1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,epsf,feynarts,color]{article}
2: %\usepackage{a4wide,feynarts,amsmath,amssymb,graphicx,psfrag}
3: %\documentclass[a4paper,12pt,epsf,feynarts,colordvi,fancybox,color]{report}
4: \textheight 220mm
5: \textwidth 160mm
6: \topmargin -8mm
7: \oddsidemargin 0mm
8: \evensidemargin 0mm
9: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
10: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
11: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
12: % new definitions, abreviations, etc
13: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
14: \newcommand{\msqav}{\mbox{$\langle m_{\tilde{q}} \rangle$}}
15: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
16: \newcommand{\ee}{e^+e^-}
17: \newcommand{\s}{\\ \vspace*{-4mm}}
18: \newcommand{\sh}{\\ \hspace*{-4mm}}
19: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}
20: \newcommand{\nn}{\noindent}
21: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
22: \newcommand{\mst}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{t}}$}}
23: \newcommand{\stp}{{\widetilde{t}}}
24: \newcommand{\msbot}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{t}}$}}
25: \newcommand{\sbot}{\mbox{\widetilde{b}}}
26: \newcommand{\schi}{\widetilde{\chi}}
27: \newcommand{\msi}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{q}_i}$}}
28: \newcommand{\msj}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{q}_j}$}}
29: \newcommand{\mso}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{q}_1}$}}
30: %\newcommand{\mst}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{q}_2}$}}
31: \newcommand{\mg}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{g}}$}}
32: \newcommand{\mch}{\mbox{$m_{\widetilde{\chi_{i}^+}}$}}
33: \newcommand{\Li}{\mbox{{\rm Li}$_2$}}
34: \newcommand{\is}{2I_q^{3L}}
35: \newcommand{\g}{\mbox{$\widetilde{g}$}}
36: \newcommand{\heta}{{\theta}_f}
37: \newcommand{\ct}{\cos^2\theta}
38: \newcommand{\st}{\sin^2\theta}
39: \newcommand{\stst}{\sin\theta_{\widetilde{t}}}
40: \newcommand{\ctst}{\cos\theta_{\widetilde{t}}}
41: \newcommand{\stsb}{\sin\theta_{\widetilde{b}}}
42: \newcommand{\ctsb}{\cos\theta_{\widetilde{b}}}
43: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote} }
44: \def\beq {\begin{equation}}
45: \def\eeq {\end{equation}}
46: \def\bec {\begin{center}}
47: \def\ec {\end{center}}
48: \def\sq {\widetilde q}
49: \def\a {\alpha}
50: \def\b {\beta}
51: \def\mV {m_{\!V}}
52: \def\sqi {\widetilde q_{i}^{}}
53: \begin{document}
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55: \begin{flushright}
56: LPHEA-04-04\\
57: December 2004 \\
58: \end{flushright}
59:
60: \vspace*{0.6cm}
61: \begin{center}
62: {\large{ {\bf Third generation sfermions decays
63: into $Z$ and $W$ gauge bosons:
64: full one--loop analysis}}}
65:
66: \vspace{1.5cm}
67: Abdesslam Arhrib$^{1,2}$ and Rachid Benbrik$^2$
68: \\
69: 1 D\'epartement de Math\'ematiques, Facult\'e des Sciences et Techniques\\
70: B.P 416 Tanger, Morocco.\\
71: 2 LPHEA, D\'epartement de Physique, Facult\'e des Sciences-Semlalia,\\
72: B.P. 2390 Marrakech, Morocco.\\
73: \end{center}
74: $\ $
75: \\
76: \\
77:
78: \begin{abstract}
79: The complete one--loop radiative corrections to third generation scalar
80: fermions into gauge bosons $Z$ and $W^\pm$ is considered. We focus on
81: $\wt{f}_2 \to Z \wt{f}_1$ and $\wt{f}_i \to W^\pm \wt{f}_j^\prime$,
82: $f,f^\prime =t,b$. We include both SUSY-QCD, QED and full
83: electroweak corrections. It is found that the electroweak corrections
84: can be of the same order as the SUSY-QCD corrections.
85: The two sets of corrections
86: interfere destructively in some region of parameter space.
87: The full one loop correction can reach 10\% in some SUGRA scenario,
88: while in model independent analysis like general MSSM,
89: the one loop correction can reach 20\% for large
90: $\tan\beta$ and large trilinear soft breaking terms $A_b$.
91:
92:
93:
94: \end{abstract}
95: \newpage
96: \section{Introduction}
97: \label{sec:1}
98:
99:
100: Supersymmetric theories predict the existence of scalar partners
101: to all known quarks and
102: leptons \cite{susy}. In Grand unified SUSY models, the third generation of
103: scalar fermions, $\wt{t}, \wt{b}, \wt{\tau}$, gets a special status;
104: due to the influence of Yukawa-coupling evolution,
105: the light scalar fermions of the third generation are expected to be lighter
106: than the scalar fermions of the first and second generations.
107: For the same reason, the splitting between the physical masses
108: of the third generation may be large enough to allow the opening of the decay
109: channels like : $\wt{f}_2 \to \wt{f}_1 V$ and/or $\wt{f}_2 \to \wt{f}_1 \Phi $,
110: where $V$ is a gauge boson and $\Phi$ is a scalar boson.
111:
112: Until now there is no direct evidence for SUSY particles,
113: and under some assumptions on their
114: decay rates, one can only set lower limits on their masses \cite{CDF}.
115: It is expected that the next generation of $e^+e^-$ machines and/or
116: hadron colliders (LHC and Tevatron)
117: could establish the first evidence for the existence of SUSY particles.
118: Typically, scalar quarks can be produced copiously both at hadron
119: and lepton colliders. They can in principle be discovered at future
120: hadron colliders (LHC) up to masses in the
121: 1-2 TeV range while sleptons would become invisible to LHC if heavier
122: than $\sim 250$ GeV or so \cite{slep}, due to their weak coupling
123: and a prominent background.
124:
125: If SUSY particles would be detected at hadron colliders,
126: their properties can be studied with high accuracy at a
127: high-energy linear $e^+ e^-$ collider~\cite{LC}.
128: It is thus mandatory to incorporate effects beyond leading order
129: into the theoretical predictions, both for production and decay rate,
130: in order to match the experimental accuracy.\\
131: In this spirit,
132: the next-to-leading order corrections to squark-pair
133: production at proton colliders have been studied theoretically
134: in \cite{DESY} and found to increase the cross section.
135: For $\ee$ machines,
136: scalar-fermion production has been addressed in
137: several studies and shown to be promising for
138: precision analysis of sfermion
139: properties with mass and mixing-angle reconstructions~\cite{LC,S.SU}.
140: SUSY-QCD corrections to squark-pair production
141: at $\ee$ annihilation were shown, a decade ago, to be large
142: \cite{ACD,helmut1}.
143: Recently, the full one-loop radiative corrections to
144: the production of scalar muons,
145: scalar electrons (near threshold) \cite{freitas}, and third generation
146: scalar fermions $\wt{t}, \wt{b}, \wt{\tau}$ \cite{helmut2,ah}
147: have been addressed.
148: For squark pair production at $e^+e^-$,
149: the leading and subleading electroweak
150: Sudakov logarithms were investigated~\cite{claudio1}
151: and found to be large at high energy. \\
152: Similar studies have been carried out for the decays of SUSY particles.
153: In particular, the QCD corrections to scalar quark decay into quarks plus
154: charginos or neutralinos have been studied in \cite{gh1}, while
155: the full one loop analysis has been addressed in \cite{gh2} and found to
156: have important impact on the partial decay widths of scalar fermions.
157: In Ref.~\cite{DHAJ}, the QCD corrections to the decays of heavy
158: scalar quarks into light scalar quarks and Higgs bosons
159: are found to be of the order $10 \to 20$ \%.
160:
161:
162: Obviously, most of the studies concentrated on the
163: production and decay of light states $\wt{t}_1, \wt{b}_1$ and
164: $\wt{\tau}_1$, while heavier states received less attention
165: \cite{ah,gh2,DHAJ,9701336}.
166: These heavy states can be produced both at LHC and/or at the
167: future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders.
168: The decay of the heavier states third generation scalar fermions
169: is more complicated than the light one. One can basically have four set
170: of two-body decays:\\
171: i) Strong decay for stop and sbottom
172: $\wt{t}_2\to t \wt{g}$, $\wt{b}_2 \to b \wt{g}$ :
173: if these decay are kinematically open they are the dominant one.\\
174: ii)
175: decay to chargino and neutralino : $\wt{f}_2\to f \wt{\chi}_i^0$,
176: $\wt{f}_2\to f^\prime \wt{\chi}_i^+$.\\
177: If the splitting between light and heavy third generation scalar fermions
178: is large enough we may have the following decays:\\
179: iii) $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f}_1 \Phi^0$,
180: $\Phi^0=h^0,H^0,A^0$, and $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f^\prime}_1 H^\pm$.\\
181: iv) $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f}_1 Z^0$ and $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f^\prime}_1 W^\pm$.\\
182:
183:
184: It has been shown in \cite{qcdv} that the decay modes
185: $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f}_1 Z^0$ and $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f^\prime}_j W$,
186: if open and under some assumptions, may be the dominant one.
187: Ref.~\cite{qcdv} also evaluate the gueniun SUSY-QCD corrections
188: and found them to be of the order -5\% $\to$ -10\%.\\
189: Note also that in several benchmarks scenarios
190: for SUSY searches, the bosonic decay of $\wt{t}_i$ and $\wt{b}_i$
191: may be the dominant \cite{SPS}. For example, in SPS5 scenario
192: the dominant bosonic decay have the following branching ratios \cite{SPSd}:
193: $Br(\wt{b}_{1}\to W^- \wt{t}_1)=81\%$,
194: $Br(\wt{b}_{2}\to W^- \wt{t}_1)=64\%$ and
195: $Br(\wt{t}_{2}\to Z^0\wt{t}_1)=61\%$. While in SPS1 scenario,
196: we have: $Br(\wt{b}_{2}\to W^- \wt{t}_1)=34\%$ and
197: $Br(\wt{t}_{2}\to Z^0\wt{t}_1)=23\%$.
198:
199:
200: It is the purpose of this paper to provide the complete one loop radiative
201: corrections to $\wt{f}_2\to \wt{f}_1 Z^0$ and $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f^\prime}_j W$
202: including real photon emission, and discuss their effects
203: in combination with the SUSY-QCD corrections. \\
204:
205:
206: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section,
207: we will first set the notations and give the tree-level results.
208: Section 3 outlines the calculations and
209: the on-shell renormalization scheme we will use.
210: In section 4, we will discuss the
211: effects of radiative corrections
212: for various types of sfermions decays,
213: and we end by a short conclusion in section 5.
214:
215: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
216: \section {Notations and Tree--level formulae}
217: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
218:
219: First we summarize the MSSM parameters needed in our analysis,
220: with particular attention given to the sfermion sector.
221: In the MSSM, the sfermion sector is specified by the mass matrix in
222: the basis $(\widetilde{f}_L^{},\widetilde{f}_R^{})$. In terms of
223: the scalar mass $\widetilde{M}_L$, $\widetilde{M}_R$,
224: the Higgs-Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$ and
225: the soft SUSY-breaking trilinear coupling $A_f$, the sfermion mass
226: matrices squared reads as:
227: %
228: \begin{equation}
229: {\cal M}^2_{\widetilde{f}}=
230: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
231: m_f^2 + m_{LL}^2 & m_{LR} m_f \\
232: m_{LR} m_f & m_f^2 + m_{RR}^2
233: \end{array} \right) \label{eq1}
234: \end{equation}
235: with
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: m_{LL}^2 &=& \widetilde{M}_{L}^2
238: + m_Z^2\cos 2\beta\,( I_3^f - Q_f s_W^2 ) ,\\
239: m_{RR}^2 & = & \widetilde{M}_{R}^2
240: + m_Z^2 \cos 2\beta\, Q_f s_W^2 , \label{eq:c} \\[2mm]
241: m_{LR} &=&
242: (A_f - \mu\ (\tan\beta)^{-2I_3^f}) \,\, . \label{eq:d}
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: %
245: $I_3^f=\pm 1/2$ and $Q_f$ are the weak isospin and the electric charge of
246: the sfermion $\widetilde{f}$ and $\tan\beta = \frac{v_2}{v_1}$ with
247: $v_1$, $v_2$ being the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs fields.
248:
249: The hermitian matrix eq.~(\ref{eq1}) is then diagonalized by
250: a unitarity matrix
251: $R_{{\widetilde{f}}}$, which rotates the current eigenstates,
252: ${\widetilde{f}}_L$ and ${\widetilde{f}}_R$, into the mass
253: eigenstates $\widetilde{f}_1$ and $\widetilde{f}_2$ as follows:
254: %
255: \begin{equation}
256: \left( \begin{array}{c}
257: {\widetilde{f}}_1 \\
258: {\widetilde{f}}_2
259: \end{array} \right) = R_{{\widetilde{f}}}
260: \left( \begin{array}{c}
261: {\widetilde{f}}_L \\
262: {\widetilde{f}}_R
263: \end{array} \right) =
264: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
265: \cos{{\theta}_f} &
266: \sin{{\theta}_f} \\
267: - \sin{\theta}_f &
268: \cos{\theta}_f
269: \end{array} \right)
270: \left( \begin{array}{c}
271: {\widetilde{f}}_L \\
272: {\widetilde{f}}_R
273: \end{array} \right) \label{eqe}
274: \end{equation}
275: %
276: where ${\theta}_f$ is the mixing angle such as :
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: \tan 2 {\theta}_f =\frac{2 m_{LR}m_f }{m_{LL}^2 -m_{RR}^2 } \ \ .
279: \label{mixing}
280: \end{eqnarray}
281:
282: The mixing angle $\heta$ is proportional to the mass of the fermion
283: $f$. In the case of the supersymmetric partners of the light fermions, the
284: mixing between the
285: current eigenstates can therefore be neglected.
286: However, mixing between top squarks can be
287: sizeable and allows one of the two mass eigenstates
288: to be much lighter than the top quark. Bottom squark and tau slepton
289: mixing can also be significant if $\tan\beta$ is large.
290:
291: The physical masses, with the convention:
292: $m_{{\widetilde{f}}_{1}} < m_{{\widetilde{f}}_{2}}$, are given by
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: m_{{\widetilde{f}}_{1,2}}^2 &=& m_f^2 + \frac{1}{2}(m_{LL}^2 + m_{RR}^2
295: \mp \sqrt{ (m_{LL}^2 - m_{RR}^2)^2 + 4 m_{LR}^2 m_f^2 })\ .
296: \label{mass}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298:
299: The sfermions sector can be parameterized either by the original
300: parameters in the Lagrangian or by the physical masses $m_{\wt{f}_i}=m_i$
301: and mixing angle $\heta$. Since we are computing radiative corrections
302: in an on-shell scheme, we will take the following set of physical parameters:
303: $$ m_{\wt{t}_2}, m_{\wt{b}_1} m_{\wt{b}_2}, {\theta}_t, {\theta}_b$$
304: together with $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$.
305: Once those parameters are fixed, the light stop mass
306: can be derived using the mass sum rule \cite{9701336} as follows:
307: \begin{eqnarray}
308: m_{\wt{t}_1}^2=\frac{1}{\cos^2 {\theta}_t}
309: ( m_W^2\cos 2\beta -m_{\wt{t}_2}^2 \sin^2 {\theta}_t +
310: m_{\wt{b}_2}^2 \sin^2 {\theta}_b + m_{\wt{b}_1}^2
311: \cos^2 {\theta}_b +m_t^2 - m_b^2)\label{mass1}
312: \end{eqnarray}
313: Of course, eq.~(\ref{mass1}) receive one-loop radiative correction
314: which we are not included in this analysis. However, it has been shown in
315: \cite{thomas2} that the one-loop corrections can shift the tree level mass
316: by less than $\la 10$ GeV.
317:
318: The soft supersymmetry breaking parameters $A_f$ are then
319: connected to the previous ones through:
320: \beq
321: A_f=\mu (\tan\beta)^{-2I_f} + \frac{m_{\wt{f}_1}^2 - m_{\wt{f}_2}^2}{m_f}
322: \sin {\theta}_f\cos{\theta}_f \label{af}
323: \eeq
324: When varying the SUSY parameters, we have to be careful
325: that charge and color minima do not appear.
326: To avoid such minima at tree level, $A_f$ has to satisfy the
327: following tree level conditions \cite{ccb} :
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: & & A_t^2 < 3 ( m_{\wt{t}_1}^2 + m_{\wt{t}_2}^2 +
330: \frac{1}{2}\cos 2\beta m_Z^2-2 m_t^2 + M_{H_2}^2+ \mu^2 )\nonumber\\
331: & & A_b^2 < 3 ( m_{\wt{b}_1}^2 + m_{\wt{b}_2}^2 +
332: \frac{1}{2}\cos 2\beta m_Z^2-2 m_b^2 + M_{H_1}^2+ \mu^2 )\nonumber\\
333: & & A_{\tau}^2 < 3 ( m_{\wt{\tau}_1}^2 + m_{\wt{\tau}_2}^2 +
334: \frac{1}{2}\cos 2\beta m_Z^2-2 m_{\tau}^2 + M_{H_1}^2+ \mu^2 )
335: \end{eqnarray}
336: With $M_{H_2}^2=(m_A^2+m_Z^2)\cos^2\beta-1/2 m_Z^2$ and
337: $M_{H_1}^2=(m_A^2+m_Z^2)\sin^2\beta-1/2 m_Z^2$.
338: For numerical check of CCB as well as $b\to s \gamma $ constraint,
339: we have used Suspect and Sdecay codes \cite{sdecay1,sdecay2}.
340:
341:
342: The interaction of the neutral gauge bosons $\gamma$ and $Z$
343: with the sfermion mass eigenstates is described by the Lagrangian
344: \begin{eqnarray}
345: {\cal L}& = &
346: -i e A^\mu \sum_{i=1,2} Q_f \widetilde{f}_i^*
347: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
348: \widetilde{f}_i - i g_s G_a^\mu \sum_{i=1,2} T^a \widetilde{f}_i^*
349: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
350: \widetilde{f}_i + \nonumber\\
351: & & i Z^\mu \sum_{i,j=1,2} g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}
352: \widetilde{f}_i^* \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu \widetilde{f}_j
353: +i W^\mu \sum_{i,j=1,2} g_{W\wt{f}_i \wt{f}^\prime_j}
354: \widetilde{f}_i^* \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
355: \widetilde{f^\prime}_j
356: \label{lag}
357: \end{eqnarray}
358: with
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: & & g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}= -\frac{e}{s_Wc_W} \{
361: (I_3^f -Q_f s_W^2) R_{j1}^{\wt{f}} R_{i1}^{\wt{f}} -
362: Q_f s_W^2 R_{j2}^{\wt{f}} R_{i2}^{\wt{f}}
363: \} \nonumber\\
364: & & g_{W{\widetilde{f}_i}\widetilde{f^\prime}_{j}} =
365: -\frac{e}{\sqrt{2}s_{W}}R_{i1}^{f}R_{j1}^{f'}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367:
368: The tree--level decay width can thus be written as:
369: \beq
370: \Gamma^{0} (\sq^\a_i \to \sq^\b_{j} V) =
371: \frac{ ( g_{V \wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j} )^2\, \kappa^3 (m_i^2, m_j^2, \mV^2)
372: }{ 16\pi\, \mV^2\, m_i^3 } ,
373: \label{tree}
374: \eeq
375: with $\kappa (x,y,z) = (x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}-2xy-2xz-2yz)^{1/2}$.
376:
377:
378: \section{Radiative corrections}
379: \subsection{Scalar fermions decay into gauge bosons at one loop}
380:
381: The Feynman diagrams for the one-loop virtual contributions
382: are generically displayed in
383: (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{1,\ldots,10}$).
384: These diagrams are to be supplemented by the external
385: self-energy contributions for
386: gauge bosons and scalar fermions $\wt{f}_{i,j}$ (Fig.~\ref{self}),
387: which are part of the counter-term for vertices
388: (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{11}$), to be added according to renormalization.
389: In the generic notation, $V,S,F$ denote all insertions of vector,
390: scalar, and fermionic states.
391:
392:
393: At one loop level, transitions between gauge bosons and scalar bosons
394: like $W^\pm$-$H^\pm$, $W^\pm$-$G^\pm$, $Z^0$-$A^0$, $Z^0$-$G^0$ are present.
395: Owing to Lorentz invariance, those mixing are proportional to
396: $p_V^\mu$ momentum; then since the vector gauge bosons $W$ and $Z$ are
397: on-shell transverse, those transitions vanish. In what follows we will
398: ignore vector-scalar boson mixing.
399:
400: %------------------------------------
401: \begin{figure}[t!]
402: \begin{center}
403: \vspace{-2.1cm}
404: \input{vert.tex}
405: \vspace{-7cm}
406: \caption{Generic vertex contributions to
407: $\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j^* V$}
408: \label{vert}
409: \end{center}
410: \end{figure}
411: %------------------------------------------
412: \begin{figure}[t!]
413: \vspace{-2.6cm}
414: \begin{center}
415: \input{self.tex}
416: \vspace{-13cm}
417: \caption{ Generic Feynman diagrams for
418: Scalar fermions self-energies $\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j$ }
419: \label{self}
420: \end{center}
421: \end{figure}
422: %-----------------------------------------
423:
424:
425: The full set of Feynman diagrams are generated and evaluated
426: using the packages
427: FeynArts and FormCalc~\cite{FA}. We have also used
428: LoopTools and FF~\cite{FF} in the numerical analysis.
429:
430:
431: We have evaluated the one-loop amplitudes in
432: the 't Hooft--Feynman gauge.
433: The one-loop amplitudes are ultraviolet (UV)
434: and infrared (IR) divergent.
435: The UV singularities are treated by dimensional
436: reduction \cite{siegel}
437: and are compensated
438: in the on-shell renormalization scheme.
439: We have checked explicitly
440: that the results are identical in using dimensional
441: reduction and dimensional regularization.
442: The IR singularities are regularized with a
443: small fictitious photon mass $\delta$.
444:
445:
446: In case of $\wt{f}_2 \to Z \wt{f}_1$ decay,
447: diagrams like (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_5$) with $V=\gamma$ or $V=gluon$
448: and diagram (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{11}$)
449: are IR divergent. In (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{11}$) the IR divergence
450: comes from the wave function renormalization of the scalar fermions.
451: While for $\wt{f}_2 \to W \wt{f^\prime}_1$ decay,
452: diagrams like (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{3,...,6}$) and
453: (Fig.~\ref{vert})($v_{11}$) $V=\gamma$ or $V=gluon$ are IR divergent,
454: for an IR-finite decay width we have to add
455: the contribution from real-photon and real-gluon emission,
456: $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j^* V \gamma$ and $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j^* V g$ .
457: %------------------------------------------
458: \begin{figure}[t!]
459: \vspace{-4.9cm}
460: \begin{center}
461: \input{bremw.tex}
462: \vspace{-9.5cm}
463: \caption{Feynman diagrams for real photon (or gluon) emission for in the
464: final state of $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j V \gamma $
465: (or $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j V g $). In case of
466: $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j' W \gamma $ all diagrams $b_{1,...,5}$
467: contribute, while for $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j Z \gamma $ only
468: $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ contribute. In case of QCD brenstrahlung both for
469: $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j' W g $ and $\wt{f}_i\to \wt{f}_j Z g $ only
470: $b_1$, $b_2$ and $b_3$ diagrams contribute. }
471: \label{brem}
472: \end{center}
473: \end{figure}
474: %-----------------------------------------
475:
476: %--------------------------------
477: \subsection{Real gluon emission}
478: %--------------------------------
479: In order to cancel the infrared divergence coming from virtual gluon,
480: the real corrections with an additional gluon in the final state need
481: also to be included. Feynman diagrams contributing to
482: $\delta\Gamma_{g}^{br} = \Gamma(\sq_i \to \sq_j\,V\,g)$ are
483: drawn in (Fig.\ref{brem}){($b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$)}.
484: We would like to mention first, that in the present case and in
485: all the following cases, we have checked that the gauge invariance
486: is satisfied.\\
487: The three body phase space integration is performed
488: following Ref.~\cite{Denner}, which yields a width\footnote{In the
489: above eq.~(\ref{glu}), we found that the numerical factor in front of
490: $I$ integral is 3 in stead of 2 in ref.\cite{qcdv}.
491: This disagreement does not affect the numerical result at all.}:
492: \beq
493: \delta\Gamma^{br}_{g}
494: = \frac{g_{V\wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j}^2\,\a_s}{4\pi^2 m_i} \frac{4}{3}\:\left\{
495: 3 I - \frac{\kappa^2}{m_V^2}
496: \left[\, I_0 + I_1 + m_i^2\,I_{00} + m_j^2\,I_{11}
497: + (m_i^2 + m_j^2 - m_V^2)\,I_{01} \right]
498: \right\} .\label{glu}
499: \eeq
500: where, $\kappa = \kappa(m_i^2,\,m_j^2,\,m_V^2)$, $\alpha_s$ is the
501: strong coupling constant.
502: The phase space integrals $I$, $I_{n}$, and $I_{nm}$
503: have $(m_i, m_j, m_V)$ as arguments.
504: Their explicit forms are given in \cite{Denner}.
505: %-----------------------------------------------------
506: \subsection{Real photon emission}
507: %------------------------------------------------------
508: As in the case of gluon, the infrared divergence coming from virtual photon
509: cancels out by including real (soft and hard) photon emission in the
510: final state.
511: The diagrams contributing to real bremsstrahlung of
512: $\widetilde{f}_i \to \widetilde{f}_j\,Z$ are depicted in
513: (Fig.\ref{brem}){($b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$)}.
514:
515:
516: In case of $\widetilde{f}_i \to \widetilde{f}_j\,Z\,\gamma$,
517: the width can be deduced from the gluon bremsstrahlung
518: eq.~(\ref{glu}) just by replacing $\alpha_s$ in eq.~(\ref{glu})
519: by $\alpha$, eliminating the QCD factor $\frac{4}{3}$
520: and multiplying by the square of scalar fermion charges $e_f^2$.
521: The width $\delta\Gamma_{\gamma}^{br} = \Gamma(\sq_i \to
522: \sq_j\,Z\,\gamma)$
523: is given by
524: \begin{eqnarray}
525: \delta\Gamma^{br}_{\gamma}
526: & =&\frac{g_{Z\wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j}^2\,\a}{4\pi^2 m_i}e_f^2\:\left\{
527: 3 I - \frac{\kappa^2}{m_Z^2}
528: \left[\, I_0 + I_1 + m_i^2\,I_{00} + m_j^2\,I_{11}
529: + (m_i^2 + m_j^2 - m_Z^2)\,I_{01} \right]
530: \right\} .\label{phot}
531: \end{eqnarray}
532: where $e_d = -\frac{1}{3}$ for down squark and
533: $e_{u} = \frac{2}{3}$ for up squark.
534: \\
535: Finally, for the Bremsstrahlung $\widetilde{f}_i \to
536: \widetilde{f}^\prime_j\, W \gamma$ ,
537: the Feynman diagrams are drawn in (Fig.\ref{brem}){$b_{1,\ldots,5}$}.
538: The decay width is more involving and is given by
539:
540:
541: \begin{eqnarray}
542: \delta\Gamma^{br}_{\gamma}
543: & =&\frac{g_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}^2\,\a}{4\pi^2 m_i}\:\Big\{
544: \frac{3}{4}(e_{f'} + e_f)^2 I -
545: \frac{\kappa^2}{m_W^2}\Big[\,\frac{1}{2}e_{f}(e_{f'} + e_{f})I_{0}
546: + \frac{1}{2}e_{f'}(e_{f'} + e_{f})I_{1}\nonumber\\
547: &+& e_{f}^{2}m_{i}^{2}I_{00}+
548: e_{f'}^{2}m_{j}^{2}I_{11}+e_{f}e_{f'}(m_i^2 + m_j^2 -
549: m_W^2)I_{01}\Big]\Big\}
550: \nonumber\\ &+&\frac{\alpha}{8\pi^2 m_{i}}\Big\{3(e_f +
551: e_{f'})\Big\{g^2_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}(-m^2_j + m^{2}_i)+
552: g_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}g_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}\Big\}I_{2}\nonumber \\
553: &-&
554: \frac{1}{2}\Big\{ g^2_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}(\kappa^2 +
555: 3m_{W}^2(1-2m_{i}^2-2m_j^2))\nonumber\\ &-&
556: 6g_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}g_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}(-m_j^2 +
557: m_i^2) - 3g^{2}_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}\Big\}I_{22}\nonumber\\
558: &-&
559: \frac{\kappa^2}{m_W^2}e_{f}\Big
560: \{g^2_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}(m_i^2 - m_j^2 + 2m_{W}^2)+
561: g_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}g_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j}\Big\}I_{02}
562: \nonumber\\ &-& \frac{\kappa^2}{m_W^2}e_{f'}\Big
563: \{g^2_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}( - m_i^2 +
564: m_j^2 + 2m_{W}^2)+ g_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i
565: \wt{f^\prime}_j}g_{W^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j}\Big\}I_{12}\Big\}
566: \end{eqnarray}
567: with
568: \begin{eqnarray}
569: g_{G^{\pm}\wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j} &=&\frac{g}{
570: \sqrt{2}}((m^2_{W}c_{2\b}+ m_f^2 - m_{f'}^2
571: )R_{i1}^{f}R_{j1}^{f'} + m_{f'}(\mu \tan_{\b} -
572: A_{f'})R_{i1}^{f}R_{1j}^{f'}\\\non&+& m_{f}(-\mu
573: \frac{1}{\tan_{\b}}+A_{f})R_{i2}^{f}R_{1j}^{f'})\\\nonumber
574: \end{eqnarray}
575:
576:
577:
578: \subsection{On-shell renormalization}
579: Recently, there have been several developments
580: in the renormalization of MSSM. Several schemes
581: are available \cite{thomas2,itp,vienna,thomas1}.
582: Here, we follow the strategy of~\cite{gh2} by introducing
583: counter-terms for the physical parameters, i.e.\ for masses and
584: mixing angles, and perform field renormalization
585: in a way that residues of renormalized propagators
586: can be kept at unity.
587:
588:
589: We will adopt throughout, the on--shell renormalization scheme of
590: Refs. \cite{Denner} for SM parameters and fields.
591: We make the following prescriptions:
592: \begin{eqnarray}
593: & & e \to (1+\delta Z_e) e \qquad , \qquad M_{W,Z} \to M_{W,Z} +
594: \delta M_{W,Z}\label{cd1}
595: \end{eqnarray}
596: the gauge bosons are renormalized such as :
597: \begin{eqnarray}
598: Z^\mu \rightarrow Z_{ZZ}^{1/2} Z^\mu+
599: Z_{Z\gamma}^{1/2} A^\mu \ \ , \
600: A^\mu \rightarrow Z_{AA}^{1/2} A^\mu + Z_{\gamma Z}^{1/2} Z^\mu \ \ , \ \
601: W^\mu \rightarrow (1+ \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{WW}^{1/2}) W^\mu
602: \label{cd2}
603: \end{eqnarray}
604: with $Z_{ij}^{1/2} = \delta_{ij} + \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{ij} $.
605: In the on--shell scheme we use the mixing angle $s_W$ (resp $c_W$)
606: is defined by
607: $s_W^2=1-M_W^2/M_Z^2$ (resp $c_W^2=M_W^2/M_Z^2$). Its counter--term
608: is completely fixed by the mass counter-terms of W and Z gauge bosons as:
609: \begin{eqnarray}
610: \frac{\delta s_W}{s_W}= -\frac{1}{2} \frac{c_W^2}{s_W^2} \Bigm (
611: \frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2} - \frac{ \delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2} \Bigm)\quad , \quad
612: \frac{\delta c_W}{c_W}= -\frac{1}{2} \Bigm (
613: \frac{\delta M_W^2}{M_W^2} - \frac{\delta M_Z^2}{M_Z^2} \Bigm)
614: \end{eqnarray}
615:
616: The extra parameters and fields we still have to renormalize in our case
617: are the scalar fermion wave functions $\wt{f}_i$ and the mixing angle
618: ${\theta}_{f}$ defined in eq.~(\ref{mixing}).
619:
620: In the general case, where sfermions mixing is allowed,
621: the wave functions of the two
622: sfermions mass eigenstates are not decoupled.
623: Taking into account the mixing, the renormalization of the
624: sfermions wave functions and the mixing angle
625: $\heta$ can be performed by making the
626: following substitutions in the Lagrangian eq.~(\ref{lag})
627: \begin{eqnarray}
628: \widetilde{f}_1 \rightarrow Z_{11}^{1/2} \wt{f}_1+
629: Z_{12}^{1/2} \wt{f}_2 \ \ , \
630: \wt{f}_2 \rightarrow Z_{22}^{1/2} \wt{f}_2 + Z_{21}^{1/2} \wt{f}_1 \ \
631: , \ \
632: \heta \rightarrow \heta+\delta \heta \label{cd3}
633: \end{eqnarray}
634:
635:
636: Using the above prescriptions Eq. (\ref{cd1}-\ref{cd2}, \ref{cd3})
637: in the Lagrangian (\ref{lag}),
638: the Lagrangian counter terms can be obtained and is given by
639: \begin{eqnarray}
640: \delta {\cal L} & = & \sum_{i,j=1,2} [
641: %\delta( \gamma \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) A^\mu \widetilde{f}_i^*
642: %\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
643: % \widetilde{f}_j +
644: %\delta( g \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) G_a^\mu T^a \widetilde{f}_i^*
645: %\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
646: % \widetilde{f}_j + \nonumber\\
647: \delta(Z \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) Z^\mu
648: \widetilde{f}_i^*
649: \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu \widetilde{f}_j +
650: \delta(W \wt{f}_i\wt{f^\prime}_j) W^\mu
651: \widetilde{f}_i^* \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}_\mu
652: \widetilde{f^\prime}_j]
653: \label{dlag}
654: \end{eqnarray}
655: where
656: \begin{eqnarray}
657: % \delta( \gamma \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) & = & -e Q_f (\frac{1}{2} \delta
658: % Z_{ij} +\frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{ji}) -e Q_f ( \frac{1}{2}\delta
659: % Z_{\gamma\gamma} + \delta Z_e) \delta_{ij}
660: %+ \frac{1}{2} g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j} \ \delta Z_{Z\gamma}
661: %\nonumber \\
662: % \delta( g \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) & = & -g_s (\frac{1}{2} \delta
663: % Z_{ij} +\frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{ji}) - g_s ( \frac{1}{2}\delta
664: % Z_{gg} + \delta Z_{g_s}) \delta_{ij}
665: %\nonumber \\
666: \delta(Z \wt{f}_i\wt{f}_j) & = & -e Q_f \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{\gamma Z}
667: + g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j} (\delta Z_e + \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{ZZ} +
668: \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{ii} + \frac{1}{2} \delta Z_{jj})
669: \nonumber\\ &&
670: + \frac{\delta s_W e }{c_W^3 s_W^2}
671: ((-I_3^f - Q_f s_W^2 + 2 I_3^f s_W^2) R_{j1}^{\wt{f}} R_{i1}^{\wt{f}}
672: - Q_f s_W^2 R_{j2}^{\wt{f}} R_{i2}^{\wt{f}} )
673: \nonumber \\ & & +
674: g_{Z\wt{f}_k \wt{f}_j}\delta Z_{ki} +g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_l}
675: \delta Z_{lj}
676: + \Delta(g_{Z\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}) \delta \heta\nonumber\\
677: \delta(W{\widetilde{f}_i}\widetilde{f}_{j}^{'}) & = &
678: g_{W{\widetilde{f}_i}\widetilde{f}_{j}^{'}}(\frac{\delta Z_{ii}}{2} +
679: \frac{\delta Z_{jj}}{2} )+g_{W{\widetilde{f}_i}\widetilde{f}_{l}^{'}}
680: \frac{\delta Z_{lj}}{2}+g_{W{\widetilde{f}_k}\widetilde{f}_{j}^{'}}
681: \frac{\delta Z_{ki}}{2} + \non \\
682: && g_{W{\widetilde{f}_i}
683: \widetilde{f}_{j}^{'}} (\frac{\delta Z_{WW}}{2} + \frac{\delta s_{W}}{s_W} +
684: \delta Z_{e}) - \Delta(g_{W{\widetilde{f}_i}
685: \widetilde{f}_{j}^{'}})\Bigm)
686: \end{eqnarray}
687: where
688: \begin{eqnarray}
689: \Delta(g_{Z\wt{f}_1 \wt{f}_1})&=&-\Delta(g_{Z\wt{f}_2 \wt{f}_2})=2
690: g_{Z\wt{f}_1 \wt{f}_2}\ \ , \ \ \Delta(g_{Z\wt{f}_1
691: \wt{f}_2})=\Delta(g_{Z\wt{f}_2 \wt{f}_1})= g_{Z\wt{f}_2
692: \wt{f}_2}-g_{Z\wt{f}_1 \wt{f}_1} \nonumber\\
693: \Delta(g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{1}^{'}})
694: & =& g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{1}^{'}}
695: \delta\theta_{f} + g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}}
696: \delta\theta_{ f^{'}}\quad , \quad
697: \Delta(g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}})
698: = -g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}}
699: \delta\theta_{f} -
700: g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{1}^{'}} \delta\theta_{f^{'}}
701: \non\\
702: \Delta(g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}})
703: & =& g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}}
704: \delta\theta_{f} -
705: g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}} \delta\theta_{f^{'}}
706: \quad , \quad
707: \Delta(g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{1}^{'}})
708: = -g_{W{\widetilde{f}_1}\widetilde{f}_{1}^{'}}
709: \delta\theta_{f}
710: + g_{W{\widetilde{f}_2}\widetilde{f}_{2}^{'}}
711: \delta\theta_{f^{'}}
712: \end{eqnarray}
713:
714: To fix all the above renormalization constants,
715: we use the following renormalization conditions:
716:
717: \begin{itemize}
718: \item The on-shell conditions for $m_W$, $m_Z$, $m_e$
719: and the electric charge $e$ are defined as in the Standard
720: Model \cite{Denner}.
721:
722: \item On-shell condition for the scalar fermion $\widetilde{f}_i$ :
723: we choose to identify
724: the physical scalar fermion mass with the corresponding parameter in
725: the renormalized Lagrangian,
726: and require the residue of the propagators to have its tree-level
727: value, i.e.,
728: \begin{eqnarray}
729: \delta Z_{ii} & = & -\Re\{\frac{\partial}{\partial p^2}(
730: {\Sigma}_{\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_i} (p^2))\} |_{p^2=m^2_{\wt{f}_i} }
731: \ \ , \
732: \
733: \delta Z_{ij}=
734: \frac{\Re\{{{\Sigma}}_{ \wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j }(m_{\wt{f}_j}^2)\}}
735: {m_{\wt{f}_j}^2-m_{\wt{f}_i}^2} \quad , \quad \nonumber \\
736: \delta
737: m^2_{\wt{f}_i} & = & \Re ({\Sigma}_{\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}
738: (m^2_{\widetilde{f}_i}))
739: \end{eqnarray}
740: where $\sum_{\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j } (p^2)$, $i,j=1,2$ is the scalar
741: fermion bare self-energy.
742: \end{itemize}
743:
744: One has then to choose a renormalization condition which defines the mixing
745: angle $\heta$. We select this condition in such a way to kill the
746: transitions $\wt{f}_i \leftrightarrow \wt{f}_j$ at the one--loop level.
747: The renormalization of the scalar fermion mixing
748: angle is then given by \cite{gh2}:
749: \begin{eqnarray}
750: \delta{\theta}_{{f}} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\Sigma_{\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}(
751: m^2_{ \wt{f}_j} )+ \Sigma_{\wt{f}_i \wt{f}_j}(m^2_{ \wt{f}_i} ) }
752: { m^2_{ \wt{f}_j} - m^2_{ \wt{f}_i} } \label{angle}
753: \end{eqnarray}
754:
755:
756: \section{Numerics}
757: Now we are ready to
758: present our numerical results both for the tree-level and one-loop
759: decay widths and branching ratios for $\tilde{f}_i \to \tilde{f}_j Z$ and
760: $\tilde{f}_i \to \tilde{f'}_j W^{\pm}$. Let us first fix our
761: inputs and SUSY parameters choice.
762:
763: As experimental data points~\cite{pdg},
764: the following input quantities enter:
765: $\alpha^{-1}=137.03598$, $m_Z=91.1875$ GeV,
766: $m_W=80.45$ GeV. Fermions masses are given by:
767: \begin{eqnarray}
768: && m_e= 0.000511\ \ {\rm GeV} \,, m_{\mu} = 0.1056\ \ {\rm GeV} \,,
769: m_{\tau} = 1.777\ \ {\rm GeV} \,, \nonumber \\
770: & & m_t = 178\ \ {\rm GeV} \,, m_b = 4.7\ \ {\rm GeV} \,,
771: m_c = 1.5\ \ {\rm GeV} \,,
772: m_u = 0.062\ \ {\rm GeV} \,, \nonumber\\ && m_d = 0.083\ \
773: {\rm GeV} \,, m_s = 0.215\ \ {\rm GeV} \, \nonumber
774: \end{eqnarray}
775: where effective quark masses reproducing the hadronic vacuum polarization
776: contribution $\Delta \alpha(m_Z^2)$ with a sufficiently high accuracy
777: have been chosen \cite{Eidelman}.
778:
779: For the SUSY parameters, we will use MSSM inputs which look like
780: some of the Snow-mass Points and Slopes (SPS) and
781: benchmarks scenarios for SUSY searches \cite{SPS}.
782: For our study we will use SPS1 and SPS5 scenario. As we explained
783: in the introduction, for those 2 scenarios the bosonic decays
784: of scalar fermions $\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j V$, when open, are dominant.
785: More details about the mass spectrum and decays rates can be found in
786: \cite{SPS,SPSd}.
787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
788: \begin{figure}[t!]
789: \smallskip\smallskip
790: \vskip-1.3cm
791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
792: \centerline{
793: {\epsfxsize3.6 in\epsffile{br1.eps}}
794: \hskip-1.99cm
795: {\epsfxsize3.61 in\epsffile{br2.eps}}}
796: \hskip-1.4cm
797: \smallskip\smallskip
798: \vskip-1.5cm
799: \centerline{
800: {\epsfxsize3.6 in\epsffile{br3.eps}}
801: \hskip-1.99cm
802: {\epsfxsize3.61 in\epsffile{br4.eps}}}
803: \hskip-1.4cm
804: \smallskip\smallskip
805: \vskip-1.5cm
806: \centerline{
807: {\epsfxsize3.6 in\epsffile{br5.eps}}
808: \hskip-1.99cm
809: {\epsfxsize3.61 in\epsffile{br6.eps}}}
810: \smallskip\smallskip
811: \vskip-.6cm
812: \caption{Branching ratios of bosonic decays of $\wt{b}_1$ (upper
813: plots), $\wt{b}_2$ (middle plots)
814: and $\wt{t}_2$ (lower plots) in SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right) as
815: function of $\cos\theta_t$. }
816: \label{fig4}
817: \end{figure}
818:
819: In SPS1, we have the following spectrum (are listed only the
820: parameters needed):
821: $\tan\beta=10$, $m_{A^0} = 394$ GeV,
822: $A_t = -431.34$ GeV, $A_b =582.67 $ GeV,
823: $M=193$ GeV, $M'=99$ GeV, $\mu=352$ GeV. The mass of the first and
824: second generation scalar fermion is of the order 177 GeV (average).
825: %$m_{\tilde \mu_{1,2}} = m_{\tilde e_{1,2}}= 142.97\quad,202.14$ GeV,
826: %$m_{\tilde \nu_{1,2}} = 185.06 \,$ GeV,
827: While the masses of the third generation scalar fermions are :
828: $m_{\wt{t}_{1}} = 396.43$ GeV, $m_{\wt{t}_{2}} = 574.71$ GeV ,
829: $m_{\wt{b}_{1}} = 491.91$ GeV , $m_{\wt{b}_{2}} = 524.59$ GeV.
830: The mixing angle are given by
831: $\cos\theta_t = 0.57$ , $\cos\theta_b = 0.88$.
832:
833:
834: %The MSSM Higgs sector is
835: %parameterized by the CP-odd mass $M_A$ and $\tan\beta$, taking into account
836: %radiative corrections with the help of
837: %FeynHiggs~\cite{HHS}, and we assume
838: %$\tan\betals \geq 2.5$.
839:
840: In SPS5 (light stop scenario), we have the following spectrum :
841: $m_{A^0} = 694$ GeV, $\tan\beta=5$
842: $A_t = -785.57$ GeV, $A_b = -139.11$ GeV,
843: $M=235$ GeV, $M'=121$ GeV, $\mu= 640 $ GeV
844: The mass of the first and second generation scalar
845: fermion is of the order 231 GeV (average).
846: The masses of the third generation are
847: $m_{\tilde t_{1}} = 253.66$ GeV , $m_{\tilde t_{2}} = 644.65$ GeV ,
848: $m_{\tilde b_{1}} = 535.86$ GeV ,
849: $m_{\tilde b_{2}} = 622.99$ GeV.
850: The mixing angle are given by
851: $\cos\theta_t = 0.54$ , $\cos\theta_b = 0.98$.
852:
853:
854: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
855: In fact, our strategy is the following :
856: the SPS1 and SPS5 outputs are fixed as above,
857: but we will allow a variation of the mixing angles $\cos\theta_t$,
858: $\cos\theta_b$ from their SPS values.
859: According to our parametrization defined in section 2,
860: we choose as independent parameters
861: $m_{\wt{t}_2}, m_{\wt{b}_1} m_{\wt{b}_2}, {\theta}_t, {\theta}_b$
862: together with $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$. $m_{\wt{t}_1}$ is fixed by
863: eq.~(\ref{mass1}) and the soft trilinear parameters
864: are fixed using eq.~(\ref{af}).
865: The variation of $\cos\theta_t$
866: and $\cos\theta_b$ imply the variation of $m_{\wt{t}_2}$
867: as well as $A_t$ and $A_b$.
868: Since we allow variation of the
869: $\cos\theta_t$ and $m_{\wt{t}_2}$ mass, our inputs
870: can be viewed as a general MSSM inputs and not as SPS one.\\
871: As outlined in section~2, $A_{t,b}$ are fixed by tree level relation
872: eq.~(\ref{af}). Of course, $A_{t,b}$ receive radiative corrections
873: at high order. However, $A_{t}$ and $A_b$ enter game only at one-loop level
874: in our processes, radiative corrections to $A_{t}$ and $A_b$ is considered
875: as two-loop effects. \\
876: Before presenting our results, we would like to mention that we
877: neglect radiative corrections to eq.~(\ref{mass1}).
878: As mentioned in section 2, the one-loop effect correction to eq.~(\ref{mass1})
879: can shift the tree level masses only by less than
880: $\la 10$ GeV. We have checked that for our process
881: such shift does not affect significantly our result.
882:
883:
884: In Fig.~(\ref{fig4}) we show branching ratios of
885: $\wt{b}_{1}$, $\wt{b}_{2}$ and $\wt{t}_{2}$.
886: We evaluate the bosonic decays :
887: $\wt{b}_{1}\to W^- \wt{t}_1$,
888: $\wt{b}_{2}\to W^- \wt{t}_1$ and
889: $\wt{t}_{2}\to Z^0\wt{t}_1$
890: as well as the fermionic decays
891: $\wt{f}_{i}\to \chi_i^{0} f (\chi_i^{+} {f^\prime})$
892: as function of $\cos\theta_t$ for SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right) scenario.
893: From those plots, it is clear that the bosonic decay,
894: once open, are the dominant
895: one for $|\cos\theta_t|\approx 0.4\to 0.45$. For $|\cos\theta_t|\approx 0.4$
896: the light stop $m_{\wt{t}_1}$ is about $100$ GeV, when
897: $|\cos\theta_t|$
898: increases, the $m_{\wt{t}_1}$ increases also and for large $|\cos\theta_t|$
899: the bosonic decays are already close and the branching ratio vanishes.
900:
901: We note that in the case of SPS1
902: the bosonic decays are open only for $0.4\la |\cos\theta_t| \la 0.6$
903: Fig~.(\ref{fig4}) (left).
904: In the region $|\cos\theta_t| \la 0.4$, the light stop is below
905: the experimental upper limit $m_{\wt{t}_1}\approx 90 $ GeV, and no data
906: are shown. While in the case of SPS5 Fig~.(\ref{fig4}) (right), for
907: $|\cos\theta_t| \la 0.5$,
908: we find that $m_{\wt{t}_1}$ is below the experimental upper limit
909: and also $\delta\rho \ga 0.001$ due to large splitting
910: between stops and sbottoms.
911:
912:
913:
914: %The same things happens for the other decays as it can be seen in
915: %the plots Fig~.(\ref{fig4}).
916: %In those plots, for example $Br(\wt{b}_{1}\to \wt{t}_1 W)$ SPS1 (left),
917: %in the region $|\cos\theta_t| \la 0.4$, the light stop is below
918: %the experimental upper limit $m_{\wt{t}_1}\approx 90 $ GeV, no data
919: %are shown.
920: %In the case of $\wt{t}_{2}\to \wt{t}_1 Z$ SPS5 and for
921: %$|\cos\theta_t| \la 0.5$,
922: %we find that $m_{\wt{t}_1}$ is bellow the experimental upper limit
923: %and also $\delta\rho \ga 0.001$ due to large splitting
924: %between stops and sbottoms.
925:
926: The magnitude of SUSY radiative corrections can be described by
927: the relative correction which we define as:
928: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
929: \begin{eqnarray}
930: \Delta = \frac{\Gamma^{\rm{1-loop}}(\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j V)-
931: \Gamma^{\rm{tree}}(\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j V)}
932: {\Gamma^{\rm{tree}}(\wt{f}_i \to \wt{f}_j V)}\label{del}
933: \end{eqnarray}
934: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
935: \begin{figure}[t!]
936: \smallskip\smallskip
937: \vskip-1.5cm
938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
939: \centerline{{
940: \epsfxsize3.7 in
941: \epsffile{stfig1.eps}} \hskip-1.99cm
942: \epsfxsize3.7 in
943: \epsffile{stfig2.eps} }
944: \smallskip\smallskip
945: \caption{Relative correction (electroweak EW, SUSY-QCD and full)
946: to $\wt{b}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 W$
947: as function of $\cos\theta_t$ in SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right)}
948: \label{fig5}
949: \end{figure}
950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
951: %------------------------------------------------
952: \begin{figure}[t!]
953: \smallskip\smallskip
954: \vskip-1.cm
955: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
956: \centerline{
957: {\epsfxsize3.7 in\epsffile{full1.eps}}
958: \hskip-1.99cm
959: {\epsfxsize3.7 in\epsffile{full2.eps}}}
960: \smallskip\smallskip
961: \vskip-.40cm
962: \caption{Relative correction to $\wt{b}_1 \to \wt{t}_1 W$ and
963: $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$
964: as function of $\cos\theta_t$ in SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right)}
965: \label{fig55}
966: \end{figure}
967: %-----------------------------------------------
968:
969:
970: In Fig.~(\ref{fig5}) we illustrate the relative correction
971: $\Delta$ as function of $\cos\theta_t$ for the decay
972: $\wt{b}_2 \to W \wt{t}_1$ in SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right).
973: As it can be seen from the left plot, the SUSY-QCD corrections lies in
974: the range $-1\% \to -6\%$ while the EW corrections lie in the range
975: $4\% \to 10\%$ for $\cos\theta_t \approx 0.4 \to 0.65$.
976: The SUSY-QCD and EW corrections are of opposite sign,
977: there is a destructive interference and so the full one-loop
978: corrections lie between them.
979: For $\cos\theta_t\to 0.65$,
980: the total correction increases to about 10\%.
981: This is due to the fact that for $\cos\theta_t\to 0.65$
982: the mass of light stop is $m_{\wt{t}_1}\approx 444$ GeV, the decay
983: $\wt{b}_2 \to W \wt{t}_1$ is closed and so the tree level
984: width decreases to zero.
985: The observed peaks around $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.46$
986: (resp $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.53$)
987: correspond to the opening of the transition $\wt{t}_1\to \chi_1^0 t$
988: (resp $\wt{t}_1\to \chi_2^0 t$).
989: The right plot of Fig.~(\ref{fig5}) in SPS5 scenario,
990: exhibits almost the same behavior as the left plot.
991: The electroweak corrections interfere destructively with the SUSY-QCD
992: ones, the full corrections
993: are between $-4\% \to 10\%$ for $\cos \theta_t\in[0.5,0.9]$.
994:
995:
996: In Fig.~(\ref{fig55}) we show the relative correction
997: $\Delta$ as function of $\cos\theta_t$ for the decay
998: $\wt{b}_1 \to W \wt{t}_1$ and
999: $\wt{t}_2 \to Z \wt{t}_1$ in SPS1 (left)
1000: and SPS5 (right) scenario.\\
1001: In the case of $\wt{t}_2 \to Z \wt{t}_1$,
1002: the total correction lies in $-1\to 7\%$ (resp $-5 \to 6\%$)
1003: in SPS1 (resp SPS5) scenario.
1004: From Fig.~(\ref{fig55}), one can see that
1005: the relative corrections for $\wt{b}_1 \to W \wt{t}_1$
1006: are enhanced for $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.6$ (resp $\cos\theta_t\approx
1007: 0.75$) in SPS1 (resp SPS5). This behavior has the same explanation as
1008: for $\wt{b}_2 \to W \wt{t}_1$ in figure.~(\ref{fig5}).
1009: At $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.6$ (resp $\cos\theta_t\approx
1010: 0.75$) in SPS1 (resp SPS5), the decay channel
1011: $\wt{b}_1 \to W \wt{t}_1$ (resp
1012: $\wt{t}_2 \to Z \wt{t}_1$) is closed and so the tree level
1013: width decreases to zero.
1014: The observed peaks around $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.46$ (resp
1015: $\cos\theta_t\approx 0.53$)
1016: correspond to the opening of the transition
1017: $\wt{t}_1\to \chi_1^0 t$ (resp $\wt{t}_1\to \chi_2^0 t$).\\
1018: In all cases, we have isolated the
1019: QED corrections (virtual photons and real photons), we have checked
1020: that this contribution is very small, less than about 1\%.\\
1021:
1022: Fig.(\ref{mssm}) illustrates the relative corrections
1023: to $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{b}_1 W$, $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$ (left)
1024: and $\wt{b}_2 \to \wt{b}_1 Z$, $\wt{b}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 W$ (right)
1025: as function of $A_b=A_t$ in general MSSM for
1026: large $\tan\beta=60$, $\mu=500$ GeV, $M_2=130$
1027: GeV and $M_A=200$ GeV.
1028: It is clear from this plot that the relative corrections are bigger
1029: than in the cases of SPS scenarios.
1030: This enhancement shows up for large $|A_b|$ and also near threshold regions.
1031: In this scenario, the SUSY-QCD corrections are about 2\%,
1032: the electroweak corrections are about 5\% while the QED corrections
1033: are very small. The dominant contribution comes from the Yukawa
1034: corrections and is enhanced by large $\tan\beta=60$ and large $|A_b|$.\\
1035: In the left plot of Fig.(\ref{mssm}), the region $|A_b|=|A_t|<300$ GeV has no
1036: data. This is due to the fact that splitting between $\wt{t}_2$ and
1037: $\wt{t}_1$ ($\wt{t}_2$ and $\wt{b}_1$) is not large enough to allow
1038: the decays $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$
1039: and $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{b}_1 W$.\\
1040: In the right plot of Fig.(\ref{mssm}), when
1041: $|A_b|=|A_t|\approx 0$ GeV, the splitting between $\wt{b}_2$ and
1042: $\wt{t}_1$ is close to $m_W$ mass and so the tree level width for
1043: $\wt{b}_2\to \wt{t}_1W^+$
1044: almost vanish, consequently the correction is getting bigger.
1045: This behavior has been also observed in previous plots for
1046: $\wt{b}_2\to \wt{t}_1W^+$.
1047:
1048:
1049: \begin{figure}[t!]
1050: \smallskip\smallskip
1051: \vskip-.5cm
1052: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1053: \centerline{
1054: {\epsfxsize3.32 in\epsffile{fig1a.eps}}
1055: \hskip-0.5cm
1056: {\epsfxsize3.32 in\epsffile{fig1b.eps}}}
1057: \smallskip\smallskip
1058: \vskip-.58cm
1059: \caption{Relative correction to
1060: $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{b}_1 W$,
1061: $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$ (left)
1062: and
1063: $\wt{b}_2 \to \wt{b}_1 Z$,
1064: $\wt{b}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 W$ (right)
1065: as function of $A_t=A_b$ in general MSSM for $\mu=500$ GeV, $M_2=130$ GeV,
1066: $M_A=200$ GeV and $\tan\beta=60$}
1067: \label{mssm}
1068: \end{figure}
1069: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1070: \begin{figure}[t!]
1071: \smallskip\smallskip
1072: \vskip-.41cm
1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1074: \centerline{
1075: \hskip1.1cm
1076: {\epsfxsize3.7 in\epsffile{width1.eps}}
1077: \hskip-1.99cm
1078: {\epsfxsize3.7 in\epsffile{width2.eps}}}
1079: \smallskip\smallskip
1080: \caption{Tree and one loop decay width of $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$
1081: as function of $m_{\wt{t}_1}$}
1082: \label{fig6}
1083: \end{figure}
1084:
1085: Finally, in Fig.~(\ref{fig6}) we illustrate the decay width of
1086: $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$ as function of $m_{\wt{t}_1}$
1087: in SPS1 (left) and SPS5 (right). In SPS1
1088: (resp SPS5) the decay width of $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$
1089: is about 8 GeV (resp 13 GeV)
1090: for light stop mass of the order 100 GeV.
1091: Obviously, these decays width decrease
1092: as the light stop mass increase.
1093:
1094: It is clear that the SUSY-QCD corrections reduces the width
1095: while the electroweak
1096: corrections cancel part of those QCD corrections.
1097: Both in SPS1 and SPS5, the full one loop width of
1098: $\wt{t}_2 \to \wt{t}_1 Z$ is in some case slightly bigger
1099: than the tree level width.
1100:
1101:
1102: \section*{{{Conclusions:}}}
1103: A full one-loop calculations
1104: of third-generation scalar-fermion decays into gauge bosons W and Z
1105: are presented in the on--shell scheme.
1106: We include both electroweak, QED and SUSY-QCD
1107: contributions to the decay width. It is found that the QED corrections
1108: are rather small while the electroweak and SUSY-QCD corrections
1109: interfere destructively.
1110:
1111: The size of the one-loop effects are
1112: typically of the order $-5 \%\to 10$ \% in SPS scenarios which are based on
1113: SUGRA assumptions. While in model independent analysis like
1114: the general MSSM, the size of the corrections are bigger and can reach
1115: about 20\% for large $\tan\beta$ and large soft SUSY breaking $A_b$.
1116: Their inclusion in phenomenological studies and analyses are
1117: then well motivated.
1118:
1119: \section*{{{Acknowledgment:}}}
1120: The authors thanks ICTP for the warm hospitality extended to them
1121: during the first stage of this work.
1122: We thanks Margarete Muhlleitner for useful
1123: exchange of informations about Sdecay \cite{sdecay2}.
1124: This work is supported by PROTARS-III D16/04.
1125:
1126:
1127: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1128: \bibitem{susy}
1129: H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117 (1985) 75;
1130: H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1;
1131: P. Nath, R. Arnowitt and A. Chamseddine, ``Applied N=1 Supergravity", ITCP
1132: Series in Theoretical Physics, World Scientific, Singapore 1984; \\
1133: X.R.~Tata, in Proceedings of the ``Mt Sorak Symposium on the Standard Model
1134: and Beyond", Mt Sorak, Korea, 1990
1135:
1136: \bibitem{CDF}
1137: T.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1138: %``Search for the supersymmetric partner of the top quark in
1139: %p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''
1140: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 091101 (2001);
1141: [arXiv:hep-ex/0011004].\\
1142: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
1143: %``Search for scalar top and scalar bottom quarks at LEP,''
1144: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 545}, 272 (2002)
1145: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 548}, 258 (2002)]
1146: [arXiv:hep-ex/0209026];
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0209026;%%
1148:
1149: \bibitem{slep}
1150: F.~del Aguila and L.~Ametller,
1151: %``On The Detectability Of Sleptons At Large Hadron Colliders,''
1152: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 261} (1991) 326.
1153: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B261,326;%%
1154: H.~Baer, C.~h.~Chen, F.~Paige and X.~Tata,
1155: %``Detecting sleptons at hadron colliders and supercolliders,''
1156: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 3283 (1994)
1157: [arXiv:hep-ph/9311248].
1158: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311248;%%
1159:
1160: \bibitem{LC}
1161: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.}
1162: [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration],
1163: %``TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an
1164: %e+e- Linear Collider,''
1165: arXiv:hep-ph/0106315;
1166: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
1167: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],
1168: %``Particle physics experiments at JLC,''
1169: arXiv:hep-ph/0109166;
1170: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%
1171: T.~Abe {\it et al.} [American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],
1172: %``Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. 2:
1173: %Higgs and supersymmetry studies,''
1174: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of
1175: Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,
1176: arXiv:hep-ex/0106056.
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106056;%%
1178:
1179: \bibitem{DESY} W.~Beenakker, R.~Hopker, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1180: %``Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders,''
1181: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 492}, 51 (1997)
1182: [arXiv:hep-ph/9610490];
1183: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610490;%%
1184: W.~Beenakker, R.~Hopker, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1185: %``Squark production at the Tevatron,''
1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 2905 (1995)
1187: [arXiv:hep-ph/9412272].
1188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412272;%%
1189:
1190: \bibitem{S.SU}
1191: J.~L.~Feng and D.~E.~Finnell,
1192: %``Squark mass determination at the next generation
1193: %of linear e+ e- colliders,''
1194: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2369 (1994)
1195: [arXiv:hep-ph/9310211];
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310211;%%
1197: T.~Tsukamoto, K.~Fujii, H.~Murayama, M.~Yamaguchi and Y.~Okada,
1198: %``Precision study of supersymmetry at future linear e+ e- colliders,''
1199: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 3153 (1995);
1200: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,3153;%%
1201: R.~Keranen, A.~Sopczak, H.~Nowak and M.~Berggren,
1202: %``Study Of Scalar Top Quarks In The Neutralino And Chargino
1203: %Decay Channel At A Future E+ E- Linear Collider,''
1204: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ directC {\bf 2} (2000) 7;
1205: %%CITATION = EPHJD,C2,7;%%
1206: R.~Kitano, T.~Moroi and S.~f.~Su,
1207: %``Top-squark study at a future e+ e- linear collider,''
1208: JHEP {\bf 0212}, 011 (2002)
1209: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208149];
1210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208149;%%
1211: E.~L.~Berger, J.~Lee and T.~M.~Tait,
1212: %``Squark mixing in electron positron reactions,''
1213: arXiv:hep-ph/0306110.
1214: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306110;%%
1215:
1216: \bibitem{ACD}
1217: A.~Arhrib, M.~Capdequi-Peyranere and A.~Djouadi,
1218: %``QCD corrections to scalar quark pair production in e+ e- annihilation,''
1219: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 1404 (1995)
1220: [arXiv:hep-ph/9412382].
1221: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412382;%%
1222: M.~Drees and K.~I.~Hikasa,
1223: %``Scalar Top Production In E+ E- Annihilation,''
1224: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 252}, 127 (1990).
1225: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B252,127;%%
1226:
1227: \bibitem{helmut1}
1228: H.~Eberl, A.~Bartl and W.~Majerotto,
1229: %``SUSY--QCD corrections to scalar quark pair production
1230: %in $e~+ e~-$ annihilation,''
1231: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 472}, 481 (1996)
1232: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603206].
1233: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603206;%%
1234:
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238:
1239: \bibitem{freitas} A.~Freitas {\it et al.},
1240: %``Sfermion Precision Measurements at a Linear Collider,''
1241: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211108].
1242: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211108;%%
1243: A.~Freitas, D.~J.~Miller and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1244: %``Pair production of smuons and selectrons near threshold in e+ e-
1245: %collisions,''
1246: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 361 (2001)
1247: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106198].
1248: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106198;%%
1249:
1250: \bibitem{ah}
1251: A.~Arhrib and W.~Hollik,
1252: %``Radiative corrections to scalar-fermion pair production in high energy e+ e-
1253: %collisions,''
1254: JHEP {\bf 0404}, 073 (2004)
1255: [arXiv:hep-ph/0311149].
1256: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311149;%%
1257:
1258:
1259: \bibitem{helmut2}
1260: H.~Eberl, S.~Kraml and W.~Majerotto,
1261: %``Yukawa coupling corrections to stop, sbottom, and stau
1262: %production in e+ e- annihilation,''
1263: JHEP {\bf 9905}, 016 (1999)
1264: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903413].
1265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903413;%%
1266: K.~Kovarik, C.~Weber, H.~Eberl and W.~Majerotto,
1267: %``Complete one-loop corrections to e+ e- $\to$ sfermion(i) anti-sfermion(j),''
1268: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 591}, 242 (2004)
1269: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401092].
1270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401092;%%
1271:
1272: \bibitem{claudio1}
1273: M.~Beccaria, M.~Melles, F.~M.~Renard, S.~Trimarchi and C.~Verzegnassi,
1274: %``Sudakov expansions at one loop and beyond for charged scalar and
1275: %fermion pair production in SUSY models at future linear colliders,''
1276: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304110].
1277: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304110;%%
1278:
1279:
1280: \bibitem{gh1}
1281: A.~Djouadi, W.~Hollik and C.~Junger,
1282: %``QCD corrections to scalar quark decays,''
1283: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 6975 (1997);
1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609419;%%
1285: S.~Kraml, H.~Eberl, A.~Bartl, W.~Majerotto and W.~Porod,
1286: %``SUSY-QCD corrections to scalar quark decays into
1287: %charginos and neutralinos,''
1288: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 386}, 175 (1996).
1289: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605412;%%
1290:
1291: \bibitem{gh2} J.~Guasch, W.~Hollik and J.~Sola,
1292: %``Fermionic decays of sfermions: A complete discussion at one-loop order,''
1293: JHEP {\bf 0210}, 040 (2002);
1294: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207364;%%
1295: J.~Guasch, J.~Sola and W.~Hollik,
1296: %``Yukawa-coupling corrections to scalar quark decays,''
1297: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 437}, 88 (1998);
1298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802329;%%
1299:
1300:
1301: \bibitem{DHAJ}
1302: A.~Arhrib, A.~Djouadi, W.~Hollik and C.~Junger,
1303: %``SUSY Higgs boson decays into scalar quarks: QCD corrections,''
1304: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 5860 (1998)
1305: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702426].
1306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702426;%%
1307:
1308:
1309: \bibitem{9701336}
1310: A.~Bartl, H.~Eberl, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto, W.~Porod and A.~Sopczak,
1311: %``Search of stop, sbottom, tau-sneutrino, and stau at an e+ e-
1312: %linear collider with s**(1/2) = 0.5-TeV to 2-TeV,''
1313: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 76}, 549 (1997)
1314: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701336].
1315: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701336;%%
1316:
1317: \bibitem{thomas2}
1318: W.~Hollik and H.~Rzehak,
1319: %``The sfermion mass spectrum of the MSSM at the one-loop level,''
1320: arXiv:hep-ph/0305328.
1321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305328;%%
1322:
1323: \bibitem{qcdv}
1324: A.~Bartl, H.~Eberl, K.~Hidaka, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto, W.~Porod and Y.~Yamada,
1325: %``SUSY-QCD corrections to stop and sbottom decays into W+- and Z0 bosons,''
1326: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 419}, 243 (1998)
1327: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710286].
1328: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710286;%%
1329:
1330:
1331: \bibitem{SPS}
1332: B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.},
1333: %``The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches,''
1334: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,
1335: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002)
1336: [eConf {\bf C010630}, P125 (2001)]
1337: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202233].
1338: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%
1339:
1340: \bibitem{SPSd}
1341: N.~Ghodbane and H.~U.~Martyn,
1342: %``Compilation of SUSY particle spectra from Snowmass 2001 benchmark models,''
1343: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,
1344: arXiv:hep-ph/0201233.
1345: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201233;%%
1346:
1347:
1348:
1349: \bibitem{ccb}
1350: C.~Kounnas, A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and M.~Quiros,
1351: %``Low-Energy Behavior Of Realistic Locally Supersymmetric Grand Unified
1352: %Theories,''
1353: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 236} (1984) 438.
1354: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B236,438;%%
1355: J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber and M.~Sher,
1356: %``Charge / Color Breaking Minima And A-Parameter
1357: %Bounds In Supersymmetric Models,''
1358: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 306}, 1 (1988).
1359: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B306,1;%%
1360: J.~A.~Casas, A.~Lleyda and C.~Munoz,
1361: %``Strong constraints on the parameter space of the MSSM
1362: % from charge and color breaking minima,''
1363: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 471} (1996) 3
1364: [arXiv:hep-ph/9507294].
1365: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507294;%%
1366:
1367: \bibitem{sdecay1}
1368: A.~Djouadi, J.~L.~Kneur and G.~Moultaka,
1369: %``SuSpect: A Fortran code for the supersymmetric and Higgs
1370: %particle spectrum in
1371: %the MSSM,''
1372: arXiv:hep-ph/0211331.
1373: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211331;%%
1374: \bibitem{sdecay2}
1375: M.~Muhlleitner, A.~Djouadi and Y.~Mambrini,
1376: %``SDECAY: A Fortran code for the decays of the supersymmetric particles in the
1377: %MSSM,''
1378: arXiv:hep-ph/0311167.
1379: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311167;%%
1380:
1381:
1382: \bibitem{FA} J.~Kublbeck, M.~Bohm, A.~Denner,
1383: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 60}, 165 (1990);
1384: %%CITATION = CPHCB,60,165;%%
1385: T.~Hahn, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 140}, 418 (2001);
1386: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012260;%%
1387: T.~Hahn, C.~Schappacher,
1388: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 143}, 54 (2002);
1389: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105349;%%
1390: T.~Hahn, M.~Perez-Victoria,
1391: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 118}, 153 (1999);
1392: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
1393:
1394: \bibitem{FF} G.~J.~van Oldenborgh,
1395: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 66}, 1 (1991);
1396: %%CITATION = CPHCB,66,1;%%
1397: T.~Hahn, Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 30}, 3469 (1999)
1398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910227;%%
1399:
1400: \bibitem{siegel}
1401: W.~Siegel,
1402: %``Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization Via Dimensional Reduction,''
1403: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 84}, 193 (1979).
1404: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B84,193;%%
1405: D.~M.~Capper, D.~R.~Jones and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen,
1406: %``Regularization By Dimensional Reduction Of Supersymmetric
1407: % And Nonsupersymmetric Gauge Theories,''
1408: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 167}, 479 (1980).
1409: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B167,479;%%
1410:
1411: \bibitem{Denner}
1412: A.~Denner,
1413: %``Techniques For Calculation Of Electroweak Radiative
1414: % Corrections At The One Loop Level And Results For W Physics At Lep-200,''
1415: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41}, 307 (1993).
1416: %%CITATION = FPYKA,41,307;%%
1417:
1418: \bibitem{itp}
1419: W.~Hollik, E.~Kraus, M.~Roth, C.~Rupp, K.~Sibold and D.~Stockinger,
1420: %``Renormalization of the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
1421: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 639}, 3 (2002)
1422: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204350].
1423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204350;%%
1424:
1425: \bibitem{vienna}
1426: W.~Majerotto,
1427: %``Radiative corrections to SUSY processes in the MSSM,''
1428: arXiv:hep-ph/0209137.
1429: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209137;%%
1430:
1431:
1432:
1433: \bibitem{thomas1}
1434: T.~Fritzsche and W.~Hollik,
1435: %``Complete one-loop corrections to the mass spectrum of charginos
1436: %and neutralinos in the MSSM,''
1437: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 24}, 619 (2002)
1438: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203159].
1439: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203159;%%
1440:
1441:
1442:
1443:
1444: \bibitem{pdg}
1445: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1446: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1447: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
1448: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1449:
1450:
1451: \bibitem{Eidelman}
1452: S.~Eidelman and F.~Jegerlehner, {\em Z. Phys.} {\bf C67} (1995) 585--602.\\
1453: D.~Bardin {\em et al.}, ``Electroweak working group report'', in {\em Reports of the Working Group on Precision Calculations for the {$Z$} Resonance, {\rm report CERN 95--03 (1995)}} (D.~Bardin, W.~Hollik, and G.~Passarino, eds.), pp.~7--162, hep-ph/9709229.
1454:
1455: \end{thebibliography}
1456:
1457:
1458:
1459:
1460: \end{document}
1461: \bibitem{pdg}
1462: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1463: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1464: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
1465: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1466:
1467:
1468: \bibitem{Bartl}
1469: A.~Bartl, H.~Eberl, S.~Kraml, W.~Majerotto and W.~Porod,
1470: %``Phenomenology of stops, sbottoms, tau sneutrinos, and
1471: % staus at an e+ e- linear collider,''
1472: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ directC {\bf 2}, 6 (2000)
1473: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002115].
1474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002115;%%
1475: A.~Finch, H.~Nowak and A.~Sopczak,
1476: %``Precision measurements in the scalar top sector of the
1477: % MSSM at a linear e+ e- collider,''
1478: arXiv:hep-ph/0211140.
1479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211140;%%
1480: