text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A crucial prediction of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)  is the existence of at least one light Higgs boson. The search for this particle is one of the main goals at the present and the next generation of colliders. Direct searches at LEP have already ruled out a considerable fraction of the MSSM parameter space, and the forthcoming high-energy experiments at the Tevatron, the LHC and a future Linear Collider (LC) will either discover a light Higgs boson or rule out the MSSM as a viable theory for physics at the weak scale. Furthermore, if one or more Higgs bosons are discovered, their masses and couplings will be determined with high accuracy at a future LC. Thus, a precise knowledge of the dependence of the masses and mixing angles of the MSSM Higgs sector on the relevant supersymmetric parameters is of utmost importance to reliably compare the predictions of the MSSM with the (present and future) experimental results.

We recall that the Higgs sector of the MSSM  consists of two neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs bosons, $`h`$ and $`H`$ ($`m_h<m_H`$), the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd $`A`$ boson, and two charged Higgs bosons, $`H^\pm `$. At the tree-level, $`m_{h,\mathrm{tree}}`$ and $`m_{H,\mathrm{tree}}`$ can be calculated in terms of the Standard Model (SM) gauge couplings and two additional MSSM parameters, conventionally chosen as $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$). The two masses are obtained by rotating the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson mass matrix with an angle $`\alpha `$,

$`M_{\mathrm{Higgs}}^{2,\mathrm{tree}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_A^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta +M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta & (M_A^2+M_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta \\ (M_A^2+M_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta & M_A^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta +M_Z^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \end{array}\right),`$ (3)
with $`\alpha `$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\mathrm{tan}2\beta \frac{M_A^2+M_Z^2}{M_A^2M_Z^2},\frac{\pi }{2}<\alpha <0.$$
(4)
In the Feynman diagrammatic (FD) approach the higher-order corrected Higgs boson masses are derived by finding the poles of the $`h,H`$-propagator matrix whose inverse is given by

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Higgs}}\right)^1=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}p^2m_{H,\mathrm{tree}}^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(p^2)& \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(p^2)\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(p^2)& p^2m_{h,\mathrm{tree}}^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(p^2)\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(p^2)`$ denote the renormalized Higgs-boson self-energies, $`p`$ being the momentum flowing on the external legs. Determining the poles of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Higgs}}`$ in eq. (5) is equivalent to solving the equation

$$\left[p^2m_{h,\mathrm{tree}}^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hh}(p^2)\right]\left[p^2m_{H,\mathrm{tree}}^2+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{HH}(p^2)\right]\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{hH}(p^2)\right]^2=0.$$
(6)
The status of the available results for the self-energy contributions to eq. (5) can be summarized as follows. For the one-loop part, the complete result within the MSSM is known . The by far dominant one-loop contribution is the $`𝒪(\alpha _t)`$ term due to top and stop loops ($`\alpha _th_t^2/(4\pi )`$, $`h_t`$ being the superpotential top coupling). Concerning the two-loop effects, their computation is quite advanced and it has now reached a stage such that all the presumably dominant contributions are known. They include the strong corrections, usually indicated as $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$, and Yukawa corrections, $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$, to the dominant one-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t)`$ term, as well as the strong corrections to the bottom/sbottom one-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _b)`$ term ($`\alpha _bh_b^2/(4\pi )`$), i.e. the $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ contribution. The latter can be relevant for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Presently, the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ , $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$  and the $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$  contributions to the self-energies are known for vanishing external momenta. In the (s)bottom corrections the all-order resummation of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced terms, $`𝒪(\alpha _b(\alpha _s\mathrm{tan}\beta )^n)`$, is also performed .

In this paper we are going to present, in view of the recent achievements obtained in the knowledge of the two-loop corrections, updated results for various quantities of physical interest. In our analysis we employ the latest version of the Fortran code FeynHiggs , namely FeynHiggs1.3, that evaluates the MSSM neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs sector masses and the mixing angle.

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we give a brief summary of recent theoretical improvements in the MSSM Higgs sector and describe the corresponding modifications in the code FeynHiggs in order to comprise all existing higher-order results. We compare the results for $`m_h`$ obtained employing different approximations in the treatment of the two-loop corrections. In Section 3 we present the results for the phenomenological implications of our improved knowledge of the two-loop contributions to the Higgs boson self-energies. Section 4 contains a discussion of the presently unknown contributions in the prediction for the $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs-boson masses of the MSSM, and an estimate of their possible numerical importance is given. Finally, in Section 5 we draw our conclusions.

## 2 Recent improvements in the MSSM Higgs sector and implementation in FeynHiggs

In order to discuss the impact of recent improvements in the MSSM Higgs sector we will make use of the program FeynHiggs , which is a Fortran code for the evaluation of the neutral $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs sector of the MSSM including higher-order corrections to the renormalized Higgs boson self-energies. The original release included the well known full one-loop corrections , the two-loop leading, momentum-independent, $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ correction in the top/stop sector  as well as the two-loop leading logarithmic corrections at $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ . By two-loop momentum-independent corrections here and hereafter we mean the two-loop contributions to Higgs boson self-energies evaluated at zero external momenta. At the one-loop level, the momentum-independent contributions are the dominant part of the self-energy corrections, that, in principle, should be evaluated at external momenta equal to the poles of the $`h,H`$-propagator matrix, eq. (5).

The new version of FeynHiggs contains a modification in the one-loop part due to a different renormalization prescription employed and includes also several new corrections to the Higgs boson self-energies that have recently been calculated. These changes are described in the following subsections.

With the implementation of the latest results obtained in the MSSM Higgs sector, FeynHiggs comprises all available higher-order corrections and thus allows the presently most precise prediction of the masses of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs bosons and the corresponding mixing angle. The latest version of FeynHiggs, FeynHiggs1.3, can be obtained from www.feynhiggs.de.

### 2.1 Hybrid renormalization scheme at the one-loop level

FeynHiggs is based on the FD approach with on-shell renormalization conditions . This means in particular that all the masses in the FD result are the physical ones, i.e. they correspond to physical observables. Since eq. (6) is solved iteratively, the result for $`m_h`$ and $`m_H`$ contains a dependence on the field-renormalization constants of $`h`$ and $`H`$, which is formally of higher order. Accordingly, there is some freedom in choosing appropriate renormalization conditions for fixing the field-renormalization constants (this can also be interpreted as affecting the renormalization of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$). Different renormalization conditions have been considered in the literature, e.g. ($`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}`$ denotes the derivative with respect to the external momentum squared):

1. on-shell renormalization for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{AZ}`$, and $`\delta v_1/v_1=\delta v_2/v_2`$
2. on-shell renormalization for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{AZ}`$, and $`\delta v_i=\delta v_{i,\mathrm{div}},i=1,2`$
3. on-shell renormalization for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_Z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_A`$ , $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ renormalization (employing dimensional reduction ) for $`\delta Z_h,\delta Z_H`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ .

Versions of FeynHiggs previous than the 1.2 release were based on type-1 renormalization conditions, thus requiring the derivative of the $`A`$ boson self-energy. The latest versions employ instead the hybrid $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$/on-shell type 3 conditions. The choice of a $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ definition111 A minimal definition for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the field renormalization constants was already employed in Ref. , in the analysis of the one-loop (s)top–(s)bottom contribution to the Higgs boson self-energies.  for $`\delta Z_h,\delta Z_H`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ requires to specify a renormalization scale $`Q^2`$ at which these parameters are defined. This scale is set to $`m_t^2`$ in FeynHiggs, but can be changed by the user. These new renormalization conditions lead to a more stable behavior around thresholds, e.g. $`M_A=2m_t`$, and avoid unphysically large contributions in certain regions of the MSSM parameter space (a detailed discussion can be found in Ref. ; see also Ref. ).

### 2.2 Two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections

In the previous version of FeynHiggs the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections were implemented in a simplified form, taken over from the result of , obtained with the renormalization group (RG) method. The latter result included the two-loop leading logarithmic corrections, proportional to the square of $`t\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2/m_t^2)`$ (where $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is a common scale for the soft SUSY-breaking parameters), while the next-to-leading logarithmic terms, linear in $`t`$, were not totally accounted for.

Recently, the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections in the limit of zero external momentum became available, first only for the lightest eigenvalue, $`m_h`$, and in the limit $`M_AM_Z`$ , then for all the entries of the Higgs propagator matrix for arbitrary values of $`M_A`$ . They were obtained in the effective-potential approach, that allows to construct the Higgs boson self-energies, at zero external momenta, by taking the relevant derivatives of the field-dependent potential. In this procedure it is important, in order to make contact with the physical $`M_A`$, to compute the effective potential as a function of both $`𝒞𝒫`$-even and $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd fields, as emphasized in Ref. . In the evaluation of the $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections, the specification of a renormalization prescription for the Higgs mixing parameter $`\mu `$ is also required and it has been chosen as $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$. In FeynHiggs1.3, which includes the complete two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections, the corresponding renormalization scale is fixed to be the same as for $`\delta Z_h,\delta Z_H`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The availability of the complete result for the momentum-independent part of the $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections allows us to judge the quality of results that incorporate only the logarithmic contributions. In Fig. 1 we plot the two-loop corrected $`m_h`$ as a function of the stop mixing parameter, $`X_tA_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where $`A_t`$ denotes the trilinear soft SUSY breaking Higgs–stop coupling. We use the following convention for the stop mass matrix,

$$_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2+m_t^2+\mathrm{cos}2\beta (\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}s_W^2)M_Z^2& m_tX_t\\ m_tX_t& M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2+m_t^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{cos}2\beta s_W^2M_Z^2\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
For simplicity, the soft SUSY breaking parameters in the diagonal entries of the stop mass matrix, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L},M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$, are chosen to be equal, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. For the numerical analysis $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ as well as $`M_A`$ and $`\mu `$, are chosen to be all equal to $`1\mathrm{TeV}`$, while the gluino mass is $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$. If not otherwise stated, in all plots below we choose the trilinear couplings in the stop and sbottom sectors equal to each other, $`A_b=A_t`$, and set $`M_2=M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, where $`M_2`$ is the SU(2) gaugino mass parameter (the U(1) gaugino mass parameter is obtained via the GUT relation, $`M_1=5/3s_W^2/c_W^2M_2`$).

The solid and dotted lines in Fig. 1 are computed with and without the inclusion of the full $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections, while the dashed and dot–dashed ones are obtained including only the logarithmic contributions. In particular, the dashed curve corresponds to the result of , obtained with the one-loop renormalization group method. The dot–dashed curve, instead, corresponds to the leading and next-to-leading logarithmic terms that, within this simplifying choice of the MSSM parameters, can be easily singled out from the complete $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ result. As mentioned above, the two approximate results agree with each other in the terms proportional to $`t^2`$, whereas they disagree in the terms linear in $`t`$, giving rise to the difference between the dashed and dot–dashed curves. In fact, as long as one is only concerned about the leading logarithmic terms, it is correct to use in the renormalization group equations (RGE) for the Higgs quartic couplings the one-loop $`\beta `$-function as is done in Ref. . Moreover, the exact definition of the various parameters in the one-loop part is not important. Instead, when the next-to-leading logarithmic terms are examined the two-loop $`\beta `$-function has to be employed, giving rise to additional single logarithmic terms at the two-loop order. Furthermore, the results from  are valid under the assumption that the one-loop part of the corrections is written in terms of running SM parameters in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme, whereas the one-loop computation in FeynHiggs employs on-shell parameters. As discussed in , this amounts to a shift in the two-loop corrections that also affects the next-to-leading logarithmic part of the $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ results.

From Fig. 1 it can also be seen that, for small $`X_t`$, the full $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ result is very well reproduced by the logarithmic approximation, once the next-to-leading terms are correctly taken into account. On the other hand, when $`X_t`$ is large there are significant differences, amounting to several GeV, between the logarithmic approximation and the full result. Such differences are due to non-logarithmic terms that scale like powers of $`X_t/M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. It should be noted that for more general choices of the MSSM parameters the renormalization group method becomes rather involved (see e.g. , where the case of a large splitting between $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}`$ is discussed), and a suitable next-to-leading logarithmic approximation to the full result is much more difficult to devise.

### 2.3 Two-loop sbottom corrections

Due to the smallness of the bottom mass, the $`𝒪(\alpha _b)`$ one-loop corrections to the Higgs boson self-energies can be numerically non-negligible only for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ and sizable values of the $`\mu `$ parameter. In fact, at the classical level $`h_b/h_t=(m_b/m_t)\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, thus $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ is needed in order to have $`\alpha _b\alpha _t`$ in spite of $`m_bm_t`$. In contrast to the $`𝒪(\alpha _t)`$ corrections where both top and stop loops give sizable contributions, in the case of the $`𝒪(\alpha _b)`$ corrections the numerically dominant contributions come from sbottom loops: those coming from bottom loops are always suppressed by the small value of the bottom mass. A sizable value of $`\mu `$ is then required to have sizable sbottom–Higgs scalar interactions in the large-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit.

The relation between the bottom-quark mass and the Yukawa coupling $`h_b`$, which controls also the interaction between the Higgs fields and the sbottom squarks, reads at lowest order $`m_b=h_bv_1/\sqrt{2}`$. This relation is affected at one-loop order by large radiative corrections , proportional to $`h_bv_2`$, giving rise in general to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced contributions. These terms proportional to $`v_2`$, often indicated as threshold corrections to the bottom mass, are generated either by gluino–sbottom one-loop diagrams, resulting in $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ corrections to the Higgs masses, or by chargino–stop ones, giving $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _t)`$ corrections. Because the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced contributions can be numerically relevant, an accurate determination of $`h_b`$ from the experimental value of the bottom mass requires a resummation of such effects to all orders in the perturbative expansion, as described in Ref. .

Concerning the sbottom corrections to the renormalized Higgs boson self-energies, the version 1.2.2 of FeynHiggs included the full one-loop contribution, improved by the resummation of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced effects in the relation between $`h_b`$ and $`m_b`$ according to the effective Lagrangian formalism developed in Ref. . This takes into account the $`𝒪(\alpha _b(\alpha _s\mathrm{tan}\beta )^n)`$ corrections to all orders in $`n`$. Numerically this is by far the dominant part of the contributions from the sbottom sector.

Very recently, the complete two-loop, momentum-independent, $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ corrections (which are not included in the $`𝒪(\alpha _b(\alpha _s\mathrm{tan}\beta )^n)`$ resummation) have been computed . The result obtained makes use of an appropriate choice of renormalization conditions on the relevant parameters that allows to disentangle the genuine two-loop effects from the large threshold corrections to the bottom mass, and also ensures the decoupling of heavy gluinos. The complete momentum-independent $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ corrections have now also been implemented in FeynHiggs1.3.

To appreciate the importance of the various sbottom contributions, we plot in Fig. 2 the light Higgs mass $`m_h`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The SM running bottom mass computed at the top mass scale, $`m_b(m_t)=2.74`$ GeV, is used in order to account for the universal large QCD corrections. The relevant MSSM parameters are chosen as $`M_A=120`$ GeV, $`\mu =1`$ TeV, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=1`$ TeV, $`A_t=A_b=2`$ TeV (where $`M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}`$ is a soft SUSY breaking parameter in the sbottom sector). The dot–dashed curve in Fig. 2 includes the full one-loop contribution as well as the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s+\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections (the latter being approximately $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-independent when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large). The dashed curve includes also the resummation of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced threshold effects in the relation between $`h_b`$ and $`m_b`$. Finally, the solid curve includes in addition the complete $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ two-loop corrections of . In the last two curves, the steep dependence of $`m_h`$ on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ when the latter is large is driven by the sbottom contributions. We see that, although the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced threshold effects account for the bulk of the sbottom contributions beyond one-loop, the genuine $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ two-loop corrections can still shift $`m_h`$ by several GeV for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu `$.222 In the region of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the bottom Yukawa coupling receives large corrections, see eq. (10) below. For the parameter range shown in Fig. 2 the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$, defined in eq. (10), is negative but does not get close to $`1`$, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_b|\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.6}`$. Thus, the perturbative treatment in Fig. 2 seems to be justified.

## 3 Phenomenological implications

The improved knowledge of the two-loop contributions to the Higgs-boson self-energies results in a very precise prediction for the Higgs-boson masses and mixing angle with interesting implications for MSSM parameter space analyses. In this section we are going to discuss possible implications on the upper limit on $`m_h`$ within the MSSM and on the corresponding limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ arising from confronting the upper bound on $`m_h`$ with the lower limit from Higgs searches. We furthermore investigate the modifications that are induced in the couplings of the lightest Higgs boson to the down-type fermions.

### 3.1 Limits on $`m_h`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$

The theoretical upper bound on the lightest Higgs-boson mass as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be combined with the results from direct searches at LEP to constrain $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The diagonalization of the tree-level mass matrix, eq. (3), yields a value for $`m_{h,\mathrm{tree}}`$ that is maximal when $`M_AM_Z`$, in which case $`m_{h,\mathrm{tree}}^2M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta `$, which vanishes for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1`$. Radiative corrections significantly increase the light Higgs-boson mass compared to its tree-level value, but still $`m_h`$ is minimized for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ around one. Thus, in principle, the region of low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be probed experimentally via the search for the lightest MSSM Higgs boson . If the remaining MSSM parameters are tuned in such a way to obtain the maximal value of $`m_h`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (for reasonable values of $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and taking into account the experimental uncertainties of $`m_t`$ and the other SM input parameters as well as the theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections), the experimental lower bound on $`m_h`$ can be used to obtain exclusion limits for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. While in general a detailed investigation of a variety of different possible production and decay modes is necessary in order to determine whether a particular point of the MSSM parameter space can be excluded via the Higgs searches or not, the situation simplifies considerably in the region of small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. In this parameter region the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson of the MSSM couples to the $`Z`$ boson with SM-like strength, and its decay into a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair is not significantly suppressed. Thus, within good approximation, constraints on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be obtained in this parameter region by confronting the exclusion bound on the SM Higgs boson with the upper limit on $`m_h`$ within the MSSM. We use this approach below in order to discuss the implications of the new $`m_h`$ evaluation on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ exclusion bounds.

Concerning the upper bound on $`m_h`$ within the MSSM, the one-loop corrections contribute positively to $`m_h^2`$. The two-loop effects of $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$, on the other hand, enter with competing signs, the former reducing $`m_h^2`$ while the latter giving a (smaller) positive contribution. The actual bound that can be derived depends sensitively on the precise value of the top-quark mass, because the dominant one-loop contribution to $`m_h^2`$, as well as the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ term, scale as $`m_t^4`$. Furthermore, a large top mass amplifies the relative importance of the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ correction, because of the additional $`m_t^2`$ factor.

In order to discuss restrictions on the MSSM parameter space it has become customary in the recent years to refer to so-called benchmark scenarios of MSSM parameters . The $`m_h^{\mathrm{max}}`$ benchmark scenario  has been designed such that for fixed values of $`m_t`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ the predicted value of the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs-boson mass is maximized for each value of $`M_A`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The value of the top-quark mass is fixed to its experimental central value, $`m_t=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, while the SUSY parameters are taken as (referring to their on-shell values according to the FD result as implemented in FeynHiggs):

$`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1\mathrm{TeV},\mu =200\mathrm{GeV},M_2=200\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`X_t^{\mathrm{FD}}=2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}},A_b=A_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=0.8M_{\mathrm{SUSY}},`$ (8)
and we will investigate below the case $`M_A=1`$ TeV.

In Fig. 3 we plot $`m_h`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the $`m_h^{\mathrm{max}}`$ scenario. The dashed and solid curves correspond to the result obtained with the previous (used for the LEP evaluations so far ) and the latest (which will be used for the final LEP evaluations ) versions of FeynHiggs, respectively. The two versions, FeynHiggs1.0 and FeynHiggs1.3, differ by the recent improvements obtained in the MSSM Higgs sector which are described in Sect. 2. For comparison, also the result obtained with a renormalization-group improved effective potential method is indicated. The dotted curve in Fig. 3 corresponds to the code subhpoledm  in the $`m_h^{\mathrm{max}}`$ scenario, for a $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ mixing parameter $`X_t^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=\sqrt{6}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ . It deviates from the result of FeynHiggs1.0 by typically not more than 1 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$. The LEP exclusion bound for the mass of a SM-like Higgs , $`M_H^{\mathrm{SM}}114.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, is shown in the figure as a vertical long–dashed line. As can be seen from the figure, the improvements on the theoretical prediction described in Sect. 2, in particular the inclusion of the complete momentum-independent $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections into FeynHiggs, gives rise to a significant increase in the upper bound on $`m_h`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Comparison of this prediction with the exclusion bound on a SM-like Higgs shows that the lower limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is considerably weakened.

Concerning the interpretation of the results shown in Fig. 3, it should be kept in mind that in the $`m_h^{\mathrm{max}}`$ benchmark scenario $`m_t`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ are kept fixed, and no theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections are taken into account. In order to arrive at a more general exclusion bound on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ that is not restricted to a particular benchmark scenario, the impact of the parametric and higher-order uncertainties in the prediction for $`m_h`$ has to be considered . In order to demonstrate in particular the dependence of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ exclusion bound on the chosen value of the top pole mass, the dot–dashed curve in Fig. 3 shows the result obtained with FeynHiggs1.3 where the top-quark mass has been increased by one standard deviation, $`\sigma _{m_t}=5.1\mathrm{GeV}`$, to $`m_t=179.4\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ has been changed from 1 TeV to 2 TeV. It can be seen that in this more general scenario no lower limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the LEP Higgs searches can be obtained.

Constraints from the Higgs searches at LEP do of course play an important role in regions of the MSSM parameter space where the parameters are such that $`m_h`$ does not reach its maximum value. Also in this case, however, the remaining theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections (see Sect. 4 below) have to be taken into account in order to obtain conservative exclusion limits.

### 3.2 Higgs couplings to fermions

The tree-level couplings of the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson to the up-type and down-type SM fermions read, respectively:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^u=\frac{iem_u}{2s_WM_W}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta },\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^d=\frac{iem_d}{2s_WM_W}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}\beta },$$
(9)
where the factors involving $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ reflect the changes in the MSSM compared to the SM couplings. In the limit of $`M_AM_Z`$, $`\alpha \beta \pi /2`$ so that the SM limit is recovered. For the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson the decay to two bottom quarks is usually the main decay mode, while the decay to $`\tau `$ leptons has usually the second largest branching ratio. However, these channels are also most significantly affected by loop corrections, which can change the situation described above quantitatively and even qualitatively. The two main sources (besides the SM QCD corrections) are the Higgs-boson propagator corrections and the corrections modifying the relation between the bottom quark or $`\tau `$ lepton mass and the corresponding Yukawa couplings.

Concerning the former, it has been shown analytically  that the momentum-independent contributions coming from the Higgs-boson propagator corrections can be incorporated by replacing the tree-level angle $`\alpha `$ in eq. (9) with an effective angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, which diagonalizes the Higgs-boson mass matrix including the self-energy corrections evaluated at zero external momentum. Due to the effect of the higher-order corrections, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ is possible, i.e. the coupling of the lightest Higgs boson to the down-type SM fermions can vanish.

The other potentially large corrections to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^d`$ couplings come from the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced threshold effects in the relation between the down-type fermion mass and the corresponding Yukawa coupling , already mentioned in Sect. 2.3. A simple way to take into account these effects is to employ the effective lagrangian formalism of Refs. , where the coupling of the lightest Higgs boson to down-type fermions (expressed through the fermion mass) is modified according to

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^d\right)_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{iem_d}{2s_WM_W}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }\left[1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_d}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }_d}(1+\mathrm{cot}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{cot}\beta )\right],$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ contains the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced terms, and other subleading (i.e. non $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-enhanced) corrections have been omitted. In the case of the coupling to the bottom quarks, the leading contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_b`$ are of $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _t)`$, coming from diagrams with sbottom–gluino and stop–chargino loops, respectively. In the case of the $`\tau `$ leptons, the leading contributions are of $`𝒪(\alpha _\tau )`$, coming from sneutrino–chargino loops. The terms containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ in eq. (10) may be relevant for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and moderate values of $`M_A`$. When $`M_A`$ is much bigger than $`M_Z`$, the product $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{cot}\beta `$ tends to $`1`$, and the SM limit is again recovered.

The effects of the higher-order corrections to the couplings of the lightest Higgs boson to the down-type fermions appear very pronounced in the “small $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$” scenario , corresponding to the following choice of MSSM parameters:

$`m_t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}174.3}\mathrm{GeV},M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}800}\mathrm{GeV},X_t^{\mathrm{FD}}=1100\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`\mu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}},M_2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}500}\mathrm{GeV},A_b=A_t,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}500}\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (11)
In the upper row of Fig. 4 we show the ratio $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ in the $`M_A`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane, evaluated in the “small $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$” scenario. As explained above, replacing $`\alpha `$ by $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the tree-level couplings of eq. (9) gives rise to regions in the $`M_A`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane where the effective coupling of the lightest Higgs boson to the down-type fermions is significantly suppressed with respect to the Standard Model. The region of significant suppression of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ as evaluated with FeynHiggs1.0, i.e. without the inclusion of the sbottom corrections beyond one-loop order, is shown in the upper left plot. The upper right plot shows the corresponding result as evaluated with FeynHiggs1.3, where the $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _b(\alpha _s\mathrm{tan}\beta )^n)`$ corrections as well as the new $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ ones are included. The new corrections are seen to have a drastic impact on the region where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ is small. While without the new corrections a suppression of 70% or more occurs only in a small area of the $`M_A`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-plane for $`20\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}40}`$ and $`100\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{}M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}200}\mathrm{GeV}`$, the region where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ is very small becomes much larger once these corrections are included. It now reaches from $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}15}`$ to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >50`$, and from $`M_A\stackrel{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}100}\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`M_A\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}350}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The main reason for the change is that the one-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _b)`$ corrections to the Higgs-boson mass matrix, which for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ would prevent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ from going to zero, are heavily suppressed by the resummation of the $`𝒪(\alpha _b(\alpha _s\mathrm{tan}\beta )^n)`$ corrections in the bottom Yukawa coupling. This kind of suppression depends strongly on the chosen MSSM parameters, and especially on the sign of $`\mu `$.

In order to interpret the physical impact of the effective coupling shown in the upper row of Fig. 4, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ terms in eq. (10) as well as further genuine loop corrections occuring in the $`hb\overline{b}`$ process have to be taken into account. The effect of these contributions can be seen from the plot in the lower row of Fig. 4, where the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})_{\mathrm{MSSM}}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is shown, which has been evaluated by including all terms of eq. (10) as well as all further corrections described in Ref. . The region where the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hb\overline{b})`$ within the MSSM is suppressed compared to its SM value is seen to be somewhat reduced and shifted towards smaller values of $`M_A`$ as compared to the region where $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$ is small.

## 4 Estimate of the theoretical accuracy of the Higgs-boson mass determination

The prediction for $`m_h`$ in the MSSM is affected by two kinds of uncertainties, parametric uncertainties from the experimental errors of the input parameters and uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections. While currently the parametric uncertainties dominate over those from unknown higher-order corrections, as the present experimental error of the top-quark mass of about $`\pm 5`$ GeV induces an uncertainty of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_h\pm 5`$ GeV , at the next generation of colliders $`m_t`$ will be measured with a much higher precision, reaching the level of about 0.1 GeV at an $`e^+e^{}`$ LC . Thus, a precise measurement of $`m_h`$ will provide a high sensitivity to SUSY loop effects and will in this way allow a stringent test of the MSSM, provided that the uncertainties from unknown higher-order corrections are sufficiently well under control.

Given our present knowledge of the two-loop contributions to the Higgs-boson self-energies, the theoretical accuracy reached in the prediction for the $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs-boson masses is quite advanced. However, obtaining a complete two-loop result for the Higgs-boson masses and mixing angle requires additional contributions that are not yet available. In this section we discuss the possible effect of the missing two-loop corrections, and we estimate the size of the higher-order (i.e. three-loop) contributions.

### 4.1 Missing two-loop corrections

It is customary to separate the corrections to the Higgs boson self-energies into two parts: i) the momentum-independent part, namely the contributions to the self-energies evaluated at zero external momenta, which can also be computed in the effective potential approach; ii) the momentum-dependent corrections, i.e. the effects induced by the dependence on the external momenta of the self-energies, that are required to determine the poles of the $`h,H`$-propagator matrix.

All the presently known two-loop contributions are computed at zero external momentum, and moreover they are obtained in the so-called gaugeless limit, namely by switching off the electroweak gauge interactions. The two approximations are in fact related, since the leading Yukawa corrections are obtained by neglecting both the momentum dependence and the gauge interactions. In order to systematically improve the result beyond the approximation of the leading Yukawa terms, both effects from the gauge interactions and the momentum dependence should be taken into account.

In the limit where the momentum dependence and the gauge interactions are neglected, the only missing contributions are the mixed two-loop Yukawa terms, $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _b)`$, and the $`𝒪(\alpha _b^2)`$ corrections (and analogous contributions proportional to the Yukawa couplings of the other fermions and sfermions, which however are expected to give significantly smaller contributions than the third generation quarks and scalar quarks). As in the case of the $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ corrections, they can be numerically relevant only for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and of the $`\mu `$ parameter. Concerning the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _b)`$ corrections, although their computation is not yet available, it is plausible to assume that the most relevant contributions are connected to the threshold effects in the bottom mass coming from chargino–stop loops , which are actually already implemented in FeynHiggs as an additional option. An estimate of the $`𝒪(\alpha _b^2)`$ corrections for a simplified choice of the MSSM parameters is presented in Ref. . According to that discussion, their effect can be at most comparable to that of the genuine $`𝒪(\alpha _b\alpha _s)`$ corrections, the latter being exemplified in Fig. 2 by the difference between the dashed and solid curves.

To try to estimate, although in a very rough way, the importance of the various contributions we look at their relative size in the one-loop part. There, in the effective potential part, the effect of the $`𝒪(\alpha _t)`$ corrections typically amounts to an increase in $`m_h`$ of 40–60 GeV, depending on the choice of the MSSM parameters, whereas the corrections due to the electroweak (D-term) Higgs–squark interactions usually decrease $`m_h`$ by less than 5 GeV . Instead, the purely electroweak gauge corrections to $`m_h`$, namely those coming from Higgs, gauge boson and chargino or neutralino loops , are typically quite small at one-loop, and can reach at most 5 GeV in specific regions of the parameter space (namely for large values of $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$). Concerning the effects induced by the dependence on the external momentum, as a general rule we expect them to be more relevant in the determination of the heaviest eigenvalue $`m_H`$ of the Higgs-boson mass matrix, and when $`M_A`$ is larger than $`M_Z`$. Indeed, only in this case the self-energies are evaluated at external momenta comparable to or larger than the masses circulating into the dominant loops. In addition, if $`M_A`$ is much larger than $`M_Z`$, the relative importance of these corrections decreases, since the tree-level value of $`m_H`$ grows with $`M_A`$. In fact, the effect of the one-loop momentum-dependent corrections on $`m_h`$ amounts generally to less than 2 GeV.

Assuming that the relative size of the two-loop contributions follows a pattern similar to the one-loop part, we estimate that the two-loop diagrams involving D-term interactions should induce a variation in $`m_h`$ of at most 1–2 GeV, while we expect those with pure gauge electroweak interactions to contribute to $`m_h`$ not very significantly, probably of the order of 1 GeV or less. Given the smallness of the one-loop contribution it seems quite unlikely that the effect of the momentum-dependent part of the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ corrections to $`m_h`$, which should be the largest among this type of two-loop contributions, could be larger than 1 GeV. As already said, the situation can, in principle, be different for the heavier Higgs-boson mass. However, the corrections to $`m_H`$ are relatively small in general and at one-loop level for most parts of the MSSM parameter space the momentum-dependent corrections are not particularly relevant. The momentum-dependent corrections turn out to be more relevant in processes where the $`H`$ boson appears as an external particle, see Ref. .

Another way of estimating the uncertainties of the kind discussed above is to investigate the renormalization scale dependence introduced via the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ definition of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$, and the Higgs field renormalization constants. Varying the scale parameter between $`0.5m_t`$ and $`2m_t`$ gives rise to a shift in $`m_h`$ of about $`\pm 1.5`$ GeV , in accordance with the estimates above.

### 4.2 Estimate of the uncertainties from unknown three-loop corrections

Even in the case that a complete two-loop computation of the MSSM Higgs masses is achieved, non-negligible uncertainties will remain, due to the effect of higher-order corrections. Although a three-loop computation of the Higgs masses is not available so far, it is possible to give at least a rough estimate for the size of these unknown contributions.

A first estimate can be obtained by varying the renormalization scheme in which the parameters entering the two-loop part of the corrections are expressed. In fact, the resulting difference in the numerical results amounts formally to a three-loop effect. Since the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s+\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections are particularly sensitive to the value of the top mass, we compare the predictions for $`m_h`$ obtained using in the two-loop corrections either the top pole mass, $`m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}=174.3\mathrm{GeV}`$, or the SM running top mass $`\overline{m}_t`$, expressed in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ renormalization scheme, i.e.

$$\overline{m}_tm_t(m_t)_{\mathrm{SM}}^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}\frac{m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}}{1+4\alpha _s(m_t)/3\pi \alpha _t(m_t)/2\pi }.$$
(12)
Inserting appropriate values for the SM running couplings $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _t`$ we find $`\overline{m}_t=168.6\mathrm{GeV}`$. In Fig. 5 we show the effect of changing the renormalization scheme for $`m_t`$ in the two-loop part of the corrections. The relevant MSSM parameters are chosen as in Fig. 1, i.e. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=M_A=\mu =1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=800\mathrm{GeV}`$. The dot–dashed and dotted curves show the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ predictions for $`m_h`$ obtained using $`m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}`$ or $`\overline{m}_t`$, respectively, in the two-loop corrections. The solid and dashed curves, instead, show the corresponding $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s+\alpha _t^2)`$ predictions for $`m_h`$. The difference in the two latter curves induced by the shift in $`m_t`$, which should give an indication of the size of the unknown three-loop corrections, is of the order of 1–1.5 GeV. However, as can be seen from the figure, the effect of the shift in $`m_t`$ partially cancels between the $`𝒪(\alpha _t\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections and there is no guarantee that such a compensating effect will appear again in the three-loop corrections.

An alternative way of estimating the typical size of the leading three-loop corrections makes use of the renormalization group approach. If all the supersymmetric particles (including the $`𝒞𝒫`$-odd Higgs boson $`A`$) have mass $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, and $`\beta =\pi /2`$, the effective theory at scales below $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is just the SM, with the role of the Higgs doublet played by the doublet that gives mass to the up-type quarks. In this simplified case, it is easy to apply the techniques of Refs.  in order to obtain the leading logarithmic corrections to $`m_h`$ up to three loops (see also Ref. ). Considering for further simplification the case of zero stop mixing, we find:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_h^2\right)^{\mathrm{LL}}=\frac{3\alpha _t\overline{m}_t^2}{\pi }t\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\left(\frac{3}{8}\alpha _t2\alpha _s\right)\frac{t}{\pi }+\left(\frac{23}{6}\alpha _s^2\frac{5}{4}\alpha _s\alpha _t\frac{33}{64}\alpha _t^2\right)\frac{t^2}{\pi ^2}+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(13)
where $`t=\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2/\overline{m}_t^2)`$, $`\overline{m}_t`$ is defined in eq. (12), $`\alpha _t`$ and $`\alpha _s`$ have to be interpreted as SM running quantities computed at the scale $`Q=\overline{m}_t`$, and the ellipses stand for higher loop contributions. It can be checked that, for $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1\mathrm{TeV}`$, the effect of the three-loop leading logarithmic terms amounts to an increase in $`m_h`$ of the order of 1–1.5 GeV. If $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is pushed to larger values, the relative importance of the higher-order logarithmic corrections obviously increases. In that case, it becomes necessary to resum the logarithmic corrections to all orders, by solving the appropriate renormalization group equations numerically. Since it is unlikely that a complete three-loop diagrammatic computation of the MSSM Higgs-boson masses will be available in the near future, it will probably be necessary to combine different approaches (e.g. diagrammatic, effective potential and renormalization group), in order to improve the accuracy of the theoretical predictions up to the level required to compare with the experimental results expected at the next generation of colliders.

To summarize this discussion, the uncertainty in the prediction for the lightest $`𝒞𝒫`$-even Higgs boson arising from not yet calculatated three-loop and even higher-order corrections can conservatively be estimated to be 1–2 GeV. From the various missing two-loop corrections an uncertainty of less than 3 GeV is expected. However, it is extremely unlikely that all these effects would coherently sum up, with no partial compensation among them. Therefore we believe that a realistic estimate of the uncertainty from unknown higher-order corrections in the theoretical prediction for the lightest Higgs boson mass should not exceed $`3\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed the phenomenological impact of recently obtained results in the MSSM Higgs sector. The new corrections have now been implemented in the code FeynHiggs, which in this way provides the currently most precise evaluation of the masses and mixing angles of the $`𝒞𝒫`$-even MSSM Higgs sector. We have analyzed the effects of these new contributions by comparing the results obtained with FeynHiggs1.3, the newest version of the code that incorporates all these effects, with those derived with previous versions in which the two-loop $`𝒪(\alpha _t^2)`$ corrections were implemented via a renormalization group method and the sbottom corrections beyond one-loop were not taken into account.

As a result of these improvements the lower limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ that can be derived by combining the theoretical upper bound on $`m_h`$ with its experimental lower bound, are significantly weakened. We have also shown that, if the top-quark mass is increased by one standard deviation, the constraint on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ completely disappears if the other MSSM parameters are such that $`m_h`$ takes its maximum value as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Concerning the coupling of the lightest Higgs boson to the down-type fermions, that is related to the angle that diagonalizes the Higgs boson mass matrix including higher order corrections, we have shown that the area in the $`M_A`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$-plane where its value gets suppressed by $`70\%`$ or more with respect to the SM one is significantly modified.

Finally, we have given an estimate of the uncertainties related to the various kinds of two- and three-loop contributions to the Higgs boson masses that are still unknown. Since it is extremely unlikely that all these effects would coherently sum up, the uncertainty in the theoretical prediction for the lightest MSSM Higgs boson mass from unknown two- and three-loop corrections should not exceed $`3\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## Acknowledgments

G.D. and G.W. thank the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik in Munich for its kind hospitality during part of this project. We furthermore thank M. Frank for helpful discussions. This work was partially supported by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 (Collider Physics).

### Note added:

While finalizing this paper, Ref.  appeared, containing the two-loop result for $`m_h`$ obtained from the full two-loop effective potential of the MSSM . The contributions included in Ref.  that go beyond the ones discussed in this paper, namely momentum-independent contributions for non-vanishing gauge interactions and D-term Higgs–squark interactions, turn out to yield a shift in $`m_h`$ of 1 GeV or less in the numerical results given in Ref. , thus confirming our estimate discussed in Sect. 4.1.


format: text

text:
# Pair correlations in a finite-temperature 1𝐷 Bose gas

## Abstract

We calculate the two-particle local correlation for an interacting $`1D`$ Bose gas at finite temperature and classify various physical regimes. We present the exact numerical solution by using the Yang-Yang equations and Hellmann-Feynman theorem and develop analytical approaches. Our results draw prospects for identifying the regimes of coherent output of an atom laser, and of finite-temperature “fermionization” through the measurement of the rates of two-body inelastic processes, such as photo-association.

Recent observations of the one-dimensional ($`1D`$) regime in trapped Bose gases Goerlitz2001-Schreck2001-Greiner2001  offer unique opportunities for extending our understanding of the physics of these quantum many-body systems. The reason is that the $`1D`$ regime can be investigated theoretically by making use of the known exactly solvable $`1D`$ models M , which have been the subject of extensive studies since the pioneering works of Girardeau Girardeau1960 , Lieb and Liniger LiebLiniger1963 , and Yang and Yang Yang1969  (see Popov ; Thacker1981 ; KorepinBook  for reviews). With the development of experimentally viable Bose gases, these field theory models – once of theoretical relevance only – are now becoming testable in table-top experiments.

The knowledge of the exact solutions to the $`1D`$ models allows us to go far beyond the mean-field Bogoliubov approximation. In the current stage of studies of experimentally feasible $`1D`$ Bose gases, one of the most important issues that requires such an approach is understanding the correlation properties in the various regimes at *finite temperatures.*

In this Letter we give an exact calculation of the finite-temperature two-particle local correlation for an interacting uniform $`1D`$ Bose gas, $`g^{(2)}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(x)^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)^2/n^2`$, where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)`$ is the field operator and $`n=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}(x)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)`$ is the linear ($`1D`$) density. As a result, we identify and classify various finite-temperature regimes of the 1D Bose gas. Aside from this, the pair correlations are responsible for the rates of inelastic collisional processes Kagan1985 , and are of particular importance for the studies of coherence properties of atom “lasers” produced in $`1D`$ waveguides.

At $`T=0`$, the local two- and three-particle correlations of a uniform $`1D`$ Bose gas have recently been calculated in Ref. Gangardt . Here one has two well-known and physically distinct regimes of quantum degeneracy. For weak couplings or high densities, the gas is in a coherent or Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) regime with $`g^{(2)}1`$. In this regime, long-range order is destroyed by long-wavelength phase fluctuations Haldane  and the equilibrium state is a quasi-condensate characterized by suppressed density fluctuations. For strong couplings or low densities, the gas reaches the strongly interacting or Tonks-Girardeau (TG) regime and undergoes “fermionization” Girardeau1960 ; LiebLiniger1963 : the wave function strongly decreases as particles approach each other, and $`g^{(2)}0`$.

At the non-zero temperatures studied here, one has to further extend the classification of different regimes. For strong enough couplings or low densities, we obtain the TG regime with $`g^{(2)}0`$ not only at low temperatures, but also at high temperatures. In addition, and in contrast to previous $`T=0`$ results, we find a weak-coupling or high-density regime in which fluctuations are enhanced. Asymptotically, they reach the non-interacting Bose gas level of $`g^{(2)}2`$ (rather than $`g^{(2)}1`$), for any finite temperature $`T`$.

The emergence of this behavior at low temperatures implies that one can identify *three* physically distinct regimes of quantum degeneracy: the strong-coupling TG regime of “fermionization” with $`g^{(2)}0`$, a coherent GP regime with $`g^{(2)}1`$ at intermediate coupling strength, and a fully decoherent quantum (DQ) regime with $`g^{(2)}2`$ at very weak couplings. In the GP regime, where the density fluctuations are suppressed and one has a quasi-condensate, the local correlation approaches the coherent level of $`g^{(2)}1`$. However, a free (non-interacting) Bose gas at any finite $`T`$ must have $`g^{(2)}=2`$. So, below a critical density- and temperature-dependent level of interaction strength one must have an increase in thermal fluctuations, until the ideal-gas level is reached in a continuous transition. At $`T=0`$ the transition is discontinuous and occurs at zero interaction strength, so that it can be viewed as a zero-temperature phase transition. At high temperatures the GP regime vanishes and a decrease of coupling strength transforms the high-temperature TG regime directly into a classical ideal gas.

We start by considering a uniform gas of $`N`$ bosons interacting via repulsive delta-function potential in a $`1D`$ box of length $`L`$ with periodic boundary condition. In the thermodynamic limit ($`N,L\mathrm{}`$, while the density $`n=N/L`$ is fixed) the system is exactly integrable by using the Bethe ansatz, both at $`T=0`$ and finite temperature LiebLiniger1963 ; Yang1969 . In second quantization, the Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}𝑑x_x\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}_x\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}+\frac{g}{2}𝑑x\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)`$ is the field operator, $`m`$ is the mass, and $`g>0`$ is the coupling constant. For Bose gases in highly elongated traps to be described by this $`1D`$ model, the coupling $`g`$ is expressed through the $`3D`$ scattering length $`a`$. This is done assuming that $`a`$ is much smaller than the amplitude of transverse zero point oscillations $`l_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _0}`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the frequency of the transverse harmonic potential. For a positive $`al_0`$ one has

$$g=2\mathrm{}^2a/ml_0^2,$$
(2)
and the $`1D`$ scattering length $`a_{1D}`$ is $`\mathrm{}^2/mgl_0^2/al_0`$ Olshanii98 . The $`1D`$ regime is reached if $`l_0`$ is much smaller than the thermal de Broglie wavelength of excitations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=(2\pi \mathrm{}^2/mT)^{1/2}`$ and a characteristic length scale $`l_c`$ lc  responsible for short-range correlations. On the same grounds as at $`T=0`$ Gangardt , one finds that for fulfilling this requirement it is sufficient to satisfy the inequalities $`al_0\{1/n,\mathrm{\Lambda }_T\}`$.

The uniform $`1D`$ Bose gas with a short-range repulsive interaction can effectively be characterized by two parameters: the dimensionless coupling parameter

$$\gamma =mg/\mathrm{}^2n,$$
(3)
and the reduced temperature $`\tau =T/T_d`$, where the temperature of quantum degeneracy is given by $`T_d=\mathrm{}^2n^2/2m`$, in energy units ($`k_B=1`$).

For calculating the local two-body correlation $`g^{(2)}`$ at any values of $`\gamma `$ and $`\tau `$ we use the Hellmann-Feynman theorem Hellmann1933-Feynman1939 . At $`T=0`$, it has been used for calculating the mean interaction energy LiebLiniger1963 , and for expounding the issue of local pair correlations Gangardt . Consider the partition function $`Z=\mathrm{exp}(F/T)=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(\widehat{H}/T)`$ which determines the free energy $`F`$. Here the trace is taken over the states of the system with a fixed number of particles in the canonical formalism. For the grand canonical description, one has to replace the condition of a constant particle number by the condition of a constant chemical potential $`\mu `$ and add a term $`\mu \widehat{N}`$ to the Hamiltonian. For the derivative of $`F`$ with respect to the coupling constant one has $`F/g=T(\mathrm{log}Z)/g`$ and hence

$$\frac{F}{g}=\frac{1}{Z}\text{Tr}\left[e^{\widehat{H}/T}\widehat{H}/g\right]=(L/2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}.$$
(4)
Introducing the free energy per particle $`f(\gamma ,\tau )=F/N`$, the normalized two-particle correlation is:

$$g^{(2)}=\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}}{n^2}=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2n^2}\left(\frac{f(\gamma ,\tau )}{\gamma }\right)_{n,\tau }.$$
(5)
We have calculated the free energy $`f(\gamma ,\tau )`$ by numerically solving the Yang-Yang exact integral equations for the excitation spectrum and the distribution function of “quasi-momenta” Yang1969 . By implementing a post-selective algorithm that ensures that the derivative of $`f(\gamma ,\tau )`$ is taken for constant $`n`$, we then calculate $`g^{(2)}`$ from Eq. (5). The results of our calculations are presented in Fig. 1.

We now give a physical description of different regimes determined by the values of the coupling constant $`\gamma `$ and the reduced temperature $`\tau `$.

Strong coupling regime \[$`\gamma \mathrm{max}(1,\sqrt{\tau })`$\]. In the strong coupling TG regime the local correlation $`g^{(2)}`$ reduces dramatically due to the strong repulsion between particles, and becomes zero for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. In this regime the physics resembles that of free fermions, both below and above the quantum degeneracy temperature. Along the lines of Ref. Gangardt , to leading order in $`1/\gamma `$ the finite-temperature $`g^{(2)}`$ can be expressed through derivatives of Green’s function of free fermions $`G(x)=𝑑kn_F(k)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)/(2\pi )`$, where $`n_F(k)`$ are occupation numbers for free fermions. For the normalized local correlation we obtain $`g^{(2)}=4\left[\left(G^{}(0)\right)^2G^{\prime \prime }(0)G(0)\right]/\gamma ^2n^4`$.

In the regime of quantum degeneracy, $`\tau 1`$, the local correlation is dominated by the ground state distribution $`n_F(k)=\theta (k_F^2k^2)`$, where $`k_F=\pi n`$ is the Fermi momentum. Small finite-temperature corrections are obtained using the Sommerfeld expansion:

$$g^{(2)}=\frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{\pi }{\gamma }\right)^2\left[1+\frac{\tau ^2}{4\pi ^2}\right],\tau 1.$$
(6)
This low temperature result for $`g^{(2)}`$ has a simple physical meaning. A characteristic distance related to the interaction between particles is $`a_{1D}=\mathrm{}^2/mg1/\gamma n`$, and fermionic correlations are present at interparticle distances $`xa_{1D}`$. For smaller $`x`$ the correlations practically do not change. Hence, the correlation $`g^{(2)}`$ for large $`\gamma `$ is nothing else than the pair correlation for free fermions at a distance $`a_{1D}`$. The latter is $`g^{(2)}(k_Fa_{1D})^21/\gamma ^2`$, which agrees with the result of Eq.(6) for $`\tau 0`$.

In the temperature interval $`1\tau \gamma ^2`$ the gas is nondegenerate, but the $`1D`$ scattering length $`a_{1D}`$ is still much smaller than the thermal de Broglie wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$. As the characteristic momentum of particles is now the thermal momentum $`k_T=\sqrt{2mT}/\mathrm{}`$, one estimates that $`g^{(2)}(k_Ta_{1D})^2\tau /\gamma ^2`$. Calculating Green’s function $`G(x)`$ for the classical distribution $`n_F(k)`$, we obtain:

$$g^{(2)}=2\tau /\gamma ^2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}\tau \gamma ^2,$$
(7)
which agrees with the given qualitative estimate. The local correlation $`g^{(2)}`$ is still much smaller than one and we thus have a regime of high-temperature “fermionization”.

The results of Eqs. (6) and (7) agree with the outcome of our numerical calculations. For $`\tau =0.1`$ and $`\tau =10`$, they are shown in Fig. 1 (in the region of large $`\gamma `$) by dashed curves next to the solid curves found numerically for the same values of $`\tau `$.

GP regime ($`\tau ^2\gamma 1`$). In the intermediate coupling or GP regime, for sufficiently low temperatures the equilibrium state is a quasi-condensate: the density fluctuations are suppressed, but the phase fluctuates Mermin1966 . As the phase coherence length $`l_\varphi `$ greatly exceeds the short-range characteristic length $`l_c=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{mng}`$, for finding the local correlations the field operator can be represented as a sum of the macroscopic component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and a small component $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ describing finite-momentum excitations. Actually, the component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ contains the contribution of excitations with momenta $`kk_0l_c^1`$, whereas $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ includes the contribution of larger $`k`$. At the same time, the momentum $`k_0`$ is chosen such that most of the particles are contained in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$. This picture is along the lines of Ref. Popov , and the momentum $`k_0`$ drops out of the answer as the main contribution of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ to $`g^{(2)}`$ is provided by excitations with $`kl_c^1`$ comment1 . The two-particle local correlation is then reduced to $`g^{(2)}=1+2(\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{})/n`$. The normal and anomalous averages, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$, can be calculated by using the same Bogoliubov transformation for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}`$ as in 3D. This gives the result that

$$g^{(2)}=1+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi n}\left[\frac{E_k}{\epsilon _k}(1+n_k)1\right],$$
(8)
where $`E_k=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, $`\epsilon _k=\sqrt{E_k^2+2ngE_k}`$ is the Bogoliubov excitation energy, and $`n_k`$ are occupation numbers for the excitations.

The integral term in Eq. (8) contains the contribution of both vacuum and thermal fluctuations. The former is determined by excitations with $`kl_c^1`$, and at $`\tau =0`$ we immediately recover the zero-temperature result of Ref. Gangardt . For very low temperatures $`\tau \gamma `$, thermal fluctuations give an additional correction, so that

$$g^{(2)}=12\sqrt{\gamma }/\pi +\pi \tau ^2/(24\gamma ^{3/2}),\tau \gamma 1.$$
(9)
The phase coherence length is determined by vacuum fluctuations of the phase and is $`l_\varphi l_c\mathrm{exp}(\pi /\sqrt{\gamma })`$ Haldane . For $`\tau =0.001`$ the above approximate result, shown in Fig. 1 at intermediate values of $`\gamma `$, practically coincides with the corresponding exact numerical result.

For temperatures $`\tau \gamma `$, thermal fluctuations are more important than vacuum fluctuations. The main contribution to the local correlation is again provided by excitations with $`kl_c^1`$, and we obtain, from Eq. (8)

$$g^{(2)}=1+\tau /(2\sqrt{\gamma }),\gamma \tau \sqrt{\gamma }.$$
(10)
The phase coherence length is determined by long-wavelength phase fluctuations. The calculation similar to that for a trapped gas Petrov  gives $`l_\varphi \mathrm{}^2n/mT`$. The condition $`l_\varphi l_c`$, which is necessary for the existence of a quasi-condensate and for the applicability of the Bogoliubov approach, immediately yields the inequality $`\tau \sqrt{\gamma }`$. Thus, Eq. (10) is valid under the condition $`\gamma \tau \sqrt{\gamma }`$, and the second term in the rhs of this equation is a small correction. One can easily see that this correction is just the relative mean square density fluctuations. In the region of its validity, the result of Eq. (10) agrees well with our numerical data, and is shown in Fig. 1 for $`\tau =0.001`$, in the region of small $`\gamma `$ values. The exact results graphed in Fig. 1 for different values of $`\tau `$ show that the coherent or GP regime is not present for $`\tau 0.1`$, in the sense that $`g^{(2)}`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$ does not develop a plateau around the value $`g^{(2)}=1`$.

*Decoherent regime:* At very weak couplings, $`\gamma min(\tau ^2,\sqrt{\tau })`$, the gas enters a decoherent regime. Both phase and density fluctuations are large. At small enough $`\gamma `$ the local correlation is always close to the result for free bosons, $`g^{(2)}=2`$. In this regime, the only consequence of quantum degeneracy is the quantum Bose distribution for occupation numbers of particles, so we can further divide it into a decoherent quantum (DQ) regime for $`\tau <1`$ and a decoherent classical (DC) regime for $`\tau >1`$.

The result of Eq. (10) cannot be used for $`\gamma =0`$. In this case one has a gas of free bosons, and Wick’s theorem leads to $`g^{(2)}=2`$ at any $`\tau `$. For small $`\tau `$, our data in Fig. 1 show a sharp increase of $`g^{(2)}`$ from almost $`1`$ to almost $`2`$ when $`\gamma \tau ^2`$. This is a continuous transition from the quasi-condensate to the DQ regime Castin . Lowering the temperature lowers the value of $`\gamma `$ at which this transition occurs. For $`\tau =0`$ the transition takes place at $`\gamma =0`$. In this case it is discontinuous and can be regarded as a zero-temperature phase transition.

The DQ regime can be treated asymptotically by employing a standard perturbation theory with regard to the coupling constant $`g`$. Omitting the details of calculations, which will be published elsewhere, for the local correlation we obtain

$$g^{(2)}=24\gamma /\tau ^2,\sqrt{\gamma }\tau 1.$$
(11)
At higher temperatures $`\tau 1`$ the decoherent *quantum* regime ($`\sqrt{\gamma }\tau 1`$) transforms to the decoherent *classical* regime ($`\tau \text{max}\{1,\gamma ^2\}`$) and $`g^{(2)}`$ remains close to $`2`$ (see Fig. 1). The local correlation is found in the same way as in the DQ regime and takes the asymptotic form

$$g^{(2)}=2\gamma \sqrt{2\pi /\tau },\tau \text{max}\{1,\gamma ^2\}.$$
(12)
The result of Eq. (12) remains valid for large values of $`\gamma `$, provided that $`\gamma ^2\tau `$. Here the de Broglie wavelength $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ becomes smaller than $`a_{1D}`$ and the regime of high-temperature “fermionization” continuously transforms into the decoherent regime of a classical gas. The corrections to $`g^{(2)}=2`$, given by Eqs. (11) and (12), are in agreement with the exact numerical calculations. In Fig. 1, the approximate analytical results are shown by the dashed lines next to the corresponding solid lines found numerically, for $`\tau =0.1`$ and $`\tau =1000`$.

In conclusion, we have calculated the two-particle local correlation $`g^{(2)}`$ for a uniform $`1D`$ Bose gas at finite temperatures comment2 . Within their range of validity, the analytical results agree with exact numerical calculations based on the Hellmann-Feynman theorem and the Yang-Yang equations. The knowledge of $`g^{(2)}`$ allows one to deduce when the approximate GP equation often used for first-order phase-coherence calculations is valid. The value of $`g^{(2)}1`$ indicates that the correlation function factorizes, which is a necessary condition for using the GP approach. The prediction of coherent behavior only for certain temperatures and interaction strengths, $`\tau ^2\gamma 1`$, may be an important criterion for atom lasers where spatial coherence is a necessary ingredient in obtaining interference and high-resolution interferometry. Our results are also promising for identifying the regime of “fermionization” in finite-temperature $`1D`$ Bose gases through the measurement of inelastic processes in pair interatomic collisions such as photo-association. Here the transitions occur at interatomic distances which are much smaller than the short-range correlation length $`l_c`$ and, therefore, the rate will be proportional to the local correlation $`g^{(2)}`$.

We also find a fully decoherent quantum regime in the case of very weak interactions or high densities. There is a *continuous* transition from the GP regime to the ideal gas limit ($`\gamma 0`$) where the gas displays large thermal (Gaussian) density fluctuations with $`g^{(2)}=2`$ at any finite temperature ZiffUhlenbeckKac77 . As $`\gamma `$ is decreased towards the ideal gas, the GP result only holds above a certain ratio of interaction strength to density. Below this, the GP approach becomes invalid and there is a dramatic increase in fluctuations, with $`g^{(2)}2`$ as $`\gamma 0`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

K.K. and P.D. acknowledge the ARC and the Humboldt foundation for their support. D.G. and G.S. acknowledge support from the French Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, from the Dutch Foundations NWO and FOM, from INTAS, and from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. We acknowledge M. Cazalilla for drawing our attention to a typographical error in Eq. (6) of the original version of the manuscript. Laboratoire Kastler Brossel is a research unit of Université Pierre et Marie Curie and ENS, associated with CNRS (UMR 8552).


text:
# On the total energy of open Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes

## 1 Introduction

Over the years, there have been many suggestions and assertions in the literature that the total energy of the universe, that which includes not only the material energy but also the contribution from the gravitational field, should be zero. The subject is non-trivial partially due to the fact that in general relativity there is no universally accepted prescription for the localization of energy including the contribution from gravity. In the case of a cosmological metric, a rationalized energy localization would provide an expression to integrate over three-dimensional spatial sections, yielding the total energy of the universe. In principle, this could be infinite for an open universe and this would likely be the instinctive response of most physicists.

In this paper we do not address the energy localization problem but rather we focus upon the total energy of the universe. The idea that the universe should have zero total energy dates back many years (a topological argument due to P. Bergmann is quoted in Tryon 1973) and returned to the fore with the works of Albrow (1973) and Tryon (1973) suggesting that the universe originated as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. The idea was developed in Guth’s theory of inflation (Guth 1981) that has had a major impact on modern cosmology. Further, an approach to quantum cosmology proposed that the universe was born as the result of quantum tunneling from nothing (Vilenkin 1983).

The question as to whether or not the total energy of the universe is zero was re-opened by Rosen (1994), Cooperstock (1994), Cooperstock & Israelit (1995), Johri et al. (1995), Banerjee & Sen (1997), Radinschi (1999), and Xulu (2000), who studied both Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (hereafter referred to as FRW) universes and anisotropic Bianchi models. The approaches followed by these authors are varied. Apart from Cooperstock (1995) and Cooperstock & Israelit (1995), a common feature is the use of pseudotensors which brings these approaches into question. Pseudotensors have been shown to be useful tools in the study of bounded systems which are asymptotically Minkowskian (in Cartesian coordinates). However, for cosmological metrics, we are concerned with systems that are infinite or do not possess an asymptotically flat exterior. In spite of this, it is note-worthy that these authors invariably conclude that the total energy of open and closed FRW universes, as well as of Bianchi models, vanishes.

In this paper, open FRW cosmologies are discussed and it is shown that for many equations of state (both time-independent and time-dependent), the total energy is constant and, one could argue, has the value zero. The essential elements that are employed to make this deduction are the global conservation of energy and the vanishing of the energy of flat spacetime. Energy conservation, including the contribution from gravity, is built into the Einstein field equations by virtue of the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the energy-momentum tensor. That flat spacetime represents the absence of energy can be seen as follows. The mass parameter $`m`$ of the Schwarzschild metric 111We use $`\kappa 8\pi G`$, where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant; the metric signature is – + + +, the speed of light and Planck’s constant assume the value unity. The components of the Ricci tensor are given in terms of the Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\delta `$ by $`R_{\mu \rho }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho ,\nu }^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho ,\mu }^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \nu }^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \mu }^\nu `$, and an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to the comoving cosmic time $`t`$.

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)$$
(1.1)
yields the total energy including the contribution from gravity. When $`m`$ is set to zero, the metric becomes flat and hence flat spacetime has zero energy.

We assume that the energy density of the material content of the universe $`\rho `$ is non-negative and we consider an open or critically open (the case favoured by inflationary theories and by current cosmological data (Liddle & Lyth 2000)) FRW universe described by the line element

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left[\frac{dr^2}{1Kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)\right]$$
(1.2)
in comoving coordinates $`(t,r,\theta ,\phi )`$, where the curvature index $`K`$ can assume the values $`1`$ or 0.

## 2 An explicit energy definition

If the total energy of the universe is constant for a certain form of its material content, the same should be true when the same cosmological metric is generated by a different form of matter.

Following the dynamical systems approach to cosmology (Stabell & Refsdal 1966, Madsen & Ellis 1988, Madsen et al. 1992, Wainwright & Ellis 1997; Amendola et al. 1990, Foster 1988, Gunzig et al. 2000, Rocha-Filho et al. 2000, Gunzig et al. 2001a, 2001b), we consider a $`K=0`$ FRW universe with a scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ as the only source of gravity; $`\varphi `$ is allowed to couple nonminimally to the Ricci curvature as described by the action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }\xi \varphi ^2\right)R\frac{1}{2}^\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi V(\varphi )\right],$$
(2.1)
where $`\xi `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant and $`V(\varphi )`$ is the scalar field potential. $`H\dot{a}/a`$ and $`\varphi `$ are chosen as dynamical variables and the relevant dynamical system is

$$6\left[1\xi \left(16\xi \right)\kappa \varphi ^2\right]\left(\dot{H}+2H^2\right)\kappa \left(6\xi 1\right)\dot{\varphi }^24\kappa V+6\kappa \xi \varphi \frac{dV}{d\varphi }=0,$$
(2.2)
$$\frac{\kappa }{2}\dot{\varphi }^2+6\xi \kappa H\varphi \dot{\varphi }3H^2\left(1\kappa \xi \varphi ^2\right)+\kappa V=0,$$
(2.3)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+3H\dot{\varphi }+\xi R\varphi +\frac{dV}{d\varphi }=0.$$
(2.4)
Let us restrict now to the case of a conformally coupled scalar, obtained by setting $`\xi =1/6`$ in the action (2.1). This value of the coupling constant is dictated by physical requirements such as the Einstein equivalence principle (Sonego and Faraoni 1993, Grib and Poberii 1995, Grib and Rodrigues 1996), renormalizability (Callan, Coleman and Jackiw 1970), or the requirement that $`\xi `$, which is a running coupling at high energies, sit in a stable infrared fixed point of the renormalization group (Parker and Toms 1985, Buchbinder, Odintsov and Shapiro 1992). We allow the scalar field to acquire a mass and include in the picture a quartic self-interaction plus (motivated by the role of de Sitter attractors in phase space) the possibility of a cosmological constant, as described by the potential

$$V(\varphi )=\frac{m^2\varphi ^2}{2}+\lambda \varphi ^4+V_0.$$
(2.5)
By introducing the new variables (Rocha Filho et al. 2000)

$$\psi \sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{6}}a,$$
(2.6)
$$\phi a\varphi ,$$
(2.7)
and the conformal time $`\eta `$ defined by $`dtad\eta `$, the field equations (2.2) and (2.4) become

$$\psi ^{\prime \prime }\frac{\kappa m^2}{6}\phi ^2\psi 4V_0\psi ^3=0,$$
(2.8)
$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }+\frac{6m^2}{\kappa }\phi \psi ^2+4\lambda \phi ^3=0,$$
(2.9)
where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to the conformal time $`\eta `$. Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9) can be derived from the Lagrangian

$$Ł=\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi ^{}\right)^2\frac{18}{\kappa ^2}\left(\psi ^{}\right)^2\frac{3m^2}{\kappa }\phi ^2\psi ^2\lambda \phi ^4\frac{36}{\kappa ^2}V_0\psi ^4,$$
(2.10)
while the equation

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi ^{}\right)^2\frac{18}{\kappa ^2}\left(\psi ^{}\right)^2+\frac{3m^2}{\kappa }\phi ^2\psi ^2+\lambda \phi ^4+\frac{36}{\kappa ^2}V_0\psi ^4=\text{const.}$$
(2.11)
is obtained by manipulating eqs. (2.8) and (2.9) and integrating once.

The momenta canonically conjugated to the variables $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are $`p_\phi L/(\phi ^{})=\phi ^{}`$ and $`p_\psi L/(\psi ^{})=36\psi ^{}/\kappa ^2`$. It is straightforward to check that, by using the associated Hamiltonian

$$E=\frac{1}{2}\left(\phi ^{}\right)^2\frac{18}{\kappa ^2}\left(\psi ^{}\right)^2+\frac{3m^2}{\kappa ^2}\phi ^2\psi ^2+\lambda \phi ^4+\frac{36}{\kappa ^2}V_0\psi ^4,$$
(2.12)
the Hamilton equations

$$p_\phi ^{}=\frac{E}{\phi },p_\psi ^{}=\frac{E}{\psi },$$
(2.13)
reproduce the field equations (2.8) and (2.9). Furthermore, eq. (2.11) states that

$$E=\text{constant}.$$
(2.14)
As customary in classical mechanics and in quantum physics, one identifies the Hamiltonian with the energy of the system, thus obtaining a total energy of the universe (2.12) that is conserved. Note that de Sitter space is among the possible solutions of the field equations (2.8), (2.9), and (2.4), and therefore it has constant energy as well. This concludes the first step of the deduction of zero energy for FRW universes, while the next section presents the second step.

## 3 The limit to Minkowski spacetime

Open or critically open FRW cosmologies have Minkowski space as their asymptotic state. In fact, the dynamical system (2.2)-(2.4) has the Minkowski space $`(H,\varphi )=(0,0)`$ as a fixed point, with attractive behaviour in the half-plane $`H>0`$ and repulsive behaviour for $`H<0`$ (Gunzig et al. 2001a). It was speculated that, when $`V_0=0`$, the universe could have emerged from points arbitrarily close to the Minkowski fixed point, a classical analog of the proposals of Albrow (1973), Tryon (1973) and of Prigogine et al. (1988, 1989). The same Minkowski fixed point is an attractor at large times, in a certain basin, for solutions expanding into infinite dilution and asymptotically approaching $`(H,\varphi )=(0,0)`$.

Consider first an open ($`K=1`$) or critically open ($`K=0`$) universe; its asymptotic state at large times is one of infinite dilution. In fact, the conservation equation (Liddle & Lyth 2000, Kolb & Turner 1994, Weinberg 1972, Landau & Lifshitz 1989)

$$\dot{\rho }+3H\left(P+\rho \right)=0$$
(3.1)
yields $`\dot{\rho }<0`$ when $`P\rho /3`$ and the universe expands. Since $`\rho `$ is bounded from below by zero and is monotonically decreasing, one has $`\rho (t)0`$ at large times: the asymptotic state is one of infinite dilution corresponding to Minkowski space. The Hubble radius is given by the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=\frac{\kappa \rho }{3}\frac{K}{a^2}$$
(3.2)
and is

$$H^1=\left(\frac{\kappa \rho }{3}\frac{K}{a^2}\right)^{1/2};$$
(3.3)
it is the only characteristic geometrical scale and diverges as $`t+\mathrm{}`$. This property, familiar in the particular case of a matter- or radiation-dominated era in a $`K=0`$ FRW universe, is quite general.

In principle the situation could be different when $`P<\rho /3`$ with the universe undergoing accelerated expansion, $`\ddot{a}>0`$. Power-law solutions with scale factor $`a(t)=a_0t^p`$ and $`p=2/\left(3\gamma \right)`$ are obtained for $`K=0`$ by imposing the equation of state $`P=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho `$. These solutions exhibit divergent Hubble radius $`H^1=t/p`$, have Minkowski spacetime as their limit at large times if $`\gamma >0`$, and are attractors in phase space. The property of future convergence to Minkowski spacetime is shared by all solutions satisfying $`P>\rho `$. In fact, expanding universes satisfying this assumption have $`\dot{\rho }=3H\left(P+\rho \right)<0`$.

Problems may in principle arise with the better-known inflationary attractor (for both $`K=1`$ and $`K=0`$ universes), de Sitter space

$$a(t)=a_0\text{e}^{Ht},H=\text{const.},$$
(3.4)
that corresponds to constant Hubble radius $`H^1`$ and density and pressure $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa =P`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant.

Being a fixed point in phase space, de Sitter space is forever removed from Minkowski space, but there are good reasons to believe that its total energy is the same as for Minkowski space. By considering a scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ nonminimally coupled to gravity, one can obtain a superinflationary regime with $`\dot{H}>0`$; this is impossible when the scalar $`\varphi (t)`$ couples minimally to gravity (Faraoni 2002). The existence of superinflationary solutions with nonminimally coupled scalars was demonstrated both exactly and with numerical methods in (Gunzig et al. 2001a, Rocha-Filho et al. 2000, Gunzig et al. 2001b). They find solutions emerging from points arbitrarily close to Minkowski space, and therefore with the same total energy, that expand and are attracted by de Sitter space. These solutions have constant energy, and hence the energy $`E_{dS}`$ of the asymptotic de Sitter space must coincide with that of Minkowski space 222The homoclinic solutions mentioned above that emerge from initial points arbitrarily close to the Minkowski fixed point in the infinite past, and return to it in the far future, are those that escape the attraction basin of the de Sitter attractor considered here. In this subsection only heteroclinic solutions connecting different fixed points are considered..

Since the only quantity characteristic of the de Sitter metric is the Hubble constant $`H`$, one might expect that the energy of de Sitter space $`E_{dS}`$ could depend on the value of $`H`$, and therefore, in principle, $`E_{dS}=E_{Minkowski}`$ could be true only for special values of $`H`$. However this is not the case, as it was shown (Gunzig et al. 2001a, 2001b) that for any value $`H_0`$ of the de Sitter fixed point $`(H_0,\varphi _0)`$, one can find solutions emerging from points arbitrarily close to Minkowski space and converging to de Sitter space. Since the total energy of these solutions is constant and initially $`E_{Minkowski}`$, it must be $`E_{dS}=E_{Minkowski}`$ for any value of $`H`$.

If Minkowski space has zero energy, the result holds true for all de Sitter spaces, whatever the source of gravity may be (a scalar field coupled minimally or nonminimally, a cosmological constant, exotic dark matter, supergravity fields, etc.), and also for all the solutions in the attraction basin of the de Sitter fixed point. This result is compatible with a recent paper (Kastor and Traschen 2002) introducing a non-negative energy for universes that are asymptotically de Sitter333We acknowledge a referee for pointing out this reference.. This is best seen by considering the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2}{3}\right)^1dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right),$$
(3.5)
which is asymptotically de Sitter. The Kastor-Traschen conserved charge, constructed from conformal asymptotic Killing vectors, is $`E_{KT}=Ma(t)`$. In the limit $`M0`$, in which de Sitter space is recovered, the conserved charge vanishes.

The previous considerations are particularly relevant because de Sitter spaces are also attractors for anisotropic universes. It follows from the cosmic no-hair theorems that inflation is a generic phenomenon (see Goldswirth & Piran (1992) for a review). A wide variety of initial conditions including initial anisotropy leads to the same de Sitter-like expansion. Then, the energy of a Bianchi model converging to a de Sitter solution with zero energy must also be constant, and equal to zero. This result is compatible with pseudotensor-based claims of zero total energy for Bianchi models (Radinschi 1999, Xulu 2000).

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

At this point, one could argue that, since the energy of the universe is constant and the zero level is arbitrary, one can choose as zero the energy of Minkowski space. This is the only possible choice compatible with the argument presented in the Introduction. Since the FRW metric $`g_{ab}(t)`$ approaches the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{ab}`$ (which has zero energy) as $`t+\mathrm{}`$, the energy $`E`$ associated with $`g_{ab}`$ must also be identically zero at all times. This argument applies to any cosmological metric, be it FRW or not, that has Minkowski space as its asymptotic limit at large times or in the infinite past and has constant energy (provided that the time parameter can be given an unambiguous geometrical meaning, as in the case of an FRW metric).

There are now different arguments pointing to the result of constant and vanishing total energy for open and critically open FRW spacetimes. The arguments provided in this paper support previous pseudotensor-based claims. The pseudotensorial methods as well as those in Cooperstock & Israelit (1995) indicate a zero value for closed FRW universes. The idea that the universe has zero energy is embodied in the Wheeler-de Witt equation of quantum cosmology, which corresponds to the eigenvalue problem for the Hamiltonian of a quantum universe with zero energy eigenvalue (e.g. Kolb & Turner 1994).

One might question the notion that an infinite spacetime filled with matter should have zero energy. The instinctive answer might be that the energy is infinite. However, the open FRW universe dilutes its matter density to an infinite extent and is hence asymptotic to Minkowski spacetime. We know that the latter has zero energy because the Schwarzschild spacetime with energy $`m`$ becomes the Minkowski spacetime when $`m=0`$.

Even in an infinite spacetime such as Schwarzschild spacetime, there is always an effective boundary in the sense that, even for a Schwarzschild mass that expands forever to infinite dilution, there exists a sphere that encloses all the matter at any time $`t`$. This is what allows us to determine the non-vanishing global energy $`m`$ of the spacetime. By contrast, in FRW there is no such boundary available at any $`t`$. Interestingly, this is the case for a finite closed ($`K=+1`$) model as well. The vanishing of total energy in the case of a closed universe might be expected by analogy with the necessarily vanishing of total charge for a closed universe, i.e. every closed surface in a finite space encloses a finite volume of space on either side. Thus the electric flux through the surface equals the total charge in the interior as well as to the same amount of total charge in the exterior with the necessarily opposite sign (Landau & Lifshitz 1989). There is the suggestion that it is the property of unboundedness that is the crucial element in rendering these universes, both open and closed, with zero energy.

The results developed in this paper that the energy of the universe is constant and zero for open or critically open FRW universes, and for Bianchi models evolving into de Sitter spacetimes, should not be regarded as merely technical. Indeed it is well to question why universes that are so different all have zero total energy. One could speculate that this fact might be related to the problem of the origin of the universe. Indeed, since the universe is by definition an isolated system, the zero energy result is compatible with the universe emerging from a “system” with zero energy, be it quantum vacuum (Albrow 1973, Tryon 1973, Guth 1981), “nothing” (Vilenkin 1983), flat empty space (Prigogine et al. 1988, 1989, Gunzig et al. 2001a, 2001b), or something else. In such a picture, matter particles would have to be created at the expense of the gravitational field energy (e.g. Prigogine et al.  1988, 1989). It seems inconceivable that the cosmos could emerge from any physical system that has nonvanishing total energy. This would require an exchange of energy between the universe and a third system, making a cosmological spacetime an open system from the thermodynamical point of view.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge a referee for helpful comments. V.F. was supported by the NATO Advanced Fellowship Programme through the National Research Council of Italy (CNR); F.I.C. acknowledges partial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

REFERENCES

Albrow, M.G. 1973, Nature 241, 56
Amendola, L., Litterio, M. & Occhionero, F. 1990, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 3861
Banerjee, N. & Sen, S. 1997, Pramana J. Phys. 49, 609
Buchbinder, I., Odintsov, S.D. & Shapiro, I. 1992, Effective Action in Quantum Gravity (Bristol: IOP Publishing)
Callan, C.G. Jr., Coleman & Jackiw, R. 1970, Ann. Phys. (NY) 59, 42
Cooperstock, F.I. 1994, Gen. Rel. Grav. 26, 323
Cooperstock, F.I. & Israelit, M.I. 1995, Found. Phys. 25, 631
Faraoni, V. 2002, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 471
Foster, S. 1988, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 3485
Goldswirth, D. & Piran, T. 1992, Phys. Rep. 214, 223
Grib, A.A. & Poberii, E.A. 1995, Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 380
Grib, A.A. & Rodrigues, W.A. 1995, Gravit. Cosmol. 1, 273
Gunzig, E., Faraoni, V., Rocha Filho, T.M., Figueiredo, A. & Brenig L. 2000, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1783
Gunzig, E., Saa, A., Brenig, L., Faraoni, V., Rocha Filho, T.M. & Figueiredo, A. 2001a, Phys. Rev. D 63, 067301
Guth, A.H. 1981, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347
Johri, V.B., Kalligas, D, Singh, G.P. & Everitt, C.W.F. 1995, Gen. Rel. Grav. 27, 313
Kastor, D. & Traschen, J. 2002, preprint hep-th/0206105
Kolb, E.W. & Turner, M.S. 1994, The Early Universe (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley)
Landau, L.D. & Lifshitz, E.M. 1989, The Classical Theory of Fields (4th revised edition, Oxford: Pergamon Press)
Liddle, A.R. & Lyth, D. 2000, Cosmological Inflation and Large Scale Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Madsen, M.S. & Ellis, G.F.R. 1988, MNRAS 234, 67
Madsen, M.S., Mimoso, J.P, Butcher, J.A. & Ellis, G.F.R. 1992, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1399
Parker, L. & Toms, D.J. 1985, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1409
Prigogine, I., Geheniau, J., Gunzig, E. & Nardone, P. 1988, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85, 7428
Prigogine, I., Geheniau, J., Gunzig, E. & Nardone, P. 1989, Gen. Rel. Grav. 21, 767
Radinschi, I. 1999, Acta Phys. Slov. 49, 789 (preprint gr-qc/0008034)
Rocha Filho, T.M., Figueiredo, A., Brenig, L., Gunzig, E. & Faraoni, V. 2000, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, 1933
Rosen, N. 1994, Gen. Rel. Grav 26, 319
Saa, A., Gunzig, E., Brenig, L., Faraoni, V., Rocha Filho, T.M. & Figueiredo, A. 2001b, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 40, 2295
Stabell, R. & Refsdal, S. 1966, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 132, 379
Sonego, S. & Faraoni, V. 1993, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 1185
Tryon, E.P. 1973, Nature 246, 396
Vilenkin, A. 1983, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2848
Wainwright, J. & Ellis, G.F.R. 1997, Dynamical Systems in Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology (New York: Wiley)
Xulu, S. 2000, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, 1153 (preprint gr-qc/9910015)