1: \def\CTeXPreproc{Created by ctex v0.2.4, don't edit!}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint,epsfig]{revtex}
3: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
6: \usepackage[dvips,usenames]{color}
7: %\usepackage{axodraw}
8: \usepackage{graphicx}
9:
10: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
11: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}
12: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.0}
13: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
14:
15: \newlength{\dinwidth}
16: \newlength{\dinmargin}
17: \setlength{\dinwidth}{21.0cm} \textheight23.2cm \textwidth17.0cm
18: \setlength{\dinmargin}{\dinwidth}
19: \addtolength{\dinmargin}{-\textwidth}
20: \setlength{\dinmargin}{0.5\dinmargin} \oddsidemargin -1.0in
21: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{\dinmargin}
22: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}
23: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.9\dinmargin} \marginparsep 8pt
24: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm} \marginparpush 5pt \topmargin -5pt
25: \headheight 12pt
26: \newcommand{\Correct}[1]{{\color{Red}\fbox{\color{Black}#1}}}
27: \newcommand{\spur}[1]{\not\! #1 \,}
28: %\date{}
29:
30: \begin{document}
31: \title{The correction of the littlest Higgs model to the Higgs
32: production process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ in
33: $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions}
34: \bigskip
35: \author{Yao-Bei Liu$^{a}$, Lin-lin Du$^{b}$, Xue-Lei Wang$^{b}$ \\
36: {\small a: Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang
37: 453003, P.R.China}
38: \thanks{E-mail:hnxxlyb2000@sina.com}\\
39: {\small b: College of Physics and Information
40: Engineering,}\\
41: \small{Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, P.R.China}\\
42: }
43: \maketitle
44: %\date{today}
45: \begin{abstract}
46: \indent The littlest Higgs model is the most economical one among
47: various little Higgs models. In the context of the littlest
48: Higgs(LH) model, we study the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
49: \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ and calculate the contributions of the LH model to
50: the cross section of this process. The results show that, in most of
51: parameter spaces preferred by the electroweak precision data, the
52: value of the relative correction is larger than $10\%$. Such
53: correction to the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ is
54: large enough to be detected via $e^{-}\gamma$ collisions in the
55: future high energy linear $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider($LC$) experiment
56: with the c.m energy $\sqrt{s}$=500 GeV and a yearly integrated
57: luminosity $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$, which will give an ideal way to
58: test the model.
59: \end{abstract}
60: PACS number(s): 12.60Cn,14.70.Pw,14.80.Bn,13.66.Hk
61: \newpage
62: \section{Introduction}
63: \indent The standard model($SM$) provides an excellent effective
64: field theory description of almost all particle physics experiments.
65: But in the $SM$ the Higgs boson mass suffers from an instability
66: under radiative corrections. The naturalness argument suggests that
67: the cutoff scale of the SM is not much above the electroweak scale:
68: New physics will appear around TeV energies. The possible new
69: physics scenarios at the TeV scale might be
70: supersymmetry\cite{supersymmetry}, dynamical symmetry
71: breaking\cite{dynamical}, extra dimensions\cite{extra}. Recently, a
72: new model, known as little Higgs model has drawn a lot of interest
73: and it offers a very promising solution to the hierarchy problem in
74: which the Higgs boson is naturally light as a result of nonlinearly
75: realized symmetry \cite{little-1,little-2,little-3,littlest}. The
76: key feature of this model is that the Higgs boson is a
77: pseudo-Goldstone boson of an approximate global symmetry which is
78: spontaneously broken by a VEV at a scale of a few TeV and thus is
79: naturally light. The most economical little Higgs model is the
80: so-called
81: littlest Higgs model, which is based on a $SU(5)/SO(5)$
82: nonlinear sigma model \cite{littlest}. It consists of a $SU(5)$ global
83: symmetry, which is spontaneously broken down to $SO(5)$ by a vacuum
84: condensate $f$. In this model, a set of new heavy gauge bosons$(B_{H},Z_{H},W_{H})$ and
85: a new heavy-vector-like quark(T) are introduced which just cancel
86: the quadratic divergence induced by the $SM$ gauge boson loops and the
87: top quark loop, respectively. The distinguishing features of this
88: model are the existence of these new particles and their
89: couplings to the light Higgs. The measurement of these new particle effects might
90: prove the existence of the littlest Higgs mechanism.\\
91: \indent The hunt for the Higgs boson and the elucidation of the mechanism of symmetry
92: breaking is one of the most important goals for present and future
93: high energy collider experiments. Precision electroweak measurement
94: data and direct searches suggest that the Higgs boson must be relative light and its mass should
95: be roughly in the range of 114.4 GeV$\sim$208 GeV at $95\%$ CL \cite{Higgs}.
96: The high energy linear $e^{+}e^{-}$ colliders($LC$) has a large potential for the discovery of new particles\cite{LC}.
97: Due to its rather clean environment, the $LC$ will be perfectly
98: suited for precise analysis of physics beyond the $SM$ as well as for
99: testing the $SM$ with an unprecedented accuracy. An unique feature
100: of the $LC$ is that it can be transformed to $\gamma\gamma$ or
101: $e\gamma$ colliders with the photon beams generated by laser-scattering
102: method.
103: Their effective luminosity and energy are expected to be comparable
104: to those of the $LC$. In some scenarios, they are the best
105: instrument for the discovery of signatures of new physics. \\
106: \indent Some
107: phenomenological studies of the littlest Higgs model via $e\gamma$
108: or $\gamma\gamma$ collision has been done \cite{ey}.
109: The main W boson production mechanism is provided by the process
110: $\gamma$+e$\rightarrow$W+$\nu$. The larger cross section for W boson
111: production suggests that the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
112: \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ can be exploited as a source for Higgs boson emitted
113: from the W-boson line. In the context of the SM, this process has
114: been studied at leading order \cite{eysm}. Since the final state
115: consists of three particles two of which are heavy, the cross
116: section at moderate energies($\sqrt{s}\sim500GeV$) is smaller than
117: that of the standard $WW$ fusion mechanism $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow
118: \nu\bar{\nu}H$ , the Higgs-strahlung process
119: $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow ZH$ and the $ZZ$ fusion mechanism $e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}H$.
120: These three
121: processes have been studied in the context of the SM\cite{ee-SM,eeH}
122: and the littlest Higgs model\cite{ee-LH}. However, at higher
123: energies the cross
124: section for the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow
125: \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ is nearly as large as that of the dominant
126: $\nu\bar{\nu}H$ and the process for most of the mass of Higss boson
127: range accessible at linear colliders, and significantly larger than
128: the cross section of the Higgs-strahlung process. A dedicated
129: $e^{-}\gamma$ collider with back scattered laser beam therefore
130: gives rise to a large Higgs production cross section through the
131: process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$. Thus, it is very
132: interesting to study this process in the popular specific models
133: beyond the SM. The purpose of this paper is to calculate the
134: corrections of new particles predicted by the littlest Higgs model
135: to the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ and see
136: whether the effects on this process can be observed in the future
137: $LC$ experiments with the c.m energy $\sqrt{s}$=500 GeV.
138:
139: \indent This paper is organized as follows. In section two, the
140: littlest model is briefly introduced, and then the production
141: amplitude of the process is given. The numerical results and
142: discussions are presented in section three. The conclusions are
143: given in section four.
144:
145: \section{The littlest Higgs model and the production amplitude of $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$
146: }
147: \indent The littlest Higgs model is based on the
148: $SU(5)/SO(5)$ nonlinear sigma model. At the scale $\Lambda_{s}\sim
149: 4\pi$$f$, the global $SU(5)$ symmetry is broken into its subgroup
150: $SO(5)$ via a vacuum condensate $f$, resulting in 14 Goldstone
151: bosons. The effective field theory of these Goldstone bosons is
152: parameterized by a non-linear $\sigma$ model with gauged symmetry
153: $[SU(2)\times U(1)]^{2}$, spontaneously broken down to its diagonal
154: subgroup $SU(2)\times U(1)$, identified as the SM electroweak gauge
155: group. Four of these Goldstone bosons are eaten by the broken gauge
156: generators, leaving 10 states that transform under the SM gauge
157: group as a doublet H and a triplet $\Phi$. This breaking scenario
158: also gives rise to four massive gauge bosons $B_{H}$,$Z_{H}$ and
159: $W^{\pm}_{H}$, which might produce the characteristic signatures in
160: the present and future high energy
161: collider experiments \cite{signatures-1,signatures-2,signatures-3}.\\
162: \indent After the electroweak symmetry breaking, the mass eigenstates
163: are obtained via mixing between the heavy and light gauge bosons.
164: They include the light (SM-like) bosons $Z_{L}$, $A_{L}$ and
165: $W^{\pm}_{L}$ observed at experiments, and new heavy bosons $Z_{H}$,
166: $B_{H}$ and $W^{\pm}_{H}$ that could be observed in the future
167: experiments. To obtain our numerical results, we write the masses of
168: the relevant particles as\cite{signatures-1}:
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: M^{2}_{W_{L}}&=&(m_{W})^{2}\{1-\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}[\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{4}(c^{2}-s^{2})^{2}+
171: \frac{x^2}{4}]\},\\
172: M^{2}_{W_{H}}&\approx&(m_{W})^{2}(\frac{f^{2}}{s^{2}c^{2}v^{2}}-1),
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: with $x=\frac{4fv'}{v^{2}}$, where $m_{W}=ev/2s_{W}$ is the mass of
175: the SM gauge boson W, $v$=246 GeV is the elecroweak scale, $v'$ is
176: the vacuum expectation value of the scalar $SU(2)_{L}$ triplet and
177: $s_{W}(c_{W})$ represents the sine(cosine) of the weak mixing angle.
178: We define $x=4fv'/v^{2}$ to parametrize this vacuum expectation
179: value of the scalar triplet field $\phi$. The mass of neutral scalar
180: boson $M_{\phi^{0}}$ can be given as \cite{signatures-1}
181: \begin{eqnarray}
182: M^{2}_{\phi^{0}}=\frac{2m^{2}_{H^{0}}f^{2}}{v^{2}[1-(4v'f/v^{2})^{2}]}=\frac{2m^{2}_{H^{0}}f^{2}}{v^{2}(1-x^{2})}
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: The above equation about the mass of $\Phi$ requires a constraint of
185: 0$\leq$x$<$1 (i.e.,$4v'f/v^{2}<1$), which shows the relation
186: between the scale $f$ and the vacuum expectation values of the Higgs field doublet and the triplet$(v,v')$.\\
187: \indent Taking account of the gauge invariance of the Yukawa
188: coupling and the $U(1)$ anomaly cancelation, the couplings of the
189: relevant couplings of the gauge boson $W^{\pm}_{L}$ and
190: $W^{\pm}_{H}$ to ordinary particles and the Higgs boson can be
191: written as follows in the LH model \cite{signatures-1}:
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: g_{V}^{W_{L}e\nu}&=&-g_{A}^{We\nu}=\frac{ie}{2\sqrt{2}s_{W}}[1-\frac{v^{2}}
194: {2f^{2}}c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})],\\
195: g_{V}^{W_{H}e\nu}&=&-g_{A}^{W_{H}e\nu}=-\frac{ie}{2\sqrt{2}s_{W}}\frac{c}{s},\\
196: g^{W^{+}_{L\mu}W^{-}_{L\nu}H}&=&\frac{ie^{2}}{2s^{2}_{W}}g_{\mu\nu}(1-\frac{v^{2}}{3f^{2}}+
197: \frac{1}{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})^{2}\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}-\frac{3vx}{f}),\\
198: g^{W^{+}_{L\mu}W^{-}_{H\nu}H}&=&\frac{-ie^{2}}{2s^{2}_{W}}\frac{(c^{2}-s^{2})}{2sc}vg_{\mu\nu}.
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: we write the gauge boson-fermion couplings in the form of
201: $i\gamma^{\mu}(g_{V}+g_{A}\gamma^{5})$.
202: With all momenta out-going, the three-point gauge boson
203: self-couplings can be written in the form of:
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: V_1^{\mu}(k_1)V_2^{\nu}(k_2)V_3^{\rho}(k_3):~~
206: -ig_{V_1V_2V_3}[g^{\mu\nu}(k_1-k_2)^{\rho}+g^{\nu\rho}(k_2-k_3)^{\mu}+g^{\rho\mu}(k_3-k_1)^{\nu}],
207: \end{eqnarray}
208: The coefficients $g_{V_1V_2V_3}$ are given as:
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: g_{A_LW^+_LW^-_L}=g_{A_LW^+_HW^-_H}=-e,\hspace{2.7cm}
211: g_{A_LW^+_LW^-_H}=0,
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: \indent Compared with the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ in the SM, this process in the LH model
214: receives additional contributions from the heavy boson $W^{\pm}_{H}$, proceed through the Feynman diagrams
215: depicted in Fig1. Furthermore, the modification of the relations
216: among the SM parameters, the precision electroweak input
217: parameters, the correction terms to the SM We$\nu_{e}$ and
218: $WWH$ coupling can also produce corrections to this
219: process.\\
220: \begin{figure}[t]
221: \begin{center}
222: \epsfig{file=feynman.ps,width=450pt,height=500pt} \vspace{-9cm}
223: \caption{\small Feynman diagrams of the process
224: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ in the littlest Higgs model.}
225: \label{fig1}
226: \end{center}
227: \end{figure}
228: \indent In order to write a compact expression for the amplitudes, it is
229: necessary to define the triple-boson couplings coefficient as:
230: \begin{equation}
231: \Gamma^{\alpha\beta\gamma}(p_{1},p_{2},p_{3})=g^{\alpha\beta}(p_{1}-p_{2})^{\gamma}
232: +g^{\beta\gamma}(p_{2}-p_{3})^{\alpha}+g^{\gamma\alpha}(p_{3}-p_{1})^{\beta},
233: \end{equation}
234: with all motenta out-going. The invariant production amplitudes of the process
235: can be written as:
236: \begin{equation}
237: M=M^{a}+M^{b}+M^{c},
238: \end{equation}
239: with
240: \begin{eqnarray*}
241: M_{a}&=&[AG^{\mu\nu}(p_{1}-p_{3},M_{W_{L}})+BG^{\mu\nu}(p_{1}-p_{3},M_{W_{H}})]\overline{u}_{\nu}(p_{3})\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma^{5})u_{e}(p_{1})\\
242: & &G^{\nu\alpha}(p_{2}-p_{4},M_{W_{L}})\Gamma^{\alpha\rho\sigma}(p_{2}-p_{4},-p_{2},p_{4})\varepsilon^{\rho}(p_{2})\varepsilon^{\sigma}(p_{4})\\
243: M_{b}&=&[AG^{\mu\nu}(p_{4}+p_{5},M_{W_{L}})+BG^{\mu\nu}(p_{4}+p_{5},M_{W_{H}})]G(p_{1}+p_{2})\\
244: &
245: &\overline{u}_{\nu}(p_{3})\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma^{5})\gamma^{\rho}u_{e}(p_{1})\varepsilon^{\rho}(p_{2})\varepsilon^{\nu}(p_{4})\\
246: M_{c}&=&[AG^{\mu\nu}(p_{1}-p_{3},M_{W_{L}})G^{\rho\sigma}(p_{4}+p_{5},M_{W_{L}})+BG^{\mu\nu}(p_{1}-p_{3},M_{W_{H}})G^{\rho\sigma}(p_{4}+p_{5},M_{W_{H}})]\\
247: & &\overline{u}_{\nu}(p_{3})\Gamma^{\nu\alpha\rho}(p_{2}-p_{4}-p_{5},-p_{2},p_{4}+p_{5})\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma^{5})u_{e}(p_{1})\varepsilon^{\alpha}(p_{2})\varepsilon^{\sigma}(p_{4})
248: \end{eqnarray*}
249: with
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: A&=&\frac{e^{4}v}{4\sqrt{2}s^{3}_{W}}[1-\frac{v^{2}}
252: {2f^{2}}c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})]\{1-\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}[\frac{1}{3}-
253: \frac{1}{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})^{2}+\frac{3fx}{v}]\},\\
254: B&=&\frac{e^{4}v}{8\sqrt{2}s^{3}_{W}}\frac{(c^{2}-s^{2})}{s^{2}}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: Here, $G^{\mu\nu}(p,M)=\frac{-ig^{\mu\nu}}{p^{2}-M^{2}}$ is the propagator of the
257: particle.
258:
259: We can see that one source of the corrections of the
260: littlest Higgs model to the process arises from the new heavy gauge bosons $W^{\pm}_{H}$. On the other hand, the littlest Higgs model can generate the correction to the mass
261: of gauge boson W in the SM and to the tree-level coupling vertices, which can also produce the correction to the process.
262: In our numerical calculation, we will also take account of such correction effect. \\
263: \indent The hard photon beam of the $e\gamma$ collider can be
264: obtained from laser backscattering at the $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear
265: collider. Let $\hat{s}$ and $s$ be the center-of-mass energies of
266: the $e\gamma$ and $e^{+}e^{-}$ systems, respectively. After
267: calculating the cross section $\sigma(\hat{s})$ for the subprocess
268: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$, the total cross section at
269: the $e^{+}e^{-}$ linear collider can be obtained by folding
270: $\sigma(\hat{s})$ with the photon distribution function that is
271: given in Ref \cite{function}:
272: \begin{equation}
273: \sigma(tot)=\int^{x_{max}}_{(M_{W}+M_{H})^{2}/s}dx\sigma(\hat{s})f_{\gamma}(x),
274: \end{equation}
275: where
276: \begin{equation}
277: f_{\gamma}(x)=\frac{1}{D(\xi)}[1-x+\frac{1}{1-x}-\frac{4x}{\xi(1-x)}+\frac{4x^{2}}{\xi^{2}(1-x)^{2}}],
278: \end{equation}
279: with
280: \begin{equation}
281: D(\xi)=(1-\frac{4}{\xi}-\frac{8}{\xi^{2}})\ln(1+\xi)+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{8}{\xi}-\frac{1}{2(1+\xi)^{2}},
282: \end{equation}
283: In the above equation, $\xi=4E_{e}\omega_{0}/m_{e}^{2}$ in which
284: $m_{e}$ and $E_{e}$ stand, respectively, for the incident electron
285: mass and energy, $\omega_{0}$ stands for the laser photon energy,
286: and $x=\omega/E_{e}$ stands for the fraction of energy of the
287: incident electron carried by the backscattered photon. $f_{\gamma}$
288: vanishes for $x>x_{max}=\omega_{max}/E_{e}=\xi/(1+\xi)$. In order to
289: avoid the creation of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs by the interaction of the
290: incident and backscattered photons, we require
291: $\omega_{0}x_{max}\leq m_{e}^{2}/E_{e}$, which implies that $\xi\leq
292: 2+2\sqrt{2}\simeq4.8$. For the choice of $\xi=4.8$, we obtain
293: \begin{equation}
294: x_{max}\approx0.83,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D(\xi_{max})\approx1.8.
295: \end{equation}
296: For simplicity, we have ignored the possible polarization for the
297: electron and photon beams.\\
298: \indent In the calculation of $\sigma(\hat{s})$, instead of
299: calculating the square of the amplitudes analytically, we calculate
300: the amplitudes numerically by using the method of the
301: references\cite{hz}. This greatly simplifies our calculation.
302:
303: \section{ The numerical results and discussions}
304: \indent In the LH model, the relation among the Fermi coupling
305: constant $G_{F}$, the
306: gauge boson W mass $M_{W}$ and the fine structure constant $\alpha$
307: can be written as\cite{gf}:
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{\pi\alpha}{2M^{2}_{W}s^{2}_{W}}[1-c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}
310: +2c^{4}\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}-\frac{5}{4}(c'^{2}-s'^{2})\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}]
311: \end{eqnarray}
312: So we have
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: \frac{e^{2}}{s^{2}_{W}}=\frac{4\sqrt{2}G_{F}M^{2}_{W}}{[1-c^{2}(c^{2}-s^{2})\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}+2c^{4}\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}-\frac{5}{4}(c'^{2}-s'^{2})\frac{v^{2}}{f^{2}}]}
315: \end{eqnarray}
316:
317: In the following numerical calculation, we take the input parameters
318: as
319: $G_{F}=1.16637\times10^{-5}GeV^{-2}$, $M_{Z}^{SM}$=91.18 GeV, $s_{W}^{2}$=0.2315 and $M_{W}$=80.45GeV\cite{data}. For the light Higgs boson H, in this paper,
320: we only take the illustrative value $M_{H}$=120GeV. The value of the relative correction
321: parameter is insensitive to the degree of the electron and positron
322: polarization and the c.m. energy $\sqrt{s}$. Therefore, we do not
323: consider the polarization of the initial states and take
324: $\sqrt{s}$=500 GeV in our numerical calculation. There are four
325: parameters, $f$, c, $c'$, x, involved in the expression of the
326: relative correction parameter $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ with
327: $\delta\sigma=| \sigma^{tot}-\sigma^{SM}|$ and $\sigma^{SM}$ is the
328: tree-level cross section of $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$
329: production predicted by the SM. In the LH model, the custodial
330: $SU(2)$ global symmetry is
331: explicitly broken, which can generate large contributions to the
332: electroweak observables. However, if we carefully adjust the $U(1)$ section of the theory
333: the contributions to the electroweak observables can be reduced and
334: the constraints become
335: relaxed. The scale parameter $f=1\sim2$ TeV is allowed for the mixing
336: parameters $c$ and $c^{'}$ in the ranges of
337: $0 \sim 0.5,0.62 \sim 0.73$ \cite{constraints}.
338: In order to obtain the correct $EWSB$ vacuum and avoid
339: giving a TeV-scale $VEV$
340: to the scalar triplet $\phi$, we should have that the value of
341: parameter
342: $x=4fv'/v^{2}$ is smaller than 1\cite{signatures-1,v1}. The
343: numerical results are summarized in Figs.(2-4)
344:
345:
346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
347: \begin{figure}[h]
348: \begin{center}
349: \scalebox{0.85}{\epsfig{file=c.eps}}\\
350: \end{center}
351: \caption{\small The relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
352: as a function of the mixing parameter c for f=1 TeV, x=0.1 and three
353: values of the mixing parameter $c'$.}
354: \end{figure}
355:
356: \indent The relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ is
357: plotted in Fig.2 as a function of the mixing parameter c for $f$=1
358: TeV, $x$=0.1 and $c^{'}=0.65, 0.68, 0.72$ respectively. From Fig.2,
359: we can see that the relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
360: increases with the mixing parameter c increasing and sensitive to
361: the mixing parameter $c'$. For x($4fv'/v^{2}$)=0.1, the
362: value of the relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
363: is larger than $9\%$ in all of the parameter space preferred by the
364: electroweak precision data. When the mixing parameter c gets close
365: to 0.5, the value of the relative correction
366: $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ is larger than $20\%$ in most of the
367: parameter space in the LH model.
368: \\
369: \begin{figure}[b]
370: \begin{center}
371: \scalebox{0.85}{\epsfig{file=cp.eps}}
372: \end{center}
373: \caption{\small The relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
374: as a function of the mixing parameter $c^{'}$ for f=1 TeV, $x=0.1$
375: GeV and c=0.1(dotted line), 0.3(dashed line) and 0.5(solid line).}
376: \end{figure}
377: \indent To see the dependence of relative correction on the parameter $c'$, in Fig.3,
378: we plot $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ as a function of the mixing
379: parameter $c'$ for $f$=1TeV, $x$=0.1, and three values of the mixing
380: parameter c. We can see that the relative correction decreases
381: slowly as the mixing parameter $c'$ and is also sensitive to the
382: mixing parameter c. In most of the parameter space of the LH model,
383: the value of $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ is larger than $10\%$, which
384: might be detected in the future LC experiments.
385:
386: \indent In Fig.4, we plot $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ as a function
387: of the parameter $x$($x=4fv'/v^{2}<1$) for three values of the scale
388: parameter $f$($f$=1, 1.5, 2TeV) and take $c=0.3$, $c^{'}=0.68$. One
389: can see that the relative correction increases with the value of
390: parameter $x$ increasing. This is because the contribution of
391: littlest Higgs model not only comes from new gauge bosons $W_{H}$
392: but also comes from correction to the couplings vertices of SM gauge
393: boson and Higgs boson. For the fixed $f$, c and $c'$, the correction
394: cross section $\delta\sigma$ mainly proportional to the factor
395: $3xf/v$ at the order of $v^{2}/f^{2}$, which come from
396: the
397: coupling vertices of $W_{L}W_{L}H$ in the LH model. As long as
398: $c>0.1$, the value of $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$ is larger than
399: $10\%$ in most of the parameter space of the LH model. On the other
400: hand, we can see that the value of $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
401: decreases as $f$ increasing, which is consistent with the
402: conclusions for the
403: corrections of the LH model to other observables. \\
404: \indent As has been mentioned above, the value of the
405: relative correction is larger than $10\%$ in most of the parameter
406: space preferred by the electrowesk precision data, the cross section
407: of $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ can amounts to about
408: $10^{3}$ events with the integrated luminosity of $100fb^{-1}$. The
409: $1\sigma$ statistical error corresponds to about $1\%$ precision.
410: So, such correction might be detected via $e\gamma$ collisions in
411: future $LC$ experiment with $\sqrt{s}$=500 GeV and
412: $\pounds=100fb^{-1}$.
413: \begin{figure}[h]
414: \begin{center}
415: \scalebox{0.85}{\epsfig{file=xl.eps}}
416: \end{center}
417: \caption{\small The relative correction $\delta\sigma/\sigma^{SM}$
418: as a function of the the parameter x($x=4fv'/v^{2}<1$) for $c=0.3$,
419: $c'=0.68$ and three values of the scalar parameter $f$.}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: \section{Conclusion}
423: \indent The little Higgs model, which
424: can solve the hierarchy problem, is a promising alternative model of
425: new physics beyond the standard model. Among the various little
426: Higgs models, the littlest Higgs model is one of the simplest and
427: phenomenologically viable models. The distinguishing feature of this
428: model is the existence of the new scalars, the new gauge bosons, and
429: the vector-like top quark. These new particles contribute to the
430: experimental observables, which could provide some clues of the
431: existence of the littlest Higgs model. In this paper, we study the
432: potential to detect the contribution of the littlest Higgs model via
433: the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ at the future
434: $LC$ experiments.
435:
436: \indent In the parameter spaces($f=1\sim2$ TeV, $c=0\sim0.5$,
437: $c'=0.62\sim0.73$) limited by the electroweak precision data, we
438: calculate the cross section correction of the littlest Higgs model
439: to the process $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$. We find that
440: the correction is significant even when we consider the constraint
441: of electroweak precision data on the parameters. In most of
442: parameter space, the relative correction can be over $10\%$, which
443: can be seen as the new signals of light Higgs boson and should be
444: detected via this process at the future LC experiment. The littlest
445: Higgs model
446: is a weak interaction theory and it
447: is hard to detect its contributions and measures its couplings at
448: the LHC. With the high c.m. energy and luminosity, the future $LC$
449: experiment will open an ideal window to probe into the littlest
450: Higgs model and study its properties. With the relative correction
451: over $10\%$ of the littlest Higgs model, we believe that the process
452: $e^{-}\gamma\rightarrow \nu_{e}W^{-}H$ can provide us significant
453: signal of the LH model at future $LC$ experiment.
454:
455: \newpage
456:
457: \begin{thebibliography}{100}
458: \bibitem{supersymmetry}
459: S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 193},
460: 150(1981); H. P. Nilles, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 110}, 1(1984); H.
461: E. Haber and G.L.Kane, {\it ibid.} {\bf 117}, 75(1985); S. P.
462: Martin, hep-ph/9709356; P. Fayet, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 101},
463: 81(2001).
464: \bibitem{dynamical}
465: For a recent review, see C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, {\it Phys.
466: Rep.} {\bf 381}, 235(2003).
467: \bibitem{extra}
468: I. Antoniadis, C. Munoz, and M. Quiros, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf
469: 397}, 515(1999); N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G.R.Dvali,
470: {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 59}, 086004(1999); {\bf 83}, 4690(1999).
471: \bibitem{little-1}
472: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, {\it Phys. Lett.}
473: B{\bf 513}, 232(2001).
474: \bibitem{little-2}
475: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, T. Gregoire, and J. G. Wacker,
476: JHEP {\bf 0208} 020(2002); N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz,
477: A. E. Nelson, T. Gregoire, and J. G. Wacker, JHEP {\bf 0208}
478: 021(2002).
479: \bibitem{little-3}
480: I. Low, W. Skiba, and D. Smith, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 66},
481: 072001(2002); M. Schmaltz, {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf
482: 117}, 40(2003); W. Skiba and J. Terning, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf
483: 68}, 075001(2003).
484: \bibitem{littlest}
485: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, A. E. Nelson, JHEP {\bf
486: 0207} 034(2002).
487: \bibitem{Higgs}
488: M. W. Grunewald, in the Proceedings of the Workingshop on
489: Electroweak Precision Data and the Higgs Mass, hep-ex/0304023; The
490: LEP collaborattions, the LEP Electroweak Working Group and the SLD
491: Heavy Flavour Group, hep-ex/0412015.
492: \bibitem{LC}
493: T. Abe {\em et~al.}[American Linear Collider Group], hep-ex/0106057;
494: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\em et~al.}[ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working
495: Group], hep-ph/0106315; K. Abe {\em et~al.}[ACFA Linear Collider
496: Working Group], hep-ph/0109166; G. Laow {\em et~al.}, ILC Techinical
497: Review Committee, second report, 2003, SLAC-R-606.
498: \bibitem{ey}
499: Chone-Xing Yue, Feng Zhang, Li-Na Wang and Li Zhou,{\it Phys. Rev.}
500: D{\bf 72}, 055008(2005), hep-ph/{\bf 0508228}; Chong-Xing Yue,Wei
501: Wang, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 71}, 015002(2005), hep-ph/{\bf
502: 0411266}; Xuelei Wang,Jihong Chen,Yaobei Liu,Suzhen Liu and Hua
503: Yang, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 74}, 015006(2006), hep-ph/{\bf
504: 0606093}.
505: \bibitem{eysm}
506: K. Hagiwara, I. Watanabe, P.M.Zerwas.{\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 278},
507: 187(1992).
508: \bibitem{ee-SM}
509: M. W. Grunewald, hep-ex/0210003; G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, J.
510: Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato, and Y. Shimizu, {\it
511: Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 559}, 252(2003); G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, J.
512: Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato, and Y. Shimizu, {\it
513: Nucl. Phys.(Proc. Suppl.)} {\bf 116}, 353(2003); A. Denner, S.
514: Dittmaier, M. Roth, and M. M. Weber, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 660},
515: 289(2003); A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and M. M. Weber, {\it
516: Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 560}, 196(2003); B. A. Kniehl, {\it Int. J.
517: Mod. Phys.} A{\bf 17}, 1457(2002); M. Carena, and H. E. Haber,
518: {\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf 50}, 63(2003).
519: \bibitem{eeH}
520: F. Boudjema, J. Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato,
521: Y.Kurihara, Y. Shimizu, and Y. Yasui, {\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 600},
522: 65(2004); F. Boudjema, J. Fujimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kaneko, K. Kato,
523: Y.Kurihara, Y. Shimizu, S. Yamashita, and Y. Yasui, {\it Nucl.
524: Instrum. Meth} A{\bf 534}, 334(2004).
525: \bibitem{ee-LH}
526: C. X. Yue, S. Z. Wang, and D. Q. Yu, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 68},
527: 115004(2003); C. X. Yue, W. Wang, Z. J. Zong, and F. Zhang, {\it
528: Eur. Phys. J} .C{\bf 42}, 331(2005); Xuelei Wang, Yaobei Liu, Jihong
529: Chen, Hua Yang, hep-ph/{\bf 0607131}.
530: \bibitem{signatures-1}
531: T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath, and L. T. Wang,
532: {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 67}, 095004(2003).
533: \bibitem{signatures-2}
534: G. Burdman, M. Perelstein, and A. Pierce, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.
535: }{\bf 90}, 241802(2003); T. Han, H. E. Logen, B. McElrath, and
536: L. T. Wang, {\it Phys. Lett.}
537: B{\bf 563}, 191(2003); G. Azuelos et~al., hep-ph/0402037; H. E.
538: Logan, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 70}, 115003(2004); G. Cho and A.
539: Omete, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 70}, 057701(2004).
540: \bibitem{signatures-3}
541: S. C. Park and J. Song, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 69}, 115010(2004).
542: \bibitem {function}
543: G. Jikia, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 374}, 83(1992); O. J. P.
544: Eboli,{\em et~al.} {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 47}, 1889(1993); K. M.
545: Cheung, {\em ibid} {\bf 47},3750(1993).
546: \bibitem {hz}
547: K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 313},
548: 560(1989); V. Barger, T. Han, and D. Zeppenfeld, {\it Phys. Rev.}
549: D{\bf 41}, 2782(1990).
550: \bibitem{gf}
551: R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea, M.Oertel,{\bf JHEP 0402}, 032(2004);
552: Mu-Chun Chen and S. Dawson,{\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 70}, 015003(2004);
553: Chong-Xing Yue and Wei Wang,{\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 683}, 48(2004);
554: W. Kilian and J. Reuter,{\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 70}, 015004(2004); A.
555: Deandrea, hep-ph/{\bf 0405120} 199(2005).
556: \bibitem{data}
557: S. Eidelman et al. [Particle Data Group],{\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf
558: 592}, 1(2004).
559: \bibitem{constraints}
560: C. Csaki {\em et~al.} {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 68}, 035009(2003); T.
561: Gregoire, D. R. Smith, and J. G. Wacker, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf
562: 69}, 115008(2004); M. Chen and S. Dawson, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf
563: 70}, 015003(2004).
564: \bibitem{v1}
565: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen; E. katz. A. E. Nelson, {\bf JHEP
566: 0207}(2002)034.
567:
568: \end{thebibliography}
569: \end{document}
570: