1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
7:
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: \let\jnfont=\rm
14: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ B }{\bf #1},}
15: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
16: \def\EPJC#1,{{\jnfont Eur.\ Phys.\ Jour.\ C }{\bf #1},}
17: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
18: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
19: \def\MPLA#1,{{\jnfont Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A }{\bf #1},}
20: \def\JPG#1,{{\jnfont J.\ Phys.\ G}{\bf #1},}
21: \def\CTP#1,{{\jnfont Commun.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1},}
22: \def\btt#1{{tt$\backslash$#1}}
23: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \preprint{hep-ph/0612273}
28:
29: \title{Virtual Effects of Split SUSY in Higgs Productions at Linear Colliders}
30:
31: \author{Fei Wang$^1$, Wenyu Wang$^2$, Fuqiang Xu$^2$, Jin Min Yang$^{3,2}$, Huanjun Zhang$^{2,4}$}
32:
33: \affiliation{
34: $^1$ Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China\\
35: $^2$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China\\
36: $^3$ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China \\
37: $^4$ Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China }
38:
39: \date{\today}
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: In split supersymmetry the gauginos and higgsinos are the only supersymmetric
43: particles possibly accessible at foreseeable colliders like the CERN Large Hadron Collider
44: (LHC) and the International Linear Collider (ILC).
45: In order to account for the cosmic dark matter measured by WMAP, these gauginos and higgsinos
46: are stringently constrained and could be explored at the colliders through
47: their direct productions and/or virtual effects in some processes.
48: The clean environment and high luminosity of the ILC render the virtual effects
49: of percent level meaningful in unraveling the new physics effects.
50: In this work we assume split supersymmetry and calculate the virtual effects
51: of the WMAP-allowed gauginos and higgsinos in Higgs productions $e^+e^-\to Z h$ and
52: $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ through $WW$ fusion at the ILC.
53: We find that the production cross section of $e^+e^-\to Zh$ can be altered by a
54: few percent in some part of the WMAP-allowed parameter space, while
55: the correction to the $WW$ fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$
56: is below $1\%$. Such virtual effects are correlated with
57: the cross sections of chargino pair productions and can offer complementary
58: information in probing split supersymmetry at the colliders.
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \pacs{14.80.Ly, 95.35.+d}
62:
63: \maketitle
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66: Since supersymmetry (SUSY) is so appealing in particle physics, cosmology and
67: string theory, its exploration will be a central focus of future collider
68: experiments. If SUSY is at TeV-scale, as required by solving the fine-tuning
69: problem in particle physics, the LHC expects to discover it or at least reveal some
70: of its fingerprints and then the ILC \cite{ILC} will zero in on its precision test and map out its
71: detailed structure. However, if the fine-tuning in particle physics works in nature,
72: just like the fine-tuning for the cosmological constant, SUSY may turn out to be
73: a kind of split-SUSY \cite{split}, in which all scalar supersymmetric
74: particles (sfermions and additional Higgs bosons) are superheavy and only
75: gauginos and higgsinos are possibly light and accessible at foreseeable colliders
76: like the LHC and ILC. So, if split-SUSY is the true story, the focus of
77: experimental and theoretical studies on SUSY will be gauginos and higgsinos.
78:
79: To facilitate the collider searches for gauginos and higgsinos in split-SUSY,
80: it is important to examine the possible range of their masses by considering
81: various direct and indirect constraints and requirements. The lightness of
82: gauginos and higgsinos is required by the consideration of the unification
83: of gauge couplings and the explanation of cosmic dark matter. It turns out
84: that the gauge coupling unification does not require gauginos or higgsinos
85: necessarily below TeV scale and they may be as heavy as 10 TeV \cite{senatore,wang}.
86: However, the cosmic dark matter measured by WMAP imposes much stronger
87: constraints on the masses of gauginos and higgsinos (except gluinos),
88: whose lightest mass eigenstates, i.e., the lightest neutralino and chargino,
89: must be lighter than about 1 TeV under the popular assumption $M_1=M_2/2$
90: with $M_1$ and $M_2$ being the U(1) and SU(2) gaugino masses, respectively
91: \cite{wenyu,pierce,profumo}.
92:
93: Note that unlike the neutralinos and charginos, the gluino is not directly subject to
94: the dark matter constraints and its mass constrained by gauge coupling unification
95: can be as high as 18 TeV \cite{senatore}. Theoretically, the gluino is usually speculated
96: to be much heavier than neutralinos and charginos. So, although the gluino is the only
97: colored particle among gauginos and higgsinos and usually expected to be copiously produced
98: in the gluon-rich environment of the LHC \cite{gluino-lhc},
99: it may be quite heavy and thus out of the reach of
100: the LHC and ILC. Therefore, to explore split-SUSY, it is important to examine
101: the neutralinos and charginos.
102:
103: The neutralinos and charginos in split-SUSY constrained by the cosmic dark matter
104: can be explored at the LHC and ILC in two ways. One way is directly looking for their
105: productions, such as chargino pair productions.
106: Our previous analysis \cite{wenyu} showed
107: that the chargino pair production rates at the LHC and ILC are quite large in some part
108: of the WMAP-allowed parameter space, but in the remained part of the parameter space the
109: production rates are unobservably small. The other way to reveal the existence of these
110: particles is through disentangling their virtual effects in some processes
111: which can be precisely measured. It is shown that SUSY may have
112: sizable virtual effects in Higgs boson processes \cite{higgs-residue}
113: and top quark processes \cite{top-susy} since they are the heaviest particles in
114: the SM and sensitive to new physics.
115: For split-SUSY, its virtual effects in top quark interactions and
116: Higgs-fermion Yukawa interactions are expected to be small
117: since the relevant vertex loops always involve sfermions which
118: are superheavy.
119: So, to reveal the virtual effects of split-SUSY, we concentrate on the gauge interactions
120: of the Higgs boson. Such virtual effects of weakly interacting
121: neutralinos and charginos are usually at percent level and only the high-luminosity $e^+e^-$
122: collider like the ILC can possibly have such percent-level sensitivity.
123: As the discovery machine, the LHC, however, is not expected to be able to disentangle
124: such percent-level quantum effects due to its messy hadron backgrounds.
125: So in this work we investigate the virtual effects
126: of the WMAP-allowed split-SUSY in Higgs productions $e^+e^-\to Z h$ and
127: $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ through $WW$ fusion at the ILC.
128: Note that although the SUSY corrections to these processes were calculated in
129: the literature \cite{complete-susy,rewwh}, our studies in this work are still necessary
130: since those calculations were performed in the framework of the general minimal
131: supersymmetric model and did not consider the dark matter constraints.
132:
133: This work is organized in the follows.
134: In Sec. II we calculate the split-SUSY loop contributions to Higgs production
135: $e^+e^-\to Z h$ and $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ through $WW$ fusion at the ILC.
136: In Sec. III we present some numerical results for the parameter space under
137: WMAP dark matter constraints. The conclusion is given in Sec. IV.
138: Note that for the SUSY parameters we adopt the notations in \cite{gunion}.
139: We assume the lightest supersymmetric particle is the lightest neutralino,
140: which solely makes up the cosmic dark matter.
141:
142: \section{Calculations}
143: \subsection{About split-SUSY}
144: In split-SUSY the Higgs sector at low energy is fine-tuned to have only
145: one Higgs doublet \cite{split} and the effective spectrum of superparticles
146: contains the higgsinos $\tilde H_{u,d}$, winos $\tilde W^i$, bino $\tilde B$
147: and gluino $\tilde{g}$. The most genenral renormalizable Lagrangian at low
148: energy (say TeV scale) contains the interactions
149: \begin{eqnarray}\label{lagran}
150: {\mathcal L}&=&m^2 H^\dagger H-\frac{\lambda}{2}
151: \left( H^\dagger H\right)^2 \nonumber \\
152: && -\left[ h^u_{ij} \bar{q}_j u_i\epsilon H^* +h^d_{ij} \bar{q}_j d_iH
153: +h^e_{ij} \bar{\ell}_j e_iH \right. \nonumber \\
154: && +\frac{M_3}{2} \tilde{g}^A \tilde{g}^A
155: +\frac{M_2}{2} \tilde {W}^a \tilde{W}^a
156: +\frac{M_1}{2} \tilde{B}\tilde{B} \nonumber \\
157: && \left. +\mu \tilde{H}_u^T\epsilon\tilde{H}_d
158: +\frac{H^\dagger}{\sqrt{2}}\left( \tilde{g}_u \sigma^a {\tilde W}^a
159: +\tilde{g}^\prime_u\tilde{B} \right)\tilde{H}_u \right. \nonumber \\
160: && \left.+\frac{H^T\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
161: -\tilde{g}_d \sigma^a\tilde{W}^a+\tilde{g}^\prime_d\tilde{B} \right) \tilde{H}_d
162: +\rm {h.c.}\right] ,
163: \end{eqnarray}
164: where $\epsilon =i\sigma_2$. Thus the Higgs sector in split-SUSY is same as
165: in the SM except for the additional Higgs couplings to gauginos and higgsinos.
166: Other four Higgs bosons in the MSSM are superheavy and decouple.
167: As is well known,
168: an upper bound of about 135 GeV exists for the lightest Higgs boson in the
169: MSSM \cite{higgsmass}, which is relaxed to about 150 GeV in split-SUSY \cite{split}.
170:
171: The gauginos (winos and bino) and higgsinos mix into the mass eigenstates called charginos and neutralinos.
172: The chargino mass matrix is given by
173: \small
174: \begin{eqnarray} \label{mass1}
175: \left( \begin{array}{cc} M_2 & \sqrt 2 m_W \sin\beta \\
176: \sqrt 2 m_W \cos\beta & \mu \end{array} \right) ,
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: and the neutralino mass matrix is given by
179: \begin{eqnarray} \label{mass2}
180: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
181: M_1 & 0 & - m_Z s_W c_\beta & m_Z s_W s_\beta \\
182: 0 & M_2 & m_Z c_W c_\beta &-m_Z c_Ws_\beta \\
183: - m_Z s_W c_\beta & m_Z c_W c_\beta & 0 & -\mu \\
184: m_Z s_W s_\beta & -m_Z c_W s_\beta & -\mu & 0\\
185: \end{array} \right),
186: \end{eqnarray}
187: \normalsize
188: where $s_W=\sin\theta_W$ and $c_W=\cos\theta_W$ with $\theta_W$ being the weak mixing angle,
189: and $s_\beta=\sin\beta$ and $c_\beta=\cos\beta$ with $\beta$ defined by
190: $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values
191: of the two Higgs doublets.
192: $M_1$ and $M_2$ are respectively the $U(1)$ and $SU(2)$ gaugino mass parameters,
193: and $\mu$ is the mass parameter in the mixing term $-\mu \epsilon_{ij} H_u^iH_d^j$ in the
194: superpotential. The diagonalization of (\ref{mass1}) gives two
195: charginos $\tilde \chi^+_{1,2}$ with the convention $M_{\tilde\chi^+_1}<M_{\tilde\chi^+_2}$;
196: while the diagonalization of (\ref{mass2}) gives four neutralinos $\tilde\chi^0_{1,2,3,4}$
197: with the convention $M_{\tilde\chi^0_1}<M_{\tilde\chi^0_2}<M_{\tilde\chi^0_3}<M_{\tilde\chi^0_4}$.
198: So the masses and mixings of charginos and neutralinos
199: are determined by four parameters: $M_1$, $M_2$, $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$.
200:
201: Note that the low energy lagrangian in Eq.(\ref{lagran})
202: should be understood as an effective theory after squarks, sleptons, and
203: heavier Higgs bosons are integrated out.
204: Then, as is discussed in \cite{split}, the Higgs-higgsino-gaugino
205: couplings in Eq.(\ref{lagran}) should deviate from the SUSY results shown
206: in the off-diagonal elements of the mass matrices in Eqs.(2) and (3),
207: although such deviation is negligible for numerical results.
208:
209: In split SUSY the possible channels of Higgs ($h$) productions at
210: the ILC are the Higgs-strahlung process $e^+e^-\to Z^* \to Z h$
211: and $WW$-fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$. Both
212: processes will be precisely measured at the ILC if the light Higgs
213: boson $h$ is indeed found at the LHC. Since these processes may be
214: sensitive to new physics, they may serve as a good probe for
215: TeV-scale new physics. Other channels, such as the production of
216: $h$ associated with a CP-odd Higgs boson $A$ and the charged Higgs
217: pair production, cannot occur due to the superheavy $A$ and the
218: superheavy charged Higgs bosons.
219:
220: \subsection{Split-SUSY loop effects in Higgs productions at the ILC}
221:
222: The tree-level $e^+e^-\to Z h$ process is shown in Fig.
223: \ref{eezh-tree}. For the one-loop effects of split SUSY, we need
224: to calculate the diagrams containing the effective $Z$-boson
225: propagator and several effective vertices shown in Fig.
226: \ref{eezh-loop1}. Note that the box diagrams always involve
227: sfermions in the loops and thus drop out since all sfermions are
228: superheavy in split SUSY. In our calculations we use the on-shell
229: renormalization scheme \cite{denner}. For each effective vertex or
230: $Z$-boson propagator, we need to calculate several loops plus the
231: corresponding counterterms. For the new rare vertices induced at
232: loop level, such as $\gamma Zh$, there are no corresponding
233: counterterms. Since in split-SUSY all scalar superparticles are
234: superheavy and decouple from this process, the loops only involve
235: charginos and neutralinos, as shown in Fig. \ref{eezh-loop2}.
236:
237: %% fig.1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: \begin{figure}[hbt]
239: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=5cm} \vspace*{-0.4cm} \caption{Feynman
240: diagrams for $e^+e^-\to Z h$ at tree-level.} \label{eezh-tree}
241: \end{figure}
242: %\vspace*{-1.5cm}
243:
244: %% fig.2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
245: \begin{figure}[hbt]
246: \vspace*{-0.4cm} \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,width=6cm} \vspace*{-0.4cm}
247: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $e^+e^-\to Z h$ with one-loop
248: corrected propagators and
249: effective vertices in split-SUSY.}
250: \label{eezh-loop1}
251: \end{figure}
252: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
253:
254: %% fig.3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
255: \begin{figure}[hbt]
256: \vspace*{-0.4cm} \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=8.5cm}
257: \vspace*{-0.4cm} \caption{Feynman diagrams for each one-loop
258: corrected propagator and effective vertex in Fig.
259: \ref{eezh-loop1}.} \label{eezh-loop2}
260: \end{figure}
261: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
262:
263: For the $WW$-fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ our
264: calculations are similar as for $e^+e^-\to Z h$. The tree-level
265: Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. \ref{ww-tree} and for one-loop
266: split-SUSY effects we need to calculate the diagrams containing
267: the effective $W$-boson propagator and several effective vertices
268: shown in Fig. \ref{ww-loop1}. Just like the diagrams shown in Fig.
269: \ref{eezh-loop2}, each effective vertex or $W$-boson propagator
270: contains several loops plus the corresponding counterterms, as
271: shown in Fig. \ref{ww-loop2}.
272:
273: %% fig.4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: \begin{figure}[hbt]
275: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=4cm} \vspace*{-0.3cm} \caption{Feynman
276: diagrams for $WW$-fusion process $e^+e^-\to h \nu_e \bar\nu_e $ at
277: tree-level.} \label{ww-tree}
278: \end{figure}
279: %\vspace*{-1cm}
280:
281: %% fig.5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282: \begin{figure}[hbt]
283: \epsfig{file=fig5.ps,width=8.5cm} \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Feynman
284: diagrams for $WW$-fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$
285: with one-loop
286: corrected propogators and effective vertices.}
287: \label{ww-loop1}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: %% fig.6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: \begin{figure}[hbt]
292: \epsfig{file=fig6.ps,width=8cm} \vspace*{-0.5cm} \caption{Feynman
293: diagrams for each one-loop corrected propagator and effective
294: vertex in Fig. \ref{ww-loop1}.} \label{ww-loop2}
295: \end{figure}
296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
297:
298: Note that for $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$, in addition to the
299: $WW$-fusion contribution shown in Fig. \ref{ww-tree}, another
300: contribution comes from Higgs-strahlung process $e^+e^-\to Z h$
301: followed by $Z\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e$. The cross section of
302: $e^+e^-\to Z h \to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ peaks at the threshold of
303: $\sqrt s= M_Z+M_h$ and then falls rapidly as $\sqrt s$ increases,
304: where $\sqrt{s}$ is the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy of $e^+e^-$
305: collision. By contrast, the cross section of $WW$-fusion process
306: grows monotonously as $\sqrt s$ increases and is far dominant over
307: $e^+e^-\to Z h \to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ for $\sqrt{s}\gg M_h$. In
308: our calculation we assume $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV ($\gg M_h$) and thus we
309: only consider $WW$-fusion process.
310:
311: Note that in the literature \cite{rewwh} the supersymmetric corrections to this
312: $WW$-fusion process have been computed, but those calculations focus on
313: the loops involving sfermions (squarks and sleptons).
314: In our calculations in the
315: scenario of split-SUSY, we consider the loops involving charginos and neutralinos,
316: ignoring the loops involving sfermions since all sfermions are superheavy in split-SUSY.
317: So far in the literature such chargino/neutralino loop corrections have not been
318: reported.
319:
320: Each loop diagram
321: is composed of scalar loop functions \cite{Hooft} which are calculated by using
322: LoopTools \cite{Hahn}.
323: The calculations of the loop diagrams are tedious and the analytical expressions
324: are lengthy, which are not presented here.
325:
326: \section{Numerical results}
327: In split-SUSY the masses of squarks and the CP-odd Higgs boson $A$
328: are assumed to be arbitrarily superheavy. As our previous study
329: showed \cite{wenyu}, their effects in low energy processes will
330: decouple as long as they are heavier than about 10 TeV. The Higgs
331: mass $M_h$ can be calculated from Feynhiggs \cite{feynhiggs} and
332: in our calculations we assume the masses of squarks and Higgs
333: boson $A$ are 200 TeV. Among the low-energy parameters of
334: split-SUSY, i.e., $\tan\beta$, $M_2$, $M_1$ and $\mu$, $M_h$ is
335: sensitive to $\tan\beta$ and a large $\tan\beta$ leads to a large
336: $M_h$. In our calculations we fix $\tan\beta=40$ since a large
337: value of $\tan\beta$ is favored by current experiments. Our
338: results are not sensitive to $\tan\beta$ in the region of large
339: $\tan\beta$ value and our results are approximately valid for
340: $\tan\beta \gtrsim 10$. With the input values of $\tan\beta$ and
341: squark masses, we get $M_h=120$ GeV from Feynhiggs
342: \cite{feynhiggs}.
343:
344: With the fixed value of $\tan\beta$, there remained three split-SUSY parameters:
345: $M_2$, $M_1$ and $\mu$. We further use the unification relation
346: $M_1=5 M_2\tan^2\theta_W/3 \simeq 0.5 M_2$,
347: which is predicted in the minimal supergravity model. Thus finally we have two
348: free SUSY parameters. The SM parameters used in our results are taken from \cite{pdg}.
349:
350: \subsection{Numerical results without WMAP constraints}
351: In order to show the features of our results, we first present
352: some results without considering the WMAP dark matter constraints.
353: In Fig. \ref{fig7} we show the relative one-loop correction of
354: split-SUSY to the cross section of $e^+e^-\to Z h$ versus the c.m.
355: energy of $e^+e^-$ collision for $M_2=400$ GeV and $\mu=600$ GeV.
356: In this case the lightest chargino mass $M_{\tilde \chi^+_1}=387$
357: GeV. We see from Fig. \ref{fig7} that the corrections are
358: negative and have a peak at $\sqrt s= 2 M_{\tilde \chi^+_1}$ due
359: to the threshold effects. The magnitude of the corrections for
360: $\sqrt s= 1$ TeV, which will be taken for our following studies,
361: is relatively small.
362: %% fig.7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: \begin{figure}[hbt]
364: \epsfig{file=fig7.ps,width=8cm,height=7.5cm} \vspace*{-0.5cm}
365: \caption{The relative one-loop correction of split-SUSY to the
366: cross section of
367: $e^+e^-\to Z h$ versus the c.m. energy. }
368: \label{fig7}
369: \end{figure}
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371:
372: %% fig.8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
373: \begin{figure}[hbt]
374: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
375: \epsfig{file=fig8.ps,width=8cm,height=7.5cm}
376: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
377: \caption{Same as Fig.\ref{fig7}, but versus the chargino mass for
378: the c.m. energy of 1 TeV.}
379: \label{fig8}
380: \end{figure}
381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
382:
383: In Fig. \ref{fig8} we fix $\sqrt s= 1$ TeV and $\mu=100$ TeV
384: (note that the scenario with a very large $\mu$ is proposed and
385: argued in \cite{split-split}), and by varying $M_2$ we show the
386: relative one-loop correction of split-SUSY to the cross section of
387: $e^+e^-\to Z h$ versus the lightest chargino mass $M_{\tilde
388: \chi^+_1}$ (in this case the chargino mass $M_{\tilde \chi^+_1}$
389: is almost equal to $M_2$ due to the superheavy higgsinos). The
390: peak happens at $M_{\tilde \chi^+_1}=\sqrt s/2$ due to threshold
391: effects. When the chargino mass gets heavier than 1 TeV, the
392: corrections becomes very small, showing the decoupling property.
393:
394: \subsection{Numerical results with WMAP constraints}
395: Now we require the lightest neutralinos make up the cosmic dark matter relic
396: density measured by WMAP, which is given by $0.085<\Omega_{CDM}h^2<0.119$ at
397: $2\sigma$ \cite{wmap} with $h=0.73$ being the Hubble constant.
398: Of course, the direct bounds from LEP experiments \cite{lep2-web} need to
399: be also considered, which are:
400: (i) the lightest chargino heavier than about 103 GeV;
401: (ii) the lightest neutralino heavier than about 47 GeV;
402: (iii) $\tan\beta$ larger than 2.
403: Note that the LEP bound $\tan\beta>2$ is obtained from the search limit of
404: the lightest Higgs boson for squarks below 1 TeV. Such a bound may be
405: relaxed in split-SUSY because of superheavy squarks.
406:
407: We then perform a scan over the parameter space of $M_2$ and $\mu$.
408: The $2\sigma$ allowed region is shown in Fig. 2 of Ref. \cite{wenyu}.
409: (Note that in \cite{wenyu} we used the one-year WMAP data
410: $0.094 < \Omega_{CDM}h^2 < 0.129$. The allowed region
411: with one-year WMAP data is approximately same as that with
412: three-year WMAP data).
413:
414: %% fig.9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415: %\vspace*{-1cm}
416: \begin{figure}[hbt]
417: \epsfig{file=fig9.ps,width=8.5cm,height=12cm}
418: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
419: \caption{The shaded areas are the 2$\sigma$ region of split-SUSY parameter space allowed by
420: the WMAP
421: dark matter measurement in the planes of the chargino pair production
422: rate (upper panel) and the one-loop correction of
423: split-SUSY to the cross section of $e^+e^-\to Z h$ (lower panel)
424: versus the chargino mass.}
425: \label{fig9}
426: \end{figure}
427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
428:
429: In Fig. \ref{fig9} we show the one-loop correction of split-SUSY
430: to the cross section of $e^+e^-\to Z h$ (lower panel) with
431: comparison to the chargino pair production rate (upper panel). The
432: chargino pair production rate is calculated at tree-level, as in
433: our previous work \cite{wenyu}.
434:
435: From Fig. \ref{fig9} we see that when the chargino is lighter than about 300 GeV, the
436: chargino pair production rate at the ILC is large and the corresponding virtual effects
437: in $e^+e^-\to Z h$ are positive. When the chargino gets heavier, the chargino pair
438: production rate at the ILC drops rapidly. Of course, when the chargino is heavier than
439: 500 GeV, beyond the threshold of the ILC (with c.m. energy of 1 TeV), the charginos
440: cannot be pair produced. Then it is interesting to observe that for a chargino between
441: 500 and 600 GeV, although the ILC cannot produce chargino pairs, the virtual effects in
442: $e^+e^-\to Z h$ can still reach a couple of percent in magnitude and thus may be observable
443: at the ILC with a high integrated luminosity. Finally, when the chargino is heavier than
444: about 600 GeV, it will probably remain unaccessible because both the chargino pair production
445: rates and the virtual effects are very small due to the decoupling property of SUSY.
446:
447: Note that for $e^+e^-\to Z h$
448: we numerically compared our results with the full one-loop corrections given in
449: \cite{complete-susy} (we thank the authors of \cite{complete-susy} for giving
450: us their fortran code). In our calculations we only considered the chargino and
451: neutralino loops, while in their calculations the sfermion loops are also
452: considered besides the chargino and neutralino loops. In principle, their results
453: in the limit of superheavy sfermions should approach to our results. We found that
454: although their fortran code does not work well for superheavy sfermions (say above 10 TeV)
455: due to the limitation of numerical calculation, for a given point in
456: the parameter space our results agree well with those by using
457: their fortran code with all sfermions above 1 TeV.
458:
459: %% fig.10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
460: \begin{figure}[hbt]
461: %\vspace*{-0.5cm}
462: \epsfig{file=fig10.ps,width=8.5cm,height=8.5cm}
463: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
464: \caption{Same as the lower panel of Fig.\ref{fig9}, but for the $WW$-fusion process
465: $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$.}
466: \label{fig10}
467: \end{figure}
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
469:
470: The one-loop correction of split-SUSY to the cross section of
471: $WW$-fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ is very small in
472: magnitude, below one percent, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig10}. Even
473: with a high luminosity the ILC can hardly reveal such a small
474: deviation from the measurement of this process. The reason why the
475: virtual effects in the $s$-channel process $e^+e^-\to Z h$ is much
476: larger in magnitude than in the $t$-channel process $e^+e^-\to
477: \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ may be that for the $s$-channel process the
478: virtual sparticles (charginos and neutralinos) in the loops could
479: be more energetic and cause larger quantum effects.
480:
481: Anyway, such virtual effects of split-SUSY, no matter large or
482: small in magnitude, could be informative and complementary to the
483: real sparticle productions in probing split-SUSY at colliders. For
484: example, if split-SUSY turns out to be the true story and the
485: chargino pair production is observed with the chargino mass around
486: 150 GeV at the ILC, then we know from Figs. \ref{fig9} and
487: \ref{fig10} that the virtual effects of SUSY must be about $2.5\%$
488: for process $e^+e^-\to Z h$ and $-0.1\%$ for $WW$-fusion process
489: $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$.
490:
491:
492: \section{Conclusion}
493: In split supersymmetry, gauginos and higgsinos are the only supersymmetric
494: particles possibly accessible at foreseeable colliders like the
495: LHC and the ILC.
496: In order to account for the cosmic dark matter measuerd by WMAP, the parameter space
497: of the gauginos and higgsinos in split supersymmetry are stringently constrained,
498: which can be explored at the LHC and the ILC through direct productions and the
499: virtual effects of these gauginos and higgsinos.
500: The clean environment of the ILC may render the virtual effects of percent level
501: meaningful in probing the new physics.
502: In this work we assumed split supersymmetry and calculated the virtual effects
503: of the WMAP-allowed gauginos and higgsinos in Higgs productions $e^+e^-\to Z h$ and
504: $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$ through $WW$ fusion at the ILC.
505: We found that the production cross section of $e^+e^-\to Zh$ can be altered by a
506: few percent in some part of the WMAP-allowed parameter space, while
507: the correction to the $WW$ fusion process $e^+e^-\to \nu_e \bar\nu_e h$
508: is below $1\%$.
509:
510: Such virtual effects are correlated with
511: the cross sections of chargino pair productions and thus can offer complementary
512: information in probing split supersymmetry at the colliders. Our results indicate
513: that if the lightest chargino is in the light region allowed by the WMAP dark matter
514: (say below 200 GeV), then at the ILC and LHC the chargino pair production rates
515: are large and the virtual effects of charginos/neutralinos in the process $e^+e^-\to Z h$
516: at the ILC can reach a few percent, both of which may be measurable and cross-checked.
517: An interesting observation is that for a chargino between
518: 500 and 600 GeV, although the ILC (with c.m. energy of 1 TeV) cannot produce chargino pairs,
519: the virtual effects in
520: $e^+e^-\to Z h$ can still reach a couple of percent in magnitude and thus may be observable
521: at the ILC with a high integrated luminosity.
522: The WMAP-allowed region with the chargino heavier than about 600 GeV
523: will most likely remain unaccessible because both the chargino production rates
524: and the virtual effects are very small due to the decoupling property of SUSY.
525:
526: \vspace*{0.5cm}
527:
528: This work is supported in part by National Natural Science
529: Foundation of China.
530:
531: \begin{thebibliography}{11}
532: \bibitem{ILC} K. Abe {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0109166;
533: T. Abe {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0106056;
534: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0106315.
535: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%
536: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106056;%%
537: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
538: \bibitem{split} N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, hep-th/0405159;
539: G.F. Giudice, A. Romanino, \NPB699, 65 (2004);
540: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, A. Romanino, \NPB709, 3 (2005).
541: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%
542: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B699,65;%%
543: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B709,3;%%
544: \bibitem{senatore} L. Senatore, \PRD71, 103510 (2005).
545: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,103510;%%
546: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B712,86;%%
547: \bibitem{wang} F. Wang, W. Y. Wang, J. M. Yang, \PRD72, 077701 (2005).
548: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507172;%%
549: \bibitem{wenyu} F. Wang, W. Y. Wang, J. M. Yang, \EPJC46, 521 (2006).
550: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512133;%%
551: \bibitem{pierce} A. Pierce, \PRD70, 075006 (2004);
552: A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, hep-ph/0411376.
553: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,075006;%%
554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411376;%%
555: \bibitem{profumo} A. Masiero, S. Profumo, P. Ullio, \NPB712, 86 (2005).
556: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B712,86;%%
557: \bibitem{gluino-lhc} For the studies of split-SUSY gluino at LHC, see, e.g.,
558: K. Cheung, W.-Y. Keung, \PRD71, 015015 (2005);
559: J. G. Gonzalez, S. Reucroft, J. Swain, \PRD74, 027701 (2006).
560: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,015015;%%
561: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,027701;%%
562: \bibitem{higgs-residue} SUSY-QCD may have large residue effects in Higgs processes,
563: see, e.g.,
564: G. Gao, R. J. Oakes, J. M. Yang, \PRD71, 095005 (2005);
565: J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \PRD68, 075012 (2003);
566: G. Gao, {\it et al.}, \PRD66, 015007 (2002).
567: H.~E.~Haber, {\it et al.}, \PRD63, 055004 (2001);
568: M.~J.~Herrero, S.~Pe\~naranda and D.~Temes, \PRD64, 115003 (2001);
569: A. Dobado, M.~J.~Herrero, \PRD65, 075023(2002);
570: M.~Carena, {\it et al.}, \PRD60, 075010 (1999); \PRD62, 055008 (2000).
571: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,095005;%%
572: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,075012;%%
573: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,015007;%%
574: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,055004;%%
575: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,115003;%%
576: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D65, 075023;%%
577: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60, 075010;%%
578: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62, 055008;%%
579: \bibitem{top-susy} For SUSY-QCD effects in $t\bar t$ productions,
580: see, e. g.,
581: C. S. Li, {\it et al.}, \PRD52, 5014 (1995); \PLB379, 135 (1996);
582: S. Alam, K. Hagiwara, S. Matsumoto, \PRD55, 1307 (1997);
583: Z. Sullivan, \PRD56, 451 (1997);
584: For SUSY-QCD effects in FCNC top interactions,
585: see, e. g.,
586: C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes, J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
587: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui and H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
588: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
589: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and L.~Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997);
590: C.~S.~Li, {\it et al.}, \PLB599, 92 (2004);
591: J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \NPB651, 87 (2003); \PRD74, 031701 (2006).
592: M. Frank, I. Turan, \PRD74, 073014 (2006).
593: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,5014;%%
594: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B379,135;%%
595: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,1307;%%
596: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,451;%%
597: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
598: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
599: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
600: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
601: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B599,92;%%
602: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
603: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,031701;%%
604: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,073014;%%
605: \bibitem{complete-susy} P.Chankowski, S.Pokorski, J.Rosiek, \NPB423, 437 (1994).
606: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B423,437;%%
607: \bibitem{rewwh} T. Hahn et al., \NPB652, 229 (2003);
608: H. Eberl et al., \NPB657,378 (2003).
609: \bibitem{gunion} H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rep. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985);
610: J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, \NPB272, 1 (1986).
611: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
612: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B272,1;%%
613: \bibitem{higgsmass} H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling, \PRL66, 1815 (1991);
614: Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi, T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 85}, 1 (1991);
615: \PLB262,54(1991);
616: J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, F. Zwirner, \PLB257, 83 (1991); \PLB262, 477 (1991);
617: J.~R.~Espinosa and R.~J.~Zhang, JHEP {\bf 0003} (2000) 026.
618: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
619: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,54;%%
620: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
621: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
622: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,477;%%
623: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912236;%%
624: \bibitem{denner} A. Denner, Fortschr. Phys. {\bf41} (1993)4
625: \bibitem{Hooft} G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman, \NPB153, 365 (1979).
626: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
627: \bibitem{Hahn} T.~Hahn and M.~Perez-Victoria, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 118}, 153 (1999);
628: T.~Hahn, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 135}, 333 (2004).
629: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406288;%%
630: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
631: \bibitem{feynhiggs} S.Heinemeyer, hep-ph/0407244
632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407244;%%
633: \bibitem{pdg} W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.}, \JPG33, 1 (2006).
634: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
635: \bibitem{split-split} K. Cheung, C.-W. Chiang, \PRD71, 095003 (2005).
636: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,095003;%%
637: \bibitem{wmap} D. N. Spergel, {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0603449.
638: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%
639: \bibitem{lep2-web} LEP2 SUSY Working Group homepage, http://lepsusy. web.cern.ch/lepsusy/
640: \end{thebibliography}
641: \end{document}
642: