text:
# A New Slant on Hadron Structure

## I Introduction

In striving to understand the properties of QCD the generalization to an arbitrary number of colours, $`N_c`$, particularly the limit $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ (or “large $`N_c`$”) has been extremely valuable. It has even proven possible to distinguish between models of hadron structure and to guide the further developments of such models on the basis of their large $`N_c`$ behaviour . Until recently it has generally been regarded as an unfortunate liability that current limitations on computer power restrict lattice QCD simulations with dynamical fermions to large quark masses. We would like to present a rather different view concerning the lattice data at large quark masses. In particular, we argue that like the behaviour as a function of $`N_c`$, lattice results as a function of quark mass offer extremely valuable new insights into the nature of QCD and especially into hadron structure.

To be a little more quantitative, the restriction to large quark masses in lattice simulations means typically 50 MeV or higher. Thus, in order to compare hadron properties calculated on the lattice one has to extrapolate as a function of quark mass (on top of all the other extrapolations, lattice spacing, lattice size, etc.) all the way to the physical light quark masses, around 5 or 6 MeV. Such extrapolations are complicated enormously by the fact that chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken in QCD. The mass of the pion, which is the Goldstone boson corresponding to this broken symmetry , behaves as:

$$m_\pi ^2\overline{m},(\mathrm{with}\overline{m}=m_u=m_d0),$$
(1)
as the quark mass, $`\overline{m}`$, moves away from zero – this is the Gell Mann-Oakes-Renner (GOR) relation. While Eq.(1) is, in principle, only guaranteed for quark masses, near zero, explicit lattice calculations show that it holds over an enormous range, as high as $`m_\pi 1`$GeV. For convenience, rather than measuring the deviation from exact chiral symmetry using $`\overline{m}`$, which is scale dependent, we shall use $`m_\pi ^2`$.

In terms of $`m_\pi `$, current lattice calculations are typically restricted to pion masses larger than 500 MeV, with some pioneering work reporting preliminary results as low as 310 MeV. In order to compare these results with experimental data on hadron properties it is necessary to extrapolate the calculations at large pion masses to the physical value. In doing so it is crucial to respect the constraints imposed by chiral symmetry in QCD. In particular, as we discuss below, the existence of Goldstone bosons necessarily leads to behaviour which is non-analytic in the quark mass.

The structure of this article is that we first explain the origin of the non-analyticity associated with Goldstone boson loops. We then explain, using the specific case of the nucleon mass, how this non-analytic structure has been incorporated into a new method for extrapolating hadron masses from the large values characteristic of lattice calculations to the physical region. The consequences of this for the sigma commutator are then explained. Next we turn to recent results for baryon electromagnetic properties. Finally we discuss the most recent investigations of the proton structure function, especially the importance of chiral symmetry in connecting existing calculations of lattice moments with data. We conclude with a summary of the promised insights into the nature of hadron structure within QCD that follow from all these investigations.

## II Goldstone boson loops and non-analyticity

For our purposes the primary significance of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in QCD is that there are contributions to hadron properties from loops involving the resulting Goldstone bosons. These loops have the unique property that they give rise to terms in an expansion of most hadronic properties as a function of quark mass which are not analytic. As a simple example we consider the nucleon mass. The most important chiral corrections to $`M_N`$ come from the processes $`NN\pi N`$ ($`\sigma _{NN}`$) and $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\pi N`$ ($`\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$). (We will come to what it means to say these are the most important shortly.) We write $`M_N=M_N^{\mathrm{bare}}+\sigma _{NN}+\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In the heavy baryon limit one has

$$\sigma _{NN}=\frac{3g_A^2}{16\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\frac{k^4u^2(k)}{k^2+m_\pi ^2},$$
(2)
where $`g_A,f_\pi `$ are strictly evaluated in the chiral limit. Here $`u(k)`$ is a natural high momentum cut-off which is the Fourier transform of the source of the pion field (e.g. in the cloudy bag model (CBM) it is $`3j_1(kR)/kR`$, with $`R`$ the bag radius ). From the point of view of PCAC it is natural to identify $`u(k)`$ with the axial form factor of the nucleon, a dipole with mass parameter $`1.02\pm 0.08`$GeV.

Regardless of the form chosen for the ultra-violet cut-off, one finds that $`\sigma _{NN}`$ is a non-analytic function of the quark mass. The leading non-analytic (LNA) piece of $`\sigma _{NN}`$ is independent of the form factor and gives

$$\sigma _{NN}^{LNA}=\frac{3g_A^2}{32\pi f_\pi ^2}m_\pi ^3\overline{m}^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$
(3)
This has a branch point, as a function of $`\overline{m}`$, at $`\overline{m}=0`$. Such terms can only arise from Goldstone boson loops.

### A Case Study: the Nucleon Mass

It is natural to ask how significant this non-analytic behaviour is in practice. If the pion mass is given in GeV, $`\sigma _{NN}^{LNA}=5.6m_\pi ^3`$ and at the physical pion mass it is just –17 MeV. However, at only three times the physical pion mass, $`m_\pi =420`$MeV, it is –460MeV – half the mass of the nucleon. If one’s aim is to extract physical nucleon properties from lattice QCD calculations this is extremely important. The most sophisticated lattice calculations with dynamical fermions are only just becoming feasible at such low masses and to connect to the physical world one must extrapolate from $`m_\pi 500`$MeV to $`m_\pi =140`$MeV. Clearly one must have control of the chiral behaviour.

Figure 1 shows recent lattice calculations of $`M_N`$ as a function of $`m_\pi ^2`$ from CP-PACS and UKQCD . The dashed line indicates a fit which naively respects the presence of a LNA term,

$$M_N=\alpha +\beta m_\pi ^2+\gamma m_\pi ^3,$$
(4)
with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ fitted to the data. While this gives a very good fit to the data, the chiral coefficient $`\gamma `$ is only -0.761, compared with the value -5.60 required by chiral symmetry. If one insists that $`\gamma `$ be consistent with QCD the best fit one can obtain with this form is the dash-dot curve. This is clearly unacceptable.

An alternative suggested recently by Leinweber et al. , which also involves just three parameters, is to evaluate $`\sigma _{NN}`$ and $`\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with the same ultra-violet form factor, with mass parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and to fit $`M_N`$ as

$$M_N=\alpha +\beta m_\pi ^2+\sigma _{NN}(m_\pi ,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}(m_\pi ,\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(5)
Using a sharp cut-off ($`u(k)=\theta (\mathrm{\Lambda }k)`$) these authors were able to obtain analytic expressions for $`\sigma _{NN}`$ and $`\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ which reveal the correct LNA behaviour – and next to leading (NLNA) in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi `$ case, $`\sigma _{N\mathrm{\Delta }}^{NLNA}m_\pi ^4\mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$.

These expressions also reveal a branch point at $`m_\pi =M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N`$, which is important if one is extrapolating from large values of $`m_\pi `$ to the physical value. The solid curve in Fig. 1 is a two parameter fit to the lattice data using Eq.(5), but fixing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at a value suggested by CBM simulations to be equivalent to the preferred 1 GeV dipole. A small increase in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is necessary to fit the lowest mass data point, at $`m_\pi ^20.1`$ GeV2, but clearly one can describe the data very well while preserving the exact LNA and NLNA behaviour of QCD.

### B Consequences for the Sigma Commutator

The analysis of the lattice data for $`M_N`$, incorporating the correct non-analytic behaviour, can yield interesting new information concerning the sigma commutator of the nucleon:

$$\sigma _N=\frac{1}{3}N|[Q_{i5},[Q_{i5},H_{QCD}]]|N=N|\overline{m}(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)|N.$$
(6)
This is a direct measure of chiral SU(2) symmetry breaking in QCD, and the widely accepted experimental value is $`45\pm 8`$MeV . (Although there are recent suggestions that it might be as much as 20 MeV larger .) Using the Feynman-Hellmann theorem one can also write

$$\sigma _N=\overline{m}\frac{M_N}{\overline{m}}=m_\pi ^2\frac{M_N}{m_\pi ^2}.$$
(7)
Historically, lattice calculations have evaluated $`<N|(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)|N>`$ at large quark mass and extrapolated this scale dependent quantity to the “physical” quark mass, which had to be determined in a separate calculation. The latest result with dynamical fermions, $`\sigma _N=18\pm 5`$ MeV , illustrates how difficult this procedure is. On the other hand, if one has a fit to $`M_N`$ as a function of $`m_\pi `$ which is consistent with chiral symmetry, one can evaluate $`\sigma _N`$ directly using Eq.(7). Using Eq.(5) with a sharp cut-off yields $`\sigma _N55`$ MeV, while a dipole form gives $`\sigma _N45`$ MeV . The residual model dependence can only be removed by more accurate lattice data at low $`m_\pi ^2`$. Nevertheless, the result $`\sigma _N(45,55)`$ MeV is in very good agreement with the data. In contrast, the simple cubic fit, with $`\gamma `$ inconsistent with chiral constraints, gives $`30`$ MeV. Until the experimental situation regarding $`\sigma _N`$ improves, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions regarding the strangeness content of the nucleon. However, the fact that two-flavour QCD reproduces the current prefered value should certainly stimulate some thought and a lot of work.

## III Electromagnetic Form Factors

It is a general consequence of quantum mechanics that the long-range charge structure of the proton comes from its $`\pi ^+`$ cloud ($`pn\pi ^+`$), while for the neutron it comes from its $`\pi ^{}`$ cloud ($`np\pi ^{}`$). However, it is not often realized that the LNA contribution to the nucleon charge radius goes like $`\mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$ and diverges as $`\overline{m}0`$ . This cannot be reproduced by a constituent quark model. Figure 2 shows the latest data from Mainz and NIKHEF for the neutron electric form factor, in comparison with CBM calculations for a confinement radius between 0.9 and 1.0 fm. The long-range $`\pi ^{}`$ tail of the neutron plays a crucial role.

While there are only limited (and indeed quite old) lattice data for hadron charge radii, recent experimental progress in the determination of hyperon charge radii has led us to examine the extrapolation procedure for obtaining charge data from the lattice simulations . Figure 3 shows the extrapolation of the lattice data  for the charge radius of the proton. Clearly the agreement with experiment is much better once the chiral log required by chiral symmetry is correctly included, than if, for example, one simply made a linear extrapolation in the quark mass (or $`m_\pi ^2`$). Full details of the results for all the octet baryons may be found in Ref. .

The situation for baryon magnetic moments is also very interesting. The LNA contribution in this case arises from the diagram where the photon couples to the pion loop. As this involves two pion propagators the expansion of the proton and neutron moments is:

$$\mu ^{p(n)}=\mu _0^{p(n)}\alpha m_\pi +𝒪(m_\pi ^2).$$
(8)
Here $`\mu _0^{p(n)}`$ is the value in the chiral limit and the linear term in $`m_\pi `$ is proportional to $`\overline{m}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, a branch point at $`\overline{m}=0`$. The coefficient of the LNA term is $`\alpha =4.4\mu _N`$GeV-1. At the physical pion mass this LNA contribution is $`0.6\mu _N`$, which is almost a third of the neutron magnetic moment. No constituent quark model can or should get better agreement with data than this.

Just as for $`M_N`$, the chiral behaviour of $`\mu ^{p(n)}`$ is vital to a correct extrapolation of lattice data. One can obtain a very satisfactory fit to some rather old data, which happens to be the best available, using the simple Padé :

$$\mu ^{p(n)}=\frac{\mu _0^{p(n)}}{1\pm \frac{\alpha }{\mu _0^{p(n)}}m_\pi +\beta m_\pi ^2}$$
(9)
The data can only determine two parameters and Eq.(9) has just two free parameters while guaranteeing the correct LNA behaviour as $`m_\pi 0`$ and the correct behaviour of heavy quark effective theory (HQET) at large $`m_\pi ^2`$. The extrapolated values of $`\mu ^p`$ and $`\mu ^n`$ at the physical pion mass, $`2.85\pm 0.22\mu _N`$ and $`1.90\pm 0.15\mu _N`$, respectively, are currently the best estimates from non-perturbative QCD . For more details of this fit we refer to Ref. , while for the application of similar ideas to other members of the nucleon octet we refer to Ref. , and for the strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon we refer to Ref. .

Incidentally, from the point of view of the naive quark model it is interesting to plot the ratio of the absolute values of the proton and neutron magnetic moments as a function of $`m_\pi ^2`$. The agreement of the constituent quark result, namely 3/2, with the experimental value to within a few percent is usually taken as a major success. However, we see from Fig. 4 that it is in fact fortunate to obtain such close agreement . We stress that the large slope of the ratio near $`m_\pi ^2=0`$ is model independent.

## IV Structure Functions

The parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the nucleon are light-cone correlation functions which, in the infinite momentum frame, are interpreted as probability distributions for finding specific partons (quarks, antiquarks, gluons) in the nucleon. They have been measured in a variety of high energy processes, ranging from deep-inelastic lepton scattering to Drell-Yan and massive vector boson production in hadron–hadron collisions. A wealth of experimental information now exists on spin-averaged PDFs, and an increasing amount of data is being accumulated on spin-dependent PDFs .

At high momentum transfer ($`Q^2`$) the dominant component of the PDFs are determined by non-perturbative matrix elements of certain “leading twist” operators. In principle these matrix elements, which correspond to moments of the measured structure functions, contain vital information about the non-perturbative structure of the target. An extensive phenomenology has been developed over the years within model QCD studies, and in some cases remarkable predictions have been made from the insight gained into the non-perturbative structure of the nucleon. An example is the $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ asymmetry, predicted  on the basis of the nucleon’s pion cloud , which has been spectacularly confirmed in recent experiments at CERN and Fermilab . Other predictions, such as asymmetries between strange and antistrange  and spin-dependent sea quark distributions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}`$, still await experimental confirmation. Note that none of these could be anticipated without insight into the non-perturbative structure of QCD.

Despite the phenomenological successes in correlating deep-inelastic and other high energy data with low energy hadron structure, the ad hoc nature of some of the assumptions made in deriving the low energy models from QCD leaves open a number of questions about the ability to reliably assign systematic errors to the model predictions. One approach in which structure functions can be calculated systematically from first principles, and which at the same time allows one to search for and identify the relevant low energy QCD degrees of freedom, is lattice QCD.

Early calculations of structure function moments within lattice QCD were performed by Martinelli and Sachrajda . However, the most comprehensive analysis has been performed by the QCDSF Collaboration \[24–26\] – albeit within quenched QCD. Recently the MIT group has performed the first full (unquenched) QCD calculations of non-singlet moments . The moments from the full QCD simulations are very similar to those from the quenched calculations. This is consistent with the suggestions of chiral quark models, like the CBM, that in the mass region currently accessible quark loops are suppressed.

As for the other nucleon properties discussed above, we propose to extraplate the lattice data to the physical pion mass using a formula which is compatible with the LNA structure of the PDFs. This behaviour was derived recently, with the result that the LNA behaviour involved a term in $`m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}m_\pi `$ . For an initial investigation we concentrate on the non-singlet combination of PDFs, $`ud`$, in which “disconnected” quark loops cancel. Calculations based on the CBM (which incorporate the LNA chiral structure just discussed) actually produce quite a reasonable description of the behaviour of the moments of the PDFs as a function of quark mass, as shown in Fig. 5 (open squares). More important from the phenomenological point of view, the CBM calculations (for the $`n`$’th moment of the PDFs) can be fit with the simple expansion in $`m_\pi `$:

$$x_u^nx_d^n=a_n+b_nm_\pi ^2+a_nc_{\mathrm{LNA}}m_\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+\mu ^2}\right),$$
(10)
where $`c_{\mathrm{LNA}}`$ is model independent.

The scale $`\mu `$ in Eq.(10) is effectively the scale at which the rapid, chiral variation at low $`m_\pi `$ turns off. The best fit to the lattice data is obtained with a value $`\mu 0.40.5`$ GeV – a very similar scale to that found, for example, for the magnetic moments. Clearly Eq.(10) gives a very good description of the lattice data for the first moment of the non-singlet distribution $`du`$. Taking into account the rapid chiral variation as $`m_\pi ^20`$ there is also quite good agreement between the extrapolated value of the first moment and the experimentally determined moment. A similar result holds for the second and third moments too .

## V Conclusion

In the light of the numerous examples presented in this brief review, it should be evident that the study of hadron properties as a function of quark mass shows a clear pattern:

* In the region of quark masses $`\overline{m}>60`$ MeV or so ($`m_\pi `$ greater than typically 400-500 MeV) hadron properties are smooth, slowly varying functions of something like a constituent quark mass, $`MM_0+c\overline{m}`$ (with $`c1`$).
* Indeed, $`M_N3M,M_{\rho ,\omega }2M`$ and magnetic moments behave like $`1/M`$.
* As $`\overline{m}`$ decreases below 60 MeV or so, chiral symmetry leads to rapid, non-analytic variation, with $`\delta M_N\overline{m}^{3/2},\delta \mu _H\overline{m}^{1/2}`$ and
$`\delta <r^2>_{\mathrm{ch}}\mathrm{ln}\overline{m}`$.
* Chiral quark models like the cloudy bag provide a natural explanation of this transition. The scale is basically set by the inverse size of the pion source – the inverse of the bag radius in the bag model.

These are remarkable results that will have profound consequences for our further exploration of hadron structure within QCD as well as the analysis of the vast amount of data now being taken concerning unstable resonances. In terms of immediate results for the structure of the nucleon, we note that the careful incorporation of the correct chiral behaviour of QCD into the extrapolation of its properties calculated on the lattice has produced:

* The best values of the proton and neutron magnetic moments from QCD.
* The best value of the sigma commutator.
* Improved values for the charge radii of the baryon octet.
* Improved values for the magnetic moments of the hyperons.
* Good agreement between the extrapolated moments of the non-singlet distribution $`ud`$ and the experimentally measured moments.

In addition, although we did not have time to discuss it, this approach has led to the best current value for the strangeness magnetic moment of the proton from lattice QCD .

Clearly, while much has been achieved, even more remains to be done. It is vital that lattice calculations with dynamical fermions are pushed to the lowest possible quark masses, taking advantage of developments of improved actions and so on. It is also vital to further develop our understanding of the physics of chiral extrapolation by comparison with these new calculations, by looking at new applications and by further comparison with chiral models.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank E. Hackett-Jones, J. Negele, K. Tsushima, A. Williams and R. Young for helpful discussions of the matters discussed here. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and the University of Adelaide.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The remarkable object SS-433 is a galactic microquasar  powered by a compact object driving a parsec-scale jet. The jet is possibly associated with the supernova remnant W50. A strong motivation for observations at TeV $`\gamma `$-ray energies exist by virture of the extraordinary kinetic quiescant power output of the jets in the range $`10^{39}`$ to $`10^{41}`$ erg $`s^1`$ . This power amounts to a significant fraction of that required to maintain the galactic cosmic-ray (GCR) flux at Earth (few$`\times 10^{41}`$ erg s-1 ). SS-433/W50 may therefore be one of the most powerful, and indeed significant sites of GCR acceleration in our Galaxy.

Aharonian & Atoyan  (hereafter, AA) have suggested that an appreciable flux of TeV $`\gamma `$-rays may be produced by inverse Compton scattering of cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons at the eastern jet termination shock, $`60^{}`$ east of SS-433 (labelled as ’e3’ . See figure 1), representing an interaction between the eastern jet particles and interstellar medium (ISM). A non-relativistic shock of the type found in SNR may be capable of accelerating ISM particles to multi-TeV energies, and is suggested by the spatial correlation between radio and very steep ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3.7_{10.7}^{+2.3}`$) X-ray synchrotron emission (from ROSAT & ASCA data) . The X-ray emission from e3 however may also be of a thermal origin (although it is featureless!) since a power-law and thermal Bremsstrahlung relation are equally well fit, when considering data only from ROSAT and ASCA at energies below 10 keV. Strong motivation for concentrating our effort on the jet termination region is the fact that most of the jet energy is mechanical in nature , leading to significant power deposit at such regions. For example taking the estimated energy in relativistic electrons accounting for the e3 X-ray flux at $`400\times 10^{46}`$ erg , the total power in relativistic particles (electrons + baryons) at e3 amounts to $`10^{39}`$ erg s-1, for a source lifetime of 104 yrs. And finally, a detection of TeV $`gamma`$-ray emission linked to e3, would unambiguously prove that the shock is capable of accelerating electrons to multi-TeV energies, since alternative hypotheses to the synchrotron model for hard X-ray tails do exist (e.g. thermal bremsstrahlung and see also ).

Moving closer to SS-433 along the eastern jet, a hardening of the X-ray spectrum is noticed. The power law fit to the inner regions, labeled e1 & e2  is favoured only after including X-ray data from RXTE at energies greater than 10 keV . X-ray emission at e1 and e2 may result from direct synchrotron , inverse Compton, and/or synchrotron-self-Compton emission. The latter two options considered by  relating to flaring episodes were found to require a $`B`$-field well below equipartition values (in this scenario $``$0.7 G). The direct synchrotron option would also predict a spatial correlation at radio energies, not presently seen. These inner regions are therefore more complicated to interpret than that of e3.

## 2 Observations & Results

Data were collected using the HEGRA CT-System111High Energy Gamma Ray Astrophysics Cerenkov Telescope, a series of 5 atmospheric Cerenkov telescopes operating in coincidence. Each telescope uses a multi-pixel camera of photomulitplier tubes (PMTs) to parametrise the angular distribution of extensive air shower (EAS) Cerenkov radiation initiated by $`\gamma `$-ray primaries. The CT-System is situated on the Roque de los Muchachos at La Palma (2200m asl, $`28^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}45}^{}`$N $`17^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}54}^{}`$W). The coincident trigger ensures a minimum of 2 telescopes view the EAS, and hence accurate reconstruction of the arrival direction on an event-by-event basis . At epochs covering SS-433 observations described here, the CT-System achieved an angular resolution, the standard deviation of a Gaussian fit (point spread function, PSF) of $``$0.1 at a modal energy threshold of 1.0 TeV for $`\gamma `$-rays. The detection of $`\gamma `$-ray images must be made against a strong background of cosmic-ray-initiated EAS. This background may be suppressed by exploiting the physical differences in EAS development between $`\gamma `$-ray and CR EAS, leading to differences in image shape. CR EAS are also isotropic in terms of arrival direction and therefore will be distributed as an essentially flat background against a source of $`\gamma `$-rays. The so-called mean-scaled-width (msw) parameter is used to reject CR images according to shape. A parameter, $`\theta `$, the angular difference between the source and reconstructed arrival position provides CR rejection based on direction. Details of the direction reconstruction may be found in  and overall rejection efficiencies in . Optimal values for $`\theta `$ and msw, selected from results of Monte Carlo simulations, have been validated against the steady TeV emission of the Crab, and variable emission from Mrk 501 & Mrk 421.

A total of 19.3 hours observations were accepted for analysis following removal of data adversely affected by weather conditions. Not included in this report are results from a more recently completed scan of the Galactic Plane which included SS-433 . Overall results will be discussed in a future paper. Observations were carried out using a series of ON source and OFF source tracking modes. OFF source data were taken from regions separated in right ascension such that matching elevation bands222The energy threshold of the HEGRA CT-System is dependent on the elevation were achieved in both ON and OFF source data. A recently developed method  that enables the background to be determined from ON source observations is actually used in these analyses. This method estimates the background from larger statistics than that of OFF source observations (by roughly a factor of 3), and is temporally and spatially consistent with ON source data. A small systematic bias introduced by this method amounting to a $`<\pm 10`$% over/under-estimation of the background is easily parametrised and therefore corrected. The field of view (FOV) of the HEGRA CT-System with a radius $`1.5^{}`$ (trigger efficiency $``$80% of the on-axis value), adequately covers the eastern jet region imaged by ROSAT. For the analysis of HEGRA data, a number of regions in the FOV were chosen a-priori as extended sources of a size guided by results at X-ray energies, namely, the regions e1 to e3, and SS-433 itself. For an extended source of radius $`\theta _s`$, the optimal cut on event direction used in this analysis, $`\theta _{op}`$, is given by $`\theta _{op}^2=\theta _{pt}^2+\theta _s^2`$. $`\theta _{pt}`$ is the optimal cut for a point source and is a factor $``$1.7 larger than the PSF radius, under background-dominated statistics. Table 1 presents the results of these analyses for each location within the FOV.

## 3 Discussion

AA have argued that the inverse Compton scattering of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) photons by the same multi-TeV electrons that produce the X-ray synchrotron flux could lead to an appreciable TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission in the range 10-12 to 10-11 erg cm-2 s-1. Such levels are within the sensitivity range of current ground-based instruments for reasonable observation time (10 to 40 hours). The radio spectral index, $`\alpha 0.5`$  (a value of $`\alpha 0.68`$ is calculated by , see also ) and spatial correlation of the radio and X-ray fluxes support the notion that diffusive shock acceleration of electrons to TeV energies is taking place at e3. AA find that an electron injection spectrum of the form $`N(E)E^2\mathrm{exp}(E/7\mathrm{TeV})`$ fits well the radio and X-ray fluxes. Determination of the electron injection rate is tied to the $`B`$-field (in this model, considered a free parameter) since the radio flux $`B^{1.5}L_e`$ where $`L_e`$ (erg s-1) is the injection power of electrons. AA also consider a number of source sizes, concluding that the measured size of the radio lobe corresponding to e3, of radius $`0.25^{}`$, is consistent with a diffusion coefficient implied from cosmic-ray transport in the galactic disk. A comparison of our upper limit for e3 with the predictions of AA (for various source sizes) is presented in figure 2.

Our upper limit is close to the prediction of AA assuming a source radius of 0.25, $`B`$-field of 10 $`\mu `$G, and injection rate of $`L_e`$=1038 erg s-1. Using the direct relationship between the expected IC ($`f_\gamma `$) and X-ray energy fluxes ($`f_x`$) arising from the same electrons:

$$\frac{f_x(ϵ\mathrm{keV})}{f_\gamma (E\mathrm{TeV})}10\left(\frac{B}{10^5\mathrm{G}}\right)^2$$
(1)
we can establish a condition on the magnetic field $`B`$ of the SNR. The mathematical caveat here is that the correct energy range in the TeV and keV regimes must be adhered to and that we assume that the emission regions of both components have the same size as in the model of AA. The IC ($`E`$ TeV) and X-ray ($`ϵ`$ keV) synchrotron energies in Eq. 1 are coupled according to :

$$ϵ0.07\left(\frac{E}{1\mathrm{TeV}}\right)\left(\frac{B}{10^5\mathrm{G}}\right)\mathrm{keV}$$
(2)
so that for fluxes at $`E`$1 TeV, a comparison with the X-ray flux at $`ϵ`$0.1 keV is required for reasonable values of $`B10`$ to 100 $`\mu `$G expected after shock compression. Combining the X-ray flux at 0.1 keV with our TeV upper limit in Eq. 1 leads to a lower limit on the magnetic field within e3 of $`B13`$ $`\mu `$G. Using an X-ray flux at slightly higher energies than 0.1 keV would naturally reduce this lower limit to values nearing that expected of the interstellar medium. The equipartition field for e3 is estimated at $`B`$ 20 to 60 $`\mu `$G  (using a source region of radius $`25`$ pc, or $``$0.25 at 5.5 kpc), and so clearly, we require a tighter upper limit in the TeV regime, in order to make more definite conclusions about the $`B`$-field in this region.

## 4 Conclusion

A search for TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission from the SS-433/W50 region, focussing on the termination-shock region ’e3’, has revealed a 99% upper limit of 0.12 Crab flux units. The lower limit on the $`B`$-field at e3 determined within the framework of a synchrotron and inverse-Compton model  is not high enough to contrain further the range of equipartition values for $`B`$ as suggested by the X-ray results from ASCA and ROSAT . Further observations on SS-433 with the HEGRA CT-System, recently completed, will be included in future work in order to improve our $`B`$ constraint. Finally, with their predicted sensitivities at 1 TeV, the next generation ground-based instruments HESS, VERITAS and MAGIC  will almost certainly resolve the issue of whether or not the e3 region is a site of electron acceleration to multi-TeV energies.


text:
# Muon anomalous magnetic moment in the standard model with two Higgs doublets

Abstract

The muon anomalous magnetic moment is investigated in the standard model with two Higgs doublets (S2HDM) motivated from spontaneous CP violation. Thus all the effective Yukawa couplings become complex. As a consequence of the non-zero phase in the couplings, the one loop contribution from the neutral scalar bosons could be positive and negative relying on the CP phases. The interference between one and two loop diagrams can be constructive in a large parameter space of CP-phases. This will result in a significant contribution to muon anomalous magnetic moment even in the flavor conserving process with a heavy neutral scalar boson ($`m_h`$ 200 GeV) once the effective muon Yukawa coupling is large ( $`|\xi _\mu |50`$). In general, the one loop contributions from lepton flavor changing scalar interactions become more important. In particular, when all contributions are positive in a reasonable parameter space of CP phases, the recently reported 2.6 sigma experiment vs. theory deviation can be easily explained even for a heavy scalar boson with a relative small Yukawa coupling in the S2HDM.

Recently, the E821 Collaboration at BNL has reported their improved result on the measurement of muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu =(g_\mu 2)/2`$ . The difference between the measurement and the Standard Model (SM) prediction  is reported

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =a_\mu ^{exp}a_\mu ^{SM}=426\pm 165\times 10^{11},$$
(1)
which shows a relative large deviation (2.6 $`\sigma `$) from the SM calculation. At $`95\%`$ confidence level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ lie in the range

$`113\times 10^{11}\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu 749\times 10^{11}.`$ (2)
As muon is about 210 times heavier than electron, it is expected that the new physics effects on muon anomalous moment may be considerable. A large amount of works have been made on checking the new physics contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ from various models. Among those, the contributions from supersymmetric particles and scalar bosons as well as extra dimensions seem to be the most attractive ones. In this paper, we shall make a systematic analysis in the standard model with two Higgs doublets (S2HDM) motivated from the study of origin and mechanism of CP violation. In this kind of model, the Higgs sector of SM is simply extended by including an additional Higgs doublet with all the Yukawa couplings being real. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, the origin of both fermion masses and CP-violating phases can be attributed to the well known Higgs mechanism with a single CP-phase between two vacuum expectation values. Namely CP symmetry is broken spontaneously . Thus all the effective Yukawa couplings in the physical basis become complex. The S2HDM has also been investigated from other considerations. It will be seen that though S2HDM is the simplest extension of SM, it can provide a possible good explanation for the recently reported 2.6 sigma experiment vs. theory deviation of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

There are several versions of 2HDM. To avoid flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) at tree level, some kind of discrete symmetries are often imposed on the Higgs potential, this results in two kinds of models which are usually called the 2HDM of type I and II . Note that by imposing the discrete symmetry, the spontaneous CP violation is forbidden with two Higgs doublets and all the Yukawa couplings have to be real.

Contributions to muon $`g2`$ from the 2HDM of type II have been discussed in Refs.. It seems that the one loop contribution is not large enough to explain the data. Even for a large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$, one still needs a very light mass of the scalar $`M_h5`$ GeV. If both the scalar and pseudo-scalar are included, due to the cancelation between them, the situation will be even worse. One then needs to consider two loop contributions. It was found  that from the two-loop diagrams of Barr-Zee type, the contributions from pseudo-scalar is positive and could be larger than its negative one loop contributions. Thus the net effects for pseudo-scalar exchange become positive. Provided a sufficient large value of the coupling $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, its contributions can reach the experimental bound. By including the two loop diagrams, the pseudo-scalar mass must be below $`80`$ GeV even when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large and around $`50`$ . To avoid the cancelation between scalar and pseudo-scalar exchange, the mass of the scalar boson has to be pushed to be very heavy ( typically greater than 500 GeV).

An alternative way of suppressing the FCNC at tree level is to take the smallness of the off-diagonal elements in the Yukawa coupling matrices by considering approximate flavor or family symmetries. It has been shown that through the spontaneous CP violation, rich sources of CP violation including the KM-phase in SM can be induced from a single relative phase between the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. In the S2HDM, as there are flavor changing scalar interactions for both neutral and charged scalar bosons, the bounds on the neutral Higgs mass can be released through the inclusion of the internal $`\tau `$ loop at one loop level . Besides this, as it will be shown below that the complex and flavor dependent Yukawa couplings in S2HDM may completely change the interference between one and two loop diagram contributions. As a consequence, one and two loop contributions can be both positive and provide significant contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$.

In the S2HDM, after spontaneous symmetry breaking, the two Higgs fields are given by

$`\varphi _1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^+\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v\mathrm{cos}\beta e^{i\delta }+\varphi _1^0)\end{array}\right),\varphi _2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _2^+\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v\mathrm{sin}\beta +\varphi _2^0)\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
where the phase $`\delta `$ is the relative phase between the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. This phase is the physical one as it can not be rotated away by a redefinition of the fermion phase. Thus in the physical basis (i.e., mass eigenstate basis), all the effective Yukawa couplings become complex, which leads to rich sources of CP violation. It is more natural to use another basis for Higgs fields through the recombination

$`H_1=\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\beta e^{i\delta }\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\beta ,\text{ }H_2=\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\beta e^{i\delta }+\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ (8)
such that

$`H_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}H^+\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(R+iI)\end{array}\right),\text{ }H_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v+H^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
where $`H^+`$ is the charged scalar and $`R`$, $`I`$ and $`H^0`$ are the three neutral scalar bosons. Here the neutral Higgs boson $`H^0`$ plays the role as the one in SM with one Higgs doublet. The additional two neutral scalar bosons $`R`$ and $`I`$ will lead to new interactions beyond the SM.

The Yukawa interactions between scalar bosons and leptons in the S2HDM can be written as the sum of two parts $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, where $`_1`$ contains only flavor conserving interactions and $`_2`$ contains flavor changing ones, i.e.

$$_Y=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}(_1+_2)$$
(14)
with

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}H^+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}}\xi _{l_i}m_{l_i}\overline{\nu }_L^il_R^i+H^0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}}m_{l_i}\overline{l}_L^il_R^i+(R+iI){\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{3}{}}}\xi _{l_i}m_{l_i}\overline{l_L^i}l_R^i+h.c,`$ (15)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`(R+iI){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{3}{}}}\xi _{l_il_j}\overline{l_L^i}l_R^j+h.c,`$ (16)
In the above expression, $`\xi _{l_i}`$ and $`\xi _{l_il_j}`$ stand for the flavor conserving and flavor changing Yukawa couplings which are in general all complex numbers. For simplicity, we will neglect, in the following considerations, the mixing among the three neutral scalar bosons, but their masses are considered to be largely split and the mass eigenstates are denoted by $`h`$ and $`A`$ respectively.

The phase effects of the Yukawa coupling has been discussed in the literatures. The complex couplings may lead to sizable CP violation in charged and neutral Higgs boson exchanging processes in quark sector, such as $`bs\gamma `$, $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$, $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$, $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ and $`D^0\overline{D}^0`$ mixings, etc. In the lepton sector, it may result in large electric dipole moment of leptons .

In the case of effective real Yukawa couplings for neutral scalar bosons, $`h`$ is purely a scalar while $`A`$ is a pseudo-scalar. The contributions to muon anomalous moment from these two particles always have different signs at both one loop and two loop level. Namely, for scalar $`h`$-exchange, the contribution is positive from one loop and negative from two loop. But for pseudo-scalar $`A`$-exchange , the one loop contribution is always negative and the two loop contribution is positive. As the experimental data indicate that the deviation of $`g2`$ from SM is positive. The large two loop contribution may lead to the conclusion that the $`A`$-exchange must be dominant and the $`h`$-exchange must be made to be negligible small.

However, in the general case, the situation can be quite different. As all the couplings are complex in S2HDM, the Yukawa couplings for neutral scalar bosons $`h`$ and $`A`$ contain both scalar and pseudo-scalar type fermion interactions. Further more, the couplings are all flavor dependent, which is far away from the 2HDM of type I and II, where the couplings are given by a simple function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The fact that one loop and two loop contributions depend on different complex Yukawa couplings provides an alternative possibility that they may not always cancel each other. In a large parameter space, the two kind of contributions may be constructive and result in a large value of muon $`g2`$

The above discussion is also suitable for SUSY model  as the Higgs sector of it is exactly like the 2HDM of type II. Recently, the contribution from two loop diagrams with charged Higgs in SUSY is also discussed. However, In the case of SUSY, the main contribution may arise from the chargino-sneutrino and neutralino-slepton couplings at one loops.

The one loop flavor conserving contributions from the scalar and pseudo-scalar have been investigated in Refs. . In S2HDM, the results are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^4}{m_W^2m_h^2}}\left[(\text{Re}\xi _\mu )^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\right)(\text{Im}\xi _\mu )^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}\right)\right]`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^4}{m_W^2m_A^2}}\left[(\text{Im}\xi _\mu )^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_A^2}{m_\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}\right)(\text{Re}\xi _\mu )^2\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_A^2}{m_\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{6}}\right)\right],`$ (18)
where $`g`$ is the weak gauge coupling constant. In the limit of $`m_\mu ^2/m_h^21`$, the one loop results can be approximately written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{h(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^4}{m_W^2m_h^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_\mu ^2}}\right)\left|\xi _\mu \right|^2\mathrm{cos}2\delta _\mu `$ (19)
where $`\delta _\mu `$ is the phase of $`\xi _\mu `$ with $`\xi _\mu =|\xi _\mu |e^{i\delta _\mu }`$. The one loop flavor conserving contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ is plotted in Fig.2a. It can be seen that its contributions decrease rapidly with $`m_h`$ increasing, which means that the one loop diagram cannot give large contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ except for a very small value of $`m_h`$ 10 GeV or a very large value of $`|\xi _\mu |`$ 70. Note that in the S2HDM, the contributions from $`h`$ and $`A`$ can be negative and positive depending on the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}2\delta _\mu `$, which is completely different from the other type of 2HDM, such as type I and type II, where the $`h(A)`$ loop diagrams always give positive (negative) contributions.

In the case of one loop flavor changing processes ( see Fig.1 b), the loops with internal $`\tau `$-lepton play an important role as it is much heavier than the $`\mu `$-lepton. This then leads to an enhancement factor of the order $`m_\tau ^2/m_\mu ^2𝒪(10^2)`$ relative to the flavor conserving one. In S2HDM, the contributions from $`h(A)`$ exchange are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^{h(A)}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2m_\tau ^2}{m_W^2m_{h(A)}^2}}\left(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{h(A)}^2}{m_\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\left|\xi _{\mu \tau }\right|^2\mathrm{cos}2\delta _{\mu \tau }`$ (20)
In obtaining the above expression, we have taken $`\xi _{\mu \tau }=\xi _{\tau \mu }`$ for simplicity. The flavor changing contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ are presented in Fig.2b \**with different values of $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|`$. The figure shows that the contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ may be considerable large when $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|`$ is large. For $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|=3050`$, the recently reported 2.6 sigma experiment vs. theory deviation can be easily explained even for a heavy scalar boson $`m_h>100`$ GeV. So far, there are no strict constraints on the values of the coupling $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|`$. Studies on the rare decays $`\tau \mu (e)\gamma `$ and $`\tau 3\mu (e)`$ and the electric dipole moment of $`\tau `$ will be useful to provide an interesting constraint on the parameter. However, as the relevant experimental data at present are primitive and such processes often contain more couplings such as $`\xi _\tau `$ and $`\xi _{\tau e}`$ , the resulting constraints can not be clearly obtained and they are not yet be very strong. To obtain the upper bounds on $`\xi _{\tau \mu }`$, further studies are needed.

Now let us discuss the two loop effects on $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. Naively speaking, relative to one loop diagram, the two loop diagram will receive an additional suppression factor of $`\alpha /4\pi 𝒪(10^3)`$ and is in general small. However, there exists an special kind of two loop diagrams which can give significant contributions through the large Yukawa couplings between Higgs bosons and heavy fermions. These processes which are often referred as Barr-Zee mechanism are shown in Fig.(1.)$`c`$ and $`d`$ . In this kind of diagrams, the Yukawa coupling will contribute a enhance factor of $`m_f/m_\mu `$. if $`f`$ is heavy quark such $`t`$ quark, it can reach the order of $`𝒪(10^3)`$. Thus the two loop contribution could be sizeable. The large Yukawa couplings of order $`𝒪(50)`$ is need for explain the mass ratio between top and bottom quark in GUT. Note that arbitrary large Yukawa couplings may lead the theory to be non-perturbative . This requires that the couplings have to be less than $`1/(\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{2}G_f)^{1/2}m_f)`$, where $`G_f`$ is the Fermi constant. For example, for $`t(b)`$-quark, it is less than $`1(44)`$. In the virtual loop corrections, as there are additional loop suppression factor of $`(4\pi )^2`$. The constraints may be weak. Further more, the loop integrals always decrease with Higgs mass growing, and the Higgs loop contribution will decouple at large Higgs mass limit.

For the case that the fermion loop is dominated by top quark, the Barr-Zee type two loop diagrams may lead to a sizable $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$. In S2HDM, their contributions are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cq_t^2\alpha ^2}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_W^2}}\left[\text{Im}\xi _t\text{Im}\xi _\mu f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\text{Re}\xi _t\text{Re}\xi _\mu g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\right]`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_cq_t^2\alpha ^2}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_W^2}}\left[\text{Re}\xi _t\text{Re}\xi _\mu f\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_A^2}}\right)\text{Im}\xi _t\text{Im}\xi _\mu g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_A^2}}\right)\right]`$ (22)
where $`N_c=3`$ is the color number and $`q_t=2/3`$ is the charge of top quark. $`\alpha =1/137`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.23`$ are the fine structure constant and weak mixing angle respectively. $`f(z)`$ and $`g(z)`$ are two integral functions which have the following form

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{12x(1x)}{x(1x)z}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x(1x)}{z}}`$ (23)
$`g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x(1x)z}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x(1x)}{z}}`$ (24)
for large $`z`$, $`f(z)1/3\mathrm{ln}z+13/8`$, $`g(z)1/2\mathrm{ln}z+1`$ and $`f(1)1/2`$, $`g(1)1`$. The pure two loop contributions are plotted in Fig.2b. Unlike in the one loop case, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ decreases rapidly with growing $`m_h`$, the two loop contributions decrease relative slowly and their signs depend on the value of $`\delta _{\mu \tau }`$. Therefore for a very large value of $`m_h`$, the two loop effects become dominant. Another difference is that in the one loop case the new physics contributions only depend on $`\xi _\mu `$, while the two loop contributions depend on two couplings $`\xi _\mu `$ and $`\xi _t`$, if the fermion loops for $`b`$ or $`\tau `$ are included , it will depend on more parameters. As the two couplings are complex numbers, the interference between one and two loop diagrams may not always be destructive. There exists a large parameter space in which the one and two loop contributions are all positive. Thus they can result in a large contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ . The constraint of $`|\xi _t|`$ has been studied in $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing and $`bs\gamma `$ as well as the neutron electric dipole moment , the typical absolute value for $`|\xi _t|`$ is of the order $`𝒪(1)`$. Taking $`|\xi _t|=1`$ and $`\delta _t=0`$ as an example, the sum of one and two loop contributions from $`h`$scalar exchange reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \left|\xi _\mu \right|}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_W^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left|\xi _\mu \right|}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_h^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_\mu ^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}2\delta _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi ^2}}g\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_h^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\delta _\mu \right].`$ (25)
It is clear that if $`\delta _\mu `$ lies in the range $`3\pi /4\delta _\mu 5\pi /4`$, the one and two loop contributions will be constructive. The detailed numerical results for two different values of $`\delta _t`$ are plotted in Fig.3 and Fig.4, where $`\delta _\mu `$ runs in a wide range. It can be seen that for large values of $`\delta _\mu \pi `$, the contributions from $`h`$scalar exchange can reach the experimental lower bound even for a heavy scalar with $`m_h200`$ GeV. This is quite different from the existed 2HDM calculations in the literature, where the allowed range for the scalar boson $`A`$ must be less than 100 GeV , and the scalar boson $`h`$ must be much heavier than $`A`$, so that its negative contributions are negligible.

In a large parameter space, it is also possible that contributions from one loop flavor conserving and one loop flavor changing as well as two loop diagrams are all positive. In this case, the current data can be easily explained even with a relative small value of $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|`$. The results for such a situation are plotted in Fig.5. It is seen that in this case a reasonable value of $`|\xi _{\mu \tau }|10`$ is large enough to reach the experiment bound.

In conclusion, we have investigated all possible new contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment from scalar interactions in S2HDM. Though S2HDM is regarded as the simplest extension of SM, it can provide a possible good explanation on the recently reported 2.6 sigma experiment vs. theory deviation. In particular, the important effects of the CP phases appearing in the Yukawa couplings have been studied. Unlike the 2HDM of type I and II, the two loop $`h`$ scalar contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ could be positive. The interference between one and two loop contributions can be constructive and result in a considerable contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$, so as to coincide with the recent E821 experiment data. In the case of constructive interference, the experimental data $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ can be understood even for a heavy scalar boson $`h`$ with mass $`m_h200`$ GeV, once the Yukawa coupling $`|\xi _\mu |`$ is large, $`|\xi _\mu |50`$. In general, contributions from one loop flavor changing diagrams are likely to be the dominant one in a large parameter space. Especially, in the case that contributions from all diagrams, namely, the one loop flavor conserving and one loop flavor changing as well as two loop diagrams in S2HDM with a reasonable parameter space, are all positive, one can easily explain the current experimental data of the excess of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the NSF of China under the grant No. 19625514 as well as Chinese Academy of Sciences.


text:
# The FIRST Bright Quasar Survey III. The South Galactic CapBased on observations obtained with the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is jointly operated by the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, and the Multiple Mirror Telescope Observatory, which is jointly operated by the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Institution.

## 1 Introduction

For the past five years, we have been engaged in an effort to identify the quasar content of the VLA FIRST survey. Our FIRST Bright Quasar Survey (FBQS) is motivated both by the high sensitivity and excellent astrometry provided by FIRST. To date, there have been two releases of quasars discovered by the FBQS (Gregg et al. 1996, hereafter Paper I; White et al. 2000, hereafter Paper II). Both have presented quasars found in the north Galactic cap down to a limiting E ($`R`$) magnitude of 17.8. In this paper, we are presenting the extension of the survey to the south Galactic cap. Although the survey area in the south is considerably smaller (589 square degrees vs the 2682 square degrees covered in Paper II), we have extended the optical magnitude limit to $`R=18.9`$.

Except for the fainter magnitude limit, the selection criteria used to generate the list of 522 candidates are largely the same as those used in Paper II, but with two additions designed to test our completeness to quasars with extended radio morphologies. With spectra now in hand for 86% of the candidates, we have identified 321 radio-selected quasars, of which 264 are newly discovered. In this work we present the vital statistics of the quasars and nonquasars alike and contrast this sample with the brighter quasars found previously by the FBQS.

## 2 The Sample

As in the previous renditions of the FBQS, the FIRST survey serves as the primary catalog (Becker, White & Helfand, 1995; White, Becker, Helfand & Gregg, 1997; see also the FIRST home page at http://sundog.stsci.edu). In the south Galactic cap, the sky coverage is limited to two strips of sky, one along the equator and a second some 7 to 10 degrees south of the equator. Both of these areas coincide with regions slated for coverage by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (Gunn & Knapp, 1992). In addition, a short segment was added at RA $`2`$ hrs to connect the two disjoint SDSS areas. Candidate quasars were identified by comparing the FIRST survey catalog to the APM catalog of optical sources on the UK Schmidt survey of the southern sky (McMahon & Irwin, 1992). The spatial distribution of the candidates is shown in Figure 1. There are a few gaps in the coverage created where the corresponding UK Schmidt plates were never scanned by APM. The missing plates are f684 (centered at $`\alpha =1^\mathrm{h}42^\mathrm{m}`$, $`\delta =10^{}`$), f686 ($`2^\mathrm{h}22^\mathrm{m}`$, $`10^{}`$), f688 ($`3^\mathrm{h}02^\mathrm{m}`$, $`10^{}`$), and f760 ($`3^\mathrm{h}02^\mathrm{m}`$, $`5^{}`$).

We followed many of the procedures described in detail in Paper II. Perhaps most importantly, we used the FIRST catalog positions to calculate a new astrometric solution for the UK Schmidt plates. In Paper II, we applied a plate-by-plate calibration derived from the APS catalog (Pennington et al., 1993) to the APM photometry. The APS data is limited in the southern Galactic cap, so for this paper we applied a similar photometric calibration using instead an early version, 2.1.1, of the Guide Star Catalog-II.111Information on the GSC-II catalog is available at http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/gsc/compass/GSC2export/GSC2Export.html. The photometric calibration used stars in the vicinity of FIRST sources rather than the FIRST optical counterparts themselves. This is important because the FBQS quasars are variable, and Malmquist bias between the APM and GSC-II epochs causes the GSC-II magnitudes for quasars to appear systematically fainter than the APM magnitudes (Helfand et al., 2001). A comparison between the GSC-II and APS magnitude calibrations in the north Galactic cap indicates excellent agreement, and we estimate that the calibrated magnitudes in this paper have an rms accuracy of $`0.15^\text{m}`$ on both the $`R`$ and $`B`$ plates, which is similar to the uncertainties for the $`E`$ and $`O`$ magnitudes in Paper II.

Any optical counterpart to a FIRST radio source which met the following conditions was considered a quasar candidate:

* The radio and optical positions must coincide to better than 1.2 arcsec.
* The optical counterpart must be classified as stellar on at least one of the two plates.
* The recalibrated, extinction-corrected optical SERC $`R`$ magnitude (5900–6900 Å) on the UK Schmidt red plate must be brighter than 18.9.
* The UK Schmidt color must be bluer than $`BR=2`$.

These criteria resulted in a candidate list of 505 optical counterparts. In addition, we included another seventeen candidates which failed the above criteria but represented one of the two situations described below.

If a FIRST radio source was elongated such that its radio centroid differed from the radio peak by more than 1 arcsec, the peak position was calculated and used in a second search for an optical counterpart. This resulted in the selection of another 5 candidates, 3 of which turned out to be quasars. These candidates are identified with the comment ‘CJ’ (core-jet) in the tables below.

In addition, for all radio doubles separated by $`<30\mathrm{}`$ in the survey area, optical counterparts were identified along the line joining the two radio sources under the assumption that the radio double has an FR II radio morphology in which the radio flux density from the core falls below the FIRST survey limit — i.e., radio-loud quasars with extremely small core-to-lobe ratios. The positional criteria were determined from an analysis of $`8000`$ optical counterparts to double radio sources in the FIRST survey (McMahon et al., 2001); we include sources within $`\pm 1.5\mathrm{}`$ of the line between the radio components and within $`\pm 2\mathrm{}`$ of the flux-weighted midpoint along the connecting line. This search added another 12 candidates to the program, of which 10 were found to be quasars. These candidates are designated with the comment ‘DBL’ (double) in the lists given below.

A simple search for quasars at the location of the core emission finds 96% of the radio-selected quasars. A more diligent search as outlined above finds an additional 4% of the quasars, and the majority of these are faint: for our limiting magnitude of $`R=17.8`$ in the northern survey, the results here imply that we are missing less than one quasar per 100 deg2 as a consequence of its morphology, or $`3`$% of the total bright quasar population. It is worth noting that the efficiency of finding quasars with the expanded procedure (57% of the candidates turn out to be quasars) is comparable to the efficiency of searching the core positions (68% of which are quasars).

### 2.1 Sample Biases

In Paper II, we used a series of histograms and plots to illustrate the degree to which our selection criteria might be biasing the sample. For example, Figures 2a and 2b in Paper II were histograms displaying the number of quasars as a function of angular separation between the radio and optical positions and the fraction of candidates which turned out to be quasars, also as a function of angular separation. The same histograms for this new sample are effectively identical; i.e., they show that very few quasars are found near the limiting separation of 1.2 arcsec. From this we still conclude that few quasars are lost due to a positional mismatch. The one obvious exception, quasars with radio jets, have now been searched for (as described above) with the result that only three additional quasars were found. While our method for going after core-jet sources is not foolproof — for example, we will still miss quasars where the jet is brighter than the core — it does suggest that these objects constitute a very small subsample of quasars.

The distribution of $`R`$ magnitudes for the current sample is quite different from that of Paper II for the simple reason that we have chosen to go $`1.1`$ magnitudes fainter in the SGP. Hence the histogram of the number of quasars vs. $`R`$ magnitude in Figure 2a rises sharply down to the survey limit of 19th magnitude. Figure 2b shows the success rate for finding quasars as a function of $`R`$. As in Paper II, the fraction increases with increasing magnitude before leveling off at 70% for candidates fainter than $`R`$ of 16.5. The lower success rate at brighter magnitudes is largely due to optically bright galaxies which the APM catalog has misclassified as stellar.

Going deeper has not resulted in a significant difference in the color of the quasars found. As shown in Figure 5a from Paper II, most of the quasars in the previous sample have O-E between 0 and 1. The same range is applicable for the $`BR`$ colors of the current sample; of candidates with $`BR>1.5`$, only 10% turn out to be quasars. There appears to be a shift of 0.1 magnitudes in the peak of the distribution (the current sample is slightly bluer), but this is possibly a consequence of the different bandpasses. Likewise a color-redshift plot for the current sample is very similar to the equivalent plot in Figure 6 of Paper II.

In Figure 3a we show a histogram of the number of quasars vs. the 20 cm radio flux density. As in Paper II, the number of quasars rises down to the flux density limit of the FIRST survey. Figure 3b demonstrates that we are nearly as efficient at finding radio-weak quasars as radio-bright quasars. In Figures 4a and 4b we show plots of radio luminosity and absolute $`R`$ magnitude vs. redshift. The radio luminosity plot is virtually indistinguishable from Figure 8a in Paper II, an unsurprising result given that both samples have the same radio flux density limit. The plot of $`M_R`$ (Fig. 4b) is strikingly different since here we are going 1.1 magnitudes deeper over a much smaller area. In this sample there is a relative paucity of very luminous quasars and a much stronger representation of lower luminosity quasars.

## 3 Optical Spectroscopy

Spectra were collected at a variety of observatories, including the Lick Shane 3-m telescope, the ‘classic’ MMT ($`6\times 1.8`$-m), the 10-m Keck-II Observatory, and the ESO 3.6-m telescope. Instrument parameters for the first three observatories are given in Table 1 of Paper II; for the ESO 3.6-m, we used the EFOSC2 (ESO Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera). The observations were made without regard to atmospheric transparency or seeing, so the flux calibration of the resulting spectra are not absolute. Where possible, the slit was oriented at the parallactic angle to minimize differential slit losses. Since the data were taken at a number of different sites with dissimilar spectrographs, the resolution and wavelength coverage are not uniform. In all cases the spectra were reduced using standard IRAF routines.

## 4 Spectroscopic Results

Spectra were obtained (or identifications determined from the literature) for 447 of the 522 quasar candidates, and were classified using the same conventions described in detail in Paper II. Briefly, we classified spectra as quasars if there were any broad emission lines with rest-frame equivalent widths greater than 5 Å; objects with weaker broad lines were classified as BL Lacs. We classified a spectrum as a narrow-line AGN if narrow lines were present in the spectra with ratios consistent with those expected for an AGN (i.e., \[O III\]$`\lambda 5007`$/H$`\beta `$ greater than 3 or \[N II\]$`\lambda 6583`$/H$`\alpha `$ greater than 0.6). Any spectra with narrow lines failing to meet these criteria were classified as H II/star-forming galaxies. Spectra with very weak or no emission lines were classified as normal galaxies, unless the Ca H & K 4000 Å break was less than 25% in which case they were assigned a classification of BL Lac. Spectra at zero redshift were deemed stars. In all, the distribution of objects was 321 quasars, 23 BL Lac, 31 AGN, 23 starburst, 17 normal galaxies, and 32 stars. The latter are roughly consistent with the expected chance coincidence rate (although a few are real detections of stellar radio sources – see Helfand et al., 1999); note that the putative double radio sources are overrepresented by a factor of $`3`$ in the stellar list, consistent with the factor of $`3`$ increase in the accepted matching area (12 arcsec2 vs. 4.5 arcsec2).

The fractions of the sample that are narrow-line AGN, BL Lacs, and normal galaxies are all roughly consistent with the fractions derived in our sample limited to $`R17.8`$. The fraction of H II galaxies, however, is lower by a factor of 3.5, a result of the fainter optical magnitude limit of this sample. The radio flux densities of most of the star-forming galaxies are very close to the FIRST threshold (85% have $`S_p<3.0`$ mJy). For a constant radio-to-optical flux ratio, lowering the optical magnitude limit by 1.2 magnitudes would render most of these objects undetectable. Finally, the fraction of quasars is considerably higher in this fainter sample, reflecting their steep $`N(m)`$ distribution.

In Tables 1–6 we list all the candidates with spectroscopic classifications. For each object we include the FIRST catalog RA and Dec (J2000), the recalibrated and extinction-corrected $`R`$ and $`B`$ magnitudes, the red extinction correction $`A(R)`$, and the FIRST peak and integrated radio flux densities. The radio-optical positional separation and APM star-galaxy classification (used to define the sample) are also given. The objects have been segregated into 6 tables by their optical spectral classification. Quasars are listed in Table 1, narrow line AGN in Table 2, BL Lac objects in Table 3, H II/star-forming galaxies in Table 4, galaxies without strong emission lines in Table 5, and stars in Table 6. Table 7 lists the objects for which spectra have not yet been obtained.

In Tables 1–5, we list the measured redshift (except for the 2/3 of the BL Lacs for which none was derivable from the spectrum). We use the redshift to calculate for each object the radio luminosity $`L_R`$ at a rest frequency of 5 GHz (assuming a radio spectral index of $`0.5`$), the absolute $`B`$ magnitude $`M_B`$, and, as a measure of radio loudness, the ratio $`R^{}`$ of the 5 GHz radio flux density to the 2500 Å optical flux in the quasar rest frame (assuming an optical spectral index of $`1`$ and the definition given by Stocke et al., 1992). The cosmological parameters $`H_0=50\text{km}\text{s}^1\text{Mpc}^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ were used for the luminosity calculations. There is also a comment column, which notes the details of particular interest such as whether objects were selected as core-jet or double sources, the presence of broad absorption lines (BALs) or damped Lyman alpha absorption lines, whether the object was previously known or, in NED, associated with a ROSAT or IRAS source.

The spectra for all the objects identified as quasars are displayed in the figure at the end of the paper.

## 5 Discussion

This new quasar sample contains half as many quasars as presented in Paper II. This is in part a reflection of two competing factors; a reduced survey area (600 square degrees vs. 2700 square degrees) and a fainter magnitude limit ($`R=18.9`$ vs. $`E=17.8`$). If we restrict the comparison to quasars brighter than $`R=17.8`$ and normalize for the area surveyed, we still find a unexpectedly small number of quasars in the new sample. For example, the areal densities (quasars per deg2) of quasars with $`R<17.8`$ and $`0.3<z<2.2`$ in Paper II and this paper are 0.203 and 0.149 respectively, i.e., this paper has 27% fewer bright quasars than expected based on Paper II. This difference is significant at the 2.9 sigma level. Since quasars have a very steep number/magnitude relation, even a small systematic error in the photometry of the two samples could account for much of the discrepancy. In fact, the entire effect could arise if this paper magnitudes were only 0.15 magnitudes too faint. Although we don’t believe the systematic errors are that large, even an error of 0.1 magnitudes could reduce the discrepancy to below 2 sigma.

Of course, the radio flux density limits for Paper II and this paper are nominally the same. Since the radio loudness is defined in terms of the ratio of radio to optical luminosity, the extra quasars found by going to fainter optical limits are, on average, more radio-loud. This can be seen in Figure 5 which shows a histogram of the number of quasars as a function of radio loudness. The histogram peaks at $`R^{}`$ greater than 10, whereas in the previous sample (see Fig. 15a in Paper II) the equivalent histogram peaks at 5. Therefore differences between the two samples will, in part, reveal factors that depend on radio loudness. Going to fainter optical magnitudes does not appreciably increase our sensitivity to nearby quasars because the rapid evolution of quasars means there are few nearby quasars to discover, and very low-luminosity, nearby quasars will not look stellar and hence do not get into the survey. Consequently, it is not surprising that this new sample tends to select a more distant set of quasars. In Figure 6 we show the histogram of the quasar redshifts. While in Paper II this distribution was flat between redshifts of 0–1.2 (see Fig. 12 in Paper II), this sample shows a significant decline for redshifts below 0.7.

One attribute of quasars which appears to correlate with radio-loudness is the likelihood of broad absorption lines (BALs) in a quasar spectrum. For a long time, it was thought that BALs only occur in radio-quiet quasars (Stocke et al., 1992). More recently, quasar searches based on the FIRST and NVSS radio surveys have found a number of radio-loud BAL quasars (Becker et al., 1997; Brotherton et al., 1998; Becker et al., 2000). However, the size of the samples has limited our ability to quantify how BAL frequency depends on radio-loudness. With this sample, it is worth revisiting this question. In Figure 7(b) we plot radio-loudness vs. redshift for the combined samples from this work and Paper II. The BALs are highlighted in the figure. It is clear from the figure that the BALs straddle the radio-loud/radio-quiet divide but do not seem to occur as often in the most radio-loud segment of the population.

The classification of quasars as BAL QSOs is somewhat problematic. One approach is to calculate a ‘BALnicity’ index following the prescription of Weymann et al. (1991), although in many ways this approach is too conservative (Becker et al., 2000). Table 8 gives the BALnicity indices for all our candidate BAL quasars; those with zero BALnicity values (that we nonetheless believe are likely to be BAL QSOs) are classified as ‘BAL?’. Believing in a democratic approach, we show all the spectra in the sample in Figure 9 so the reader can see for herself the features we are willing to call BALs. The figure also serves other purposes since many other phenomena are present in quasar spectra.

Figure 8 shows the fraction of BAL quasars (including 4 objects classified as ‘BAL?’) as a function of radio-loudness for the combined samples from Paper II and this paper. If the ‘BAL?’ objects were excluded, the plotted points would shift by less than the error bars. In examining Figures 7 and 8, it is worthwhile to note that there are three distinct types of BAL quasars: high ionization objects (HiBALs) that show broad absorption from C IV and Si IV; low ionization objects (LoBALs) that, in addition to C IV and Si IV, also show absorption due to Mg II and occasionally Al III $`\lambda 1858`$; and a rare class of LoBALs (FeLoBALs) that show superposed absorption from metastable excited states of Fe II. Since C IV does not move into our spectral window for $`z<1.5`$, identified HiBALs are limited to redshifts greater than 1.5. So while some of the low redshift quasars may be HiBALs, they cannot be recognized as such. Likewise some of the $`z>1.5`$ HiBALs might actually be LoBALs or FeLoBALs but since Mg II is shifted into the near IR at these redshifts, they cannot be so identified unless absorption by Al III is also present. For the most part, the fraction of BALs found among $`z>1.5`$ quasars can be taken as a proxy for the fraction of HiBALs. And by the same token, the fraction of quasars showing BALs in the redshift range of 0.5–1.5 can be taken as a proxy for the fraction of LoBALs.

In Becker et al. (2000), we found the fraction of quasars which are HiBALs and LoBALs (including FeLoBALs) among radio-selected quasars with $`R<17.8`$ to be 18% and 3% respectively. If we combine the current sample with those from Paper II and consider only quasars with a radio-loudness parameter $`R^{}<100`$, we get very similar numbers (17% and 3%; see Fig. 8). But for quasars with $`R^{}>100`$ the fraction of HiBALs and LoBALs drops to 4% and $`<1.5`$% respectively. (If the low-BALnicity ‘HiBAL?’ objects are omitted, the fraction of $`R^{}>100`$ quasars that are HiBALs drops to 3%.) While the apparent drop in the fraction of LoBALs among the most radio-loud quasars is not statistically significant (due to the small number of quasars that are LoBALs), the decrease in HiBALs is significant. We can rule out at 98.9% confidence the hypothesis that the $`R^{}<100`$ and $`R^{}>100`$ BAL fractions are the same for the $`z>1.5`$ sample. A two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Press et al., 1992) indicates the probability that the $`z>1.5`$ BAL and non-BAL quasars have the same $`R^{}`$ distribution is only 0.0053.

## 6 Editorial

The utility of quasar surveys has evolved with time. Today, with well over 10,000 quasars in the literature and many more to appear soon, the rationale for doing surveys is quite different than in the past. The need for ever larger surveys is being driven by the desire either to find large numbers of rare quasars or to nail down subtle correlations between quasar properties with massive numbers. As an example of the former, with this addition to the FBQS we are just beginning to discern the dependence of the BAL phenomena on radio-loudness. The fact is that current samples are still not large enough to provide quantities of very rare classes of quasars sufficient for reliable statistical analyses. Other areas of quasar research that are still limited by current sample size are gravitational lensing, the frequency and nature of damped Lyman alpha absorbers, the frequency and longevity of binary quasars, and quasar large-scale structure. Perhaps in five years when the SDSS 100,000 quasars and the 2dF 30,000 quasars are publically available, we may finally stop searching for more quasars. But we sincerely doubt it.

We acknowledge extensive use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The success of the FIRST survey is in large measure due to the generous support of a number of organizations. In particular, we acknowledge support from the NRAO, the NSF (grants AST-98-02791 and AST-98-02732), the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (operated under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48), the Space Telescope Science Institute, the National Geographic Society (grant NGS No. 5393-094), and Columbia University. F. Courbin acknowledges financial support from Chilean grant FONDECYT/3990024 and additional support from the European Southern Observatory.


text:
# Untitled Document

.

FTUAM 01-06

hep-ph/

April, 2001

Restriction on SUSY Masses from $`Z\text{hadrons}`$

M. J. Herrero and F. J. Ynduráin Departamento de Física Teórica, C-XI, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Canto Blanco, E-28049, Madrid, Spain.

Abstract   We remark that the precision of recent determinations of $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)`$ is such that one can get bounds on supersymmetric partner masses (squark and gluino) by requiring consistency of determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ at “low” energies, where those particles do not contribute, and on the $`Z`$ peak. For approximately degenerate squarks and gluinos with mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, we find the bound $`\stackrel{~}{m}173`$ GeV, at the $`2\sigma `$ level. At the $`2.5\sigma `$ level, $`\stackrel{~}{m}121`$ GeV.

1 Introduction

In the past years, determinations of the strong coupling at various energy scales have been performed with increasing degree of accuracy. In the table 1 we present a summary of those that have been pushed to the NNLO level, showing (as has become customary) the values of $`\alpha _s`$ extrapolated to the scale of the $`Z`$ mass.

Process  $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{Average}Q^2}{\text{or}Q^2\text{range}[GeV]^2}`$ $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)`$                  DIS $`\nu `$, Bj  1.58 $`0.121_{0.009}^{+0.005}`$    DIS $`\nu `$, GLS  3 $`0.112\pm 0.010`$    $`\tau `$ decays  $`(1.777)^2`$ $`0.1181\pm 0.0031`$    $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{h}`$  $`1001600`$ $`0.128\pm 0.025`$    $`e^+e^{}`$ h  $`2.5230`$ $`0.123\pm 0.007`$    ($`\nu N;xF_3`$)  $`8120`$ $`0.1153\pm 0.0041`$    $`ep`$  $`3.55000`$ $`0.1163\pm 0.0014`$    $`Z\mathrm{width}`$  $`(91.2)^2`$ $`0.1230\pm 0.0038`$    GrandLEP, on $`Z`$  $`(91.2)^2`$ $`0.1185\pm 0.0030`$

Table 1

We explain the entries in this table. DIS $`\nu `$ means deep inelastic scattering by neutrinos, Bj stands for the Bjorken, and GLS for the Gross–Llewellyn Smith sum rules. The value coming from $`\tau `$ decays is also included. The two entries $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{h}`$ refer to determinations from $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation to hadrons in PETRA and TRISTAN. All of these we have taken from the review of Bethke, where one can find references to original papers. The results labeled $`\nu N;xF_3`$ and $`ep`$ are from the very recent analysis of ref. 2, which improve (and supersede) those quoted by Bethke.

Finally, the figures for the last two processes recorded in Table 1,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _s^{\left(\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{width}\right)}(M_Z^2)=& 0.1230\pm 0.0038\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _s^{\left(\text{GrandLEP, on }Z\right)}(M_Z^2)=& 0.1185\pm 0.0030,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
we have taken the results of the LEP analyses, as updated in ref. 3, and corrected for the value $`M_H=115GeV`$ for the Higgs mass. The first value corresponds to the determination from the $`Z`$ hadronic width (to be more precise, from the ratio $`R_l=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{had}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$), and the second to that obtained with a fit to all LEP observables, on the $`Z`$ peak. We will however not use this last value here.

All determinations are compatible with one another, within errors. What is more, the precision of both the “low energy” ($`Q^2(70)^2GeV^2`$) and the determination given by the decay $`Zhadrons`$ or $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons on the $`Z`$ are, separately, such that we can use them to constrain effects of heavy particles (particles with mass larger than the $`Z`$ mass). In particular, here we will explore bounds on squarks and gluino masses, that for simplicity we take of the same order of magnitude: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{m}`$.

The strategy is as follows. Clearly, the values of the masses of SUSY particles has no influence on the determinations of $`\alpha _s`$ presented in the table above, except on those based on $`Z\text{hadrons}`$, or $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons on the $`Z`$, where the energy is much higher than those of the other processes. If we then evaluate the value of $`\alpha _s`$ obtained by averaging all determinations, excluding those obtained on the $`Z`$ peak, we find

$$\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)=0.116835\pm 0.00120.$$
$`(2)`$
The determination of $`\alpha _s`$ from $`Z`$ width showed in Table 1 was made fixing the mass of the Higgs particle to 115 GeV, and assuming no SUSY partners ($`\stackrel{~}{m}=\mathrm{}`$), and it is compatible with $`\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$, within errors. To be precise, we note that the value $`\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)`$ is slightly more than one sigma away from the average $`\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$; it is actually almost $`1.5\sigma `$ off. (In calculating this, we add in quadrature the errors in both $`\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$ and $`\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)`$ to get the effective error of $`\pm 0.0040`$). Likewise, the determination from $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons on the $`Z`$ is compatible with lower energy determinations (half a sigma away only). Actually, both determinations on the $`Z`$ produce results slighly higher than those found at lower energies. Now, when one calculates the corrections due to a Higgs particle, with a mass $`M_H>115`$ GeV, or SUSY contributions with particles of mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ (see below), they tend to increase the effective values of $`\alpha _s`$ on the $`Z`$ (for the Higgs, this occurs if increasing $`M_H`$). Therefore, if we now vary $`M_H`$ and/or $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, the quantity $`\alpha _s^{\left(\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{width}\right)}(M_Z^2)`$ will vary, separating even more from the low energy determination of $`\alpha _s`$: this will provide us with lower bounds on the SUSY masses.11 Upper bounds on the Higgs mass would also follow with the same procedure, but the results do not improve the bounds found with the standard method of fitting all observables; see e.g. ref. 3.

2 Bound on $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$

If squarks and gluinos existed with masses of the order of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, then they would contribute to the decay $`Z\text{hadrons}`$ through diagrams like those in Fig. 1. If we renormalize on the quark mass shell, then the contributions from the second diagram there cancel the divergence of the first. If we include SUSY effects, we then get the decay rate, to first order in $`\alpha _s`$, and neglecting quark masses,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\text{hadrons})=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\left\{1+\left[1K_{\mathrm{SUSY}}\right]\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\right\},$$
$`(3a)`$
and we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=& \frac{1}{18}J(M_Z^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2)\frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2},\hfill \\ \hfill J(\xi )=& \frac{12}{\xi }+\frac{24}{\xi ^2}_0^1dx\frac{[1\xi x(1x)]\mathrm{log}[1\xi x(1x)]}{1x}1+\frac{1}{15}\xi .\hfill \end{array}.$$
$`(3b)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is the partonic level decay width. We can interpret the value of $`\alpha _s`$ here as that obtained from lower energy determinations, that should not be contaminated by SUSY contributions; thus, we should take $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)=\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$, within allowed errors.

Figure 1.  Diagrams involving SUSY partners contributing to the decay $`Z\text{hadrons}`$, and to renormalization of the wave function.

On the other hand, the experimental figures given from $`Z`$ width in Table 1 are obtained neglecting possible SUSY contributions, so we also have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\text{hadrons})=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}\left\{1+\frac{\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)}{\pi }\right\}.$$
$`(4)`$
Equating with the previous expression, we find

$$\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)=\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)\left\{1\frac{1}{18}J(M_Z^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2)\frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\right\}.$$
$`(5)`$
and a similar formula for $`\alpha _s^{\left(\text{GrandLEP, on }Z\right)}(M_Z^2)`$.

We may fix the mass of the Higgs particle to its experimental value/lower bound, $`M_H=115GeV`$ as increasing it would only improve the bounds. Taking thus the value of $`\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)`$ as in Eq. (1) above we find that, unless $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is larger than a certain bound, we have, to satisfy Eq. (5), to push $`\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$ in Eq. (2) beyond its allowed limits of variation.

The bounds we obtain are then,

$$\stackrel{~}{m}\{\begin{array}{cc}173GeV,2\sigma \hfill & \\ 121GeV,2.5\sigma .\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
Note that, because the values of $`\alpha _s^{(Z\text{ width})}(M_Z^2)`$ and $`\alpha _s^{(\text{exc. }Z\text{ peak})}(M_Z^2)`$ differ by a little more than $`1.5\sigma `$, no bound can be given at the $`1.5\sigma `$ level.

These bounds are not very different from what one gets in studies with the Tevatron, but is perhaps more transparent and in particular independent on assumptions about decay properties of SUSY partners, and about SUSY GUT relations on masses and/or couplings.

Acknowledgments

The financial support of CICYT (Spain, proyecto # FPA 2000-0980), is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1.- S. Bethke, J. Phys. G26 (2000) R27.

2.- J. Santiago and F. J. Ynduráin, FTUAM 01-01, 2001 (hep-ph/0102247).

3.- D. Strom, “Electroweak measurements on the $`Z`$ resonance”, Talk presented at the 5th Int. Symposium on Radiative Corrections, RadCor2000, Carmel, Ca., September 2000. For discussion of the Higgs, see also E. Tournefier, Talk at the Int. Seminar “QUARKS ’98”, Suzdal (hep-ex/9810042).

4.- Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. Journal C15 (2000) 1.