1: %%\documentstyle[eqsecnum,prd,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
3: %
4: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,prd,floats,epsfig]{revtex}
5: %
6: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,floats,epsfig,twocolumn]{revtex}
7: \tighten
8: \let\jnfont=\rm
9: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B#1},}
10: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
11: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
12: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
13: \def\ZPC#1,{{\jnfont Z.\ Phys.\ C }{\bf #1},}
14: \def\EPJC#1,{{\jnfont Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C }{\bf #1},}
15: \begin{document}
16: \draft
17: \preprint{}
18:
19: \title{ \hfill {\small TU-767} \\
20: \hfill {\small hep-ph/0604163}\\ ~~\\
21: Experimental Constraints on Scharm-Stop Flavor Mixing \\
22: and Implications in Top-quark FCNC Processes}
23:
24: \author{Junjie Cao$^1$, Gad Eilam$^1$, Ken-ichi Hikasa$^2$, Jin Min Yang$^3$ }
25:
26: \address{ \ \\[2mm]
27: {\it $^1$ Physics Department, Technion, 32000 Haifa, Israel}\\[2mm]
28: {\it $^2$ Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}\\[2mm]
29: {\it $^3$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China}\\[6mm] }
30:
31: \maketitle
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We examine experimental constraints on scharm-stop flavor mixing
35: in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, which arise from the
36: experimental bounds on squark and Higgs boson masses, the
37: precision measurements of $W$-boson mass and the effective weak
38: mixing angle, as well as the experimental data on $B_s-\bar{B}_s$
39: mixing and $b \to s \gamma$. We find that the combined analysis
40: can put rather stringent constraints on $\tilde{c}_L-\tilde{t}_L$
41: and $\tilde{c}_L-\tilde{t}_R$ mixings. As an illustration for the
42: effects of such constraints, we examine various top-quark
43: flavor-changing neutral-current processes induced by scharm-stop
44: mixings at the LHC and find that their maximal rates are
45: significantly lowered.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \pacs{14.80.Ly, 11.30.Hv}
49:
50: \bf{Introduction~~} \rm It is well known that in the minimal
51: supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), besides CKM matrix, flavor
52: mixings in sfermion sector are another source of flavor violation
53: \cite{susyf}. Since such mixings arise from soft breaking terms,
54: they relate flavor problem to SUSY breaking and their information
55: may provide guidelines for SUSY model building. While such mixings
56: can be directly measured through the flavor-changing decays of
57: sfermions at future colliders \cite{taohan}, their information can
58: also be obtained from various low energy processes
59: \cite{susyf,bsr}. So far the flavor mixings involving the
60: first-generation squarks have been severely constrained by
61: $K^0-\bar K^0$, $D^0-\bar D^0$ and $B^0_d-\bar B^0_d$ mixings
62: \cite{susyf}, but the mixings between second- and third-generation
63: squarks, especially the scharm-stop mixings, are less constrained.
64: For example, although the electric dipole moment of mercury atom
65: has been precisely measured, it only constrains the product of the
66: $\tilde{c}_L-\tilde{t}_L$ mixing with another undetermined free
67: parameter \cite{Endo}. Without definite information about the
68: parameter, the constraint is ambiguous.
69:
70: Scharm-stop mixings are well motivated in popular flavor-blind
71: SUSY breaking models like supergravity models (SUGRA). In these
72: models, the flavor-diagonality is usually assumed in sfermion mass
73: matrices at the grand unification scale and the Yukawa couplings
74: induce flavor mixings when the sfermion mass matrices evolve down
75: to the weak scale. Such radiatively induced off-diagonal
76: squark-mass terms are proportional to the corresponding Yukawa
77: couplings and thus the mixings between second- and
78: third-generation squarks may be sizable\cite{hikasa}.
79:
80: Scharm-stop mixings can induce various top-quark flavor-changing
81: neutral-current (FCNC) processes which will be tested at the CERN
82: Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Given the importance of such mixings,
83: we in this work examine current experimental constraints on them
84: from the following considerations. Firstly, since the mixing terms
85: appear as the non-diagonal elements of squark mass matrices, they
86: can affect the squark mass spectrum, especially enlarge the mass
87: splitting between squarks. So they should be constrained by the
88: squark mass bounds from the direct experimental searches. At the
89: same time, since the squark loops affect the precision electroweak
90: quantities such as $M_W$ and the effective weak mixing angle
91: $sin^2\theta_{eff}$, such mixings could be also constrained by the
92: precision electroweak measurements. As will be shown later, to a
93: good approximation, the supersymmetric corrections to the
94: electroweak quantities are through the parameter $\delta\rho$ and
95: thus sensitive to the mass splitting of squarks. Secondly, the
96: processes of $b \to s$ transition like $B_s-\bar B_s$ mixings and
97: $b \to s \gamma$ can provide rich information about the $\tilde
98: s-\tilde b$ mixings. Through the SU(2) relation between up-squark
99: and down-squark mass matrices (see eq.(\ref{SU2})) and also
100: through the electroweak quantities (since all squarks contribute
101: to electroweak quantities via loops), the information can be
102: reflected in up-squark sector and hence constrain the scharm-stop
103: mixings. Thirdly, we note that the chiral flipping mixings of
104: scharm-stop come from the trilinear $H_2 \tilde{Q} \tilde{U}$
105: interactions \cite{susyf}. Such interactions can lower the
106: lightest Higgs boson mass $m_h$ via squark loops and thus should
107: be subject to the current experimental bound on $m_h$.
108:
109: We noticed that the constraints on scharm-stop mixings from $m_h$
110: and $\delta \rho$ have been discussed in \cite{hollik}. But the
111: analyses of \cite{hollik} focus on $\tilde c_L-\tilde t_L$ mixing
112: and did not consider $\tilde c_L-\tilde t_R$, $\tilde c_R-\tilde
113: t_L$ and $\tilde c_R-\tilde t_R$ mixings. Also, in \cite{hollik}
114: the authors ignored the SU(2) relation between the up- and
115: down-squark mass matrices, and for the up-squark mass matrix, they
116: left out the first generation and only considered the second and
117: third generations. As will be discussed later, a complete
118: consideration of three generations is necessary in calculating
119: $\delta \rho$. Moreover, since the analyses of \cite{hollik}
120: focus on $m_h$ and $\delta \rho$ constraints, other constraints
121: like $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing and $ b \to s \gamma$ are not included
122: in \cite{hollik}.
123:
124: In this work we will give a comprehensive analysis on the
125: scharm-stop mixings. We will consider all possible mixings between
126: scharms and stops, namely $\tilde c_L-\tilde t_L$ and $\tilde
127: c_L-\tilde t_R$ mixings for left-handed scharm and $\tilde
128: c_R-\tilde t_L$ and $\tilde c_R-\tilde t_R$ mixings for
129: right-handed scharm. We will not only consider the constraints
130: from $m_h$ and $\delta \rho$, but also include the constraints
131: from $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing and $b \to s \gamma$. As an
132: illustration for the effects of such constraints, we will examine
133: various top-quark FCNC processes induced by these scharm-stop
134: mixings at the LHC. \vspace*{0.2cm}
135:
136: \bf{Calculations~~} \rm Instead of presenting the detailed and lengthy
137: analytic results, we just delineate the strategies of our
138: calculations. \vspace*{0.1cm}
139:
140: \em{1. Squark mass:~~} \rm In the super-KM basis with states
141: ($\tilde u_L$, $\tilde c_L$, $\tilde t_L$, $\tilde u_R$, $\tilde
142: c_R$, $\tilde t_R$) for up-squarks and ($\tilde d_L$, $\tilde
143: s_L$, $\tilde b_L$, $\tilde d_R$, $\tilde s_R$, $\tilde b_R$) for
144: down-squarks, the $6\times 6$ squark mass matrix
145: ${\cal M}^2_{\tilde q}$ ($\tilde q=\tilde u, \tilde d$) takes the
146: form \cite{susyf}
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: {\cal M}^2_{\tilde q}=\left( \begin{array}{ll}
149: (M^2_{\tilde q})_{LL}+ C_{\tilde q}^{LL} & (M^2_{\tilde q})_{LR}-C_{\tilde q}^{LR} \\
150: \left( (M^2_{\tilde{q}})_{LR}-C_{\tilde q}^{LR}\right)^\dag
151: & (M^2_{\tilde{q}})_{RR}+C_{\tilde q}^{RR} \end{array} \right) ,
152: \label{sq-matrix}
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: where $C_{\tilde q}^{LL} = m_q^2 + \cos 2\beta M_Z^2 ( T_3^q - Q_q
155: s_W^2) \hat{\mbox{\large 1}}$, $C_{\tilde q}^{RR} = m_q^2 + \cos
156: 2\beta M_Z^2 Q_q s_W^2 \hat{\mbox{\large 1}}$ and $C_{\tilde
157: q}^{LR}=m_q \mu (\tan \beta)^{- 2 T_3^q}$ are $3\times 3$ diagonal
158: matrices ($\hat{\mbox{\large 1}}$ stands for the unit matrix in
159: flavor space and $m_q$ is the diagonal quark mass matrix). Here,
160: $T_3^q=1/2$ for up-squarks and $T_3^q=-1/2$ for down-squarks, and
161: $\tan \beta =v_2/v_1$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation
162: values of the Higgs fields. In general, the soft mass parameters
163: $(M^2_{\tilde q})_{LL}$, $(M^2_{\tilde q})_{LR}$ and
164: $(M^2_{\tilde q})_{RR}$ are $3\times 3$ non-diagonal matrices. For
165: up-squarks, if we only consider the flavor mixings between scharms
166: and stops, then
167: \begin{eqnarray}
168: (M^2_{\tilde{u}})_{LL} &= & \left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
169: M_{Q_1}^2 & 0 & 0 \\
170: 0 & M_{Q_2}^2 & \delta_{LL} M_{Q_2} M_{Q_3} \\
171: 0 & \delta_{LL} M_{Q_2} M_{Q_3} & M_{Q_3}^2 \end{array} \right ), \nonumber \\
172: (M^2_{\tilde{u}})_{LR} &=& \left (
173: \begin{array}{ccc}
174: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
175: 0 & 0 & \delta_{LR} M_{Q_2} M_{U_3}\\
176: 0 & \delta_{RL} M_{U_2} M_{Q_3} & m_t A_t \end{array} \right ), \nonumber \\
177: (M^2_{\tilde{u}})_{RR} &= & (M^2_{\tilde{u}})_{LL}|_{M_{Q_i}^2 \to M_{U_i}^2,~ \delta_{LL} \to
178: \delta_{RR}}. \label{up squark}
179: \end{eqnarray}
180: Similarly, for down-squarks we have
181: \begin{eqnarray}
182: (M^2_{\tilde{d}})_{LR}& = & \left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
183: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
184: 0 & 0 & \delta_{LR}^d M_{Q_2} M_{D_3}\\
185: 0 & \delta_{RL}^d M_{D_2} M_{Q_3} & m_b A_b \end{array} \right
186: ), \nonumber \\
187: (M^2_{\tilde{d}})_{RR} &= & (M^2_{\tilde{u}})_{LL}|_{M_{Q_i}^2 \to
188: M_{D_i}^2,~ \delta_{LL} \to \delta_{RR}^d}, \label{delta'-LR}
189: \end{eqnarray}
190: and, due to $SU_L(2)$ gauge invariance, $(M^2_{\tilde d })_{LL}$
191: is determined by\cite{susyf}
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: (M^2_{\tilde{d}})_{LL} = V_{CKM}^\dag (M_{\tilde{u}}^2)_{LL}
194: V_{CKM}. \label{SU2}
195: \end{eqnarray}
196: Note that for the diagonal elements of left-right mixings in
197: eqs.(\ref{up squark}$\sim$\ref{delta'-LR}), we only kept the terms
198: of third-family squarks since we adopted the popular assumption
199: that they are proportional to the corresponding quark masses.
200:
201: The squark mass eigenstates can be obtained by diagonalizing the
202: mass matrix in eq.(\ref{sq-matrix}) with an unitary rotation
203: $U_{\tilde{q}}$, which is performed numerically in our analysis.
204: The interactions of a vector or scalar boson $X$ with a pair of
205: squark mass eigenstates are then obtained by
206: \begin{eqnarray} V(X \tilde{q}_{\alpha}^\ast
207: \tilde{q}_{\beta}^\prime) \; = \;
208: U_{\tilde{q}}^{\dag \alpha,i} \; U_{\tilde{q}^\prime}^{j, \beta} \;
209: V(X \tilde{q}_i^\ast \tilde{q}^\prime_j)~,
210: \label{rotation}
211: \end{eqnarray}
212: where $V(X\tilde{q}_i^\ast \tilde{q}^\prime_j)$ denotes a generic
213: vertex in the interaction basis and
214: $V(X\tilde{q}_{\alpha}^\ast \tilde{q}_{\beta}^\prime )$ is the
215: vertex in the mass-eigenstate basis. It is clear that both the
216: squark masses and their interactions depend on the mixing
217: parameters in the squark mass matrices.
218:
219: Although we in eq.(\ref{up squark}) listed all four possible
220: mixings between scharms and stops, in the following we mainly
221: focus on the mixings $\delta_{LL}$ and $ \delta_{LR}$ for the
222: left-handed scharm, and only give some brief discussions about the
223: mixings $\delta_{RL} $ and $\delta_{RR}$ for the right-handed
224: scharm. Our peculiar interest in $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$
225: is based on the following two considerations. The first is that in
226: the popular mSUGRA model, at the weak scale the flavor mixings for
227: the left-handed scharm are proportional to bottom quark mass while
228: those for the right-handed scharm are proportional to charm quark
229: mass\cite{hikasa}. Therefore, in phenomenological studies of
230: scharm-stop mixings, one usually assume the existence of
231: $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$. The second is that $\delta_{LL}$
232: and $\delta_{LR}$ have richer phenomenology than $\delta_{RL}$ and
233: $\delta_{RR}$. $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$ contribute sizably
234: to all considered quantities, namely $\delta \rho$, $m_h$,
235: $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing and $ b \to s \gamma$, while $\delta_{RL}$
236: and $\delta_{RR}$ only affect $\delta \rho $ and $m_h$.
237: \vspace*{0.2cm}
238:
239: \em{2. $b \to s \gamma$:~~} \rm It has long been known that
240: for $b \to s \gamma$ the sizable SUSY contributions may come
241: from three kinds of loops mediated respectively by
242: the charged Higgs bosons, charginos and gluinos \cite{charged higgs}.
243: In our analysis we consider all these three kinds of loops plus
244: those mediated by the neutralinos.
245: We use the formula in \cite{bsr}, which includes all these
246: SUSY loop effects in additional to the SM contribution.
247: So, besides down-squark and up-squark mass parameters, our results
248: also depend on charged Higgs boson mass, gaugino mass $M_2$ and gluino mass
249: $m_{\tilde{g}}$. As pointed out in numerous papers, $b \to s
250: \gamma$ is very sensitive to $\delta^d_{LR}$ and $\delta^d_{RL}$,
251: and in some cases also sensitive to $\delta_{LL}$ and
252: $\delta_{LR}$.
253:
254: \em{3. $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing:~~} \rm In the MSSM the charged
255: Higgs and chargino contributions to $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing are
256: much suppressed compared with the gluino effects and the SM
257: prediction \cite{Ball}. So in our analysis we only include the
258: gluino effects in addition to the SM contribution. We evaluate the
259: gluino contributions by the full expressions, namely, without the
260: mass-insertion approximation. Our Wilson coefficients are coincide
261: with those in \cite{Gerard} and we use the formula in \cite{Ball}
262: to get the transition matrix element $M_{12}$. As pointed out in
263: \cite{Ball}, $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing is very sensitive to the
264: combination $\delta_{LL}^d \delta_{RR}^d $ and $\delta_{LR}^d
265: \delta_{RL}^d$, and with the current measurement of
266: $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing\cite{D0}, it can put rather severe
267: constraints on $\delta^d$s.
268:
269: \em{4. $\delta M_W$ and $\delta \sin^2 \theta_{eff}:$~~} \rm In
270: the MSSM the corrections to $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{eff} $ are
271: dominated by squark loops \footnote{Slepton contribution to
272: $\delta M_W$ and $\delta \sin^2 \theta_{eff}$ is not important
273: partially because slepton is $SU(3)$ color singlet, and partially
274: because, due to absence of large $\tilde{l}_L-\tilde{l}_R$ mixing,
275: the slepton $SU(2)$ doublet $(\tilde{\nu}, \tilde{l})$ are nearly
276: degenerate, hence their contribution to $\delta \rho$ tends to
277: vanish\cite{rho}.}.
278: In our calculations we used the complete formula in \cite{rho} for the
279: corrections. We checked that, to a good approximation (at the
280: level of a few percent), they can be determined from the $\delta
281: \rho$ parameter \cite{hollik}
282: \begin{eqnarray}
283: \delta M_W \simeq \frac{M_W}{2} \frac{c_W^2}{c_W^2 -s_W^2} \delta \rho, \\
284: \delta \sin^2 \theta_{eff} \simeq -\frac{c_W^2 s_W^2}{c_W^2
285: -s_W^2} \delta \rho ,
286: \end{eqnarray}
287: where
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \delta \rho=\frac{\Sigma_Z(0)}{M_Z^2} - \frac{\Sigma_W(0)}{M_W^2}.
290: \end{eqnarray}
291: Although our results are not sensitive to the soft mass parameters
292: of the first-generation squarks, we stress the necessity to
293: consider all three generations of squarks in the calculations. The
294: reason is the calculation of the squark loops in $W$-boson
295: self-energy involves the couplings of $W \tilde u_i \tilde d_j$,
296: which are given by $U_{\tilde u}^\dag V_{CKM} U_{\tilde d}$ with
297: $U_{\tilde u}$ and $U_{\tilde d}$ defined in eq.(\ref{rotation}).
298: Only by considering all three
299: generations of squarks can one get exact UV-convergent results and
300: implement the SU(2) relation in eq.(\ref{SU2}) at the same time.
301: In \cite{hollik} the authors only considered two generations of
302: squarks (ignored the first generation) and by introducing an
303: unphysical $2 \times 2$ unitary matrix they kept their results
304: free of UV-divergence. We checked numerically that such an
305: approximation is not so good. For example, with the same
306: parameters for the lowest curve of Fig.8 in \cite{hollik}, our
307: result is $\delta M_W =11$ MeV for $\delta_{LL} = 0.6 $, smaller
308: than $40$ MeV obtained in \cite{hollik}. The main reason for such
309: sizable difference is due to the difference of $W \tilde u_i
310: \tilde d_j$ couplings. The matrices $U_{\tilde u}$ and $U_{\tilde
311: d}$ of [6] are different from ours since they did not consider the
312: SU(2) relation between up- and down-squark mass matrices, and the
313: matrix $V_{CKM}$ of [6] is also different from ours since we used
314: the exact $3 \times 3$ CKM matrix while they used an approximated
315: $2 \times 2$ unitary matrix. Due to the strong cancellation
316: between different Feynman diagrams in the calculation of $\delta \rho$,
317: the small difference of $W \tilde u_i \tilde d_j$ couplings may lead to
318: sizable difference in the final result.
319: \vspace*{0.2cm}
320:
321: \em{5. Higgs boson mass:~~} \rm In the MSSM the
322: loop-corrected lightest Higgs boson mass $m_h$ is defined as the
323: pole of the corrected propagator matrix, which can be obtained by
324: solving the equation \cite{Dabelstein}
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: & & \left[p^2 - m_{h, tree}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{hh}(p^2) \right]\nonumber \\
327: && \times \left[p^2 - m_{H, tree}^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_{HH}(p^2) \right]
328: -\left[\hat{\Sigma}_{hH}(p^2)\right]^2 = 0 ,
329: \label{mass-equation}
330: \end{eqnarray}
331: where $m_{h, tree}$ and $m_{H, tree}$ are the tree-level masses of
332: $h$ and $H$. To obtain the renormalized self-energies
333: $\hat\Sigma_i (p^2)$, one needs to calculate Higgs boson
334: self-energy and tadpole diagrams and then organize the results by
335: eq.(3.1) in \cite{Dabelstein}. Due to the large top-quark Yukawa
336: couplings, the contribution from top and stop loops is far
337: dominant among all SUSY contributions. In the presence of flavor
338: mixings in the up-suqark mass matrix, stops will mix with other
339: squarks, and in this case, the dominant contribution comes from
340: up-squark sector. In our calculation of $m_h$, we take into
341: account this part of contribution as in \cite{hollik}. For
342: $\delta_{LR, RL}=0$, we can reproduce the results in
343: \cite{hollik}, but our results include $\delta_{LR, RL} \neq 0$
344: case.
345:
346: With the parametrization of the squark mass matrices in
347: eqs.(\ref{up squark}$\sim$\ref{SU2}) and for small flavor mixing
348: parameters of down-squarks, the
349: quantities $\delta M_W$, $\delta \sin^2 \theta_{eff}$ and $m_h$
350: are sensitive to the soft masses $M_{Q_{2,3}}$ and $M_{U_{2,3}}$,
351: the trilinear coupling $A_t$ as well as $\delta_{LR,RL}$.
352: And in some cases, they are also sensitive to $\mu$, the CP-odd Higgs boson
353: mass $m_A$ and $\delta_{LL,RR}$.
354: Unlike $B_s-\bar B_s$ mixing and $b \to s \gamma$, these quantities are not
355: sensitive to gluino mass.
356: \vspace*{0.4cm}
357:
358: \bf{Numerical results~~} \rm To numerically illustrate the
359: constraints on scharm-stop mixing parameters $\delta_{LL}$ and
360: $\delta_{LR}$, we need to fix other involved parameters. Here, as
361: an illustration, we consider the so-called $m_h^{max}$ scenario,
362: in which $m_h$ can be maximized \cite{benchmark}. In this
363: scenario, all the soft mass parameters are assumed to be
364: degenerate
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: M_{SUSY} = M_{Q_i} = M_{U_i}=M_{D_i} ,
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: and the trilinear couplings are also assumed to be degenerate
369: $A_{u_i} = A_{d_i}$ with $(A_{u_i} - \mu \cot \beta)/M_{SUSY} =2$.
370: Other SUSY parameters are fixed as $\tan\beta=10$, $\mu = M_2=m_A
371: = m_{\tilde{g}}= 300 {\rm ~GeV}$ and $\delta_{RL}=\delta_{RR}\delta_{LR}^d=\delta_{RL}^d = \delta_{RR}^d = 0$. All the SM
372: parameters involved in our calculations like $M_Z$ are taken from
373: the Particle Data Book \cite{pdg}.
374:
375: We show in Fig.\ref{allowed} the constraints on the mixing
376: parameters $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$. Here we used the LEP
377: experimental bounds on squark mass \cite{pdg} and Higgs boson
378: mass \cite{lep-higgs}
379: \begin{eqnarray}
380: m_{\tilde{u}} > 95.7 {\rm ~GeV},~m_{\tilde{d}} > 89 {\rm~GeV},
381: ~m_h > 92.8 {\rm ~GeV}, \label{sq bounds}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: and required the MSSM loop contributions to $M_W$ and
384: $\sin^2\theta_{eff}$ not exceeding the present experimental
385: uncertainties \cite{lep}
386: \begin{eqnarray}
387: \Delta M_W < 34 {\rm ~MeV}, \quad \Delta \sin^2\theta_{eff} < 15 \times 10^{-5} .
388: \end{eqnarray}
389: We also used the current measurement of $ b \to s \gamma$ at $3
390: \sigma$ level \cite{heavy flavor}
391: \begin{eqnarray}
392: 2.53 \times 10^{-4} < Br( b \to s \gamma ) < 4.34 \times 10^{-4},
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: and current favored region for $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing\cite{Bs
395: bound,D0}
396: \begin{eqnarray}
397: 0.55 < | 1 + R | < 1.37 \label{Bs bounds}
398: \end{eqnarray}
399: where $R = M_{12}^{SUSY}/M_{12}^{SM}$.
400: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
401: \begin{center}
402: \begin{figure}[tb]
403: %\hspace*{-1.2cm}
404: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=8cm, height=7.7cm}
405: \caption{The shaded area is allowed by all constraints.
406: The dashed-line enclosed area is allowed by $b \to s \gamma$.
407: For other individual constraints, the region under
408: or left to each curve is the corresponding allowed region.
409: \label{allowed}}
410: \end{figure}
411: \end{center}
412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
413: From Fig.\ref{allowed} we see that although the constraint
414: from squark mass is rather weak, the
415: combined constraints from $b \to s \gamma$, $B_s-\bar{B}_s$
416: mixing, $\delta M_W$, $\delta \sin^2 \theta_{eff}$ and $m_h$ are
417: quite strong and only a small area in $\delta_{LL}-\delta_{LR}$
418: plane survives. We make following explanations about our results:
419: \begin{itemize}
420:
421: \item[(1)] With our fixed parameters, the charged Higgs and chargino
422: contributions enhance the SM prediction of $b \to s \gamma$ and thus
423: a none-zero gluino contribution is needed to cancel the effects.
424: Therefore, the $b \to s \gamma$ allowed region is an enclosed one
425: in Fig.\ref{allowed}
426:
427: \item[(2)] In the case we considered, $\delta M_W$ and $\delta \sin^2
428: \theta_{eff}$ require a small $\delta_{LR}$. The reason is that
429: the large splitting between $\delta_{LR}$ and $\delta_{LR}^d$
430: can spoil the custodial symmetry between squark
431: doublet and hence enhance the value of $\delta \rho$. In our
432: calculations we fixed $\delta_{LR}^d=0$, but we checked that the
433: maximal allowed value of $\delta_{LR}$ is not sensitive to
434: $\delta_{LR}^d$ if $\delta_{LR}^d < 0.4$. For example, when
435: $\delta_{LR}^d$ varies from 0 to 0.4, the maximal value of
436: $\delta_{LR}$ only increases by 0.05.
437: Note that compared with $\delta_{LR}$, $\delta M_W$ and $\delta \sin^2
438: \theta_{eff}$ are less sensitive to $\delta_{LL}$.
439:
440:
441: \item[(3)] The Higgs mass $m_h$ requires a small $\delta_{LR}$
442: because $\delta_{LR}$ comes from $H_2 \tilde{c}^\ast_L
443: \tilde{t}_R$ interaction which can lower the value of $m_h$ via
444: squark loops.
445:
446: \item[(4)] With our fixed parameters, $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing and $
447: b \to s \gamma $ give the stronger constraint on $\delta_{LR}$
448: than $\delta \rho$ and $m_h$, but in other cases, $\delta \rho$ or
449: $m_h$ may give the strongest constraints. For example, in
450: $m_h^{max}$ scenario with $M_{SUSY} =2$ TeV, the Higgs mass
451: constraint becomes the strongest.
452: \end{itemize}
453:
454: Note that in the above we only show the constraints on
455: $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$.
456: Now we take a look at $\delta_{RL}$ and $\delta_{RR}$.
457: Since $B_s-\bar B_s$ mixing and
458: $b \to s \gamma$ are not sensitive to $\delta_{RL}$ and $\delta_{RR}$,
459: the constraints are then only from $\delta\rho$ and $m_h$.
460: We found that $\delta \rho$ requires a small $\delta_{RL}$
461: (the constraint is similar to $\delta_{LR}$), but is insensitive
462: to $\delta_{RR}$.
463: Just like $\delta_{LR}$, a small $\delta_{RL}$ is also
464: required by the Higgs mass $m_h$.
465: Therefore, $\delta_{RL}$ is constrained by $\delta\rho$ and $m_h$
466: just like $\delta_{LR}$; while $\delta_{RR}$ is very weakly constrained.
467: \vspace*{0.2cm}
468:
469: \bf{Implication in top-quark FCNC process:~~} \rm With the
470: constraints discussed above, we examined various top-quark FCNC
471: decay and production processes at the LHC, some of which were
472: intensively studied in the literature
473: \cite{tcv-mssm,tch-mssm,tc-production-mssm}. We just considered
474: the dominant SUSY-QCD contributions to these processes. The
475: detailed calculations, the results and the discussions of
476: observability are quite lengthy and will be presented in another
477: paper. Here, as an illustration of the effects of the constraints
478: discussed in this paper, we only show in Table 1 the maximal
479: results predicted by the MSSM. These maximal results are obtained
480: by scanning the relevant SUSY parameters in the ranges
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: && 2 < \tan\beta < 60, \quad 0< M_{Q_i,U_i, D_i}<1 {\rm ~TeV}, \nonumber \\
483: && 94 {\rm ~GeV} < m_A <1 {\rm ~TeV}, \quad 195 {\rm ~GeV} <m_{\tilde g} < 1 {\rm ~TeV},
484: \nonumber \\
485: && 0< \delta_{LL,LR} < 1, \quad -1 {\rm ~TeV} < \mu, M_2 < 1 {\rm ~TeV}, \nonumber \\
486: && 0< \delta_{LR}^b < 0.1, \quad -2 {\rm ~TeV} < A_{t,b} < 2 {\rm
487: ~TeV} .
488: \end{eqnarray}
489: We show in Table I two kinds of predictions: one is by requiring
490: the squark, chargino and neutralino masses satisfy their current
491: lower bounds; the other is by imposing all constraints considered
492: in this paper. We consider two cases: (I) only $\delta_{LL}\neq 0$
493: and (II) only $\delta_{LR} \neq 0$. From Table I we see that the
494: combined constraints can significantly decrease the MSSM
495: predictions of top-quark FCNC processes at the LHC.
496:
497: Note that in Table I we only illustrate the cases of
498: $\delta_{LL}\neq 0$ and $\delta_{LR} \neq 0$.
499: For $\delta_{RL}\neq 0$, we found that the maximum rate of
500: $t \to cg$ is $1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ with only the squark mass constraints
501: and changed to $6 \times 10^{-5}$ with all constraints.
502: For $\delta_{RR} \neq 0$, the maximum rate of $t \to cg$ is
503: $5.0 \times 10^{-5}$ with only the squark mass constraints
504: and changed to $4.85 \times 10^{-5}$ with all constraints.
505: This can be easily understood since, as discussed ealier, $\delta_{RR}$
506: is very weakly constrained and $\delta_{RL}$ is constrained by $\delta\rho$
507: and $m_h$.
508:
509: \vspace*{0.2cm}
510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
511: \noindent {\small Table 1: Maximal predictions for top-quark FCNC
512: processes
513: induced by stop-scharm mixings via gluino-squark loops in the MSSM.
514: For the productions we show the hadronic cross sections at the LHC
515: and include the corresponding charge-conjugate channels.
516: For the decays we show the branching ratios. }
517: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
518: \begin{center}
519: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
520: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\delta_{LL}\neq
521: 0$}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\delta_{LR}\neq 0$} \\ \cline{2-5}
522: & constraints& constraints& constraints & constraints \\
523: & masses& all & masses & all \\ \hline
524: $cg \to t$ & 1450 fb & 225 fb& 3850 fb & 950 fb \\ \hline $gg \to
525: t\bar{c}$ & 1400 fb & 240 fb & 2650 fb & 700 fb \\ \hline $ c g
526: \to tg$ & 800 fb & 85 fb & 1750 fb & 520 fb \\ \hline $cg \to
527: t \gamma$ & 4 fb & 0.4 fb& 8 fb & 1.8 fb \\ \hline $cg \to tZ$
528: & 11 fb & 1.5 fb & 17 fb & 5.7 fb \\ \hline $c g \to t
529: h$ & 550 fb & 18 fb & 12000 fb & 24 fb \\ \hline \hline $t
530: \to ch$ & $1.2 \times 10^{-3} $ & $ 2.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2.5
531: \times 10^{-2}$ & $ 6.0 \times 10^{-5}$ \\ \hline $t \to c g $ &
532: $5.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $5.0 \times 10^{-6} $ & $1.3 \times
533: 10^{-4}$ & $3.2 \times 10^{-5}$ \\ \hline $t \to c Z$ & $5.0
534: \times 10^{-6}$ & $5.7 \times 10^{-7}$ &$1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ &
535: $1.8 \times 10^{-6}$ \\ \hline $t \to c \gamma $ & $9.0 \times
536: 10^{-7}$ & $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{-6}$ & $5.2
537: \times 10^{-7}$ \\ \hline
538: \end{tabular}
539: \end{center}
540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
541:
542: \vspace*{0.2cm} \bf{Conclusion:~~} \rm We examined current
543: experimental constraints on scharm-stop flavor mixing in the MSSM,
544: which arise from the experimental bounds on squark and Higgs boson
545: masses, the precision measurements of the $\delta\rho$ parameter,
546: as well as the experimental data on $B_s-\bar{B}_s$ mixing and $b
547: \to s \gamma$. We found that the combined analysis of these
548: constraints can severely constrain the $\tilde{c}_L-\tilde{t}_L$
549: and $\tilde{c}_L-\tilde{t}_R$ mixings; while the
550: $\tilde{c}_R-\tilde{t}_L$ mixing is constrained only by
551: $\delta\rho$ and Higgs mass, and the $\tilde{c}_R-\tilde{t}_R$
552: mixing can almost elude any constraints. Such constraints can
553: significantly alter the predictions of the top-quark FCNC
554: processes induced by scharm-stop mixings at the LHC and thus
555: should be taken into account in the study of observability of
556: these top-quark FCNC processes. \vspace*{0.2cm}
557: \vspace*{0.2cm}
558:
559: \bf{Acknowlegement:~~} \rm
560: This work is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation,
561: the Fund for the Promotion of Research at Technion, the
562: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 14046201) from the Japan
563: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology and
564: by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
565: No. 10475107, 10505007 and 10375017.
566:
567: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
568: \bibitem{susyf} See, {\it e.~g.},
569: S. Dimopoulos, D. Sutter, \NPB452, 496 (1996);
570: F. Gabbiani, {\it et al.}, \NPB477, 321 (1996);
571: M.~Misiak, S.~Pokorski, J.~Rosiek,
572: hep-ph/9703442.
573: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B452,496;%%
574: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B477,321;%%
575: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703442;%%
576: \bibitem{taohan} J. J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \PRD59, 095001(1999);
577: T. Han, {\it et al.}, \PRD70, 055001 (2004).
578: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,095001;%%
579: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,055001;%%
580: \bibitem{bsr} T. Besmer, C. Greub, T.Hurth, \NPB609, 359 (2001);
581: F. Borzumati, {\it et al.}, \PRD62, 075005(2000).
582: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,075005;%%
583: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B609,359;%%
584: \bibitem{Endo} M. Endo, M. Kakizaki, M. Yamaguchi, \PLB583, 186(2004).
585: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311072;%%
586: \bibitem{hikasa} K. Hikasa and M. Kobayashi, \PRD36, 724 (1987);
587: M. J. Duncan, \NPB221, 285 (1983).
588: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,724;%%
589: \bibitem{hollik} S. Heinemeyer, {\it et al.}, \EPJC37, 481 (2004).
590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403228;%%
591: \bibitem{charged higgs} R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice, \PLB309, 86 (1993).
592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303270;%%
593: \bibitem{Ball} P.~Ball, S.~Khalil and E.~Kou, \PRD69, 115011 (2004);
594: M. Ciuchini, L. Silvestrini, hep-ph/0603114.
595: \bibitem{Gerard} J.~M.~G$\acute{e}$rard, {\it et~al.}, \PLB140, 349, (1984);
596: R.~Harnik, {\it et~al.}, \PRD69, 094024 (2004).
597: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B140,349;%%
598: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,094024;%%
599: \bibitem{D0} D0 Collaboration, hep-ex/0603029; CDF Collaboration,
600: hep-ex/0606027.
601: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603029;%%
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606027;%%
603: \bibitem{rho} See, e.g., P.~Chankowski, {\it et~al.}, \NPB417, 101 (1994);
604: D.~Garcia and J.~Sol\`a, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A 9}, 211 (1994).
605: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B417,101;%%
606: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A9,211;%%
607: \bibitem{Dabelstein} A. Dabelstein, \ZPC67, 495 (1995).
608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409375;%%
609: \bibitem{benchmark} M.~Carena, {\it et al.}, \EPJC26, 601 (2003).
610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202167;%%
611: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, \PLB592, 1 (2004).
612: \bibitem{lep-higgs} See, e.g., A. Sopczak, hep-ph/0602136.
613: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602136;%%
614: \bibitem{lep} The LEP Collaborations, hep-ex/0509008.
615: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0509008;%%
616: \bibitem{heavy flavor} HFAG Group, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.
617: \bibitem{Bs bound}M.~ Endo and S.~Mishima, hep-ph/0603251.
618: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603251;%%
619: \bibitem{tcv-mssm} For $t \to cV$ in the MSSM, see, {\it e.~g.},
620: C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes, J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
621: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui, H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
622: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
623: G. M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio, L. Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997);
624: J. M. Yang, B.-L. Young, X.~Zhang, \PRD58, 055001 (1998).
625: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
626: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
627: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
628: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
629: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,055001;%%
630: \bibitem{tch-mssm} For $t \to ch$ in the MSSM, see, {\it e.~g.},
631: J.~M.~Yang, C.~S.~Li, \PRD49, 3412 (1994);
632: J.~Guasch, J.~S\`{o}la, \NPB562, 3 (1999);
633: G.~Eilam, {\it et al.}, \PLB510, 227 (2001);
634: J.~L.~Diaz-Cruz, H.-J.~He, C.-P.~Yuan, \PLB530, 179 (2002).
635: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
636: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B562,3;%%
637: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102037;%%
638: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103178;%%
639: \bibitem{tc-production-mssm}
640: J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J. M. Yang, \NPB651, 87 (2003); \PRD67, 071701 (2003);
641: J. J. Liu, {\it et al.}, \NPB705, 3 (2005);
642: J. M. Yang, Annals Phys. 316, 529 (2005);
643: J. Guasch, {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0601218;
644: G. Eilam, M. Frank, I. Turan, hep-ph/0601253.
645: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
646: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,071701;%%
647: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B705,3;%%
648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409351;%%
649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601218;%%
650: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601253;%%
651:
652: \end{thebibliography}
653:
654: \end{document}
655: )
656: )
657: )
658: