higgs boson is left over
216: after spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking. The 2HDM is the
217: simplest extension of the SM with one extra Higgs doublet, which
218: contains three neutral and two charged Higgs bosons. To the
219: purpose of the present discussion, we shall work in the context of
220: the 2HDM of type II \cite{2HDM}, where two Higgs scalar doublets
221: ($H_u$ and $H_d$) are coupled separately to the right-handed
222: up-type quarks, and the right-handed down-type quarks and the
223: charged leptons. On the other hand, the 2HDM of type II is
224: particularly interesting being the Higgs sector of the minimal
225: supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) \cite{MSSM}. In this case,
226: flavor-changing neutral current amplitudes are naturally absent at
227: the tree level \cite{GW77}, however, it is possible to accommodate
228: large down-type Yukawa couplings, provided that the ratio
229: $v_u/v_d=\tan\beta$, where $v_{u(d)}$ is the vacuum expectation
230: value of the Higgs doublet $H_{u(d)}$, is large.
231: Phenomenologically, there has been considerable interest in the
232: large $\tan\beta$ effects in $B$ decays such as $B\to\mu^+\mu^-$
233: \cite{BS} due to the neutral Higgs contributions at the loop
234: level, as well as in the $\tau$ leptonic decays $\tau\to\ell
235: \nu_\ell \nu_\tau$ and semi-leptonic decays $\tau\to\pi/K
236: \nu_\tau$ due to the charged Higgs contributions starting from the
237: tree level \cite{tau}. The effects of the charged Higgs boson in
238: $\tau$ decays have also been studied in Ref. \cite{KP88}.
239:
240: \begin{figure}[t]
241: \begin{center}
242: \includegraphics[width=7cm,height=4cm]{fig1}
243: \end{center}
244: \caption{Tree-level Feynman diagram for the charged Higgs
245: contribution to $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay.}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248: The tree-level Yukawa interaction in the 2HDM of type II
249: (including the MSSM) can be written as \beq\label{yukuwa} {\cal
250: L}_Y=Y_d\bar{d}_RQ_L H_d+Y_u\bar{u}_RQ_L H_u+Y_L\bar{\ell}_R L
251: H_d+{\rm H.c.},\eeq where $Y_{u,d,\ell}$ are $3\times 3$ Yukawa
252: couplings matrices. Thus quarks and charged leptons together with
253: $W^\pm$ and $Z^0$ will get massive after spontaneous symmetry
254: breaking. Different from the SM case, now five physical Higgs
255: particles: two charged ones $H^\pm$ and three neutral ones $h^0$,
256: $H^0$, $A^0$, will be left over \cite{2HDM}. One can find that the
257: charged Higgs exchange will give the tree level contribution to
258: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay (we do not think loop
259: contributions can significantly change our conclusion since we are
260: only interested in the order-of-magnitude estimate in the present
261: calculation), which is \beq\label{tree} {\cal
262: L}^{H^\pm}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\cos\theta_C
263: \frac{m_\tau\tan^2\beta}{m_{H^\pm}^2}\bar{\nu_\tau}(1+\gamma_5)\tau\left[m_d
264: \bar{d}(1-\gamma_5)u+\frac{m_u}{\tan^2\beta}\bar{d}(1+\gamma_5)u
265: \right],\eeq and the corresponding Feynman diagram has been drawn
266: in Fig. 1. It is obvious that the scalar contribution to $F_S$
267: from the above ${\cal L}^{H^\pm}$ will be strongly suppressed by
268: $1/m^2_{H^\pm}$ for $m_{H^\pm}\sim O(\rm 10^2~GeV)$, which however
269: can be substantially compensated by large $\tan\beta$. In the
270: large $\tan\beta$ limit (so we can neglect the term proportional
271: to $m_u$), one has
272: \beq\label{FS}F_S=\frac{m_d\tan^2\beta}{m^2_{H^\pm}}\frac{m^2_\pi}{m_u+m_d}.\eeq
273: Unfortunately, at present there is no evidence for $m_{H^\pm}$
274: experimentally. From Ref. \cite{pdg04}, only the lower limit
275: $m_{H^\pm}> 79.3$ GeV is bounded, one can expect the possibility
276: of the significant $F_S$ for $\tan\beta\simeq 30\sim 50$. On the
277: other hand, some measurements have given the bounds on
278: $\tan\beta/m_{H^\pm}$ in the 2HDM of type II, which read
279: \beqn\label{bound} {m_{H^\pm}}>1.28~ \tan\beta~{\rm
280: GeV}~~~(95\%{\rm CL}),~\cite{OPAL03} \nonumber\\
281: {\tan\beta}/{m_{H^\pm}}<0.53~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~~~(95\%{\rm CL }),
282: ~\cite{OPAL01}\\
283: {\tan\beta}/{m_{H^\pm}}<0.40~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~~~(90\%{\rm CL
284: }).~\cite{ALEPH01}\nonumber
285: \eeqn
286: Using the above bounds and from eq. (\ref{FS}), we find that $F_S$
287: could be up to $10^{-3}$ in the 2HDM of type II with large
288: $\tan\beta$. Of course, this small value of $F_S$ could only give
289: the negligible contribution to $d\Gamma/d s$ defined in eq.
290: (\ref{width3}) or (\ref{width2}), however, it may lead to an
291: interesting angular distribution asymmetry ${\cal A}(s)$ in
292: $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ decay defined in eq. (\ref{asym2}).
293: To illustrate the order of the asymmetry ${\cal A}(s)$, we take
294: the most conservative bound listed in eq. (\ref{bound}),
295: $\tan\beta/m_{H^\pm}$=0.4 GeV$^{-1}$, and ${\cal A}(s)$ in the
296: range of 0.3 GeV$^2$$ \le s\le$ 1 GeV$^2$ has been plotted in Fig.
297: 2 (we are interested in the low energy region, in which the
298: contribution to $F_V$ is almost saturated by the $\rho(770)$
299: meson). It is seen that this differential asymmetry could be up to
300: $4\times 10^{-3}$ in the 2HDM of type II at large $\tan\beta$
301: without conflict with the present experimental constraints, which
302: may be detected in the future precise experiments in $\tau$-charm
303: factories. Note that ${\cal A}(s)$ defined in eq. (\ref{asym2}) is
304: proportional to ${\rm Re}(F_V F_S^*)$, and from eq. (\ref{FV}),
305: \beq {\rm
306: Re}(F_V)=\frac{m_\rho^2(m_\rho^2-s)}{(m_\rho^2-s)^2+m_\rho^2\Gamma^2_\rho(s)},\eeq
307: which vanishes for $s=m_\rho^2$, thus the sign of the differential
308: asymmetry will be changed (as shown in Fig. 2), and the integrated
309: asymmetry over $s$ is not very significant.
310:
311: \begin{figure}[t]
312: \begin{center}
313: \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=9cm]{fig2}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{ The differential angular distribution asymmetry ${\cal
316: A}(s)$ for 0.3 GeV$^2$$ \le s\le$ 1 GeV$^2$ with
317: $\tan\beta/m_{H^\pm}=0.4$ GeV$^{-1}$.}
318: \end{figure}
319:
320: We have analyzed the decay of $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$ by
321: considering possible scalar type interactions. We find that the
322: inclusion of scalar type interactions cannot still explain the
323: present discrepancy from the data between
324: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-)$ and
325: $d\Gamma(\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau)/ds$ if it really exists,
326: which disagrees with the conclusion obtained in Ref.
327: \cite{Morse04}. However, scalar type interactions can lead to an
328: angular distribution asymmetry in $\tau^-\to\pi^-\pi^0\nu_\tau$
329: decay. Interestingly, due to the charged Higgs contribution in the
330: 2HDM of type II with large $\tan\beta$, present experimental
331: constraints allows that the differential asymmetry ${\cal A}(s)$
332: could be up to $4\times 10^{-3}$, thus it is expected that the
333: future precise measurements of this asymmetry may either help to
334: search for the signal of the charged Higgs boson or impose the
335: significant bound on it.
336:
337: \vspace{0.5cm}
338: \section*{Acknowledgements}
339: The author wishes to thank W.M. Morse for very helpful
340: communications. This work was supported in part by the National
341: Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 10275059 and
342: supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
343:
344: \begin{thebibliography}{40}
345: \bibitem{Mar95}W.J. Marciano, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 40},
346: 3 (1995).
347: \bibitem{Pich97}A. Pich, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. {\bf 15}, 453 (1998)
348: [hep-ph/9704453]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 15S1}, 157 (2000) [hep-ph/9912294].
349: \bibitem{Gan01}K.K. Gan, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 98}, 397
350: (2001).
351: \bibitem{Nelson96}C.A. Nelson, hep-ph/9611245; Nucl. Phys. B (Proc.
352: Suppl.) {\bf 55C}, 277 (1997).
353: \bibitem{AH04}A. H\"ocker, hep-ph/0410081.
354: \bibitem{Morse04}W.M. Morse, hep-ph/0410062.
355: \bibitem{CLEO00}S. Anderson {\it et. al.}, CLEO Collaboration,
356: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 112002 (2000).
357: \bibitem{PP01}A. Pich and J. Portol\'es, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63},
358: 093005 (2001).
359: \bibitem{CVCdata}M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. H\"ocker, and Z.
360: Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 27}, 497 (2003); Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf
361: 31}, 503 (2003).
362: \bibitem{DGJ}M. Davier, hep-ex/0312064, hep-ex/0312065; S. Ghozzi and F.
363: Jegerlehner, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 583}, 222 (2004).
364: \bibitem{TH93}H. Thurn and H. Kolanoski, Z. Phys. C {\bf 60}, 277
365: (1993).
366: \bibitem{pdg04}S. Eidelman {\it et. al.}, Particle Data Group, Phys.
367: Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
368: \bibitem{CEN01}V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld, Phys.
369: Lett. B {\bf 513}, 361 (2001).
370: \bibitem{2HDM}J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, and S. Dawson,
371: {\it The Higgs hunter's guide}, Report No. SCIPP-89-13.
372: \bibitem{MSSM}H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110}, 1 (1984);
373: H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985); S.P.
374: Martin, hep-ph/9709356.
375: \bibitem{GW77}S. L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
376: 15}, 1958 (1977).
377: \bibitem{BS}S.R. Choudhury and N. Gaur, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 451}, 86 (1999);
378: K.S. Babu and C. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 228 (2000);
379: P.H. Chankowski, L. Slawianowska, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 054012
380: (2001); C.S. Huang, Liao Wei, Q.S. Yan, and S.H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D
381: {\bf 63}, 114021 (2001); C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Kruger, and J.
382: Urban, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 074014 (2001), Phys. Rev. D {\bf
383: 66}, 074021 (2002); C.S. Huang and Liao Wei, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
384: 525}, 107 (2002), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 538}, 301 (2002); G. Isidori
385: and A. Retico, J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 11}, 001 (2001), J. High
386: Energy Phys. {\bf 09}, 063 (2002); G. D'Ambrosio, G. Giudice, G.
387: Isidori, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B645}, 155 (2002); A.J.
388: Buras, P.H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek, and L. Slawianowska, Phys.
389: Lett. B {\bf 546}, 96 (2002), Nucl. Phys. {\bf B659}, 3 (2003); A.
390: Dedes, Mod. Phys. Lett. A {\bf 18}, 2627 (2003); G.L. Kane, C.
391: Kolda, and J. E. Lennon, hep-ph/0310042; S. Baek, Phys. Lett. B
392: {\bf 595}, 461 (2004).
393: \bibitem{tau}W. Hollik and T. Sack, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 284}, 427 (1992);
394: P.H. Chankowski, R. Hempfling, and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
395: 333}, 403 (1994); A. Stahl and H. Voss, Z. Phys. C {\bf 74}, 73
396: (1997); M.T. Dova, J. Swain, and L. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58},
397: 015005 (1998); W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 093006
398: (1999); S. Towers, hep-ex/0004022; M. Krawczyk and D. Temes,
399: hep-ph/0410248.
400: \bibitem{KP88} P. Krawczyk and S. Pokorski, Phys.
401: Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 182 (1988).
402: \bibitem{OPAL03}G. Abbiendi {\it et. al.}, OPAL Colloboration,
403: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 551}, 35 (2003).
404: \bibitem{OPAL01}G. Abbiendi {\it et. al.}, OPAL Colloboration,
405: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 520}, 1 (2001).
406: \bibitem{ALEPH01}R. Barate {\it et. al.}, ALEPH Colloboration, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf
407: 19}, 213 (2001).
408: \end{thebibliography}
409: \end{document}
410: