---
abstract: 'In the minimal supersymmetric standard model, the Higgs sector has two unknown parameters, usually taken to be $\tan \beta \equiv v_2/v_1$ and $m_A$, the mass of its one physical pseudoscalar particle. By minimizing the minimum of the Higgs potential along a certain direction in parameter space, it is shown that $m_A = M_Z$ + radiative correction, and if one further plausible assumption is made, $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$.'
---

plus 1pt '@=12 -0.5in 0.0in 0.0in 8.5in 6.5in

UCRHEP-T105\
February 1993

<span>**Derivation of $m_A \simeq M_Z$ and $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$ in the\
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model\
**</span>

If there is physics beyond the standard ${\rm SU(2) \times U(1)}$ electroweak gauge model, supersymmetry is generally considered to be an excellent candidate. The minimal supersymmetric standard model@1 must then have two scalar doublets $\Phi_1 = (\phi_1^+, \phi_1^0)$ and $\Phi_2 =
(\phi_2^+, \phi_2^0)$, with Yukawa interactions $(\overline {u,d})_L d_R
\Phi_1$ and $(\overline {u,d})_L u_R \tilde \Phi_2$ respectively, where $\tilde \Phi_2 = i \sigma_2 \Phi_2^* = (\overline {\phi_2^0}, -\phi_2^-)$. Hence the mass matrix for quarks of charge $-1/3$ (<span>*i.e.*</span> $d$, $s$, and $b$) is proportional to the vacuum expectation value $\langle \phi_1^0
\rangle \equiv v_1$, and that for quarks of charge 2/3 (<span>*i.e.*</span> $u$, $c$, and $t$) is proportional to $\langle \phi_2^0 \rangle \equiv
v_2$. There are two unknown parameters in the Higgs sector of this model. They are usually taken to be $\tan \beta \equiv v_2/v_1$ and $m_A$, the mass of its one physical pseudoscalar particle. Numerous phenomenological studies@2 have been made using these as continuous variables. However, there is a plausible theoretical argument for $m_A = M_Z$ at tree level and perhaps also $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$, as shown below.

The Higgs potential of the minimal supersymmetric standard model is given by@3 $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& m_1^2 \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1 + m_2^2 \Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2 - m_{12}^2
(\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 + \Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1) \nonumber \\ &+& {1 \over 8}
(g_1^2 + g_2^2) \left[ (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1)^2 + (\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2)^2
\right] \nonumber \\ &-& {1 \over 4} (g_1^2 - g_2^2) (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1)
(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2) - {1 \over 2} g_2^2 (\Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2)
(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_1),\end{aligned}$$ where $g_1$ and $g_2$ are the U(1) and SU(2) gauge couplings respectively. Let $V$ be broken spontaneously, then $$m_1^2 - m_{12}^2 v_2/v_1 + {1 \over 4} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (v_1^2 - v_2^2) = 0,$$ and $$m_2^2 - m_{12}^2 v_1/v_2 + {1 \over 4} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (v_2^2 - v_1^2) = 0.$$ Hence $$m_1^2 + m_2^2 = m_{12}^2 (\tan \beta + \cot \beta),$$ and $$v_1^2 + v_2^2 = {{-4 m_1^2 \cos^2 \beta + 4 m_2^2 \sin^2 \beta} \over
{(g_1^2 + g_2^2) (\cos^2 \beta - \sin^2 \beta)}}.$$ There are five physical scalar particles with masses given by $$m_A^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2,$$ $$m_{H^\pm}^2 = M_W^2 + m_A^2,$$ and $$m_{H_1^0,H_2^0}^2 = {1 \over 2} \left[ M_Z^2 + m_A^2 \pm \sqrt {(M_Z^2 +
m_A^2)^2 - 4 M_Z^2 m_A^2 \cos^2 2 \beta} \right],$$ where $$M_W^2 = {1 \over 2} g_2^2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2)$$ and $$M_Z^2 = {1 \over 2} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (v_1^2 + v_2^2)$$ are the squares of the masses of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons.

The part of $V$ involving only neutral fields depends on four parameters: $m_1^2$, $m_2^2$, $m_{12}^2$, and $g_1^2 + g_2^2$. At its minimum $V_0$, we can choose to keep $m_1^2$ and $m_2^2$, but replace $m_{12}^2$ by $\tan \beta$ through Eq. (4) and $g_1^2 + g_2^2$ by $v_1^2 + v_2^2$ through Eq. (5). In that case, $$V_0 = {1 \over 2} (v_1^2 + v_2^2) (\cos^2 \beta - \sin^2 \beta) (m_1^2 \cos^2
\beta - m_2^2 \sin^2 \beta).$$ We now seek to minimize $V_0$ in parameter space. This is a reasonable procedure in that whatever dynamical mechanism is responsible for the soft breaking of supersymmetry, it may well be such that the lowest possible value of $V_0$ is automatically chosen. It is also clear that $v_1^2 +
v_2^2$, $m_1^2$, and $m_2^2$ set the energy scale of the symmetry breaking and $V_0$ has no lower bound as a function of these parameters. We should therefore consider them as fixed and vary $\sin^2 \beta$ to minimize $V_0$. Let $x \equiv \sin^2 \beta$, then $${{\partial V_0} \over {\partial x}} = {1 \over 2} (v_1^2 + v_2^2) \left[
-(3m_1^2 + m_2^2) + 4(m_1^2 + m_2^2) x \right],$$ and $${{\partial^2 V_0} \over {\partial x^2}} = 2 (v_1^2 + v_2^2) (m_1^2 + m_2^2).$$ Hence the minimization of $V_0$ is achieved if $$x = {{3m_1^2 + m_2^2} \over {4(m_1^2 + m_2^2)}}$$ and $m_1^2 + m_2^2 > 0$ which is consistent with Eq. (6). Using Eq. (5), we then find $$m_1^2 + m_2^2 = {1 \over 2} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (v_1^2 + v_2^2),$$ or equivalently $$m_A = M_Z.$$ This implies $$m_{H^\pm} = (M_W^2 + M_Z^2)^{1 \over 2} \simeq 121~{\rm GeV}$$ and $$m_{H_1^0,H_2^0} = M_Z (1 \pm \sin 2 \beta)^{1 \over 2}.$$

From Eq. (14), we find $$\tan^2 \beta = {{3 m_1^2 + m_2^2} \over {m_1^2 + 3 m_2^2}},$$ which shows that if $m_1^2 > 0$ and $m_2^2 > 0$, then $1/\sqrt 3 < \tan
\beta < \sqrt 3$. However, because $\Phi_2$ couples to the $t$ quark with a large Yukawa coupling, $m_2^2$ is expected to differ from $m_1^2$ by a large negative contribution from the renormalization-group equations,@4 hence the case $m_1^2 > 0$ and $m_2^2 < 0$ should be considered. We then obtain $$\tan \beta > \sqrt 3,$$ where $m_1^2 > 3 |m_2^2|$ has also been assumed or else $V_0$ would have been minimized at $\sin^2 \beta > 1$ which is impossible. Using Eq. (18), we find $m_{H_1^0} > 33$ GeV and $m_{H_2^0} < 125$ GeV, with the constraint that $m_{H_1^0}^2 + m_{H_2^0}^2 = 2 M_Z^2$. Experimentally, there is no evidence for the existence of any of the five scalar particles of the minimal supersymmetric standard model from $Z$ decay or in any other process. Detailed phenomenological analyses@2 have concluded that for $m_A =
M_Z$, $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$ is allowed. The only possible exception is from the experimental upper bound on the process $b \rightarrow s \gamma$, which excludes $m_A$ up to 130 GeV according to one calculation.@5 However, another calculation@6 gives a value which is roughly 20% lower, in which case $m_A = M_Z$ and $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$ are again allowed for $m_t \leq 150$ GeV.

Using Eq. (5), we could also have written Eq. (11) in the more familiar form $$V_0 = - {1 \over 8} (g_1^2 + g_2^2) (v_1^2 + v_2^2)^2 \cos^2 2 \beta.$$ This means that if we were to fix $g_1^2 + g_2^2$ and $v_1^2 + v_2^2$, the minimization of $V_0$ would occur at either $\sin \beta = 0$ ($v_2 = 0$) or $\cos \beta = 0$ ($v_1 = 0$). Note that because of Eq. (5), we could not have also kept both $m_1^2$ and $m_2^2$ fixed. Whereas this solution does indeed correspond to a local minimum along a particular direction in parameter space, it is clearly not acceptable phenomenologically. It also requires $m_{12}^2$ to be zero which is perhaps not so acceptable theoretically. As it is, we have discovered another direction (and arguably the only one) along which $V_0$ is minimized with both $v_1$ and $v_2$ nonzero.

If the Yukawa coupling of the $t$ quark to $\Phi_2$ is large, there is also a significant radiative contribution to the $(\Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2)^2$ term in the Higgs potential $V$ of Eq. (1). This generates an extra term in Eq. (3). In that case, Eq. (7) remains valid but Eq. (8) is modified so that in principle $m_{H_2^0} > M_Z$ would be possible.@7 Here we find $$m_A^2 \simeq M_Z^2 (1 + \delta_1),$$ and $$m_{H_1^0,H_2^0}^2 \simeq M_Z^2 \left(1 + \delta_2 \pm \sqrt {(1 + \delta_1)
\sin^2 2 \beta + \delta_2^2} \right),$$ where $$\delta_1 = \left( {{3-2\sin^2 \beta} \over {2\sin^2 \beta -1}} \right) \delta,
{}~~~~\delta_2 = \delta + {1 \over 2} \delta_1,$$ and $$\delta = {{3 g_2^2 m_t^4} \over {16 \pi^2 M_W^2 M_Z^2 \sin^2 \beta}}
\ln {\tilde M^2 \over m_t^2},$$ $\tilde M$ being an effective mass for the scalar supersymmetric partners of the $t$ quark and $\tilde M^2 >> m_t^2$ has been assumed.

In conclusion, it has been shown in this note that $m_A = M_Z$ (+ radiative correction) and $\tan \beta > \sqrt 3$ are plausible results in the minimal supersymmetric standard model. The key theoretical assumption is that the minimum $V_0$ of the Higgs potential $V$ should be also a local minimum in parameter space along a certain direction. Specifically, if we fix $m_1^2$, $m_2^2$, and $v_1^2 + v_2^2$, then $V_0$ is minimized at tree level with $\tan^2 \beta = (3m_1^2 + m_2^2)/(m_1^2 + 3m_2^2)$, resulting in $m_A = M_Z$. However, radiative correction due to a large value of $m_t$ changes that to $m_A \simeq M_Z (1 + \delta_1)^{1/2}$ as given by Eq. (22). If we assume further that $m_1^2 > 0$ but $m_2^2 < 0$ because of a large negative contribution from the renormalization-group equations, then $\tan \beta >
\sqrt 3$ is also obtained.

<span>ACKNOWLEDGEMENT</span>

The author acknowledges the indispensable help of V. Barger in clarifying the current phenomenological situation with regard to $\tan \beta$ and $m_A$. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AT03-87ER40327.

<span>99</span> For a review, see for example H. E. Haber and G. Kane, <span>*Phys. Rep.*</span> <span>**117**</span>, 75 (1985). See for example V. Barger, K. Cheung, R. J. N. Phillips, and A. L. Stange, <span>*Phys. Rev.*</span> <span>**D46**</span>, 4914 (1992); H. Baer, M. Bisset, D. Dicus, C. Kao, and X. Tata, <span>*ibid.*</span> <span>**D47**</span>, 1062 (1993). See for example J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, <span>*Nucl. Phys.*</span> <span>**B272**</span>, 1 (1986). See for example H. P. Nilles, <span>*Phys. Rep.*</span> <span>**110**</span>, 1 (1984). V. Barger, M. S. Berger, and R. J. N. Phillips, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison Report No. MAD/PH/730 (November 1992) <span>*Phys. Rev. Lett.*</span> <span>**70**</span>, in press. J. L. Hewett, <span>*Phys. Rev. Lett.*</span> <span>**70**</span> (Feb 22, 1993). Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi, and T. Yanagida, <span>*Phy. Lett.*</span> <span>**B262**</span>, 54 (1991); <span>*Prog. Theor. Phys.*</span> <span>**85**</span>, 1 (1991); H. E. Haber and R. Hempfling, <span>*Phys. Rev. Lett.*</span> <span>**66**</span>, 1815 (1991); J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner, <span>*Phys. Lett.*</span> <span>**B257**</span>, 83 (1991); R. Barbieri, M. Frigeni, and F. Caravaglios, <span>*ibid.*</span> <span>**258**</span>, 167 (1991); A. Yamada, <span>*ibid.*</span> <span>**263**</span>, 233 (1991).

{'source': 'arXiv_out/hep-ph9302277'}