-
The anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM) of a muon,
aμ=(gμ−2)/2 , has recently been measured by the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab [1−4], which reported that the result is 3.3 standard deviations (σ) greater than the standard model (SM) prediction based on its Run-1 data and is in agreement with the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) E821 measurement [5]. Combined with previous E821 measurements, the new experimental average for the difference between the experimental measurements and the SM prediction [6] ofaμ is given byΔaμ=aexpμ−aSMμ=(25.1±5.9)×10−10,
(1) which increases the difference between the experimental measurements and the SM theoretical prediction to 4.2σ. This result will further motivate the development of SM extensions. There are many research papers on the muon anomalous MDM, such as Refs. [7−92] and the references therein. However, it is worth mentioning that the latest result obtained by a lattice QCD calculation [93] of the leading order hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to
aμ is larger than the previous result, which can accommodate the discrepancy between the experiment and the SM prediction, hence the discrepancy needs further scrutiny.In this work, we will analyze the muon anomalous MDM at the two-loop level in the μ from the ν Supersymmetric Standard Model (
μν SSM) [94−100], combined with the new experimental average. Through introducing three singlet right-handed neutrino superfieldsˆνci (i=1,2,3 ), the μνSSM can be used to solve the μ problem [101] of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) [102−106], and can generate three tiny neutrino masses through a TeV scale seesaw mechanism [95, 107−113].The corresponding superpotential of the μνSSM is given as [94, 95]
W=ϵab(YuijˆHbuˆQaiˆucj+YdijˆHadˆQbiˆdcj+YeijˆHadˆLbiˆecj)+ϵabYνijˆHbuˆLaiˆνcj−ϵabλiˆνciˆHadˆHbu+13κijkˆνciˆνcjˆνck.
(2) where
a,b=1,2 are SU(2) indices with the antisymmetric tensorϵ12=1 , andi,j,k=1,2,3 are generation indices. The repeating indices imply the following summation convention.Yu,d,e,ν , λ, and κ are dimensionless matrices, a vector, and a symmetric tensor, respectively. In the superpotential, the effective bilinear termsϵabεiˆHbuˆLai andϵabμˆHadˆHbu can be generated withεi=Yνij⟨˜νcj⟩ andμ=λi⟨˜νci⟩ once the electroweak symmetry is broken. The general soft SUSY-breaking terms, the usual D- and F-term contributions of the tree-level scalar potential, and the mass matrices of the particles in the μν SSM can be seen in Refs. [95, 96, 99]. In the μνSSM, the gravitino or the axino can be dark matter candidates [95, 96, 110, 114−119].In our previous work, the Higgs boson mass and decay modes
h→γγ ,h→VV∗ (V=Z,W ),h→fˉf (f=b,τ ), andh→Zγ in theμν SSM were researched [120−124]. Constrained by the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass and decays, herein we will investigate the anomalous MDM of the charged leptons at the two-loop level in theμν SSM, combined with the updated experimental average of the muon MDM. For the electron anomalous MDM,ae=(ge−2)/2 , the experimental result showed a negative∼2.4σ discrepancy between the measured value [125] and the SM prediction [126]. However, a new determination of the fine structure constant with a higher accuracy [127], obtained from a measurement of the recoil velocity on rubidium atoms, resulted in a re-evaluation ofae in the SM, revising it to a positive∼1.6σ discrepancy△ae≡aexpe−aSMe=(4.8±3.0)×10−13.
(3) Interestingly, now
△ae and△aμ are all positive.Now, the measured averages of the signal strengths for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decays into two taus and bottom quarks relative to the standard model (SM) prediction are respectively
1.15+0.16−0.15 and1.04±0.13 with high experimental precision [128]. Although Higgs boson decays into a pair of fermions of the third generation can now be measured accurately by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the Higgs boson decays into a pair of fermions of the first or second generation are challenging to measure, as the Yukawa couplings of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions of the first and second generation are smaller than that of the third generation. However, the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations recently measured the 125 GeV Higgs boson decay into a pair of muonsh→μˉμ , and reported that the signal strength relative to the SM prediction is1.2±0.6 with 2.0σ [129] and1.19+0.40+0.15−0.39−0.14 with 3.0σ [130], respectively. The dimuon decay of the 125 GeV Higgs bosonh→μˉμ offers the best opportunity for measuring Higgs interactions with second-generation fermions at the LHC. The 125 GeV Higgs boson decayh→μˉμ has been discussed within various theoretical frameworks [131−143]. Herein, we investigate the 125 GeV Higgs boson decayh→μˉμ at the one-loop level in theμν SSM.In the following, we briefly introduce the MDM of the charged leptons in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we give the decay width of the 125 GeV Higgs boson decays into a pair of charged leptons
h→liˉli at the one-loop level. Sec. IV and Sec. V respectively show the numerical analysis and summary. -
The MDM of the charged leptons in the
μν SSM can be written by the effective LagrangianLMDM=e4mliali¯liσαβliFαβ,
(4) where
li represents the charged leptons, which are on-shell,mli is the mass of the charged leptons,σαβ=(i/2)[γα,γβ] ,Fαβ denotes the electromagnetic field strength and the MDM of the charged leptons isali=(1/2)(gli−2) . Including the main two-loop electroweak corrections, the MDM of the charged leptons in theμν SSM can be given byaSUSYli=aone−loopli+atwo−loopli,
(5) where the one-loop corrections
aone−loopli are pictured in Fig. 1 and the main two-loop correctionsatwo−loopli are shown in Fig. 2.Figure 1. Dominant one-loop diagrams representing the contributions from neutral fermions
χ0η and charged scalarS−α loops (a), and the contributions from charged fermionsχβ and neutral scalarSα (orPα ) loops (b).In Fig. 1, the contributions of the charged leptons to the MDM at the one-loop level in the
μν SSM come from neutral fermions and charged scalar loops (neutral fermionsχ0η and charged scalarsS−α are loop particles) and the charged fermions and neutral scalar loop (charged fermionsχβ and neutral scalarsNα=Sα,Pα are loop particles). The concrete expressions of the one-loop correctionsaone−loopli can be found in our previous related work [122] by replacing the charged leptonsli with the muonlμ .Here, the dominant contribution of the muon MDM
aμ comes from the charged fermions and neutral scalar loops in Fig. 1(b). We check that the one-loop correction in theμν SSM is approximately in agreement with the MSSM and the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) [10, 64, 82]. Although the MDM of the muon in theμν SSM has roughly the same properties in the MSSM and NMSSM, it is subject to significantly relaxed limitations in parameter space in theμν SSM if other physical quantities are researched. Of course, through introducing three singlet right-handed neutrino superfieldsˆνci (i=1,2,3 ) for solving the μ problem of the MSSM and generating three tiny neutrino masses, the μνSSM still can give some additional contributions to the muon MDMaμ beyond the MSSM.In Fig. 2, the main two-loop rainbow diagram (a) and the Barr-Zee type diagrams (b, c) of
ali in theμν SSM are shown, in which a closed fermion loop is attached to virtual gauge bosons or scalars, and the corresponding corrections forali are obtained by attaching a photon in all possible ways to the internal particles. In our previous work [123], we show the main two-loop contributions of the muon MDM in the approximationmχ0η≃mχβ . In this paper, we give the main two-loop contributionsatwo−loopli for the general case.In the
μν SSM, the main SUSY two-loop corrections of the MDM of the charged leptons can be given asatwo−loopli=aWWli+aWSli+aγhli,
(6) where the terms
aWWli,aWSli,aγhli are the contributions corresponding to Figs. 2 (a−c). The contribution from the main two-loop rainbow diagram in Fig. 2(a) can be written asaWWli=GFm2li8√2π4{(|CW¯χ0ηχβL|2+|CW¯χ0ηχβR|2)T1(1,xχ0η,xχβ)+(|CW¯χ0ηχβL|2−|CW¯χ0ηχβR|2)T2(1,xχ0η,xχβ)
+2(xχ0ηxχβ)1/2ℜ(CW¯χ0ηχβ∗RCW¯χ0ηχβL)T3(1,xχ0η,xχβ)},
(7) with
xi=m2i/m2W . The expressions of the form factorsTi can be found in Refs. [144−146]. The concrete expressions for couplings C in theμν SSM can be seen in Ref. [99].The contribution from the main two-loop Barr-Zee type diagram in Fig. 2 (b) can be given by
aWSli=GFmlimW128π4g2ℜ(CS−α¯liχ07+iL)×{(xχβ)1/2F1(1,xS−α,xχ0η,xχβ)×ℜ(CS−α¯χβχ0ηLCW¯χ0ηχβL+CS−α¯χβχ0ηRCW¯χ0ηχβR)+(xχ0η)1/2F2(1,xS−α,xχ0η,xχβ)×ℜ(CS−α¯χβχ0ηLCW¯χ0ηχβR+CS−α¯χβχ0ηRCW¯χ0ηχβL)+(xχβ)1/2F3(1,xS−α,xχ0η,xχβ)×ℜ(CS−α¯χβχ0ηLCW¯χ0ηχβL−CS−α¯χβχ0ηRCW¯χ0ηχβR)+(xχ0η)1/2F4(1,xS−α,xχ0η,xχβ)×ℜ(CS−α¯χβχ0ηLCW¯χ0ηχβR−CS−α¯χβχ0ηRCW¯χ0ηχβL)},
(8) where the expressions of the form factors
Fi can be seen in Ref. [144]. Here, in theμν SSM, h denotesS1 ,li is denoted byχ2+i . Considering that the masses of the charged scalarsS−α are larger than the mass of a W gauge boson constrained by the present experiments, the contribution from the main two-loop Barr-Zee type diagramaWSli is smaller than the contribution from the main two-loop rainbow diagramaWWli .The contribution from the main two-loop Barr-Zee type diagram in Fig. 2(c) can be written as
aγhli=−GFmlimWs2W16π4(xχβ)1/2T11(xh,xχβ,xχβ)ℜ(Ch¯liliLCh¯χβχβL).
(9) Through the numerical calculation, normalized to the one-loop corrections
aone−loopli , the two-loop corrections of the MDMatwo−loopli in theμν SSM may reach about 10% , whentanβ is large, and the masses of the superpartners are small and constrained by the experiments. Therefore, one-loop correction alone is sufficient for explaining the g-2 of a muon and satisfying all other experimental constraints. In the following numerical analysis, the two-loop corrections of the muon MDM are still considered to be more precise. -
The corresponding effective amplitude for the 125 GeV Higgs decay
h→liˉli can be written asM=hˉli(FiLPL+FiRPR)li.
(10) The decay width of
h→liˉli can be obtained asΓ(h→liˉli)≃mh16π(|FiL|2+|FiR|2).
(11) The contribution from the tree level in the
μν SSM can be written asF(tree)iL=F(tree)iR=mli√2υcosβRS11,
(12) where
mli denotes the mass of the leptonli ,υ≃174 GeV, andRS is the unitary matrix which diagonalizes the mass matrix of CP-even neutral scalars [120]. In the SM, the contribution from the tree level can be written byF(tree)iL(SM)=F(tree)iR(SM)=mli√2υ.
(13) The running lepton masses
mli(Λ) are related to the pole massesmli through [147]mli(Λ)=mli{1−α(Λ)π[1+34lnΛ2m2li]}.
(14) Similarly to the decays
h→liˉli , the decay width of the 125 GeV Higgs decay into down-type quarksh→diˉdi can be given asΓ(h→diˉdi)≃Ncmh16π(|FidL|2+|FidR|2),
(15) with
Nc=3 , and the tree level contribution in theμν SSM isF(tree)idL=F(tree)idR=mdi√2υcosβRS11,
(16) where
mdi denotes the mass of the down-type quarksdi . In the SM, the contribution from the tree level can be written byF(tree)idL(SM)=F(tree)idR(SM)=mdi√2υ.
(17) The difference between the decay width of
h→fiˉfi of theμν SSM (ΓNP(h→fiˉfi) ) and that of the SM (ΓSM(h→fiˉfi) ) in the tree level can be given asδtree≡ΓNP(h→fiˉfi)−ΓSM(h→fiˉfi)ΓSM(h→fiˉfi)=R2S11cos2β−1.
(18) Here,
fi=li,di , due to the fact that the tree-level contribution of the Higgs boson decay into leptons is identical to that for the Higgs boson decay into down-tpye quarks. The numerical results can show that the ratioδtree is about1% when the parametertanβ in theμν SSM is small.The one-loop electroweak correction for
h→liˉli in the SM is approximated by [133−137]Γ(one)SM(h→liˉli)≃Γ(tree)SM(h→liˉli)δlweek,
(19) with
δlweek=GF8π2√2[7m2t+m2W(−5+3logc2Ws2W)−m2Z6(1−8s2W+16s4W)−12],
(20) where the contributions come from the t quark, W boson and Z boson. The numerical result shows that the one-loop electroweak contribution relative to the tree contribution
δlweek is about 1.7%.The one-loop diagrams for
h→liˉli in theμν SSM beyond the SM are depicted in Fig. 3. Then, the contributions from the one-loop diagrams in theμν SSM can be written byFigure 3. One-loop diagrams for
h→liˉli in theμν SSM. (a, b) represent the contributions from the charged scalarS−α,ρ and neutral fermionχ0η,ς loops, while (c, d) represent the contributions from the neutral scalarNα,ρ (N=S,P ) and charged fermionχβ,ζ loops.F(one)iL,R=F(a)iL,R+F(b)iL,R+F(c)iL,R+F(d)iL,R,
(21) where
F(a,b)iL,R denotes the contributions from the charged scalarS−α,ρ and neutral fermionχ0η,ς (upper index 0 shows neutral) loops, andF(c,d)iL,R stands for the contributions from the neutral scalarNα,ρ (N=S,P ) and charged fermionχβ,ζ loops.After integrating the heavy freedoms out, we formulate the neutral fermion loop contributions
F(a,b)iL,R as follows:F(a)iL=mχ0ηCS±1αρm2WCS−ρˉliχ0ηLCS−∗αˉχ0ηliLG1(xχ0η,xS−α,xS−ρ),F(b)iL=mχ0ςmχ0ηm2WCS−αˉliχ0ςLChˉχ0ςχ0ηLCS−∗αˉχ0ηliLG1(xS−α,xχ0ς,xχ0η)+CS−αˉliχ0ςLChˉχ0ςχ0ηRCS−∗αˉχ0ηliLG2(xS−α,xχ0ς,xχ0η),F(a,b)iR=F(a,b)iL|L↔R.
(22) Here, the concrete expressions for the couplings C can be found in Refs. [121, 122], and the loop functions
Gi are given asG1(x1,x2,x3)=116π2[x1lnx1(x1−x2)(x1−x3)+x2lnx2(x2−x1)(x2−x3)+x3lnx3(x3−x1)(x3−x2)],
(23) G2(x1,x2,x3)=116π2[x21lnx1(x1−x2)(x1−x3)+x22lnx2(x2−x1)(x2−x3)+x23lnx3(x3−x1)(x3−x2)].
(24) In a similar way, the charged fermion loop contributions
F(c,d)iL,R areF(c)iL=∑N=S,PmχβCN1αρm2WCNρˉliχβLCNαˉχβliLG1(xχβ,xNα,xNρ),F(d)iL=∑N=S,P[CNαˉliχζLChˉχζχβRCNαˉχβliLG2(xNα,xχζ,xχβ)+mχζmχβm2WCNαˉliχζLChˉχζχβLCNαˉχβliLG1(xNα,xχζ,xχβ)],F(c,d)iR=F(c,d)iL|L↔R.
(25) -
Firstly, we take some appropriate parameter space in the
μν SSM. For soft SUSY-breaking mass squared parameters, we make the minimal flavor violation (MFV) assumptionsm2˜Qij=m2˜Qiδij,m2˜ucij=m2˜uicδij,m2˜dcij=m2˜dicδij,m2˜Lij=m2˜Lδij,m2˜ecij=m2˜ecδij,m2˜νcij=m2˜νciδij,
(26) where
i,j,k=1,2,3 .m2˜νci can be constrained by the minimization conditions of the neutral scalar potential seen in Ref. [120]. For some coupling parameters, we also choose the MFV assumptionsκijk=κδijδjk,(Aκκ)ijk=Aκκδijδjk,υνci=υνc,λi=λ,(Aλλ)i=Aλλ,Yeij=Yeiδij,(AeYe)ij=AeYeiδij,Yνij=Yνiδij,(AνYν)ij=aνiδij,
(27) In our previous work [113], we have discussed in detail how the neutrino oscillation data constrain left-handed sneutrino VEVs
υνi∼O(10−4GeV) and neutrino Yukawa couplingsYνi∼O(10−7) in theμν SSM via the TeV scale seesaw mechanism. In the following, we choosemν1=10−2 eV as the lightest neutrino and assume the neutrino mass spectrum with normal ordering, using neutrino oscillation experimental data [128] to constrain the parametersυνi andYνi . Considering experimental data on quark mixing, one can haveYuij=YuiVuLij,(AuYu)ij=AuiYuij,Ydij=YdiVdLij,(AdYd)ij=AdYdij,
(28) and
V=VuLVd†L denotes the CKM matrix.Yui=muiυu,Ydi=mdiυd,Yei=mliυd,
(29) where the
mui,mdi , andmli stand for the up-quark, down-quark, and charged lepton masses, respectively.Through analysis of the parameter space of the
μν SSM [95], we can choose the reasonable parameter values ofκ=0.4 ,Aκ=−300GeV ,λ=0.1 ,Aλ=500GeV , andAu1,2=Ad=Ae=1TeV for simplicity. Considering the direct search for supersymmetric particles [128], we takem˜Q1,2,3=m˜u1,2c=m˜d1,2,3c=2TeV ,M3=2.5TeV . For simplicity, we will choose the gauginos' Majorana massesM1=M2 . As key parameters,Au3≡At ,m˜uc3 andtanβ≡υu/υd greatly affect the lightest Higgs boson mass. Therefore, the free parameters that affect our next analysis aretanβ,υνc,M2,m˜L,m˜ec,m˜uc3,At.
(30) To present a numerical analysis, we random scan the parameter space shown in Table 1. Considering that the light stop mass is easily ruled out by the experiment, we scan the parameter
m˜uc3 from 1 TeV. Now, the average measured mass of the Higgs boson is [128]Parameters Min Max tanβ 4 40 vνc/TeV 1 6 M2/TeV 0.3 2 m˜L=m˜ec/TeV 0.5 2 m˜uc3/TeV 1 4 At/TeV 1 4 Table 1. Random scan parameters.
mh=125.25±0.17GeV,
(31) where the accurate Higgs boson mass can give stringent constraints for the parameter space of the model. In our previous work [120], the Higgs boson masses in the
μν SSM, including the main two-loop radiative corrections are discussed. Through the work, herein, the scanning results are constrained by the lightest Higgs boson mass with124.68≤mh≤125.52GeV , where a3σ experimental error is considered. For the signal strengths of the light Higgs boson decay modesh→γγ,WW∗,ZZ∗,bˉb,τˉτ,μˉμ , we adopt the averages of the results from PDG, which reads [128]μexpγγ=1.11+0.10−0.09,μexpWW∗=1.19±0.12,μexpZZ∗=1.06±0.09,μexpbˉb=1.04±0.13,μexpτˉτ=1.15+0.16−0.15,μexpμˉμ=1.19±0.34.
(32) Here, a
2σ experimental error will be considered in the scanning results, using our previous work [121] on the signal strengths of the Higgs boson decay channelsh→γγ ,h→VV∗ (V=Z,W ), andh→fˉf (f=b,τ ) in theμν SSM.There is a close similarity between the anomalous MDM of a muon and the branching ratio of
ˉB→Xsγ in the supersymmetric model [14]. They both obtain largetanβ enhancements from the down-fermion Yukawa couplings,Ydi=mdi/υd=mdi√tan2β+1/υ andYei=mli/υd=mli×√tan2β+1/υ withυ=√υ2d+υ2u≃174 GeV. Combined with the experimental data from CLEO [148], BELLE [149, 150], and BABAR [151−153], the current experimental value for the branching ratio ofˉB→Xsγ is [128]Br(ˉB→Xsγ)=(3.49±0.19)×10−4.
(33) Using our previous work about the rare decay
ˉB→Xsγ in theμν SSM [154], the following results of scanning are also constrained by2.92×10−4≤Br(ˉB→Xsγ)≤4.06×10−4 , where a3σ experimental error is considered. -
Firstly, to illustrate clearly the cross-correlation of the model parameters, we plot
aSUSYμ varying withυνc with differentM2 andtanβ in Fig. 4, choosingm˜L=m˜ec=0.7 TeV andm˜uc3=At=1 TeV for simplicity. In Fig 4(a), the solid line denotesM2=0.3 TeV, the dashed line denotesM2=1 TeV, and the dotted line denotesM2=2 TeV withtanβ=40 . The numerical results show that the muon anomalous MDMaSUSYμ is decoupling with increasingυνc orM2 , which can affect the masses of the charginos and neutralinos. In Fig 4(b), the solid line representstanβ=40 , the dashed line representstanβ=25 , and the dotted line representstanβ=15 , withM2=0.3 TeV. Through Fig. 4 (b), we can see that the muon anomalous MDMaSUSYμ obtains largetanβ enhancements, which is similar to that in MSSM.Figure 4. (color online)
aSUSYμ versusυνc with differentM2 (a) andtanβ (b), where the gray area denotesΔaμ at3.0σ given in Eq. (1).Through random scanning the parameter space shown in Table 1, we plot the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of muon
aSUSYμ varying with the key parameterstanβ (a) andυνc (b) in Fig. 5, where the gray area denotesΔaμ at3.0σ given in Eq. (1). Here, the red triangles are excluded byΔaμ at3.0σ . The green points of theμν SSM agree withΔaμ at3.0σ , which can explain the current difference between the experimental measurements and the SM theoretical prediction for the muon anomalous MDM.Figure 5. (color online)
aSUSYμ versustanβ (a) andυνc (b), where the gray area denotesΔaμ at3.0σ given in Eq. (1) and the red triangles are eliminated.Figure 5(a) shows that the muon anomalous MDM
aSUSYμ increases with an increase in the parametertanβ . One can find that a significant region of the parameter space is excluded byΔaμ at3.0σ in the smalltanβ region. Here, the very smalltanβ region is also easily eliminated by the constraint of the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass. The numerical results in Fig. 5(b) depict that the muon anomalous MDMaSUSYμ is decoupling with increasingυνc . Therefore,υνc can affect the masses of charginos and neutralinos. We can see that the value of the muon anomalous MDMaSUSYμ in theμν SSM could explain the experimental muon anomalous MDMΔaμ at3.0σ shown in Eq. (1), whenυνc is small andtanβ is large. Constrained byΔaμ at3.0σ shown in Eq. (1),tanβ<10 orυνc>5 TeV will be easily eliminated.To see more clearly, we plot the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of muon
aSUSYμ varying with the lightest chargino massmχ1 in Fig. 6(a), through scanning the parameter space shown in Table 1. The results show that the contribution of the lightest chargino massmχ1 is roughly similar with the contribution of the parameterυνc . Because hereμ≡3λυνc , where μ directly affect the masses of the charginos. In Fig. 6(b),aSUSYμ versusm˜ec is also pictured. Whenm˜ec is small,aSUSYμ in theμν SSM could explain theΔaμ at3.0σ . The variation trend ofaSUSYμ versusm˜ec coincides with the decoupling theorem; therefore,m˜ec directly affects the masses of the slepton. One can see that the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of muonaSUSYμ can reachΔaμ at3.0σ as shown in Eq. (1), whenmχ1<1.1 TeV andm˜ec<1.5 TeV.Figure 6. (color online)
aSUSYμ versusmχ1 (a) andm˜ec (b), where the gray area denotesΔaμ at3.0σ given in Eq. (1) and the red triangles are eliminated.For the anomalous MDM of the electron and tau lepton, we also picture
aSUSYμ versusaSUSYe (a) andaSUSYτ (b) in Fig. 7, where the green points are in agreement withΔaμ at3.0σ given in Eq. (1) and the red triangles are eliminated by that. Constrained by the updated discrepancy forΔaμ at3.0σ , the anomalous MDMaSUSYe andaSUSYτ in theμν SSM are about0.7×10−13 and0.8×10−6 , respectively. The numerical results show that the ratio between the anomalous MDMs of the tau lepton and muon is about2.8×102 , which is in agreement with△aτ/△aμ≃m2τ/m2μ≃2.8×102 . The ratio between the anomalous MDMs of the muon and electron also is consistent with△aμ/△ae≃m2μ/m2e≃4.3×104 . -
We define the physical quantity
δli≡ΓNP(h→li¯li)−ΓSM(h→li¯li)ΓSM(h→li¯li),
(34) to show the difference in the decay width of
h→li¯li of theμν SSM (ΓNP(h→li¯li) ) and that of the SM (ΓSM(h→li¯li) ), whereli=e,μ,τ . Firstly, to illustrate clearly the cross-correlation of the model parameters, we plot the ratioδμ (a) andδτ (b) versus the parametertanβ with differentυνc in Fig. 8, takingm˜L=m˜ec=0.6 TeV,M2=2 TeV,m˜uc3=2 TeV andAt=3 TeV for simplicity. In Fig. 8, the solid line denotesυνc=6 TeV, the dashed line denotesυνc=3 TeV, and the dotted line denotesυνc=1 TeV. The numerical results in Fig. 8 show that the ratiosδμ andδτ increase with increasingtanβ orυνc . The charged lepton Yukawa couplings obtain largetanβ enhancements, withYei=mli√tan2β+1/υ .Through scanning in Table 1, we plot Figs. 9, 10, where the green dots are the corresponding physical quantity values of the remaining parameters after being constrained by the muon anomalous MDM
aSUSYμ in theμν SSM, with7.4×10−10≤aSUSYμ≤42.8×10−10 considered a3σ experimental error. The red triangles are ruled out by the muon anomalous MDM withaSUSYμ>42.8×10−10 andaSUSYμ<7.4×10−10 .In Fig. 9, we plot the ratio
δμ varying with the parametertanβ (a) andυνc (b). We can see that the ratioδμ increases with increasingtanβ in Fig. 9(a). The ratioδμ can be close to 30% when the parametertanβ is large, constrained byΔaμ at3.0σ . Fig. 9 (b) shows that the ratioδμ is non-decoupling with increasingυνc . The maximum of the ratioδμ is around 15% asυνc is about 1 TeV and close to 30% asυνc is about 3 TeV. In theμν SSM, the parameterυνc leads to a mixing of the neutral components of the Higgs doublets with the sneutrinos. This mixing affects the lightest Higgs boson mass and the Higgs couplings, which is different in the SM.In addition, we plot the ratio
δτ varying with the parametertanβ andυνc in Fig. 10, which has a variation trend similar to that of the ratioδμ . The numerical results show that, constrained by the experimental value of the muon anomalous MDM, the ratioδτ can be about20% whentanβ is about 40 andυνc is around 3 TeV. -
Considering that the new experimental average for the muon anomalous MDM increases the difference between the experiments and SM prediction to 4.2σ, we analyze the muon anomalous MDM at the two-loop level in the
μν SSM. The numerical results show that theμν SSM can explain the current difference between the experimental measurements and the SM theoretical prediction for the muon anomalous MDM, constrained by the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass and decays, the rare decayˉB→Xsγ and so on. The new experimental average of the muon anomalous MDM considered that a3σ also gives a strict constraint for the parameter space of theμν SSM, which constrains thattanβ>10 ,m˜ec<1.5 TeV andυνc<5 TeV withλ=0.1 . Moreover, the anomalous MDM of the tau lepton and the electron in theμν SSM can reach about0.7×10−13 and0.8×10−6 , respectively, constrained by the new experimental average of the muon anomalous MDM at3.0σ .An upgrade to the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab and another experiment at the J-PARC [155] will lead to measurements of the muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment with higher precision, which may reach a 5σ deviation from the SM, constituting an augury for new physics beyond the SM. In addition, the anomalous MDM of the tau lepton and electron, whether deviating from the SM prediction, will be determined more accurately, with the development of experiments in the future.
Considering that the ATLAS and CMS collaborations measured the 125 GeV Higgs boson decay into a pair of muons
h→μˉμ recently, we also investigate the 125 GeV Higgs boson decayh→μˉμ at the one-loop level in theμν SSM. Compared with the SM prediction, the decay width ofh→μˉμ andh→τˉτ in theμν SSM can boost up about 30% and 20%, considering the constraint from the muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment. In theμν SSM, the mixing of the neutral components of the Higgs doublets with the sneutrinos affects the lightest Higgs boson mass and the Higgs couplings, which can contribute to Higgs boson decay. In the future, high luminosity or high energy large colliders [156−159] will detect the Higgs boson decayh→μˉμ andh→τˉτ with high precision, which may be an indication for new physics.
Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the μνSSM
- Received Date: 2022-02-16
- Available Online: 2022-09-15
Abstract: Recently, the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab measured the muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM),