text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for the lightest Higgs boson is a crucial test of Supersymmetry (SUSY) that can be performed with the present and the next generation of accelerators. The prediction of a relatively light Higgs boson is common to all supersymmetric models whose couplings remain in the perturbative regime up to a very high energy scale . Finding the Higgs boson is thus one of the main goals of todays high-energy physics. Concerning the Higgs boson search, it is necessary to know the decay widths and branching ratios of the main decay channels to a high accuracy. After the detection of a scalar particle it is mandatory as a next step to measure its couplings to gauge bosons and fermions and also its self-couplings very accurately, in order to establish the Higgs mechanism and the Yukawa interactions experimentally. The determination of the trilinear Higgs-boson self-couplings might be possible at a future linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider with high luminosity .

In this paper we concentrate on the coupling of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson to Standard model (SM) fermions. In the MSSM the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, $`m_h`$, is bounded from above by $`m_h\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}135}\mathrm{GeV}`$, including radiative corrections up to two-loop order . Since the $`b`$-, the $`c`$-quark and the $`\tau `$-lepton are the heaviest particles for which the decay $`hf\overline{f}`$ is kinematically allowed, it is of particular interest to calculate their corresponding decay rates and branching ratios with high precision . We analyze these decay rates and branching ratios, taking into account the Higgs-boson propagator corrections, where at the one-loop level the full momentum dependence is kept. These corrections contain the Yukawa contributions of $`𝒪(G_Fm_t^4/M_W^2)`$, which are the dominant electroweak one-loop corrections to the Higgs-boson decay width, and the corresponding QCD corrections of $`𝒪(G_F\alpha _sm_t^4/M_W^2)`$ as well as the Yukawa corrections of $`𝒪(G_F^2m_t^6/M_W^2)`$. We also take into account the one-loop vertex corrections resulting from gluon, gluino and photon exchange together with real gluon and photon emission as given in Ref. . Only the purely weak $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ vertex corrections have been neglected. We numerically investigate the effect of the two-loop propagator contributions and the one-loop gluino-exchange vertex correction. The latter one has been mostly neglected in experimental analyses so far, but can have a large impact on the result. We show analytically that the Higgs-boson propagator correction with neglected momentum dependence can be absorbed into the tree-level coupling using the effective mixing angle from the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson sector. The result in this approximation is then compared with the full result. We also perform a comparison between our full result and the renormalization group (RG) improved effective potential calculation, see Ref.  and references therein. For most parts of the MSSM parameter space we find agreement within 10% between the two approaches, although deviations up to 50% are possible for certain ranges of the parameter space.

The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we give the calculational basis needed for the incorporation of the two-loop Higgs-propagator corrections into the decay widths. We show analytically how the propagator corrections with neglected external momentum are related to the effective mixing-angle approach. The results for the gluon, gluino and QED vertex corrections in combination with gluon and photon bremsstrahlung are reviewed. In section 3 a numerical analysis for the decay rates and a comparison of the full result and the effective mixing-angle result is performed. Special emphasis is put on the two-loop propagator correction and the one-loop gluino contribution. Section 4 contains the comparison of our full result with the RG approach. The conclusions can be found in section 5.

## 2 Calculational basis

The Higgs potential of the MSSM is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2H_1\overline{H}_1+m_2^2H_2\overline{H}_2m_{12}^2(ϵ_{ab}H_1^aH_2^b+\text{h.c.})`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2+g^2}{8}}(H_1\overline{H}_1H_2\overline{H}_2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}|H_1\overline{H}_2|^2,`$
where $`m_1,m_2,m_{12}`$ are soft SUSY-breaking terms, $`g,g^{}`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge couplings, and $`ϵ_{12}=1`$. The doublet fields $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are decomposed in the following way:

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1^1\\ H_1^2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1+(\varphi _1^0+i\chi _1^0)/\sqrt{2}\\ \varphi _1^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (6)
$`H_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}H_2^1\\ H_2^2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _2^+\\ v_2+(\varphi _2^0+i\chi _2^0)/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (11)
Besides $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$, two independent parameters enter the potential (1): $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ and $`M_A^2=m_{12}^2(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\beta )`$, where $`M_A`$ is the mass of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd $`A`$ boson.

The $`𝒞𝒫`$-even neutral mass eigenstates are obtained performing the rotation

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}H^0\\ h^0\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^0\\ \varphi _2^0\end{array}\right)D^1(\alpha )\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^0\\ \varphi _2^0\end{array}\right)`$ (20)
with the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ related to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_A`$ by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\mathrm{tan}2\beta \frac{M_A^2+M_Z^2}{M_A^2M_Z^2},\frac{\pi }{2}<\alpha <0.$$
(21)
At the tree level the mass matrix of the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs bosons in the $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ basis can be expressed in terms of $`M_Z`$ and $`M_A`$ as follows:

$`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{2,\mathrm{tree}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\varphi _1}^2& m_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}^2\\ m_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}^2& m_{\varphi _2}^2\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_A^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta +M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta & (M_A^2+M_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ (M_A^2+M_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta & M_A^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta +M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \end{array}\right).`$ (27)
Transforming to the eigenstate basis (20) yields

$$M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{2,\mathrm{tree}}\stackrel{\alpha }{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2& 0\\ 0& m_h^2\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
with $`m_h`$ and $`m_H`$ being the tree-level masses of the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs bosons.

In the Feynman diagrammatic (FD) approach the higher-order corrected Higgs boson masses, denoted by $`M_h,M_H`$, are derived by finding the poles of the $`h,H`$-propagator matrix whose inverse is given by

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Higgs}}\right)^1=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H(q^2)& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(q^2)& q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h(q^2)\end{array}\right),$$
(29)
where the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)`$ denote the renormalized Higgs boson self-energies. For these self-energies we take the result up to two-loop order, see Sect. 2.2 below.

Our main emphasis in this paper is on the fermionic decays of the light Higgs boson, but for completeness we list the expressions for both $`h`$ and $`H`$. The amplitudes for the decays $`h,Hf\overline{f}`$ can be written as follows:

$`A(hf\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Z_h}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+Z_{hH}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\right),`$ (30)
$`A(Hf\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Z_H}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_H+Z_{Hh}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\right),`$ (31)
with

$`Z_{hH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(M_h^2)}{M_h^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H(M_h^2)}},`$ (32)
$`Z_{Hh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(M_H^2)}{M_H^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h(M_H^2)}},`$ (33)
involving the renormalized self-energies $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)`$ and 3-point vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h,\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$. The wave function renormalization factors $`Z_h`$ and $`Z_H`$ are related to the finite residues of the $`h`$ and $`H`$ propagators, respectively:

$`Z_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\text{Re}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h^{}(q^2)\text{Re}\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}^2(q^2)}{q^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H(q^2)}\right)^{}}}_{|q^2=M_h^2}`$ (34)
$`Z_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\text{Re}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H^{}(q^2)\text{Re}\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}^2(q^2)}{q^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h(q^2)}\right)^{}}}{}_{|q^2=M_H^2}{}^{}.`$ (35)
### 2.1 The $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation

The dominant contributions for the Higgs boson self-energies can be obtained by setting $`q^2=0`$. Approximating the renormalized Higgs boson self-energies by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(q^2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(0)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$$
(36)
yields the Higgs boson masses by re-diagonalizing the dressed mass matrix

$$M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}& m_h^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h\end{array}\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_H^2& 0\\ 0& M_h^2\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
where $`M_h`$ and $`M_H`$ are the corresponding higher-order-corrected Higgs boson masses. The rotation matrix in the transformation (37) reads:

$$D(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \end{array}\right).$$
(38)
The angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is related to the renormalized self-energies and masses through the eigenvector equation

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_HM_h^2& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}& m_h^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_hM_h^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \\ \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \end{array}\right)=0`$ (43)
which yields

$$\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_h^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .$$
(44)
The second eigenvector equation leads to:

$$\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_H^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .$$
(45)
With the approximation (36) one deduces

$`Z_{hH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_h^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H}}=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,`$ (46)
$`Z_{Hh}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_H^2m_h^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h}}=+\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ,`$ (47)
and $`Z_h`$ can be expressed as

$`Z_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}}{M_h^2m_H^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H}\right)^2}}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }}=\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .`$
Analogously one obtains

$$Z_H=\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha .$$
(49)
At the tree level, the vertex functions can be written as

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=\frac{iem_f\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2s_WM_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }=C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_H=\frac{iem_f\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2s_WM_W\mathrm{cos}\beta }=C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \hfill \end{array}\}\text{for d-type fermions}`$ (52)
$`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=\frac{iem_f\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2s_WM_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }=C_f^{(u)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_H=\frac{iem_f\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{2s_WM_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }=C_f^{(u)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \hfill \end{array}\}\text{for u-type fermions}.`$ (55)
Incorporating them into the decay amplitude yields:

$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(hf\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Z_h}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+Z_{hH}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\right)`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \left(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )`$
$``$ $`C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\text{(for d-type fermions)}`$
$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(hf\overline{f})`$ $``$ $`C_f^{(u)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\text{(for u-type fermions)}`$ (57)
$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(Hf\overline{f})`$ $``$ $`C_f^{(d)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\text{(for d-type fermions)}`$ (58)
$`A_{\mathrm{eff}}(Hf\overline{f})`$ $``$ $`C_f^{(u)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\text{(for u-type fermions)}`$ (59)
Recalling the relations

$$D(\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}})=D(\alpha )D(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )$$
(60)
and

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h\end{array}\right)=D^1(\alpha )\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _2}\end{array}\right)D(\alpha )$$
(61)
it is obvious that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=(\alpha +\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$) is exactly the angle that diagonalizes the higher order corrected Higgs boson mass matrix in the $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$-basis:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\varphi _1}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1}& m_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}\\ m_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}& m_{\varphi _2}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _2}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_H^2& 0\\ 0& M_h^2\end{array}\right)`$ (66)
$`\alpha `$ (67)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_H& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}& m_h^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_h\end{array}\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_H^2& 0\\ 0& M_h^2\end{array}\right).`$ (72)
$`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be obtained from

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{(M_A^2+M_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1\varphi _2}}{M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta +M_A^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\varphi _1}m_h^2}\right],\frac{\pi }{2}<\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}<\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(73)
### 2.2 The Higgs-boson propagator corrections

For the Higgs boson self-energies employed in eqs. (29)–(35) we use the currently most accurate result based on Feynman-diagrammatic calculations. It contains the result of the complete one-loop on-shell calculation of Ref. , together with the dominant two-loop corrections of $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$ obtained in Refs. , including also the leading terms of $`𝒪(G_F^2m_t^6/M_W^2)`$ ; the Fortran program FeynHiggs, based on this result, has been described in Ref. . In this way the complete MSSM one-loop on-shell result together with the dominant two-loop contribution, originating from the $`t\stackrel{~}{t}`$-sector (without any restrictions on the mixing), is taken into account in the propagator corrections.

In the approach in Refs.  the Higgs boson self-energies are given by:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(q^2)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(1)}(q^2)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(2)}(0),s=h,H,hH,$$
(74)
where the momentum dependence has been neglected only at the two-loop level, while the full momentum dependence is kept in the one-loop contributions.

In a first step of approximation for the calculation of the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hf\overline{f})`$ the momentum dependence is neglected everywhere in the Higgs boson self-energies (see eq. (36)):

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(q^2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(1)}(0)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(2)}(0),s=h,H,hH.$$
(75)
This corresponds to the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation, as described in Sect. 2.1.

In a second step of approximation we approximate the Higgs boson self-energies by the compact analytical formulas given in Ref. :

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s(q^2)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(1)\mathrm{approx}}(0)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_s^{(2)\mathrm{approx}}(0),s=h,H,hH,$$
(76)
yielding relatively short expressions which allow a very fast numerical evaluation. In the following, this approximation is labeled by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{approx})`$.

For the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-sector, we use the same conventions as in Ref. : the scalar top masses and the mixing angle are related to the parameters $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ and $`X_t`$ of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-mass matrix

$$_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_t^2+\mathrm{cos}2\beta (\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}s_W^2)M_Z^2& m_tX_t\\ m_tX_t& M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+m_t^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}2\beta s_W^2M_Z^2\end{array}\right),$$
(77)
with

$$X_t=A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta .$$
(78)
In the numerical analysis below we have chosen $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$.

In Refs.  it has been shown that for a given set of MSSM parameters the maximal values of $`M_h`$ as a function of $`X_t`$ are obtained for $`|X_t/m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}|2`$. This case we refer to as ’maximal mixing’. Minimal values for $`M_h`$ are reached for $`X_t0`$. This case we refer to as ’no mixing’.

### 2.3 Decay width of the lightest Higgs boson

At the tree level, the decay width for $`hf\overline{f}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(hf\overline{f})=N_C\frac{m_h}{8\pi }\left(1\frac{4m_f^2}{m_h^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_h|^2.$$
(79)
The electroweak propagator corrections are incorporated by using the higher-order decay amplitude (30)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(hf\overline{f})=N_C\frac{M_h}{8\pi }\left(1\frac{4m_f^2}{M_h^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}|A(hf\overline{f})|^2.$$
(80)
The $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,\mathrm{eff}}(hf\overline{f})=N_C\frac{M_h}{8\pi }\left(1\frac{4m_f^2}{M_h^2}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}|A_{\mathrm{eff}}(hf\overline{f})|^2.$$
(81)
In this paper we consider only those electroweak higher-order contributions which enter via the Higgs boson self-energies. These corrections contain the Yukawa contributions of $`𝒪(G_Fm_t^4/M_W^2)`$, which are the dominant electroweak one-loop corrections to the Higgs-boson decay width, and the corresponding dominant two-loop corrections, see Sect. 2.2. The pure weak $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ vertex corrections are neglected (they have been calculated in Ref.  and were found to be at the level of only a few % for most parts of the MSSM parameter space, see also Sect. 2.3.3 below.)

#### 2.3.1 QED corrections

Here we follow the results given in Refs. . The IR-divergent virtual photon contribution is taken into account in combination with real-photon bremsstrahlung yielding the QED corrections. The contribution to the decay width induced by $`\gamma `$-exchange and final-state photon radiation can be cast into the very compact formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ,$$
(82)
where for $`m_f^2M_h^2`$ the factor $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma `$ has the simple form

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma =\frac{\alpha }{\pi }Q_f^2\left[3\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{M_h}{m_f}\right)+\frac{9}{4}\right].$$
(83)
#### 2.3.2 QCD corrections: gluon contributions

The corresponding results have been obtained in Refs. . The additional contribution to the decay width induced by gluon exchange and final-state gluon radiation can be incorporated into (80) by writing

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\frac{m_q^2(M_h^2)}{m_q^2}\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(M_h^2)}{\pi }\left\{C_F\frac{9}{4}+\frac{8}{3}\left(1\frac{\alpha _s(m_b^2)}{\alpha _s(M_h^2)}\right)\right\}\right].$$
(84)
The correction factor containing $`\alpha _s(m_b^2)`$, which has not been included in previous diagrammatic calculations, can give rise to non-negligible contributions. $`m_q(M_h^2)`$ is calculated via

$`m_q(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`m_q{\displaystyle \frac{c(q^2)}{c(m_q^2)}},`$ (85)
$`c(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\alpha _s(q^2)}{2\pi }}\right)^{\gamma _0/2\beta _0}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\beta _1\gamma _0\beta _0\gamma _1\right)}{\beta _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{8\pi }}`$ (86)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{(\beta _1\gamma _0\beta _0\gamma _1)^2}{2\beta _0^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0(\beta _2\beta _0\beta _1^2)}{\beta _0^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2}{\beta _0}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{8\pi }}\right)^2],`$
where $`m_q`$ is the pole mass and $`m_q(m_q^2)=m_q`$. The coefficients in eq. (86) are:

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{332N_f}{3}},`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`102{\displaystyle \frac{38}{3}}N_f,`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2857}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5033}{18}}N_f+{\displaystyle \frac{325}{54}}N_f^2,`$
$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`8,`$
$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{404}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{40}{9}}N_f,`$
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{140}{27}}N_f^2+\left(160\zeta (3)+{\displaystyle \frac{2216}{9}}\right)N_f3747\right],`$ (87)
where $`\zeta (3)1.2020596\mathrm{}`$ and $`N_f=5`$ for $`f=c,b`$, which are considered here. The strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ is given up to three loops by:

$$\alpha _s(q^2)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0L_q}\left[1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _0^2}\frac{\mathrm{log}L_q}{L_q}+\frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^4}\frac{\mathrm{log}^2L_q}{L_q^2}\frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^4}\frac{\mathrm{log}L_q}{L_q^2}+\frac{\beta _2\beta _0\beta _1^2}{\beta _0^4}\frac{1}{L_q^2}\right],$$
(88)
where $`L_q=\mathrm{log}(q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2)`$. (For the numerical evaluation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}=220\mathrm{MeV}`$ has been used.) Numerically, more than 80% of the gluon-exchange contribution is absorbed into the running quark mass.

#### 2.3.3 QCD corrections: gluino contributions

We follow the calculation given in Ref. <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 An error in Ref.  concerning the proper inclusion of the $`Hf\overline{f}`$ coupling has been corrected. , similar results can also be found in Ref. . The additional contributions to the decay width induced by gluino-exchange are incorporated via

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}},$$
(89)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is given by

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h+Z_{hH}\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}\text{Re}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^h+Z_{hH}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^H\right]$$
(90)
for real $`Z_{hH}`$ (i.e. neglecting the imaginary part in eq. (90)); $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^h`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^H`$ are given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^h`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h[\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^h{}_{|q^2=M_h^2}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2)2m_q^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2))]`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H[\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^H{}_{|q^2=M_h^2}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2)2m_q^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{V,\stackrel{~}{g}}^f(m_q^2))].`$ (92)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{h,H}`$ denote the gluino vertex-corrections, whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^f`$ represents the gluino contribution to the fermion self-energy corrections. Explicit expressions for these terms can be found in Ref. .

For large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in combination with large values of $`|\mu |`$, the gluino-exchange corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ can become very large. In Refs.  as well as in Ref.  it has been proposed to derive an effective contribution to the decay width resummed to all orders. A similar resummation can be applied for weak $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ chargino-exchange corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$, where they become non-negligible . In the numerical examples given in Ref.  the difference between the one-loop result for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hf\overline{f})`$ and the effectively resummed result does not exceed 10 – 15%, even for very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >40`$. A proof of how the resummation of the leading terms arising for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be performed for the $`H^+\overline{t}b`$ vertex is given in Ref. . Concerning our numerical analysis in Sect. 3 we have neglected the additional contributions from the resummation. These additional corrections, although potentally large in some regions of the MSSM parameter space, would not qualitatively change our conclusions given below. A more detailed investigation of the effects of a proper resummation of the leading contributions and of the inclusion of the complete electroweak one-loop vertex corrections will be given in a forthcoming publication.

For some parameter combinations the gluino corrections can drive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ to very small values, see the discussion at the end of Sect. 3.1.

#### 2.3.4 Decay width and branching ratio

Including the various types of corrections, the decay width is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(hf\overline{f})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,g}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma +\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{g}}.$$
(93)
Summing over $`f=b,c,\tau `$ and adding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hgg)`$ (which can be numerically relevant ), results in an approximation for the total decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}=\underset{f=b,c,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(hf\overline{f})+\mathrm{\Gamma }(hgg).$$
(94)
We do not take into account the decay $`hAA`$ (see e.g. Ref.  for a detailed study). Although it is dominant whenever it is kinematically allowed, it plays a role only for very small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.5}`$) which will not be considered here because of the limits obtained at LEP2 . We also assume that all other SUSY particles are too heavy to allow further decay channels. In addition, we neglect the decay $`hWW^{}`$ which can be of $`𝒪(1\%)`$ for $`M_h\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The fermionic branching ratio is defined by

$$R_fBR(hf\overline{f})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(hf\overline{f})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}}.$$
(95)
## 3 Numerical analysis

Concerning the numerical evaluation of the Higgs-boson propagator corrections, we follow Sect. 2.2. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we have chosen two representative values, a relatively low value, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$,<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 This values is well above the expected limit obtainable at the end of LEP, assuming that no Higgs boson signal will be found . For these expected limits $`m_t=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$ has been assumed.  and a high value, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$. For sake of comparison we also consider an intermediate value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ in some cases. If not indicated differently, the other MSSM parameters are chosen as follows: $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_2=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ ($`M_2`$ is the soft SUSY-breaking term in the gaugino sector), gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_b=A_t`$ (which fixes, together with $`\mu `$, the mixing in the $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$-sector). For the SM fermion masses we have furthermore chosen $`m_t=175\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_b=4.5\mathrm{GeV}`$<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 The value of $`m_h=4.5\mathrm{GeV}`$ is used in the tree-level expression and in the QED and QCD vertex corrections (see Sects. 2.3.1 \- 2.3.3), while for the Higgs-propagator corrections the running bottom mass, $`m_b(m_t)=2.97\mathrm{GeV}`$, has been used, in order to partially absorb higher-order QCD corrections.  , $`m_\tau =1.777\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_c=1.5\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The mass $`M_A`$ of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd Higgs boson is treated as an input parameter and is varied in the interval $`50\mathrm{GeV}M_A500\mathrm{GeV}`$. The corresponding values for $`M_h`$ follow from eq. (29). $`M_h`$, derived in this way, subsequently enters the numerical evaluation of the formulas presented in section 2. Thus the variation of $`M_h`$ in the plots stems from the variation of $`M_A`$ in the above given range.

### 3.1 Effects of the two-loop Higgs-propagator corrections

We first focus on the effects of the two-loop Higgs-boson propagator corrections. They have been evaluated at the one- and at the two-loop level as described in Sect. 2.2. Fig. 1 shows the results for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ for a common scalar quark mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ in the no-mixing and the maximal-mixing scenario. The QED and the QCD gluon and gluino vertex contributions are also included.

In the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario, larger values for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ are obtained for maximal mixing. The two-loop corrections strongly reduce the decay width. In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario the variation is mainly a kinematical effect from the different values of $`M_h`$ at the one- and two-loop level. The absolute values obtained for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ are three orders of magnitude higher in the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ scenario, which is due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})1/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$.

In Fig. 2 the three decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hc\overline{c})`$ are shown as a function of $`M_h`$. The results are given in the no-mixing scenario for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,40`$.

In the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ are lowered at the two-loop level, while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hc\overline{c})`$ is increased. The decay rate for $`hb\overline{b}`$ is about one and two orders of magnitude larger compared to the ones of $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`hc\overline{c}`$, respectively. In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario the shifts are again dominated by the kinematical effect from the different values of $`M_h`$ at the one- and two-loop level. In the maximal-mixing case, which is not plotted here, we find qualitatively the same behavior.

We now turn to the effects of the two-loop corrections to the branching ratios. For not too large values of $`M_h`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is strongly dominated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$. For large values of $`M_h`$ the decay into gluons becomes more relevant. In Fig. 3 we show the branching ratio $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ as a function of $`M_h`$ and $`M_A`$. For values of $`M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}250}\mathrm{GeV}`$ there is a non-negligible difference between one-loop and two-loop order, where at the two-loop level the branching ratio is slightly enhanced. Compared in terms of $`M_h`$ there is nearly no change for small values of $`M_h`$ in the low and in the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case. Here $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ is changed by less than about 1%, see Fig. 3. $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ is increased by less than about 2%. $`BR(hc\overline{c})`$ can be increased at the two-loop level by $`𝒪(50\%)`$, but remains numerically relatively small. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ the main difference arises at the endpoints of the spectrum, again due to the fact that different Higgs boson masses can be obtained at the one-loop and at the two-loop level. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, however, also several GeV below the kinematical endpoints there is a sizable effect on $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$. Thus, in the experimentally allowed region of $`M_h`$, the two-loop corrections can have an important effect on $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$.

Higgs boson search, especially at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders, often relies on $`b`$ search, since on one hand the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson decays dominantly into $`b\overline{b}`$ and on the other hand $`b`$ tagging can be performed with high efficiency. For some combinations of parameters, however, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ can become very small and thus $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ can approach zero as a consequence of large Higgs-boson propagator corrections or large gluino vertex-corrections, making Higgs boson search possibly very difficult for these parameters. Within the effective potential approach this kind of effect has first been observed in Ref. , recent analyses investigating the parameter regions where $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ is suppressed can be found in Refs. . In order to have reliable predictions for these regions of parameter space a full calculation of the one-loop vertex corrections, including all $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ contributions, would be necessary. Here we demonstrate the effect of the two-loop propagator corrections on the values of the parameters, especially of $`M_A`$, for which $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ goes to zero. We also show the impact of the inclusion of the momentum dependence of the Higgs boson self-energies (see eq. (29) and (36)), that is often neglected in phenomenological analyses of the decays of the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson.

In Fig. 4 $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ is shown as a function of $`M_A`$. The Higgs boson self-energies are evaluated at the one-loop and at the two-loop level with and without momentum dependence (see eq. (36)). The other parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =25`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`X_t=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_b=A_t`$, $`\mu =1000\mathrm{GeV}`$. The inclusion of the two-loop propagator corrections shifts the $`M_A`$ value for which $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ becomes very small by about $`35\mathrm{GeV}`$. The inclusion of the momentum dependence of the Higgs boson self-energies induces another shift of about $`6\mathrm{GeV}`$. In order to have reliable phenomenological predictions for the problematic $`M_A`$ values the two-loop corrections as well as the inclusion of the momentum dependence is necessary. Note that the inclusion of the gluino vertex corrections as well as the purely weak vertex corrections can also have a large impact on the critical $`M_A`$ values.

### 3.2 Effects of the gluino vertex corrections

In this subsection we present the effect of the gluino-exchange contribution to the $`hf\overline{f}`$ vertex corrections. These corrections have been neglected so far in most phenomenological analyses<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 The gluino-exchange contributions are currently incorporated into HDECAY . Concerning the discovery potential of LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC, the gluino corrections have also been studied recently in Refs. . .

Fig. 5 shows $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ in three steps of accuracy: the dotted curves contain only the pure self-energy correction, the dashed curves contain in addition the QED and the gluon-exchange correction. The solid curves show the full results, including also the gluino-exchange correction. The results are shown for the no mixing scenario, $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=200,1000\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the left and right part of Fig. 5, respectively. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, three values have been chosen: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,20,40`$.

The left plot of Fig. 5 corresponds to a small soft SUSY-breaking scale, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$. The effect of the gluon contribution is large and negative, the effect of the QED correction is small. For this combination of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`\mu `$ the effect of the gluino correction is large and positive as can be seen from the transition from the dashed to the solid curves. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ it nearly compensates the gluon effect, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$ it amounts up to 20% of the gluonic correction, while for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$ the gluino-exchange contribution is negligible. Note that we have chosen a relatively small value of $`\mu `$, $`\mu =100\mathrm{GeV}`$. For larger values of $`|\mu |`$ even larger correction can be obtained. Hence neglecting the gluino-exchange correction in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario can lead to results which deviate by 50% from the full $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ calculation (see also Sect. 2.3.3). The right plot of Fig. 5 corresponds to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$. The gluino-exchange effects are still visible, but much smaller than for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=200\mathrm{GeV}`$. The same observation has already been made in Ref. . In the maximal-mixing scenario we find qualitatively the same behavior for the gluino-exchange corrections as in the no-mixing scenario.

In Fig. 6 the pure gluino-exchange effect is shown as a function of $`\mu `$. This effect increases with rising<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5 This is correct for all values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ considered in this work. A maximal effect is reached around $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}1500\mathrm{GeV}`$. The decoupling of the gluino takes place only for very large values, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5000}\mathrm{GeV}`$.  $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`|\mu |`$, where for negative (positive) $`\mu `$ there is an enhancement (a decrease) in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$. The size of the gluino-exchange contribution also depends on $`M_A`$, where larger effects correspond to smaller values of $`M_A`$, see also Ref. . The small difference between the curves where the decay rate has been calculated without gluino contribution is due to the variation of $`M_h`$ induced by different values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ which enters at $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$. Fig. 6 demonstrates again that neglecting the gluino contribution in the fermion decay rates can yield (strongly) misleading results.

The gluino exchange contribution has only a relatively small impact on $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$. It can have a large influence, on the other hand, on $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$. Both branching ratios are expected to be measurable at the same level of accuracy, see e.g. Ref. . While the Higgs-propagator contributions are universal corrections that affect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ in the same way (i.e. the influence on the effective coupling is the same in both cases), the gluino corrections, which influence only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$, can lead to a different behavior of the two decay widths. In Fig. 7 we show $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ as a function of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. The left plot corresponds to three different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu =\pm 100\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`M_A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$. Here we have furthermore chosen $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ and moderate mixing, i.e. $`X_t=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$; we find similar results for the other mixing scenarios. For positive (negative) $`\mu `$ the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ is reduced (enhanced), see Fig. 6, thus $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ is increased (decreased) by up to 50%. For large values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ can thus be considerably different from the case where the gluino-exchange contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ has been neglected. This becomes even more apparent in the right plot of Fig. 7, where the MSSM result, including gluino exchange contribution, is compared to the SM result. Here we also show the scenario with $`M_A=300\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mu =400\mathrm{GeV}`$, where the Higgs sector of the MSSM behaves SM like (i.e. the lightest Higgs boson has almost SM couplings, all other Higgs bosons are heavy). The horizontal lines represent the SM values for the respective Higgs boson masses. The two Higgs boson masses for each line give similar results so that the lines are indistinguishable in the plot. These masses correspond to an averaged value obtained in the MSSM in the interval $`0<m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}<1000\mathrm{GeV}`$, where the variation of $`M_h`$ is about $`\pm 1\mathrm{GeV}`$ (with our choice of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`X_t`$). Since the gluino decouples very slowly, there is no decoupling effect for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1000}\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the MSSM results can be considerably different from the SM result, for $`M_A=100\mathrm{GeV}`$ as well as for $`M_A=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, i.e. even where the MSSM Higgs sector behaves otherwise SM like. The deviation can amount up to 50% for $`M_A=`$ $`𝒪(100\mathrm{GeV})`$ and up to 30% for $`M_A=`$ $`𝒪(300\mathrm{GeV})`$. Thus the measurement of $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ can provide a distinction between the SM and the MSSM even for relatively large $`M_A`$ and large $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ if also $`|\mu |`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are sufficiently large. The branching ratio $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ on the other hand, changes only by a few per cent for these parameters, so that this change would be much harder to measure.

### 3.3 The $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation

In this section we investigate the quality of the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation. In Fig. 8 we display the relative difference between the full result (74) and the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ result, where the external momentum of the Higgs self-energies has been neglected, see eq. (75). The relative difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{full}}(hb\overline{b})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}(hb\overline{b}))/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{full}}(hb\overline{b})`$ is shown as a function of $`M_A`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$ and for three values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the no mixing and the maximal mixing scenario. Large deviations occur only in the region $`100\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}150}\mathrm{GeV}`$, especially for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In this region of parameter space the values of $`M_h`$ and $`M_H`$ are very close to each other. This results in a high sensitivity to small deviations in the Higgs boson self-energies entering the Higgs-boson mass matrix (29), (37). Another source of differences between the full and the approximate calculation is the threshold $`M_A=2m_t=350\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the one-loop contribution, originating from the top-loop diagram in the $`A`$ self-energy and in the $`AZ`$ self-energy (see Ref. ). Here the deviation can amount up to 6%.

In Fig. 9 we compare the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ result (75) with the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{approx})`$ result (76), where the Higgs boson self-energies have been approximated by the compact analytical expression obtained in Ref. . Fig. 9 displays the relative difference in the effective mixing angles, $`(\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{approx}))/\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Via eq. (56) $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ directly determines the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$. The result is shown for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1000\mathrm{GeV}`$, for three values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the minimal and the maximal mixing scenario. Apart from the region around $`M_A120\mathrm{GeV}`$ (compare Fig. 8) both effective angles agree better than 3% with each other.

Concerning the comparison of the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximations in terms of $`M_h`$ (which is not plotted here), due to the neglected external momentum or the neglected subdominant one- or two-loop terms, $`M_h`$ receives a slight shift. Besides this kinematical effect, the decay rate is approximated rather well for most of the $`M_h`$ values: independently of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, the differences stay mostly below 2-4%, for the no-mixing case as well as for the maximal-mixing case. Only at the endpoints of the spectrum, due to the different Higgs-boson mass values, the difference is not negligible.

## 4 Comparison with the renormalization group approach

In order to compare our results with those obtained within the renormalization-group-improved effective field theory approach  (in the following, for brevity reasons, denoted as RG approach), we made use of the program HDECAY . In Fig. 10 we show the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ as a function of $`M_h`$ (left part) and as a function of $`M_A`$ (right part). We compare the RG result of HDECAY, where the gluino-exchange contribution is not yet implemented, with the FD result without and with gluino correction. In order to trace back the source of deviations we also show in the lower part of Fig. 10 the sine of the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which enters the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ quadratically (see eqs. (56) and (81)). In order to evaluate $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ we have neglected the external momentum (see eq. (75)). As a typical soft SUSY-breaking scale we have chosen $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ in Fig. 10. Since the FD and the RG result have been obtained in different renormalization schemes, the entries of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-mass matrix have a different meaning starting from two-loop order . For the no-mixing case we have set $`X_t=0`$ in both approaches, whereas the maximal-mixing case is defined via $`X_t=2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ for the FD approach and $`X_t=\sqrt{6}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ in the RG approach .

In the comparison of the decay rates (and restricting ourselves to the results with neglected gluino exchange), for a given $`M_h`$ we find deviations for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ up to $`𝒪(10\%)`$ and agreement better than 4% in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario. The main part of the deviations can be attributed to the deviations in $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which modify $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ (see the lower part of Fig. 10). As a general feature, larger deviations arise at the endpoints of the $`M_h`$ spectrum due to the fact that for the same value of $`M_A`$ different values for $`M_h`$ are obtained in the FD and the RG approach, as shown in the left part of Fig. 10. The plots for the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ scenario show again a sizable effect of the gluino correction.

In Figs. 11 and Fig. 12 the relative differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{FD}}(hb\overline{b})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{RG}}(hb\overline{b}))/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{FD}}(hb\overline{b})`$ and $`(\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{FD}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{RG}})/\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{FD}}`$ are shown as a function of $`M_A`$. Comparing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as a function of $`M_A`$ the agreement is relatively good; sizable deviations larger than 10% are found only in the regions where the curves in the right part of Fig. 10 have a steep slope. This can give rise to large deviations up to 50% in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ in terms of $`M_A`$ (for $`100\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}150}\mathrm{GeV}`$), as displayed in the right parts of Figs. 11 and 12 (large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$).

## 5 Conclusions

Using the Feynman-diagrammatic approach for the Higgs-boson propagator corrections, including besides the full one-loop result also the dominant two-loop corrections, we have calculated the decay rates and branching ratios for the decays $`hb\overline{b}`$, $`hc\overline{c}`$ and $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. We have included the one-loop QED and QCD corrections, where the latter are due to gluon and gluino-exchange contributions. The gluino-exchange corrections have been neglected in most of the previous phenomenological analyses. In the present analysis, only the purely weak $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ (process specific) vertex corrections, shown to contribute less than 1% for most parts of the MSSM parameter space, have been neglected.

We have shown analytically that the full set of Higgs-boson propagator corrections for vanishing external momentum can be absorbed into the effective mixing angle, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, in the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs sector, appearing in the Higgs-boson fermion couplings.

Numerically we have shown that, compared in terms of $`M_h`$, the two-loop contributions to the Higgs-boson propagator corrections lead to a sizable decrease for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hc\overline{c})`$ can be increased, although it stays relatively small for all sets of parameters we have investigated. A sizable difference in all analyses from the one- to the two-loop calculation arises from the kinematical effect that at the two-loop level lower values for $`M_h`$ are obtained compared to the one-loop case, thus leading to deviations at the endpoints of the shown $`M_h`$ spectra. For most parts of the MSSM parameter space the $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$-approximation reproduces the full result better than 3%. The gluino-exchange contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ has been shown to be sizable for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This correction increases with rising $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and decreases with rising $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`M_A`$. It is positive (negative) for negative (positive) $`\mu `$. In the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ scenario for small $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ it nearly compensate the gluon-exchange correction.

The effect of the Higgs-propagator corrections on the branching ratios $`BR(hf\overline{f})`$ is relatively small for small values of $`M_h`$, while sizable effects are possible in the experimentally favored region of $`M_h`$. The branching ratio $`BR(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$ can receive large corrections up to 50% due to SUSY-QCD corrections to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$. In some parameter regions the effective $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling can become very small, and $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ can approach zero. In these parameter regions the two-loop contributions as well as the effect of the momentum dependence of the one-loop contributions are particularly important. It should be noted that in order to determine $`BR(hb\overline{b})`$ very precisely in these paremeter regions, also a resummation of the leading terms as well as the inclusion of the complete $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ vertex corrections will be necessary.

We have compared our diagrammatic result for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ with the result obtained within the renormalization-group-improved effective field theory approach. For the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario, compared in terms of $`M_h`$, we find deviations up to $`𝒪(10\%)`$. In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario the agreement is better than 4%. Compared in terms of $`M_A`$, however, differences of up to 50% are possible in the region $`100\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}150}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The main part of the deviations can be attributed to the differences in the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

### Acknowledgments

We thank M. Spira for valuable discussions and communication about the numerical comparison of our results. We are also grateful to M. Carena, H. Eberl and C. Wagner for interesting and helpful discussions. Parts of the calculations have been performed on the QCM cluster at the University of Karlsruhe.


format: text

text:
# References

## Figure captions

Figure 1. The distribution functions $`F_B^b(x)`$ (solid line) and $`F_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}^b(x)`$ (thin lines) defined by Eq. (7) versus the LF momentum fraction $`x`$. Labels 1 to 4 on the curves refer to the cases $`\beta _{bu}=0.3\mathrm{GeV},m_{ud}=600\mathrm{MeV}`$; $`\beta _{bu}=0.3\mathrm{GeV},m_{ud}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$; $`\beta _{bu}=0.6\mathrm{GeV},m_{ud}=600\mathrm{MeV}`$; $`\beta _{bu}=0.6\mathrm{GeV},m_{ud}=300\mathrm{MeV}`$, respectively.
Figure 2. The lifetime ratios $`\tau _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}/\tau _B`$ for $`\beta =0.3\mathrm{GeV}(r=0.3))`$ (solid line), $`\beta =0.45\mathrm{GeV}(r=1)`$ (long–dashed line), and $`\beta =0.6\mathrm{GeV}(r=2.37)`$ (short–dashed line). (a) $`m_{ud}=m_u+m_d`$, and (b) $`m_{ud}\frac{1}{2}(m_u+m_dm_\pi )`$.

Figure 1
Figure 2


text:
# Precision Electroweak Parameters and the Higgs MassTo be published in the Proceedings of MuMu99-5th International Conference on Physics Potential and Development of 𝜇^±𝜇⁻ Colliders, San Francisco, CA, Dec. (1999)

## Fundamental Parameters and Precision Measurements

The SU(2)$`{}_{L}{}^{}\times `$U(1)Y electroweak sector of the standard model contains 17 or more fundamental parameters. They include gauge and Higgs field couplings as well as fermion masses and mixing angles. In terms of those parameters, predictions can be made with high accuracy for essentially any electroweak observable. Very precise measurements of those quantities can then be used to test the standard model, at the quantum loop level and predict the Higgs scalar mass or search for small deviations from expectations which would indicate “New Physics”.

Some fundamental electroweak parameters have been determined with extraordinary precision. Foremost in that category is the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$. It is best obtained by comparing the measured prl5926  anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, $`a_e(g_e2)/2`$

$$a_e^{\mathrm{exp}}=1159652188(3)\times 10^{12}$$
(1)
with the calculated 4 loop QED prediction hepph9810512

$`a_e^{\mathrm{th}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}0.328478444\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+1.181234\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^31.5098\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^4`$ (2)
$`+1.66\times 10^{12}`$
where the $`1.66\times 10^{12}`$ comes from small hadronic and weak loop effects. Assuming no significant “new physics” contributions to $`a_e^{\mathrm{th}}`$, it can be equated with (1) to give

$$\alpha ^1=137.03599959(40)$$
(3)
That precision is already very impressive. Improvement by a factor of 10 appears to be technically feasible gabrielse  and should certainly be undertaken. However, at this time such improvement would not further our ability to test QED. Pure QED tests require comparable measurements of $`\alpha `$ in other processes. Agreement between two distinct $`\alpha `$ determinations tests QED and probes for “new physics” effects. After $`a_e`$, the next best (direct) measurement of $`\alpha `$ comes from the quantum Hall effect

$$\alpha ^1(qH)=137.03600370(270)$$
(4)
which is not nearly as precise. Nevertheless, the agreement of (3) and (4) (at the 1.50 sigma level) is a major triumph for QED up to the 4 loop quantum level.

In terms of probing “new physics”, one can search for a shift in $`a_e`$ by $`m_e^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_e^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e`$ is the approximate scale of some generic new short-distance effect. Current comparison of $`a_e\alpha `$ and $`\alpha (qH)`$ explores $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}`$ GeV. To probe the much more interesting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e𝒪`$ (TeV) region would require an order of magnitude improvement in $`a_e`$ and about two orders of magnitude error reduction in some direct precision determination of $`\alpha `$ such as the quantum Hall effect. Perhaps the most likely possibility is to use the already very precisely measured Rydberg constant in conjunction with a much improved $`m_e`$ determination to obtain an independent $`\alpha `$.

The usual fine structure constant, $`\alpha `$, is defined at zero momentum transfer as is appropriate for low energy atomic physics phenomena. However, that definition is not well suited for short-distance electroweak effects. Vacuum polarization loops screen charges such that the effective (running) electric charge increases at short-distances. One can incorporate those quantum loop contributions into a short-distance prd20274  $`\alpha (m_Z)`$ defined at $`q^2=m_Z^2`$. The main effect comes from lepton loops, which can be very precisely calculated, and somewhat smaller hadronic loops. The latter are not as theoretically clean and must be obtained by combining perturbative calculations with results of a dispersion relation which employs $`𝒪(e^+e^{}`$hadrons) data. A detailed study by Davier and Höcker found plb439427

$$\alpha ^1(m_Z)=128.933(21)$$
(5)
where the uncertainty stems primarily from low energy hadronic loops. Although not nearly as precise as $`\alpha ^1`$, the uncertainty quoted in (5) is impressively small and a tribute to the effort that has gone into reducing it. (When I first studied this issue in 1979, I crudely estimated prd20274  $`\alpha ^1(m_Z)128.5\pm 1.0`$.) However, the error in (5) is still somewhat controversial, primarily because of its reliance on perturbative QCD down to very low energies. For comparison, an earlier study by Eidelman and Jegerlehner zpc67585 , which relied less on perturbative QCD and more on $`e^+e^{}`$ data found

$$\alpha ^1(m_Z)=128.896(90)(\mathrm{E}\&\mathrm{J}1995)$$
(6)
That estimated uncertainty is often cited as more conservative and therefore sometimes employed in $`m_H`$ and “new physics” constraints. As we shall see, the smaller uncertainty in (5) has very important consequences for predicting the Higgs mass. I note that a more recent study jeger  by Eidelman and Jegerlehner finds

$$\alpha ^1(m_Z)=128.913(35)(\mathrm{E}\&\mathrm{J}1998)$$
(7)
which is in good accord with (5) and also exhibits relatively small uncertainty. In my subsequent discussion, I employ the result in (5), but caution the reader that a more conservative approach would expand the uncertainty, perhaps even by as much as a factor of 4.

A related short-distance coupling, $`\alpha (m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$, can be defined by modified minimal subtraction at scale $`\mu =m_Z`$. It is particularly useful for studies of coupling unification in grand unified theories (GUTS) where a uniform comparitive definition $`(\overline{MS})`$ of all couplings is called for prl46163 . The quantities $`\alpha (m_Z)`$ and $`\alpha (m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ differ by a constant, such that hepph9803453

$$\alpha ^1(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=\alpha ^1(m_Z)0.982=127.951(21)$$
(8)
In weak interaction physics, the most precisely determined parameter is the Fermi constant, $`G_\mu `$, as obtained from the muon lifetime. One extracts that quantity by comparing the experimental value

$$\tau _\mu =2.197035(40)\times 10^6s$$
(9)
with the theoretical prediction

$`\tau _\mu ^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu \mathrm{all})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mu ^2m_\mu ^5}{192\pi ^3}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{m_\mu ^2}}\right)(1+\mathrm{R}.\mathrm{C}.)(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_W^2}})`$
$`f(x)`$ $`=`$ $`18x+8x^3x^412x^2\mathrm{}nx`$ (10)
In that expression R.C. stands for Radiative Corrections. Those terms are somewhat arbitrary in the standard model. The point being that $`G_\mu `$ is a renormalized parameter which is used to absorb most loop corrections to muon decay. Those corrections not absorbed into $`G_\mu `$ are explicitly factored out in R.C. For historical reasons and in the spirit of effective field theory approaches, R.C. has been chosen to be the QED corrections to the old V-A four fermion description of muon decay ap2020 . That definition is practical, since the QED corrections to muon decay in the old V-A theory are finite to all orders in perturbation theory. In that way, one finds

$$\mathrm{R}.\mathrm{C}.=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }(\frac{25}{4}\pi ^2)(1+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{}n\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}3.7)+\left(\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\right)^2(\frac{4}{9}\mathrm{}n^2\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}2.0\mathrm{}n\frac{m_\mu }{m_e}+C)\mathrm{})$$
(11)
The leading $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ terms in that expression have been known for a long time from the pioneering work of Kinoshita and Sirlin pr1131652  and Berman pr112267 . Coefficients of the higher order logs can be obtained from the renormalization group constraint npb29296

$`(m_e{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_e}}+\beta (\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\alpha }})\mathrm{R}.\mathrm{C}.=0`$
$`\beta (\alpha )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^3}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{}`$ (12)
The -3.7 two loop constant in parenthesis was recently computed by van Ritbergen and Stuart prl82488 . It almost exactly cancels the leading log two loop correction obtained from the renormalization group approach (or mass singularities argument) of Roos and Sirlin npb29296 . Hence, the original $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ correction in (9) is a much better approximation than one might have guessed. Comparing (9) and (10), one finds

$$G_\mu =1.16637(1)\times 10^5\mathrm{GeV}^2$$
(13)
There have been several experimental proposals czar  to reduce the uncertainty in $`\tau _\mu `$ and $`G_\mu `$ by as much as a factor of 20. Such improvement appears technically feasible and, given the fundamental nature of $`G_\mu `$, should certainly be undertaken. However, from the point of view of testing the standard model, the situation is similar to $`\alpha `$. $`G_\mu `$ is already much better known than the other parameters it can be compared with; so, significant improvement must be made in other quantities before a more precise $`G_\mu `$ is required.

Let me emphasize the fact that lots of interesting loop effects have been absorbed into the renormalization of $`g_{2_0}^2/4\sqrt{2}m_W^{0^2}`$ which we call $`G_\mu `$. Included are top quark npb12389  and Higgs loop corrections npb84132  to the $`W`$ boson propagator as well as potential “new physics” from SUSY loops, Technicolor etc. Even tree level effects of possible more massive gauge bosons such as excited $`W^^\pm `$ bosons could be effectively incorporated into $`G_\mu `$. To uncover those contributions requires comparison of $`G_\mu `$ with other precisely measured electroweak parameters which have different quantum loop (or tree level) dependences. Of course, those quantities must be related to $`G_\mu `$ in such a way that short-distance divergences cancel in the comparison.

Fortunately, due to an underlying global SU(2)V symmetry in the standard model, there exist natural relations among various bare parameters nc16a423

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0=\frac{e_0^2}{g_{2_0}^2}=1(m_W^0/m_Z^0)^2$$
(14)
Each of those bare unrenormalized expressions contains short-distance infinities; however, because the theory is renormalizable, the divergences are the same. Therefore, those relations continue to hold for renormalized quantities, up to finite, calculable radiative corrections nc16a423 . The residual radiative corrections contain very interesting effects such as $`m_t`$ and $`m_H`$ dependence as well as possible “new physics”. So, for example, one can relate

$$G_\mu =\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}m_W^2(1m_W^2/m_Z^2)}(1+rad.corr.)$$
(15)
and test the predicted radiative corrections, if $`m_Z`$ and $`m_W`$ are also precisely known.

Gauge boson masses are not as well determined as $`G_\mu `$, but they have reached high levels of precision. In particular, the $`Z`$ mass has been measured with high statistics Breit-Wigner fits to the $`Z`$ resonance at LEP with the result swartz

$$m_Z=91.1871(21)\mathrm{GeV}$$
(16)
That determination is so good that one must be very precise regarding the definition of $`m_Z`$. (Remember the $`Z`$ has a relatively large width $`2.5`$ GeV.) The quantity in (16) is related to the real part of the $`Z`$ propagator pole, $`m_Z`$ (pole), and full width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, by prl672127

$$m_Z^2=m_Z^2(\mathrm{pole})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z^2$$
(17)
The two mass definitions $`m_Z`$ and $`m_Z`$ (pole) differ by about 34 MeV, which is much larger than the uncertainty in (16). Hence, one must specify which definition is being employed in precision studies. I note, that the $`m_Z`$ in (16) is also more appropriate for use in low energy neutral current amplitudes.

In the case of the $`W^\pm `$ bosons, the renormalized mass, $`m_W`$, is similarly defined by

$$m_W^2=m_W^2(\mathrm{pole})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_W^2$$
(18)
That quantity is obtained lanc  from studies at $`p\overline{p}`$ colliders, $`m_W=80.448(62)`$ GeV, as well as $`e^+e^{}W^+W^{}`$ at LEPII, $`m_W=80.401(48)`$ GeV. Together they average to

$$m_W=80.419(38)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(19)
The current level of uncertainty, $`\pm 38`$ MeV, is large compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_Z`$. It is expected that continuing efforts at LEPII and Run II at Fermilab’s Tevatron should reduce that error to about $`\pm 25`$ MeV. A challenging but worthwhile goal for future high energy facilities would be to push $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_W`$ to $`\pm 10`$ MeV or better. At that level, all sorts of interesting “new physics” effects are probed. I note that the $`m_W`$ defined in (19) is also the appropriate quantity for low energy amplitudes such as muon decay.

Another important quantity for precision standard model tests is $`m_t`$, the top quark mass. Measurements from CDF and D$`\mathrm{}`$ at Fermilab give lanc

$$m_t(\mathrm{pole})=174.3\pm 5.1\mathrm{GeV}$$
(20)
Reducing that uncertainty further is important for quantum loop studies, as we shall subsequently see. Future Tevatron Run II efforts are expected to reduce the error in $`m_t`$ to about $`\pm 2`$ GeV. LHC and NLC studies should bring it well below $`\pm 1`$ GeV.

In addition to masses, the renormalized weak mixing angle plays a central role in tests of the standard model. That parameter can be defined in a variety of ways, each of which has its own advocates. I list three popular examples prd20274 ; pr491160 ; czartwo

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ $`(\overline{MS}\mathrm{definition}\mathrm{at}\mu =m_Z)(a)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`(Z\mu \overline{\mu }\mathrm{vertex})(b)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`1m_W^2/m_Z^2(c)`$
They differ by finite $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ loop corrections. The $`\overline{MS}`$ definition is particularly simple, being defined as the ratio of two $`\overline{MS}`$ couplings $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}e^2(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}/`$ $`g_2^2(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$. It was introduced for GUT studies prl46163 , but is useful for most electroweak analyses. The effective, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, weak angle was invented for $`Z`$ pole analyses. Roughly speaking, it is defined by the ratio of vector and axial-vector components (including loops) for the on-mass-shell $`Z\mu \overline{\mu }`$ vertex$`1`$$`4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Although conceptually rather simple, analytic electroweak radiative corrections expressed in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are complicated and ugly. Numerically, it is close to the $`\overline{MS}`$ definition pr491160

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}+0.00028$$
(22)
but the analytic structure of the difference is quite complicated. For those intent on employing $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, a strategy might be to calculate radiative corrections in terms of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ and then translate to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ via (22). But why not simply use $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$?

Currently, $`Z`$ pole studies at LEP and SLAC give swartz

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.23091\pm 0.00021`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.23119\pm 0.00021`$ (23)
That result includes measurements of the left-right asymmetry, $`A_{LR}`$, at SLAC as well as the various lepton asymmetries at LEP and SLAC. The $`A_{LR}`$ contribution has for some time given a relatively low value for the weak mixing angle. The latest swartz  SLD result is

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=0.23073(28)$$
(24)
Currently, the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ forward-backward asymmetry at LEP gives a higher $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and, if included, would bring up the average. However, the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ coupling appears to be somewhat anomalous and suggests problematic $`b`$ identification; so, one should be cautious when including such results in averages.

There are very good reasons to clarify and further improve $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$. One could imagine redoing $`A_{LR}`$ at a future polarized lepton-lepton ($`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) collider, but with much higher statistics. In principle, one might reduce the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ by a factor of 10 to $`\pm 0.00002`$, an incredible achievement if accomplished czartwo .

The so-called on-shell or mass definition prd22971  in (Fundamental Parameters and Precision Measurementsc) also has its advocates. It can be directly obtained from $`m_W`$ and $`m_Z`$ determinations. Indeed, at hadron colliders, the ratio $`m_W/m_Z`$ can have reduced systematic uncertainties. One could imagine that the current uncertainty in

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1m_W^2/m_Z^2=0.2222\pm 0.0007$$
(25)
might be reduced by a factor of about 4 at the LHC. Such a reduction is extremely important since the comparison of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ provides a clean probe of “new physics”. It is also possible (because of a subtle cancellation of certain loop effects npb189442 ) to measure $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ more directly in deep-inelastic $`\nu _\mu N`$ scattering. Indeed, a recent Fermilab experiment found epjc1509

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2255\pm 0.0019\pm 0.0010$$
(26)
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. That single measurement is quite competitive with (25) and complements it nicely. One might imagine a future high statistics effort significantly reducing the error in (26), but that would require a new, intense, high energy neutrino beam.

Two other well measured electroweak parameters are the charged and neutral leptonic partial widths of the $`Z`$ boson swartz

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))`$ $`=`$ $`83.96\pm 0.09\mathrm{MeV}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{\Sigma }\nu \overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`498.8\pm 1.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ (27)
The first of those, by definition, corresponds to $`Z`$ decay into massless charged leptons along with the possibility of inclusive bremsstrahlung. The second represents the inclusive invisible width of the $`Z`$.

All of the above precision measurements can be collectively used to test the standard model, predict the Higgs mass, and search for “new physics” effects. That ability stems from the natural relations in (14) and calculations prd22971 ; prd222695  of the radiative corrections to them. Parametrizing those radiative corrections by $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$, one finds npb35149

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_\mu m_W^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{m_Z^2}}\right)(1\mathrm{\Delta }r)(a)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_\mu m_W^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}(1\mathrm{\Delta }r(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}})(b)`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_\mu m_Z^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r})(c)`$
Those expressions contain all one loop corrections to $`\alpha `$, muon decay, $`m_W`$, $`m_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ and incorporate some leading two loop contributions. The quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ are particularly interesting because of their dependence on $`m_t`$ and $`m_H`$. In addition, all three quantities provide probes of “new physics”.

Numerically, all three radiative corrections in (28) contain a significant contribution from vacuum polarization effects prd20274  in $`\alpha `$, about $`+7\%`$. They are basically the same as the corrections that enter into the evolution of $`\alpha `$ to $`\alpha (m_Z)`$. Leptonic loops contribute a significant part of that effect and can be very accurately computed. Hadronic loops are less clean theoretically and lead to a common uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ of

$$\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)$$
(29)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)=0.021`$ as in (5), that amounts to a rather negligible $`\pm 0.00015`$ error. However, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)=\pm 0.090`$ as in (6), it increases to $`\pm 0.00066`$. That large an uncertainty would impact precision tests. If one wishes to avoid that low energy hadronic loop uncertainty, dependence on $`\alpha `$ can be circumvented by considering

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=\left(1\frac{m_W^2}{m_Z^2}\right)(1\mathrm{\Delta }r+\mathrm{\Delta }r(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}})$$
(30)
Currently, that comparison suggests a very light Higgs, but is not yet quite competitive with eq. (28c) in constraining $`m_H`$. However, future improvements in $`m_W`$ and $`m_t`$ could make it very interesting.

Another useful relation that provides some sensitivity to $`m_H`$ without $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ uncertainties involves the partial $`Z`$ width when written as marc

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))=\frac{G_\mu m_Z^3(14\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}+8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}})}{12\sqrt{2}\pi (1\mathrm{\Delta }r_Z(m_H))}$$
(31)
Using $`m_t=174.3\pm 5.1`$ GeV as input, one can compute the radiative corrections in (28) as functions of $`m_H`$. Those results are illustrated in table 1. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is most sensitive to changes in $`m_H`$ but also carries the largest uncertainty from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=\pm 5.1`$ GeV ($`\pm 0.0020`$). Hence, efforts to determine $`m_H`$ from $`m_W`$ are starting to require a better measurement of $`m_t`$. On the other hand, determining $`m_H`$ from $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ via $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ is less sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$ but more sensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)`$. Those dependences as well as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))`$ are illustrated by the following approximate relations plb418188  which are very accurate up to $`m_H𝒪`$(400 GeV)

$`m_W`$ $`=`$ $`(80.385\pm 0.032\pm 0.003\mathrm{GeV})(10.00072\mathrm{}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)`$ (32)
$`1\times 10^4\mathrm{}n^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right))`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\left(m_Z\right)_{\overline{MS}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(0.23112\pm 0.00016\pm 0.00006\right)\left(1+0.00226\mathrm{}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\left(\gamma \right)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`(84.011\pm 0.047\pm 0.0028\mathrm{MeV})(10.00064\mathrm{}n\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)`$
$`0.00026\mathrm{}n^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_H}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)`$
where the errors correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=\pm 5.1`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)=\pm 0.021`$ respectively. Note that increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)`$ to $`\pm 0.090`$ would significantly compromise the utility of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ for determining $`m_H`$ but have less of an impact on $`m_W`$. Predictions for $`m_W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ are illustrated in table 2 for various $`m_H`$ values plb394188 .

Employing $`m_W=80.419(38)`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=0.23091(21)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))=83.96(9)`$ MeV one finds from eq (32)

$`m_H`$ $`=`$ $`53_{40}^{+77}\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{from}m_W)`$ (33)
$`m_H`$ $`=`$ $`67_{27}^{+45}\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{from}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}})`$ (34)
$`m_H`$ $`=`$ $`208_{180}^{+340}\mathrm{GeV}(\mathrm{from}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))`$ (35)
Several features of those predictions are revealing. The first is that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ currently gives the best determination of $`m_H`$. Note, however, the uncertainties scale as the central value; so, the relatively small value, 67 GeV, helps reduce the uncertainties. Also, a larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ^1(m_Z)=\pm 0.090`$ would significantly increase the overall uncertainty hepph9812332 . In the case of $`m_W`$, a light Higgs is also suggested. In fact, the $`m_W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ determinations of $`m_H`$ are very consistent.

Taken together, (33) and (34) appear to point to a relatively light Higgs scalar that cannot be too far from the current LEPII bound based on the non observation of $`e^+e^{}ZH`$ wu

$$m_H>106\mathrm{GeV}$$
(36)
In the near future, searching for the Higgs via associated $`W^\pm H`$ and $`ZH`$ at the Fermilab $`p\overline{p}`$ collider during Run II promises discovery up to $`m_H115`$–130 GeV, perhaps even higher. Higgs unveiling may soon be at hand.

## Discussion

Within the Standard Model framework, precision electroweak studies suggest a relatively light Higgs scalar. The upper bound from global fits to all data is about erler  235 GeV. Such a bound is in accord with “no new physics” scenarios, where perturbative validity up to $`𝒪(10^{19}`$ GeV) and vacuum stability imply the range sirlin

$$135\mathrm{GeV}<m_H<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}180}\mathrm{GeV}$$
(37)
Supersymmetry, on the other hand, is starting to be squeezed by lack of a Higgs scalar discovery at LEP II. The MSSM scenario requires $`m_H<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}135}`$ GeV, but one generally finds that considerably lower values are preferred. The current bound of $`m_H>\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}106}`$ GeV will be pushed to $`112`$ GeV at LEP II and somewhat further by Run II at the Fermilab Tevatron. If MSSM has some relation to Nature’s truth, a discovery should not be far off.

What about alternative theories where there is no fundamental Higgs? In some dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking scenarios, one expects an effective $`m_H𝒪`$(1 TeV). Are such ideas ruled out? They face a basic difficulty which is nicely illustrated by the $`S`$ & $`T`$ parameters of Peskin and Takeuchi peskin . For $`m_H1`$ TeV, one finds the following predictions

$`m_W`$ $``$ $`80.214\mathrm{GeV}(10.0036S+0.0056T)`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ $``$ $`0.23250(1+0.0158S0.0113T)`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\gamma ))`$ $``$ $`83.79\mathrm{MeV}(10.0021S+0.0093T)`$
where $`S`$ and $`T`$ represent loop effects from heavy, strongly interacting, condensate fermions. Comparison of $`m_W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ via marctwo

$$S118\left\{2\left(\frac{m_W80.214\mathrm{GeV}}{80.214\mathrm{GeV}}\right)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}0.23250}{0.23250}\right\}$$
(39)
suggests from $`m_W=80.419(38)`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}=0.23091(21)`$

$$S0.20\pm 0.15$$
(40)
while consistency with eq. (38) requires

$$T0.33\pm 0.17$$
(41)
Generating $`T0.3`$ by loop effects is actually quite easy. It requires relatively small mass splittings of new heavy fermion isodoublets. The problem is a negative $`S`$ which is possible, but not particularly natural in simple dynamical models where $`S𝒪(1)`$ is more likely. However, one could easily imagine small shifts in $`m_W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(m_Z)_{\overline{MS}}`$ which could give $`S0`$ and $`T>0`$. So, $`m_H1`$ TeV could be accommodated by non-vanishing $`S`$ & $`T`$, but it is much easier to simply satisfy the precision measurement constraints with $`m_H100`$–200 GeV and $`ST0`$.