format: text

text:
# UTCCP-P-99 March, 2001 𝐵 meson decay constants from two-flavor lattice QCD with non-relativistic heavy quarks

## I Introduction

An accurate determination of the $`B`$ meson decay constant has practical importance, as it is needed, together with the $`\overline{B}B`$ transition matrix elements, for the extraction of the quark mixing matrix elements from the $`\overline{B}B`$ mass difference. To this end much effort has been paid towards a quantitative evaluation of these matrix elements using lattice QCD (for reviews, see ).

A problem specific to heavy meson calculations with the original lattice formulation is that the heavy quark mass is greater than unity in units of lattice spacing, which makes the lattice artifacts intolerably large. There are two popular formalisms to handle heavy quarks, using the fact that the heavy quark in a $`B`$ meson is non-relativistic, in a way that large discretization effects proportional to the heavy quark mass do not appear. One is the use of the relativistic action with the aid of the non-relativistic reinterpretation (the Fermilab formalism) , and the other is simulations with the NRQCD action .

The problem with these formalisms, however, is that a continuum extrapolation is not simple. For instance, since the NRQCD action is not renormalizable, an infinite number of terms are involved in the $`aM0`$ limit, and their matching to the continuum theory requires good control of power divergence of the form $`1/(aM)^n`$ with $`n`$ a positive integer. In the Fermilab formalism the continuum extrapolation is possible in principle, although it is difficult in practice because of a complicated $`a`$ dependence of the couplings in the effective Hamiltonian of the heavy quark. Therefore, estimation of systematic errors arising from the continuum extrapolation is a non-trivial task in both formalisms.

Another uncertainty in previous calculations of heavy mesons is the effect of dynamical quarks. Most lattice studies to date adopt the quenched approximation. There are two calculations in which dynamical quarks are incorporated (full QCD) . The results indicate that the inclusion of dynamical quarks increases the value of $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$. The study by Collins et al. , using NRQCD for heavy quark and the clover action for light valence quarks, however, has been made only at a single lattice spacing in a small physical volume, and with the Kogut-Susskind staggered action for sea quarks with a mass around that of the strange quark. The other study by the MILC Collaboration , while covering a range of lattice spacings and sea quark masses, uses the Wilson action both for heavy and light valence quarks, but employs the staggered action for sea quarks. The problem with these calculations are that the actions for valence and sea quarks are different, having different symmetry structures at finite lattice spacings. This would be an additional source of systematic errors.

We study the $`B`$ meson decay constants, $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$, incorporating two flavors of light dynamical quarks, which are identified as $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. The strange quark is treated in the quenched approximation. In order to test the estimation of systematic errors in the final results in the continuum limit, we compare the results from the two heavy quark formalisms. The work with the Fermilab formalism has been published separately . In this paper, we present the calculation using NRQCD.

We carry out full QCD calculation with a consistent use of a quark action for both sea and light valence quarks. We adopt a renormalization group improved gauge action  for the gluon sector and an $`O(a)`$-improved clover action  for sea and light valence quarks . The use of the improved action enables us to reduce discretization errors, and makes it possible to study decay constants at moderate lattice spacing, which is feasible with the present computer resource.

The full QCD calculation is performed at two lattice spacings ($`1/a`$ 1.3 and 1.8 GeV). In order to study the dynamical quark effects, we perform parallel quenched simulations with the same action, tuning the lattice spacing to be the same as those in full QCD simulations.

The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce the lattice formulations of NRQCD used in this calculation, and define the operators that contribute to the axial vector current. Simulation details, such as the run parameters and choice of operators, and fitting methods are described in Sec. III. In Sec. IV, we discuss determinations of the physical lattice spacing, the $`B`$ meson masses and decay constants. A detailed discussion on the extrapolation and interpolation to the physical quark masses is given. We then attempt to obtain the continuum results by estimating the discretization errors at each finite lattice spacing in Sec. V. A comparison with results of previous studies is made in Sec. VI, and the conclusions are given in Sec. VII. Detailed numerical results are collected in the Appendix.

## II Formalism

### A Actions

For gluons we adopt a renormalization-group (RG) improved gauge action consisting of plaquettes and $`1\times 2`$ rectangular Wilson loops . The action for both sea quarks and light valence quarks is taken to be the $`O(a)`$-improved clover action  with a meanfield-improved clover coefficient $`c_{SW}=P^{3/4}`$, where the plaquette $`P`$ is evaluated in one-loop perturbation theory as $`P=10.8412/\beta `$. For our choice of parameters the measured values of plaquette $`P`$ is well approximated by the one-loop evaluation .

For the heavy quarks we use NRQCD corrected to $`O(1/M_0)`$ with $`M_0`$ the heavy quark mass. Previous quenched NRQCD calculations have shown that $`O(1/M_0^2)`$ corrections are small in the decay constants, being of the order of $`34\%`$ at the lattice spacings used in this study . There are various ways to discretize an NRQCD action (see e.g., ). Here, we choose the action that is symmetric under a time reversal transformation:

$$S_{NRQCD}=\psi _t^{}\left[\psi _t\left(1\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right)_t\left(1\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)_t^nU_4^{}\left(1\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)_{t1}^n\left(1\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right)_{t1}\psi _{t1}\right],$$
(1)
where $`\psi _t`$ is a two-component Pauli spinor at a time slice $`t`$. The sum runs over all lattice sites, while indices to represent spatial positions are suppressed. The operators $`H_0`$ and $`\delta H`$ correspond to the non-relativistic kinetic energy and the spin-chromomagnetic interaction, as defined by

$`H_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}}{2M_0}},`$ (2)
$`\delta H`$ $``$ $`c_B{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2M_0}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B},`$ (3)
respectively, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ is a Laplacian discretized in a standard way and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ represents a chromomagnetic field strength defined with a clover-leaf shape as in . The stabilization parameter $`n`$ is introduced to avoid an instability of the Green function at large separation due to high-momentum modes. In the free theory, this parameter should satisfy $`n>3/(2aM_0)`$ . We choose a larger value of $`n`$ to make the simulation stable . The actual numbers are given in Table I for full and in Table II for quenched QCD runs. Gauge links appearing in the NRQCD action are meanfield-improved, $`U_\mu U_\mu /u_0`$, with $`u_0`$ determined from the mean link in Landau gauge. The coefficient $`c_B`$ is set to its tree-level value, i.e. unity. We let the heavy quark Green functions to evolve from $`t`$=0 to $`T/2`$, and a time reversed evolution through the second half of the lattice from the same source.

### B Current operators

The pseudoscalar decay constant is defined by

$$if_Bp_\mu =0|A_\mu |B(p),$$
(4)
where the axial current $`A_\mu =\overline{q}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu h`$ is formed with the relativistic spinors $`q`$ for the light quark and $`h`$ for the heavy quark. We restrict our considerations to the time component, $`A_0`$.

The heavy quark field $`h`$ is related to a non-relativistic field $`Q`$ via a Foldy-Wouthuysen-Tani transformation at the tree level. Ignoring the $`O(1/M^2)`$ terms, this reads

$$h=\left(1\frac{\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}}{2M_0}\right)Q,$$
(5)
where

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
We write the two lattice operators contributing to the time component of the heavy-light axial vector current as

$`J_L^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}\gamma _5\gamma _0Q,`$ (7)
$`J_L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_0}}\overline{q}\gamma _5\gamma _0\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}Q.`$ (8)
In matching the continuum operator to the lattice counterparts, an additional operator $`J_L^{(2)}`$ appears at $`O(1/M)`$

$$J_L^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2M_0}\overline{q}\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}\gamma _5\gamma _0Q,$$
(9)
though its matrix element is equal to that of $`J_L^{(1)}`$ at zero momentum due to translational invariance on the lattice. Thus, at the one-loop level we use

$$A_0=(1+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(0)})J_L^{(0)}+(1+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(1)})J_L^{(1)}+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(2)}J_L^{(2)},$$
(10)
where $`\rho _A^{(0)}`$, $`\rho _A^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _A^{(2)}`$ have been computed in Ref.  *** The definition of the lattice currents $`J_4^{(i)}`$ in  is slightly different from $`J_L^{(i)}`$ used in this paper. The tree level rotation is included in $`J_4^{(0)}`$ in . The one-loop coefficients $`\rho _A^{(i)}`$ are modified accordingly.  for the RG-improved gauge action. The coefficient $`\rho _A^{(2)}`$ diverges in the limit of $`aM_0\mathrm{}`$ as 0.34$`\times 2aM_0`$, which cancels the factor $`1/M_0`$ in the definition of $`J_L^{(2)}`$ and gives a finite contribution. This remaining contribution corresponds to the improvement of discretization error of $`O(\alpha _sa)`$  in the static limit.

For $`\alpha _s`$, we use the coupling defined with the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme at $`\mu =1/a`$, which is evaluated using the one-loop relation

$$\frac{1}{g_{\overline{MS}}^2(\mu )}=\frac{(c_0P8c_1R)\beta }{6}0.1006+\frac{22}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(\mu a)+N_f\left(0.03149\frac{4}{48\pi ^2}\mathrm{log}(\mu a)\right).$$
(11)
The meanfield improvement is applied using measured values of the $`1\times 1`$ and $`1\times 2`$ Wilson loops, $`P`$ and $`R`$.

## III Simulation Details

### A Gauge configurations

The CP-PACS Collaboration has generated a set of full QCD gauge configurations incorporating two flavors of light dynamical quarks at four values of gauge coupling, $`\beta =1.8`$, 1.95, 2.1, 2.2, using the Hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm . At each $`\beta `$, four sea quark masses $`m_{sea}`$ are chosen in the range $`0.5m_s<m_{sea}<3m_s`$, where $`m_s`$ denotes the strange quark mass. In the chiral limit of sea quarks, these couplings correspond to lattice spacings $`a`$ with 1 GeV $`<a^1<2.2`$ GeV. The spatial lattice size is about 2.5 fm at $`\beta =1.8`$, 1.95 and 2.1, while it is about 1.9 fm at $`\beta =2.2`$. The parameters of the configurations are summarized in the left half of Table III.

In the present study we use the configurations at $`\beta =1.95`$ ($`a^11.3`$ GeV) and 2.1 ($`a^11.8`$ GeV); the entire gauge configurations we generated are analyzed at $`\beta =1.95`$, whereas half the configurations, corresponding to the first 2000 trajectories, are employed for $`\beta =2.1`$. The configurations are separated by 10 HMC trajectories at $`\beta =1.95`$ and by 5 trajectories at 2.1. We discard configurations at $`\beta =1.8`$, because of expected large discretization errors, and at $`\beta =2.2`$ for a too small physical volume. Details of the parameters employed in our analysis are listed in Table I.

The CP-PACS study of full QCD is supplemented by quenched simulations. These simulations are based on a set of quenched configurations with the same gauge action separated by 100 sweeps, each sweep consisting of 1 heatbath and 4 overrelaxation steps. The gauge couplings in the quenched configurations are tuned such that the string tension matches the one in full QCD at four sea quark masses in our simulation and at the physical sea quark mass point corresponding $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks, as shown in the right half of Table III . We analyze a subset of the quenched configurations at four values of $`\beta `$ as listed in Table II. The first two values ($`\beta =2.187`$ and 2.281) correspond to the full QCD runs with the heaviest and the lightest sea quark masses at $`\beta =1.95`$. The third ($`\beta =2.334`$) and the fourth, ($`\beta `$=2.575), correspond to full QCD at $`\beta =1.95`$ and 2.1 at the physical sea quark mass, respectively. Details of the parameters of these quenched runs are given in Table II.

### B Correlator measurements

In order to improve the overlap of interpolating field with the heavy-light meson ground state, we use smeared operators $`O_S`$

$$O_S(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\stackrel{}{y}}{}\overline{q}(\stackrel{}{x},t)\gamma _5Q(\stackrel{}{y},t)\varphi (|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|),$$
(12)
on the gauge configurations fixed to the Coulomb gauge. For the smearing function $`\varphi (|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|)`$ we use an exponential form,

$`\varphi (|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|)`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{exp}(B|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|)\mathrm{for}|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|0`$ (13)
$`\varphi (0)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (14)
We calculate correlators using smeared operators at the source and using both local and smeared operators at the sink,

$`C_{SS}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}}O_S(\stackrel{}{x},t)O_S^{}(\stackrel{}{0},0),`$ (15)
$`C_{SL}(t,|\stackrel{}{p}|)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}O_L(\stackrel{}{x},t)O_S^{}(\stackrel{}{0},0),`$ (16)
where $`O_L`$ denotes a local pseudoscalar density. The spatial momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ is introduced for $`C_{SL}`$ to study the energy-momentum dispersion relation of mesons. We make measurements for momenta $`p^2`$ = $`|\stackrel{}{p}|^2`$ = 0, 1, …, 5 in units of $`(2\pi /La)^2`$ with $`L`$ the spatial extent of the lattice. We average over all possible spatial directions.

The correlators for the axial currents are given by

$$C_{SL}^{(i)}(t)=\underset{\stackrel{}{x}}{}J_L^{(i)}(\stackrel{}{x},t)O_S^{}(\stackrel{}{0},0),i=0,1,2.$$
(17)
Note that $`C_{SL}^{(0)}(t)C_{SL}(t,\stackrel{}{0})`$ since the lower two components of $`Q`$ vanish.

### C Correlator fits

To calculate the decay constants we need the amplitude of the local currents. Since smeared-smeared and smeared-local correlators both have the exponential falloff with the same exponent controlled by $`E_{sim}`$, we make a simultaneous fit to a single exponential as

$`C_{SS}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_S^2\mathrm{exp}(E_{sim}t),`$ (18)
$`C_{SL}^{(i)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_L^{(i)}Z_S\mathrm{exp}(E_{sim}t),i=0,1,2.`$ (19)
We apply a bootstrap procedure with 500 samples, taking correlations between different correlators and time slices into account. For the dynamical configurations, we bin over 2 configurations at $`\beta `$=1.95 and 5 configurations at $`\beta `$=2.1. The quenched configurations are regarded as independent and are not binned. Results from forward and time reversed evolution on the same configurations are always averaged. In the full QCD analysis at $`\beta `$=2.1 we introduce a cutoff on the ratio of the largest to the smallest eigenvalues of the covariance matrix to avoid a low value of the goodness-of-fit $`Q`$. We have checked for the heaviest and the lightest sea quark mass that the effect of this procedure on the decay constants is small, amounting to at most $``$ 25% of the statistical error. The problem of a low $`Q`$ at $`\beta `$=2.1 might arise from the smaller number of independent configurations.

The fitting interval $`[t_{min},t_{max}]`$ is chosen such that both correlators already reach a plateau at $`t_{min}`$. This is judged by $`Q`$, as well as by eye from the effective mass and effective amplitude plots. Correlators, in particular $`C_{SS}`$, are often dominated by noise for large $`t`$, which is indicated by a decrease of $`Q`$ for a large $`t_{max}`$. We cut the fit at $`t_{max}`$ before noise dominates.

Examples of the effective mass plots for $`C_{SL}^{(0)}`$ and $`C_{SS}`$ are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, where the light valence quark mass is taken approximately to be the strange quark mass and the heavy quark mass to be the $`b`$ quark. In Fig. 1 the upper two panels illustrate full QCD data at $`\beta `$=1.95 with the lightest sea quark mass, and the lower two show quenched results at $`\beta `$=2.334 corresponding to the physical value of the sea quark mass in full QCD at $`\beta `$=1.95. Figure 2 shows similar plots at $`\beta `$=2.1.

Energy for a given finite spatial momentum $`E_{sim}(p^2)`$ is extracted from the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(p^2)E_{sim}(p^2)E_{sim}(0)`$ using a single exponential fit to the ratio

$$\frac{C_{SL}(t,|\stackrel{}{p}|)}{C_{SL}(t,|\stackrel{}{0}|)}=A(|\stackrel{}{p}|)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }E(p^2)t).$$
(20)
An example of the effective mass is shown in Fig. 3 for full QCD simulations at $`\beta `$=2.1.

## IV Analysis

### A Fixing the physical scale

We carry out a partially quenched analysis of the dynamical configurations. Namely, we evaluate the decay constants for the configurations at each sea quark mass, at which the lattice spacing and physical quark masses are determined by varying the valence light quark mass as we do in the quenched analysis. We then extrapolate the results to the physical value of the sea quark mass. In this subsection we discuss the determination of the lattice scale.

In simulations of full QCD with the realistic spectrum of dynamical sea quarks, one should in principle obtain a unique value for the lattice spacing $`a`$ from any physical quantity it is determined. In our simulation, however, we obtain different values of $`a`$ depending on the quantity used to fix the scale since dynamical quark effects other than those of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are not included.

One way to determine the lattice spacings is to use the $`\rho `$ meson mass. We refer the reader to Ref.  for the light hadron spectroscopy calculation, from which we constructed Tables IV and V.

Another way is to use $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ level splittings. Specifically, we take the spin-averaged $`1P1S`$ splitting, which is considered to be relatively insensitive to systematic errors. Our study of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ spectroscopy using the NRQCD action is described in Ref. .

One may think that the most natural scale for the physics of $`B`$ mesons is their level splittings. In quenched studies , it was found that the scale from the spin-independent $`B`$ spectrum agrees with that from the $`\rho `$ meson mass. We defer a verification in full QCD to a separate work. In this study, we study the scale from the $`\rho `$ meson mass, denoted as $`a_\rho `$ in the followings, and that from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`1P1S`$ splitting, denoted as $`a_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. We do not adopt the string tension to fix the scale because its physical value is not well known.

Our results for the Lattice spacings are listed in Tables IV and V for unquenched and quenched lattices respectively. Note that $`a_\rho `$ given in this paper differs slightly from the one presented in Ref. , the latter being calculated in the chiral limit where the $`(u,d)`$ quark mass vanishes rather than at the physical point. The ratio of the scales is plotted in Fig. 4 for quenched (open symbols) and full (filled symbols) QCD. The ratio becomes closer to unity with inclusion of the dynamical quark, but the discrepancy still remains significant. We note that the discrepancy does not decrease towards the continuum limit.

The light quark mass corresponding to the $`u,d`$ quarks is determined from $`m_\pi `$. To determine the strange quark mass, we use either the $`K`$ meson mass or the $`\varphi `$ meson mass. The corresponding hopping parameters denoted by $`K_l`$, $`K_s(K)`$ and $`K_s(\varphi )`$, are given in Tables IV and V.

### B $`B`$ meson masses

In NRQCD, the exponential falloff of the correlator in Euclidean time, $`E_{sim}`$, represents the bare binding energy. We expect that the nonperturbative mass of heavy-light mesons is inferred from the meson dispersion relation. We use the relativistic form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(p^2)E_{sim}(p^2)E_{sim}(0)=\sqrt{M_{kin}^2+p^2}M_{kin}.$$
(21)
In practice, we determine this energy difference from a fit of the ratio of the correlators at $`p^2=(2\pi /La)^2`$ and $`p^2=0`$ to a single exponential. The results are given in Table X for full QCD and in Table XI for the quenched case in the Appendix. We also examine this particular form of the dispersion relation by comparing the results using momenta larger than one lattice unit, and find that they agree within errors. An example for $`M_{kin}`$ as a function of $`p^2`$ is given in Fig. 5 for a quenched lattice at $`\beta `$ = 2.575.

The meson masses can also be estimated from $`E_{sim}`$, through the perturbative relation

$$M_{pert}=E_{sim}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{pert}E_{sim}+Z_mM_0E_0,$$
(22)
where $`Z_m`$ is the quark mass renormalization constant, and $`E_0`$ is a shift of the zero point of the energy that occurs in non-relativistic and static theories. We employ one-loop perturbative values of $`Z_m`$ and $`E_0`$ , using $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}`$ as defined in (11) at the scale $`1/a`$. Results for $`E_{sim}`$ are given in Tables XII and XIII, and those for $`M_{pert}`$ in Tables XIV and XV in the Appendix.

The statistical errors in $`E_{sim}`$ are very small. The error of $`M_{pert}`$ quoted in these tables is dominated by the systematic error from higher order radiative corrections, as estimated by $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}^2(1/a)`$ times the meson mass. We find that the one-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pert}`$ is always smaller than our estimate of the two-loop error, which increases our confidence in the error estimate.

For light valence quark masses around $`m_s`$, $`M_{kin}`$ and $`M_{pert}`$ agree within the combined errors for all configurations except for those for $`\beta `$ = 2.1, $`K_{sea}`$ = 0.1357 in full QCD, and for $`\beta `$ = 2.575 in quenched QCD. Even for these cases the difference is at most 2 standard deviations of the statistical error in $`M_{kin}`$. In Fig. 6 we show a comparison between $`M_{kin}`$ and $`M_{pert}`$ for full (top panel) and quenched QCD (bottom panel) at our finest lattice spacing of $`a_\rho ^11.8`$ GeV. The full QCD data show an agreement which is typical of our data, while for the quenched data we show the case of the largest discrepancy.

To determine the bare $`b`$ quark mass, $`M_{0b}`$, we employ the kinetic meson mass $`M_{kin}`$, as it is free from higher order perturbative errors. The systematic uncertainty in the choice of the method will be discussed later. We first fit the mass as a linear function of the light quark mass,

$$M=A_q+\frac{B_q}{2}\left(\frac{1}{K}\frac{1}{K_c}\right),$$
(23)
and extrapolate or interpolate to the physical value $`K_l`$ and $`K_s`$ to obtain the heavy-light meson masses $`M_l`$ and $`M_s`$. The result is then expressed as a function of the heavy quark mass, as

$$M_{l,s}=A_QM_0+B_Q,$$
(24)
and $`M_{0b}`$ is determined by requiring $`M_l`$ or $`M_s`$ to equal the physical meson mass, $`M_B`$ or $`M_{B_s}`$, respectively.

Examples for these fits in the light and heavy quark mass are given in Fig. 7. On the right panel, a plot of $`M_s/M_0`$ is shown as a function of $`1/M_0`$, which is $`A_Q+B_Q/M_0`$. Results using the $`B`$ meson agree with those from $`B_s`$ allowing for larger errors. We use the $`B_s`$ rather than the $`B`$ meson to calculate the central values of $`M_{0b}`$ to avoid the larger statistical and possible systematic errors from the extrapolation to $`K_l`$. The difference between the use of the $`K`$ and $`\varphi `$ mesons to fix the strange quark mass is negligible compared to other errors in heavy-light meson mass. We take the central value from the $`K`$ meson. The numerical results for $`M_{0b}`$ are listed in Table XVI (full) and in Table XVII (quenched).

### C Decay constants

The decay constants are calculated from the results of the fit (18) and (19) according to

$$a^{3/2}(f\sqrt{M})^{(i)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}0|J_L^{(i)}|P(\stackrel{}{0})=\sqrt{2}Z_L^{(i)}\sqrt{1\frac{3K}{4K_c}},$$
(25)
where $`|P(\stackrel{}{0})`$ denotes a pseudoscalar heavy-light meson state of mass $`M`$ at rest. The normalization factor $`\sqrt{1\frac{3K}{4K_c}}`$ for the light quark field in (25) is motivated by the meanfield improvement of the perturbative renormalization factor , with which the one-loop coefficient $`\rho _A^{(0)}`$ in (10) is modified. The lattice results for the matrix elements $`(f\sqrt{M})^{(0)}`$ and $`(f\sqrt{M})^{(1)}`$ are listed in Tables XVIIIXIX for full QCD and in Tables XXXXIII for quenched QCD. As mentioned before in Sec. II B, $`(f\sqrt{M})^{(2)}=(f\sqrt{M})^{(1)}`$ at zero momentum.

The physical decay constant is then obtained, following (10), by

$$f\sqrt{M}=(1+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(0)})(f\sqrt{M})^{(0)}+(1+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(1)})(f\sqrt{M})^{(1)}+\alpha _s\rho _A^{(2)}(f\sqrt{M})^{(2)}.$$
(26)
The one-loop corrections of the different currents contribute with different signs and partially cancel each other. As shown in Fig. 8 as an example for full QCD, the relative contribution of each of these corrections to the whole decay matrix element $`f\sqrt{M}`$ is small. The largest is the correction to $`(f\sqrt{M})^{(0)}`$, being of the order of a few percent. The overall one-loop correction is $`36\%`$ for the dynamical case, and $`35\%`$ for quenched. The one-loop correction for the RG-improved gauge action is thus smaller than for the plaquette gauge action for which the correction amounts to roughly $`10\%`$ (see e.g. ).

### D Analysis of heavy and light quark mass dependence

We find that the decay matrix elements $`a^{3/2}(f\sqrt{M})^{(i)}`$ are well described by a linear function in the light quark mass $`1/(2K)1/(2K_c)`$ as shown in Fig. 9 (top panel). Using the linear fit, we interpolate the data to $`K_s`$ or extrapolate to $`K_l`$. Then, we make a quadratic fit in $`1/M_0`$ and interpolate to the $`b`$ quark mass, $`1/M_{0b}`$. Figure 9 (bottom) shows this fit for full QCD on the finest lattice.

For quenched QCD this completes the analysis of the decay constant. We give the renormalized decay constants in Table VI.

For full QCD we carry out this procedure separately for each sea quark mass $`m_{sea}`$, using partially quenched values for the lattice spacing and $`K_c`$, $`K_l`$ and $`K_s`$. The resulting renormalized decay constants are given in Table VII. From these data we calculate the physical decay constants by extrapolating the sea quark mass to the $`u,d`$ quark mass. We use a linear fit in $`(am_\pi )^2`$, where $`m_\pi `$ is the pion mass of the sea quark. The sea quark mass dependence of $`f_B`$, $`f_{B_s}`$, and $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$, is very mild. On finer lattices, there is a slight upwards shift of the decay constants as the sea quark mass is decreased. In Fig. 10, this is demonstrated for $`f_B`$ at $`\beta `$ = 2.1. The final results for full QCD are given in Table VIII.

We note that the decay constants we obtained for finite lattice spacings agree very well with those from the Fermilab formalism  for both quenched and full calculations.

We add comments on possible systematic errors from various steps of the analysis procedure: (i) The bare $`b`$ quark mass using the $`\rho `$ mass to set the scale is slightly higher than that from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, but the two agree within statistical errors. (ii) The statistical error on the mass is included within the bootstrap procedure. There is a good agreement between results from $`M_{kin}`$ and $`M_{pert}`$, and if the perturbative error is included in the determination using $`M_{pert}`$, their errors are very similar. We take results obtained with the kinetic masses for our central values. (iii) An alternative method to represent the heavy quark dependence of $`f^{(i)}\sqrt{M}`$ is to employ the heavy-light meson mass instead of the heavy quark mass. This circumvents the determination of $`M_{0b}`$. The results agree with those using $`M_{0b}`$ within the statistical errors, which are similar in magnitude in both methods. We quote the numbers from the procedure using $`M_{0b}`$ as our central values.

## V Estimate of continuum results

While discretization errors decrease as the lattice spacing becomes smaller, the $`1/M`$ operators introduce radiative corrections that go as powers of $`1/a`$ in NRQCD. Thus NRQCD breaks down in the limit of vanishing lattice spacing, and we cannot perform a continuum extrapolation as a matter of principle. The aim is rather to find a range of lattice spacings where the result is approximately independent of the cutoff with small systematic errors.

We have plotted the resulting $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$ at finite lattice spacing in Fig. 11 and 12 for both quenched and full QCD calculations, where statistical errors are shown with thick bar symbols. We see the data for quenched QCD (top panels) exhibiting a signature for a plateau for $`a_\rho 0.8`$ GeV-1. The data for full QCD calculation however show a sizable drop from $`a_\rho =0.79`$ to 0.56 GeV-1. Nevertheless, it is perhaps possible to estimate the continuum value if we can properly estimate the discretization error at each lattice spacing, and we consider this problem in the following.

The leading systematic errors due to finite lattice spacings are $`O(\alpha _sa\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$ and $`O(a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)`$ with the clover action for light valence quarks. In the NRQCD heavy quark action, the tree level matching of the chromomagnetic coupling $`c_B`$ leads to the error of $`O(\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/M_b)`$. We also expect the discretization error of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}a/M_b)`$ from the NRQCD action. Since the matching calculation of the axial current has been made in one-loop perturbation theory, we expect an $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ radiative correction. In addition, there is an $`O(\alpha _s^2/(aM_b))`$ term, which is formally subleading compared to the $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ term, but still gives one of the leading $`1/a`$ contributions. An $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2/M_b^2)`$ contribution comes from the neglected $`1/M^2`$ corrections to the NRQCD Lagrangian. In Table IX we list an estimate of the systematic errors for $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$ on our lattices. We use $`\alpha _{\overline{MS}}(1/a)`$ for the coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$. For the typical momentum scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, we naively expect that its order is around 200-300 MeV. In this analysis, however, we take a value which is larger by a factor two and use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ = 600 MeV, in order to make the estimate more conservative. The overall error is calculated by summing the individual contributions in quadrature.

In Figs. 11 and 12 the discretization errors thus estimated are shown with thin error bars. Looking first at figures for the quenched case (top panels) we see that the ranges of error bars overlap among all data points, but also that the value of plateau is within the ranges of error bars. Therefore, we consider that the continuum value of the quenched decay constant is located within the estimated errors. We take the data at the weakest coupling, with which the error estimate becomes minimum,

$`f_B^{N_f=0}`$ $`=`$ $`191\pm 4\pm 27\mathrm{MeV},`$ (27)
$`f_{B_s}^{N_f=0}`$ $`=`$ $`220\pm 4\pm 31\mathrm{MeV},`$ (28)
as our estimate for the continuum value, where the first error is statistical, and the second is uncertainty associated with the discretization. These values are shown by horizontal lines in the figure. The errors here do not include systematic errors from the uncertainties of the strange quark mass (3%) and the lattice scale which exceeds 30% (see Fig. 4). The error due to strange quark mass is ascribed to both lattice artifacts and quenching effects. As seen in Table VI this uncertainty decreases towards weaker couplings. On the other hand, the uncertainty due to lattice scale does not diminish from strong to weaker couplings.

For the full QCD case, we could not see a plateau within the statistical errors in Figs. 11 and 12. From the same reasoning as in the quenched case, however, we expect that the continuum value is within the error range when we include systematic errors. Indeed, the final error bars of the two data points largely overlap in Figs. 11 and 12. Taking the data with a smaller error bar (i.e. at the weaker coupling), we have

$`f_B^{N_f=2}`$ $`=`$ $`204\pm 8\pm 29\mathrm{MeV},`$ (29)
$`f_{B_s}^{N_f=2}`$ $`=`$ $`242\pm 9\pm 34\mathrm{MeV},`$ (30)
as our ‘final’ estimate. We take these value as still provisional, since a plateau is not identified within the statistical errors. In full QCD, the uncertainty from the strange quark mass is about 1%. The uncertainty from the lattice scale is 22% in full QCD, which is smaller than that in the quenched case, but is still substantial (see Fig. 14). To be conservative we add this error to the final estimate of errors for the decay constants.

Figure 13 shows a similar analysis for the ratio $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$. This ratio is rather insensitive to the perturbative corrections and the heavy quark action. The dominant errors come from the light quark action, i.e. $`O(\alpha _sa\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$ and $`O(a^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)`$. We estimate the systematic error of $`f_{B_s}/f_B1`$ by quadrature. We find the systematic error to be smallest again at the finest lattice spacing, whose results are therefore taken as our final estimates. We obtain

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}}{f_B}}\right)^{N_f=0}`$ $`=`$ $`1.150\pm 0.009\pm 0.020,`$ (31)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}}{f_B}}\right)^{N_f=2}`$ $`=`$ $`1.179\pm 0.018\pm 0.023.`$ (32)
To study the effect of dynamical sea quarks, we take the ratio of unquenched to the quenched results. We expect that most systematic errors cancel, and we obtain,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^{N_f=2}}{f_B^{N_f=0}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.07(5);`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}^{N_f=2}}{f_{B_s}^{N_f=0}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.10(5);`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(f_{B_s}/f_B\right)^{N_f=2}}{\left(f_{B_s}/f_B\right)^{N_f=0}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.03(2).`$ (35)
where only the statistical errors are retained. We observe that the inclusion of dynamical sea quarks increases the decay constants, as noted in . The effects are 1.5 sigma for $`f_B`$, and 2 sigma for $`f_{B_s}`$.

## VI Comparison with other studies

We first note that the decay constants we obtained with the NRQCD formalism agree very well with those obtained using the Fermilab formalism; $`f_B=188\pm 3\pm 26`$ MeV and $`f_{B_s}=220\pm 2\pm 31`$ MeV from a quenched calculation, and $`f_B=208\pm 10\pm 29`$ MeV and $`f_{B_s}=250\pm 10\pm 35`$ MeV from a full QCD calculation . This justifies the validity of the two formalisms within the statistic and systematic errors.

We now compare our quenched calculation to the previous NRQCD results,  and , and to a quenched world average  in Fig. 15. In Ref. , marked as GLOK in Fig. 15, the clover light quark action is used with a tree-level meanfield-improved clover coefficient, and the NRQCD action includes $`1/M^2`$ corrections at the tree-level. The lattice spacing, fixed from $`m_\rho `$, is $`a^12`$ GeV. The calculation of the JLQCD Collaboration  employed the clover light quark action with a meanfield-improved one-loop clover coefficient, and heavy quarks with NRQCD corrected through $`O(1/M)`$. The scaling of the decay constant is tested at three lattice spacings, and the central value is extracted from runs at a lattice spacing $`a^11.6`$ GeV, with the string tension used to set the scale. The scaling test is also made for $`f_{B_s}`$ in Ref.  in the range $`a^1`$=1.1 to 2.6 GeV. For the world average, we use the value quoted in Ref.  that includes a variety of quark actions. Our value (labeled as “this work”) is slightly higher than those of JLQCD and the world average by 1.5 sigma. Our value, however, disagrees with the GLOK result by 2.5-3 sigma.

In Fig. 16, we compare our result from two-flavor QCD with other dynamical calculations that use the plaquette gauge action. Ref.  denoted as SGO uses the NRQCD action corrected through $`O(1/M)`$ for the heavy quark and a tree-level clover action for the light valence quark. The calculation used a set of dynamical gauge configurations with staggered quarks at a mass around the strange quark mass, but on a somewhat small physical volume ($`L_s1.6`$ fm). The lattice spacing ($`a^12`$ GeV) is fixed with $`m_\rho `$. The result from MILC  is an ongoing study using two flavors of staggered sea quarks, and both Wilson and (fat-link) clover action for valence quarks. The lattice spacings are set using $`f_\pi `$, and the central value is extracted from the continuum extrapolation of the Wilson results. Our result is again slightly higher, but agrees with the others within one sigma error.

## VII Conclusions

We have calculated the $`B`$ meson decay constants in two-flavor full QCD using the $`O(1/M)`$ NRQCD action, paying attention to the sea quark mass dependence and extrapolation to the chiral limit of the sea quark as well as estimates of discretization errors. We have used improved actions for both quarks and gluons to minimize the discretization error at a modest lattice spacing. We also have performed quenched simulations at matching lattice spacings using the same actions, to study the effect of dynamical sea quarks.

We have confirmed a plateau in the plot of the decay constants as a function of lattice spacing for the quenched calculation, but could not see a plateau in the full QCD calculation, within the statistical errors. We have estimated the decay constant in the continuum by evaluating systematic errors from discretization at each lattice spacing.

We have found that the NRQCD action and the relativistic Fermilab formalism give consistent estimates for the $`B`$ meson decay constants. Our values of $`f_B`$ and $`f_{B_s}`$ are slightly higher than those from previous studies, but the disagreement is at most at 1 sigma level.

We have confirmed that the sea quark effect makes the decay constants larger by $``$10%, which is about 1.5–2 sigma effects in our statistics. The systematic error due to the uncertainty of the strange quark mass (whether it is determined from $`K`$ or $`\varphi `$) is reduced to a negligible level by the introduction of two flavors of dynamical sea quarks. Comparing the results using the lattice scales from the $`\rho `$ meson mass and the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ mass splitting, we find that the uncertainty from the lattice scale is also smaller in full QCD, but remains to give a substantial error to the decay constants.

Our final result for the decay constant is summarized as,

$`f_B^{N_f=2}`$ $`=`$ $`204\pm 8\pm 29{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+44}{0}}\mathrm{MeV};`$ (36)
$`f_{B_s}^{N_f=2}`$ $`=`$ $`242\pm 9\pm 34{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+38}{0}}\mathrm{MeV};`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_s}^{N_f=2}}{f_B^{N_f=2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.179\pm 18\pm 23,`$ (38)
where the central values are taken from those using the lattice scale from the $`\rho `$ meson mass, because the $`B`$ physics will be governed by the soft hadron phenomena, and the uncertainty from the lattice scale is shown by the third error. This uncertainty cancels out in the ratio $`f_{B_s}/f_B`$. We should take these values as provisional until a plateau is actually confirmed with a future dynamical calculation.

## Acknowledgments

The calculations were performed on the parallel computer CP-PACS at the Center for Computational Physics, University of Tsukuba. This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of Ministry of Education (Nos. 09304029, 10640246, 10640248, 10740107, 11640250, 11640294, 11740162). TM and AAK are supported by the JSPS Research for the Future Program (Project No. JSPS-RFTF 97P01102). SE, KN and HPS are JSPS Research Fellows.

## Appendix


text:
# DETERMINATION OF THE CP PHASE 𝛾 WITH POSSIBILITY OF NEW PHYSICS

## Acknowledgments

The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by Grant No. 2000-1-11100-003-1 and SRC Program of the KOSEF, and in part by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077. The work of S.O. was supported by the KRF Grants, Project No. 2000-015-DP0077 and by the BK21 Project.

## References


text:
# Dwarf Galaxies in the Leo I Group: the Group Luminosity Function beyond the Local Group

## 1 Introduction

The classical picture of the dependence of the luminosity function (LF) on environment is that richer environments have steeper faint-end slopes. The range of measured slopes, using $`\alpha `$ of the Schechter (1976) formalism, was considered to vary from $`\alpha 1.4`$ in rich clusters to $`\alpha 1`$ for the low-density field. Galaxy groups have long been included with the field in these models, taking the Local Group (LG) slope of $`\alpha =1.1`$ (Pritchet & van den Bergh 1999) as the prototype. As the LFs are superpositions of the LFs of individual morphological types, this suggests that dwarf galaxies contribute a larger fraction by luminosity in denser environments.

Yet, there have a been a number of observational constraints on determining the LF to dwarf luminosities of $`M_B>16`$, where this steepening occurs. Many photometric surveys do not reach much fainter than this potential turn-up at $`M_B16`$, as dwarfs are notoriously difficult to detect at any significant distance. This has often led to a trade-off in group and cluster studies between the distance of a galaxy sample (and thus the limiting magnitude) and angular sky coverage, as the nearer groups and clusters cover substantial and almost unwieldy fractions of the sky. This leads to further difficulties in membership classification, as the more distant groups and clusters require statistical membership determination using control fields for the faintest galaxies which can prove problematic (c.f. Valotto, Moore, & Lambas 2001). Finally, as we probe fainter dwarf galaxies, we also probe fainter surface brightnesses which introduce significant surface-brightness selection effects.

## 2 Our Survey

With our $`R`$-band survey of the Leo I group, we probe a nearby poor group to observational limits approaching those of the LG. Leo I is a poor group at a distance of 10 Mpc and contains NGC 3379 as a member. The best work on the LF of the group to date is the photographic work of Ferguson & Sandage (1991). These data reached a limiting magnitude of $`M_B=14.2`$ (adjusted for $`mM=30`$), which for a $`BR=1.3`$ corresponds to $`M_R=15.5`$. Our program is designed to extend these limits.

The strategy of our survey has three main features which mitigate some of the more insidious observational difficulties. First, our imaging survey uses the KPNO 0.9m+MOSAIC, which has a 59$`\times `$59 field of view with eight mosaiced CCDs. Thus, we have $`R`$-band imaging of over seven square degrees in Leo I with the advantage of the linear response of CCDs. Second, the proximity of Leo I at 10 Mpc allows for galaxy membership classification on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis, using morphology, photometric parameters, radial profiles, colors, and in many cases, directly measured distances. Finally, we have developed a detection technique that optimizes detection of very low-surface-brightness (LSB) dwarfs, extending our survey to both faint luminosities and faint surface brightnesses which approach the limits measured in the Local Group.

Our detection method is two-fold. First we use the traditional method of standard SExtractor detection to find high-surface-brightness (HSB) objects. We then complement this with our optimized method, which is based on the work of Dalcanton (1995) for finding large LSB galaxies in the field. We mask our image of high-surface-brightness features, and then convolve it with a filter of the shape and size we expect for dwarf galaxies at 10 Mpc. In Figure 1a, we show an example of a dwarf in our sample that is not detected by our traditional method. In the central panel, we show the masked image, and in the right panel, the same image convolved with a 5<sup>′′</sup> exponential kernel. The aperture size shown is the detection aperture from the optimized method, where the dwarf is now a significant detection. Our method is described more fully in Flint et al. (2001).

## 3 Selection Function

An advantage of our detection procedure is that it is completely automated; thus, we can run extensive Montecarlo simulations to tune our detection parameters, quantify our completeness, and calculate our errors in measuring photometric parameters. We generate artificial galaxies, input them to our data images, and apply both our detection methods to recover them. We then calculate a recovery fraction as a function of both input central surface brightness ($`\mu _0`$) and input total magnitude ($`R_T`$). Our simulations for one field are shown in Figure 2, where the greyscale indicates recovery fractions of 90% (darkest), 70%, 50%, 30%, and 10% (lightest). LG galaxies, if seen at a distance of 10 Mpc, are plotted for comparison. While we don’t detect dwarfs like Draco and Ursa Minor, we find that without our optimized method, we would only detect objects with $`\mu _0<23.5`$ and so would miss dwarfs like And II and fainter. Furthermore, these data were taken with the MOSAIC’s engineering grade chips which are difficult to flat field. We estimate that with flatter data, we could extend our method one magnitude in total magnitude and two magnitudes in central surface brightness. Yet, even with these limitations, we find that at the 90% completeness level we can find dwarfs similar to Antlia and Sculptor, and at the 50% completeness level, dwarfs similar to Tucana and Leo II (Flint et al. 2001).

## 4 First Results

First results from Leo I are shown in Figure 3. Here we plot our detections in the same way as Figure 2, where the filled dots are LG galaxies again for comparison. Here the crosses are objects detected via our traditional method. The stars are objects which would not have been detected without using the optimized method. These detections have had a preliminary membership classification, using their position in this figure, profile type, and morphology. Using our sample of follow-up observations, we find that objects falling in the upper right area of the figure typically are small, higher-redshift background objects. We find some degree of contamination from background spirals around the Freeman’s Law value of $`\mu _020`$, where the open circle indicates a background spiral removed from the sample. Ironically, however, we find the most robust membership classification so far for the lowest-surface-brightness objects, where the circled stars are examples of dwarfs we have identified as members via spectroscopic redshifts and surface-brightness fluctuations (SBF). Our follow-up program is on-going and includes velocity measurements from both HI and optical spectroscopy, SBF, and colors for all candidates. In this way, we also hope to guard against contamination from field LSB galaxies, cosmologically dimmed high-$`z`$ galaxies, and possibly diffuse light from $`z0.6`$ galaxy clusters.

An interesting feature of our sample is that we find a few galaxies which deviate from the typical $`R_T\mu _0`$ relation followed by the LG galaxies in Figure 3. These galaxies, if members, are large, LSB dwarfs not seen in the LG. Similar galaxies have previously been discovered in other environments such as Virgo (Impey, Bothun, & Malin 1988) and M81 (Caldwell et al. 1998).

## 5 Luminosity Function

With the data in Figure 3, we can begin to construct the group LF. In Figure 4, in the shaded histogram, we show the raw galaxy counts for the 80% of the data analyzed to date. We then weight these raw counts for incompleteness as quantified through the Montecarlo simulations, as a function of both $`\mu _0`$ and $`R_T`$. The scaled LF is shown as the open histogram in Figure 4. A preliminary measurement of the faint-end slope yields $`\alpha =1.2`$, which is consistent with $`\alpha =1.1`$ measured in the Local Group (Pritchet & van den Bergh 1999).

## 6 Summary

We present a new program for robustly detecting low-luminosity dwarfs at a distance of 10 Mpc in the Leo I group. Using an optimized, filter-detection technique for finding low-surface-brightness dwarfs, we probe the group luminosity function to $`M_R10,\mu _0=24.5`$ at the 50% completeness level. We use follow-up observations and morphological membership classification to construct a preliminary luminosity function which appears to be consistent with that of the Local Group. We also find several large, LSB dwarfs which, if they are members, deviate from the $`R_T\mu _0`$ relation and have no counterpart in the Local Group.

References

Caldwell, N., Armandroff, T. E., Da Costa, G. S., & Seitzer, P. 1998, AJ, 115, 535

Dalcanton, J. J. 1995, PhD Thesis, Princeton University

Ferguson, H. C., & Sandage, A. 1991, AJ, 101, 765

Flint, K., Metevier, A.J., Bolte, M., & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2001, ApJS, in press (astro-ph/0101276)

Impey, C., Bothun, G., & Malin, D. 1988, ApJ, 330, 634

Pritchet, C. J., & van den Bergh, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 883

Schechter, P. 1976, ApJ, 203, 297

Valotto, C. A., Moore, B., & Lambas, D. G. 2001, ApJ, 546, 157


text:
# Contents

## 1 The muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment

### 1.1 Standard Model prediction and experiment

The amplitude for the photon-muon-muon coupling in the limit of the photon momentum $`q`$ going to zero can be written as

$`\mathrm{Amplitude}=ie\overline{u}\left[\gamma ^\lambda +a_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\lambda \beta }q_\beta }{2m_\mu }}\right]uA_\lambda ,`$ (1.1)
where $`e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}}`$. The second term comes from loop corrections, and is given to one-loop order in QED by $`a_\mu =\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }`$. Being a small correction to the tree-level magnetic moment of the muon, it is called the anomalous magnetic moment.

The state of the art calculation of $`a_\mu `$ within the Standard Model (SM) is

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}159.6}(6.7)\times 10^{10}.`$ (1.2)
The majority of the uncertainty comes from hadrons in the photon vacuum polarization diagram.

Recently the Brookhaven E821 experiment has released a new measurement of $`a_\mu `$ and found

$`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{E821}}=\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}202}(14)(6)\times 10^{10}.`$ (1.3)
From this one concludes

$`\delta a_\mu =a_\mu ^{\mathrm{E821}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}=(43\pm 16)\times 10^{10}.`$ (1.4)
This result indicates that the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon may need additional contributions beyond the SM to be consistent with the experimental measurement.

### 1.2 Supersymmetric contributions

There are many reasons to believe that the SM is an incomplete description of nature besides the present indications from $`a_\mu `$. For example, the SM does not explain baryogenesis, dark matter, the ratios of fundamental scales, or the strengths of gauge and Yukawa interactions. Supersymmetry is an appealing theoretical framework that may answer many of the questions unanswerable within the SM .

The supersymmetry effects - on $`a_\mu `$ include loops with a chargino and a muon sneutrino, and loops with a neutralino and a smuon. Summations are performed over all such chargino, neutralino and smuon mass eigenstates. The one-loop superpartner contributions to $`a_\mu `$, including the effects of possible complex phases, are

$`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,m}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{12m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2}}(|n_{im}^L|^2+|n_{im}^R|^2)F_1^N(x_{im})+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _i^0}}{3m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2}}\mathrm{Re}[n_{im}^Ln_{im}^R]F_2^N(x_{im})\right\}`$ (1.5)
$`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{12m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }^2}}(|c_k^L|^2+|c_k^R|^2)F_1^C(x_k)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_{\chi _k^\pm }}{3m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }^2}}\mathrm{Re}[c_k^Lc_k^R]F_2^C(x_k)\right\}`$ (1.6)
where $`i=1,2,3,4`$ and $`m=1,2`$ and $`k=1,2`$ are neutralino and smuon and chargino mass eigenstate labels respectively, and

$`n_{im}^R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_1N_{i1}X_{m2}+y_\mu N_{i3}X_{m1}`$ (1.7)
$`n_{im}^L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(g_2N_{i2}+g_1N_{i1}\right)X_{m1}^{}y_\mu N_{i3}X_{m2}^{}`$ (1.8)
$`c_k^R`$ $`=`$ $`y_\mu U_{k2}`$ (1.9)
$`c_k^L`$ $`=`$ $`g_2V_{k1}`$ (1.10)
and $`y_\mu =g_2m_\mu /\sqrt{2}m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ is the muon Yukawa coupling. The kinematic loop functions depend on the variables $`x_{im}=m_{\chi _i^0}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2`$, $`x_k=m_{\chi _k^\pm }^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }^2`$ and are given by

$`F_1^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)^4}}\left[16x+3x^2+2x^36x^2\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$ (1.11)
$`F_2^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{(1x)^3}}\left[1x^2+2x\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$ (1.12)
$`F_1^C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1x)^4}}\left[2+3x6x^2+x^3+6x\mathrm{ln}x\right]`$ (1.13)
$`F_2^C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2(1x)^3}}\left[34x+x^2+2\mathrm{ln}x\right],`$ (1.14)
normalized so that $`F_1^N(1)=F_2^N(1)=F_1^C(1)=F_2^C(1)=1`$, corresponding to degenerate sparticles.

By definition $`g_20.66`$ and $`g_10.36`$ are the $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge couplings. The phase convention for $`\mu `$ follows Refs. , so that the neutralino and chargino mass matrices are given by

$$M_{\chi ^0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& c_\beta s_Wm_Z& s_\beta s_Wm_Z\\ 0& M_2& c_\beta c_Wm_Z& s_\beta c_Wm_Z\\ c_\beta s_Wm_Z& c_\beta c_Wm_Z& 0& \mu \\ s_\beta s_Wm_Z& s_\beta c_Wm_Z& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1.15)
and

$$M_{\chi ^\pm }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_2& \sqrt{2}s_\beta m_W\\ \sqrt{2}c_\beta m_W& \mu \end{array}\right).$$
(1.16)
Here we have used abbreviations $`s_\beta =\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, $`c_\beta =\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$, and $`c_W=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$. The neutralino mixing matrix $`N_{ij}`$ and the chargino mixing matrices $`U_{kl}`$ and $`V_{kl}`$ are identical to those in Refs. ; they satisfy

$`N^{}M_{\chi ^0}N^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\chi _1^0},m_{\chi _2^0},m_{\chi _3^0},m_{\chi _4^0})`$ (1.17)
$`U^{}M_{\chi ^\pm }V^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_{\chi _1^\pm },m_{\chi _2^\pm }).`$ (1.18)
In particular, the neutralino and chargino mass eigenvalues are always chosen to be real and positive, regardless of the complex phases of the underlying Lagrangian parameters; all non-trivial phases are contained in the unitary mixing matrices $`N`$, $`U`$, $`V`$. The smuon mass matrix, written in the $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_L,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_R\}`$ basis is

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_L^2+(s_W^2\frac{1}{2})m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta & m_\mu (A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_\mu (A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )& m_R^2s_W^2m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta \end{array}\right),`$ (1.21)
and the unitary matrix $`X_{mn}`$ is defined by

$`XM_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2X^{}=\mathrm{diag}(m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}^2).`$ (1.22)
The muon sneutrino mass is related to the left-handed smuon mass parameter by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}^2=m_L^2+\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta .$$
(1.23)
The simplest analytic result to obtain from supersymmetry is to assume that all superpartners have the same mass $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, which leads to

$`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{192\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}(5g_2^2+g_1^2)=14\mathrm{tan}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}}\right)^210^{10}`$ (1.24)
with the chargino contribution dominating the neutralino contribution . The large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scaling is easy to understand, and is analogous to the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhancements of $`B(bs\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ corrections. $`a_\mu `$ requires a muon chirality flip, which usually costs a $`m_\mu `$ suppression. However, the higgsino-smuon-muon vertex coupling can perform the chirality flip with the muon Yukawa coupling $`y_\mu `$, leading to an enhancement $`y_\mu m_\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Another important limit which will play a role in the discussion of the next section is the case in which $`M_1M_2,\mu `$, so that only loops containing a light bino and the smuons are important. In that limit, we find:

$`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{light}\mathrm{bino}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{48\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2M_1\mathrm{Re}[\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta A_\mu ^{}]}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{F_2^N(x_{11})}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_2^N(x_{12})}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}^2}}\right]`$ (1.25)
where $`x_{1m}=M_1^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_m}^2`$. Note that eq. (1.25) has a smooth limit as the sleptons become degenerate. This yields a quite sizeable contribution in the case that all neutralinos and charginos except the light bino become heavy. For example, in the case $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}=2.0M_1`$, eq. (1.25) becomes

$`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{light}\mathrm{bino}}`$ $`=`$ $`18\mathrm{tan}\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{100\mathrm{GeV}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu A_\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta }{1000\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)10^{10}`$ (1.26)
(This formula will eventually fail to be accurate for extremely huge $`\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$, in accord with decoupling, since then $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}`$ must fail badly.) This situation is not quite in effect in the usual supergravity-inspired and gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking scenarios, but is certainly obtainable within a model-independent framework, as we shall see. Furthermore, it could arise quite naturally in certain well-defined extensions of the MSSM. For example, if supersymmetry breaking is manifested by an $`F`$-term VEV transforming in the adjoint 24 representation of a GUT $`SU(5)`$ gauge group, then the gaugino mass parameters are in the approximate ratio $`M_1`$ : $`M_2`$ : $`M_3`$ :: $`1`$ : $`6`$ : $`12`$ at the electroweak scale . Another class of examples occurs in gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking  (GMSB) models which have messengers that are not in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, but rather in representations with more electroweak singlets than doublets. These models naturally predict a bino and right-handed sleptons which are much lighter than all electroweak doublet superpartners .

The leading log contribution from two-loop evaluation  yields a suppression

$$a_{\mu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}=a_{\mu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{loop}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}\left(1\frac{4\alpha }{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}{m_\mu }\right)$$
(1.27)
where $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is a typical superpartner mass. This suppression factor varies between about 7% and 9% for the parameter space we consider. Although a complete NLO calculation has yet to be carried through in supersymmetry, we have imposed in all of our numerical results below a uniform 7% reduction from the 1-loop calculation based on this leading-log estimate.

## 2 Results for general supersymmetric models

### 2.1 General MSSM parameters

The full Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) parameter space contains dozens of parameters. However, the supersymmetric contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment depends at tree-level only on the quantities $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_L^2`$, $`m_R^2`$, and $`A_\mu `$. Therefore it is possible to comprehend the impact of supersymmetry by using scans over parameter space which include experimental constraints. Several recent papers have examined the question of whether bounds can be put on superpartner masses and other parameters by taking the E821 results at face value. In this section, we remark on the possibility of extracting such bounds in a model-independent, and therefore maximally conservative, supersymmetric framework.

We have conducted an exhaustive examination of the relevant MSSM parameter space without imposing conditions that follow from model-building prejudice, in particular without requiring the usual gaugino mass unification condition between $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. In general, the supersymmetric contribution to $`a_\mu `$ can be made larger for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and smaller masses of the lighter chargino. However, in contrast to some recent reports, we find that it is quite possible to accommodate the E821 results even with rather low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and for arbitrarily heavy charginos. This can be seen directly from eq. (1.25), by plugging in typical values. As long as $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are not tied together by a unification condition, the charginos can become very heavy for very large $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ while still leaving behind a contribution which is large enough to fall within the E821 1-$`\sigma `$ bounds, provided only that a smuon is light and $`|\mu |`$ is not too small. Even for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, the contribution can be large enough to fall within the present 2-$`\sigma `$ bounds.

The results for the maximum possible value of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ are shown in fig. 1.

Here we have chosen to present contours for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$ 2, 3, 6, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50. All of the other parameters are taken to be independent, subject to the constraint that all charged superpartners are heavier than 100 GeV and the lightest neutralino is heavier than 50 GeV (to provide approximate agreement with present and imminent bounds from the final results of the LEP2 experiments). In order to avoid the possibility of charge- and color-breaking vacua, we have imposed a constraint $`|A_\mu |3\mathrm{M}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}[m_L,m_R]`$. The precise value of this bound generally does not have a large effect on the contours shown. However, in these plots we have found it appropriate to make two significant concessions to model-dependent prejudice, as follows.

First, we have also included a 100 GeV lower bound on the lighter stau mass, by assuming universality in soft slepton parameters $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=A_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}`$ and $`m_{L,\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2=m_{L,\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2`$ and $`m_{R,\stackrel{~}{\tau }}^2=m_{R,\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^2`$, and then requiring $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>100`$ GeV. With these assumptions, requiring the staus to be heavier than 100 GeV imposes a stronger indirect constraint on the smuon, because of the mixings proportional to $`m_\tau \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for staus and $`m_\mu \mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for smuons. Strictly speaking, this type of requirement does not correspond to a model-independent framework, where lepton flavor universality need not be imposed; all bounds from low-energy lepton-number violation can be evaded by simple alignment in lepton flavor space. However, perhaps the most natural way to satisfy these constraints is to impose lepton universality at high energies. This constraint is most significant for smaller smuon masses and smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (less than roughly 10 or so), where the chargino-sneutrino loops do not necessarily dominate in $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Since in most cases the bounds are saturated by large mixing in the slepton sectors arising dominantly from the effects of large $`\mu `$, this requirement is not very sensitive to the precise values used for the soft parameters $`A_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$, $`m_{R,\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and $`m_{L,\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$, which can be affected by renormalization group running from a high scale where universality is imposed. In any case, we emphasize that in principle even larger values of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ can be obtained than are presented here.

Second, we have imposed a maximum value of $`|\mu |<1000`$ GeV. If one chooses to allow larger values of $`\mu `$, then one can construct models with larger contributions to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, resulting from neutralino-smuon loops dominated by a light smuon with a large mixing angle due to the off-diagonal terms proportional to $`\mu `$ in the squared-mass matrix. The prospect of very large $`|\mu |`$ often causes discomfort since it requires fine-tuning in the Higgs potential in order to obtain electroweak symmetry breaking in accord with experiment. However, it should be noted that in general the upper bound on contributions to $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ increases with the assumed maximum allowed $`|\mu |`$.

We have not imposed any requirement that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is a neutralino. While the existence of a neutralino LSP could make an attractive candidate for the cold dark matter, in a general model framework it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for an acceptable cosmology. Furthermore, in models which saturate the maximum possible $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, a neutralino is typically light, so that imposing such a constraint would generally not affect our results, except below when we impose gaugino mass unification on the parameter space.

Several features of fig. 1 deserve comment. In the graph of maximum $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as a function of chargino mass, there are distinct regions separated by an “elbow” (which is most visibly pronounced in the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$). For chargino masses to the right of the elbow in each case, the bound is saturated by models with the maximum allowed value of $`|\mu |`$ and small $`|M_1|`$, and in fact the graph is nearly flat as the dominant contribution comes mainly from neutralino-smuon loops, as in eq. (1.25). These models also have smuon masses (and stau masses) near their lower bound. For chargino masses to the left of the elbow, the maximum of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ tends to be saturated for models with much smaller values of $`|\mu |`$, and the chargino loops play a more important role. As $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is increased, the chargino loops become relatively more important, and the dependence on the chargino masses extends out to much larger values before they decouple.

In the graph of maximum $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as a function of smuon mass in fig. 1, the cases with smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ exhibit some structure. For smuon masses just above 100 GeV, the models that saturate the bound have $`|\mu |`$ of order 200 GeV; much larger values of $`|\mu |`$ which could otherwise increase $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ would conflict with our assumptions stated above regarding the limit on the lighter stau mass. In an intermediate region for the lightest smuon mass, the models that saturate the bound are the ones with the maximum allowed value of $`|\mu |`$ and small $`|M_1|`$, as suggested by eq. (1.25). This leads to a bump in the maximum $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$; this is prominent for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,3`$, is just barely visible for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =6`$ (near smuon mass of 145 GeV) and disappears entirely for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or larger smuon masses, the models that saturate the bound again have much smaller $`|\mu |`$ (of order 200 GeV).

The effect of varying the maximum allowed value for $`|\mu |`$ is illustrated in fig. 2 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$, using $`|\mu |<500,1000,`$ and 2000 GeV. The graph shows that for a given chargino mass, the upper bound on $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is usually obtained for the maximum allowed $`|\mu |`$. However, as a function of the lighter smuon mass, the upper bound on $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is saturated for large $`|\mu |`$ only in a finite range of the smuon mass. Again, this is because for smuon masses very close to the experimental limit, the effects of large $`|\mu |`$ are limited by our requirement that the stau is not too light, while for sufficiently large smuon masses the chargino-sneutrino loops become more important.

### 2.2 Gaugino mass unification

It is also interesting to see how our results would change if one restricts to a class of models that make the usual assumption of gaugino mass unification predicted by supergravity-inspired models with unification of gauge couplings and universal soft-supersymmetry breaking couplings, namely

$$M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_20.5M_2.$$
(2.1)
It is plausible from a model-building perspective that slepton and Higgs soft squared masses can be affected by unknown $`D`$-term contributions - and other sources of non-universality. This supports the idea of an unrestricted parameter space for $`m_L^2`$, $`m_R^2`$, $`\mu `$, and $`A_\mu `$, while still maintaining the condition eq. (2.1). Therefore we show the effects of imposing this assumption on the parameter space in fig. 3.

This graph shows that requiring gaugino mass unification does significantly impact the maximum obtainable $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ for larger values of the chargino mass. This is clearly because if gaugino mass unification is imposed, heavy charginos necessarily means that the neutralino-smuon loop also decouples. Without the gaugino mass unification requirement, a significant contribution from the lightest smuon and bino-like neutralino loop can be independent of the chargino masses. However, the results for the maximum $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as a function of the lighter smuon mass are essentially unaffected by the requirement of gaugino mass unification, since the bounds in that case are saturated by models with lighter charginos anyway.

### 2.3 Constraints on the effects of complex phases

The above results were obtained for general values of all phases of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$, and $`A_\mu `$. It is useful to remark that the maximum values of $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, for fixed magnitudes of the parameters, is generally obtained when they are all real. For example, this is illustrated for a particular choice of parameters (close to a dilaton-dominated supergravity model) in fig. 4.

In the left graph, we show $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as a function of chargino mass, with fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, $`|M_1|=140`$ GeV, $`|M_2|=280`$ GeV, $`|\mu |=500`$ GeV, and slepton parameters $`m_L=300`$ GeV, $`m_R=225`$ GeV, and $`|A_\mu |=320`$ GeV. The range of values for $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, obtained by varying over all possible phase values, fills out the region enclosed in the solid lines, while the circles at the corners denote the points obtained when all parameters are real. In the right-hand graph, the same thing is done for the same model, but with $`|\mu |=`$ 280 GeV (equal to $`M_2`$) so that chargino mixing and neutralino mixing effects are larger.

This illustrates that while the dependence on the phases is quite strong as has been noted in ref. , the maximal contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment occurs for real parameters; in particular it usually occurs for positive real $`\mu `$, if $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are both positive and real. This result is not surprising. Unlike chiral violating interactions, CP-violation breaks no symmetry critical to $`a_\mu `$ and so its introduction cannot overwhelm the calculation. The extremes of constructive and destructive interference naturally occur for $`e^{i\varphi _k}=\pm 1`$ (i.e., $`\varphi _k=0`$ or $`\pi `$). Therefore, imposing bounds from CP-violation experiments has no effect on the results shown in figs. 1-3.

## 3 Expectations in minimal supersymmetry models

The full supersymmetry parameter space, including all supersymmetric masses and mixing angles, contains well over 100 free parameters. The vast majority of this parameter space is ruled out by experimental measurements of proton lifetime, flavor changing neutral currents, and CP-violating observables. Ideas to solve these problems in supersymmetry are varied. However, there exists two baseline, or minimal models, that are largely immune from all past experimental constraints, and are often employed to estimate accessibility of supersymmetry in new experiments. These two models are called “minimal supergravity” (SUGRA) and “minimal gauge mediation” (GMSB).

One advantage of having minimal models as baselines for comparing expectations of supersymmetry is that they existed and were well-motivated before anomalies were seen by experiment. They therefore provide a more restrictive but still dispassionate view of how easily supersymmetry can accommodate non-SM effects, complementary to that obtained from the fully model-independent framework described in the previous section. When the measurement of $`R_b=\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zb\overline{b})/\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\mathrm{had})`$ appeared to have a $`3\sigma `$ deviation from the SM prediction, it was shown that SUGRA could not accommodate it . One could attain $`R_b^{\mathrm{expt}}`$ in supersymmetry only by entertaining unusual corners of parameter space. It might be accurate to say that the SUGRA analysis of $`R_b`$ has turned out to be the most enlightening one.

We perform the SUGRA analysis here for similar dispassionate reasons. One expects a large class of viable supersymmetric theories to be in the neighborhood of SUGRA, especially for the subset of MSSM parameters that enter into the $`a_\mu `$ calculation. We also do an analysis for GMSB since that constitutes a separate, equally interesting minimal model positioned in a different large neighborhood of viable supersymmetric theories. For the reader’s ability to reproduce our results, we define our models by feeding SUGRA and GMSB spectra from the ISAJET sugrun code  into the $`a_\mu `$ formulas presented above.

### 3.1 Minimal supergravity

SUGRA simplifies the derivation of the superpartner spectrum by assuming that all gauginos unify at the grand unified (GUT) scale with mass $`m_{1/2}`$, and all scalars unify at the GUT scale with mass $`m_0`$. Additional free parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values), $`A_0`$ (common trilinear scalar coupling at the GUT scale), and the sign of $`\mu `$ (the superpotential Higgs mixing mass parameter with sign convention of Refs. ). For a more thorough description of SUGRA and this parameterization, see .

We will illustrate the generic effects that SUGRA has on $`a_\mu `$ by initially restricting ourselves to the so-called dilaton dominated scenario where

$`m_{1/2}=A_0=\sqrt{3}m_0(\mathrm{dilaton}\mathrm{dominated}).`$ (3.1)
In fig. 5 we have plotted $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ vs. superpartner mass (chargino and lightest smuon) for various $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The dashed lines mean $`m_h<114\text{ GeV}`$, in apparent conflict with LEP2 bounds on the Higgs boson . If $`m_h114\text{ GeV}`$ turns out to be the actual Higgs boson mass, as some tantalizing data seem to suggest, then one can spot the prediction for $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ by focusing on the interface between the dashed lines and the solid lines.

Going from right to left, some of the lines terminate abruptly. The reason for this is that we have required all lines, dashed or solid, to be consistent with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>100\text{ GeV}`$, which is our conservative cut based on anticipated limits from the final LEP2 analyses. Since the stau mass matrix in most models, including this one, is correlated closely with the smuon mass matrix, we can test unambiguously if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<100\text{ GeV}`$. When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}`$ because the off-diagonal part of the mixing matrix, $`m_{\mu ,\tau }\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$, is larger for the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ than $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, and level repulsion of mass eigenstates will push $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ lower than $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}`$. The available smuon masses are also constrained by $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }>100`$ GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2,3,6`$. For these reasons, fig. 5 has some lines ending within the plots.

As expected, the higher values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ have higher $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ contributions, have less problem with the $`m_h>114\text{ GeV}`$ constraint, and have more problem with the $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>100\text{ GeV}`$ constraint. The Higgs and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ mass constraints are competing effects in the drive to get high $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. In the end, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ still wins out and we can easily get within the $`1\sigma `$ allowed region by requiring $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}20`$, $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}260\text{ GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}\stackrel{<}{}230\text{ GeV}`$; or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{}30`$, $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}325\text{ GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}\stackrel{<}{}280\text{ GeV}`$.

Since $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ scales as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we now suppress discussion of this known behavior by fixing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and vary $`m_0`$ within the SUGRA framework. We are comfortable with this larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ choice for another reason. Namely, $`tb\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification is most easily satisfied for larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ theories . This tri-unification of Yukawa couplings is preferred in minimal version of $`SO(10)`$ grand unification. Fig. 6 plots the prediction of $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ vs. chargino mass and lightest slepton mass for various values of $`m_0`$. Again, the dashed lines indicate $`m_h<114\text{ GeV}`$. The dashed lines terminate on the left where $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }<100`$ GeV. Going from left to right, the solid lines terminate because $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ becomes the LSP. There are two problems with this. First, charged LSPs are cosmologically disfavored . And second, even if one assumes $`R`$-parity violation will decay away the dangerous charged relics, we would have to give up on the very attractive neutralino LSP of SUGRA. For this reason we have terminated the lines when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<m_{\chi _1^0}`$, although it is easy enough to visually follow where the lines would have extended in the higher chargino mass region.

From fig. 6 we learn that for a large value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, such as the choice here of 30, large contributions are possible for $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, but the superpartner effects decouple rapidly. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$, one requires $`m_{\chi _1^\pm }\stackrel{<}{}350\text{ GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}\stackrel{<}{}500\text{ GeV}`$ to be within $`1\sigma `$ of the measured value. Both these masses increase to approximately $`600\text{ GeV}`$ to find oneself within $`2\sigma `$ of the measured value.

In short, the SUGRA model with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ generically gives large values of $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for superpartners with mass at least as high as three times the current experimental limits. Therefore, SUGRA or some approximate to it would not be a surprising solution to the measured non-SM contribution of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

### 3.2 Minimal gauge mediation

GMSB organizes the superpartner spectrum in an entirely different way, but with equal simplicity, by assuming that all superpartners get their masses by interacting through ordinary gauge bosons with messenger fields that feel supersymmetry breaking. In the minimal model the messenger fields are assumed to be equivalent to an integer number ($`N_5`$) of complete multiplets of $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields of $`SU(5)`$. Along with $`N_5`$, other free parameters are the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$, the messenger mass scale $`M_m`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For simplicity in this analysis we assume the reasonable relation $`M_m=100\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=F/M_m`$ sets the scale of the MSSM sparticle masses. For a more thorough description of GMSB and this parameterization, see .

Our first illustration of the GMSB predictions will be for the most minimal model of one messenger $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$, i.e. $`N_5=1`$. In fig. 7 we plot $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ vs. lightest chargino mass and lightest smuon mass for various $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Again, the dashed lines represent $`m_h<114\text{ GeV}`$ for comparison with LEP2 searches, and the lines terminate to the left because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}<100\text{ GeV}`$.

We witness from fig. 8 yet another example of how large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhances the value of $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. For large but reasonable values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is within $`1\sigma `$ of the measured value. Again, masses can be several times heavier than the current limits to accomplish this, and no additional constraints such as $`m_h`$ or $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ limits disturb the result. An intriguing feature of this plot is the near-equal predictions of SUGRA dilaton dominated scenario and $`N_5=1`$ GMSB for fixed chargino mass. This only means that in both these minimal models the relative masses of the charginos and smuons are close for the same values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Variations in the spectrum occur for different values of $`N_5`$. In fig. 8, we fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and plot $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for various $`N_5`$. The higher the number of $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ representations the higher $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for a given chargino mass. This is simply because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}/m_{\chi _1^\pm }1/\sqrt{N_5}`$. Of course, if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}`$ dips below $`100\text{ GeV}`$ the line is not extended, which explains the curious result in fig. 8 that the highest allowed $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ for a fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ comes from lower $`N_5`$.

In short, the simplest GMSB models have similar predictions as SUGRA for $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, and can naturally produce a result within $`1\sigma `$ of the measured value for reasonable superpartner masses well above direct experimental mass limits. We find the results for SUGRA and GMSB encouraging for the supersymmetric interpretation of $`a_\mu `$.

## 4 Discussion of correlating phenomena

The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is just one observable out of many that supersymmetry can affect. Using just this one quantity to divine predictions for other observables is difficult for the obvious reason that each observable requires a different set of supersymmetry masses and mixing angles. Furthermore, even within a narrowly defined version of supersymmetry, such as SUGRA, a single value of $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ maps to a vast parameter space within the model.

### 4.1 Superpartners at colliders

With the above caveats we make a few general comments on expected correlating phenomena. All remarks are based on one generally drawn conclusion: the large $`a_\mu `$ measurement at E821 likes a supersymmetric interpretation with larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and lighter superpartners. The exact values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and superpartner masses are model-dependent. In the previous sections, we have shown that in the most general MSSM no meaningful bounds can be placed on the chargino mass, and weak bounds can be placed on the lightest smuon mass. For example, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <20`$ then $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}\stackrel{<}{}500\text{ GeV}`$. However, we readily admit that one does not find generically in MSSM parameter space that the lightest smuon mass can be above several hundred GeV and $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ within $`1\sigma `$. This assessment is made by analyzing minimal models and making agenda-less tours in supersymmetry parameter space. Therefore, we would cautiously agree  that the first statement to make about correlating phenomena is that smuons should be light. Smuons are notoriously difficult objects to discover at hadron colliders . They are relatively easy to find at $`e^+e^{}`$ machines, but of course the center of mass energy must be sufficient to produce them.

### 4.2 Higgs boson mass

Other conclusions are a bit more subtle. For example, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is also preferred by Higgs search results at LEP2. Higgs bosons greater than (or equal to) $`114\text{ GeV}`$ have put strain on low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ models (see, e.g. ). This can be seen most readily by the prediction for the lightest supersymmetric scalar Higgs boson mass eigenstate in the $`m_Z^2/m_A^21`$ limit:

$`m_h^2=m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{3g_2^2m_t^4}{8\pi ^2m_W^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_t^2}}.`$ (4.1)
This formula is exact if one is willing to tolerate an extremely complicated form for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, otherwise it can be interpreted as approximate  with $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}`$. The first term representing the tree-level mass prediction grows larger with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Furthermore, although not obvious from the form of eq. (4.1), the radiative corrections to the Higgs mass can increase with larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ also (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depends mildly on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$). As a simple illustration, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1\text{ TeV}`$ ($`=500\text{ GeV}`$) we need $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2.8`$ ($`12`$) to ensure $`m_h>114\text{ GeV}`$. This tendency for higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with lower superpartner masses to satisfy the Higgs mass bound is in the same direction as the requirements of $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$.

We remark that we would not be surprised if the Higgs sector were different than the simple two Higgs doublets of the MSSM. For example, an additional singlet field with superpotential term $`\lambda SH_uH_d`$ may even be more preferred since it can lead to spontaneous generation of the $`\mu =\lambda S`$ term, among other advantages. The lightest Higgs boson in this case would then get a contribution to its mass proportional to $`\lambda ^2v^2`$, potentially making $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limits from Higgs boson mass in the MSSM irrelevant, depending on the size of the Yukawa coupling $`\lambda `$.

### 4.3 Neutralino dark matter

Another potentially important correlation is in dark matter relic abundance and dark matter detection. Several authors  have noted that within some specific frameworks, e.g. SUGRA, the dark matter detection rate prediction is large when $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is large. This is partly because coherent scattering of dark matter off nuclei similarly requires a chirality flip and so is enhanced by larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Recently, DAMA has claimed a signal in the annual modulation of WIMP-nuclei scattering . The supersymmetric interpretation implies a large spin-independent coherent scattering cross-section, which is easier to attain at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . The DAMA signal may or may not be real, but the correlation remains: large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ implied by $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ generally implies larger scattering cross-sections for dark matter detectors. Of course, it is possible that supersymmetry has nothing to do with dark matter because $`R`$-parity is not conserved, or some other reason, in which case these issues become irrelevant.

As for relic abundance of the lightest neutralino, light sleptons could create a problem for the supersymmetric interpretation of dark matter since they induce an efficient $`t`$-channel annihilation channel in $`\chi _1^0\chi _1^0l^{}l^+`$. The larger the annihilation channel the smaller the relic abundance ($`\mathrm{\Omega }1/\sigma v`$). However, there is a large region of parameter space for light sleptons  (but heavier than $`100\text{ GeV}`$) that is consistent with adequate thermal relic abundance to be cosmologically interesting, $`0.1\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\Omega }h^2\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$. Furthermore, in the regions where there is small thermal relic abundance from light sleptons or large coannihilation effects , there are non-thermal sources  of the LSPs that could regenerate them as dark matter. Therefore, we do not think relic abundance considerations add significantly to the dialog on $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ at this point.

### 4.4 $`B(bs\gamma )`$ constraint

Lastly, we remark on $`B(bs\gamma )`$. There is a close similarity between $`a_\mu `$ and $`B(bs\gamma )`$ in that both get large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhancements from a higgsino-sfermion-fermion interaction vertex with a down-fermion Yukawa coupling. If the E821 experiment had measured $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}43\times 10^{10}`$ instead of $`+43\times 10^{10}`$, the measurement of $`B(bs\gamma )`$ would have disfavored many supersymmetric interpretations. However, it happens that $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ prefers $`\mu >0`$ (for real positive gaugino masses) and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and $`B(bs\gamma )`$ severely restricts $`\mu <0`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, but does not significantly restrict $`\mu >0`$.

It is well-known that $`M_3\mu >0`$ is not as restricted by B($`bs\gamma )`$  as $`M_3\mu <0`$, since the signs of the amplitudes in this circumstance imply partial cancellations. Recently, this conclusion was strengthened even more by the evaluation of higher-order calculations to $`B(bs\gamma )`$. At higher order one must self-consistently take into account the finite $`b`$-quark mass corrections which are enhanced dramatically at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. These corrections imply smaller $`b`$-quark Yukawa coupling and therefore smaller magnitude for the higgsino-squark-quark chirality flip. From fig. 2 of  one can see the reduction in the supersymmetric prediction for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ with $`M_3\mu >0`$, rendering $`B(bs\gamma )`$ unable to significantly constrain large positive $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ scenarios.

The above discussion is mostly based on SUGRA-like relations among superpartner masses. A similar conclusion can be inferred from ref. , wherein $`B(bs\gamma )`$ has little impact on the viability of the CMSSM to explain $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. The same discussion holds for GMSB since the squarks are even heavier in that model, and $`B(bs\gamma )`$ was never much of a serious constraint  when all the uncertainties are accounted for. Other theories of supersymmetry breaking such as anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB)  appear to have difficulty accomodating $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ . This difficulty arises because $`M_3<0`$ and the lightest gauginos are winos with small positive $`M_2`$, leading to a severe constraint on $`\mu >0`$ parameter space from $`B(bs\gamma )`$. The $`SU(5)`$ model with a supersymmetry breaking F-term in the 24 representation discussed at the end of sec. (1.2) also has $`M_3<0`$. However, in this case the ratios $`|M_2/M_1|6`$ and $`|M_3/M_1|12`$ imply that the lightest neutralino and smuon entering the $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ loop corrections would be significantly lighter than the squarks and charginos that affect $`B(bs\gamma )`$. Even though these mass hierarchies make $`B(bs\gamma )`$ less important of a constraint than it is in AMSB, careful evaluation of the next-to-leading order $`B(bs\gamma )`$ prediction would need to be compared with experiment to ultimately judge the viability of this model to explain $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$.

One also must approach the $`B(bs\gamma )`$ observable with a bit of caution when trying to rule out parameter space consistent with $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Most analyses implicitly assume that the theory prediction is precise, and it need only fit into the range obtained from experimental measurement, often quoted to be between $`(24)\times 10^4`$. The SM theory prediction  is

$$(3.29\pm 0.33)\times 10^4(\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{Theory}).$$
(4.2)
This $`10\%`$ error, whether one interprets it as a $`1\sigma `$ error or $`95\%`$ C.L., clearly implies that there should be comparable error in the theory prediction of any theory evaluated at the same NLO rigor. Supersymmetry, it should be noted, has not been calculated fully to NLO. Therefore it is safe to presume that the supersymmetry prediction will be at least 10% uncertain, and it must be taken into account in any careful analysis.

Equally important as the accuracy of the theory prediction is the fact that the experimental measurement of $`B(bs\gamma )`$ is not a pure observable in that a severe cut on the photon energy is needed to reduce charm backgrounds in the analysis at CLEO. This introduces theoretical uncertainties  in addition to the obvious ones, such as imprecise knowledge of the $`b`$-quark mass, $`\alpha _s`$ and the not-completely-known contributions scaling as $`m_c^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$. Therefore, the CLEO measurement is expressed as

$$(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^4(\mathrm{CLEO})$$
(4.3)
where the errors are statistical, systematic, and model-dependence, respectively. These kinds of varied errors should give pause when advocating a hard cut on $`B(bs\gamma )`$ in supersymmetry, and one should be wary about deleting any part of parameter space based on an apparent incompatibility with the $`B(bs\gamma )`$ constraint.

In our more general MSSM discussion of section 2, the $`B(bs\gamma )`$ constraint does not even need to be discussed since no values of the squarks masses enter. For this more general model, we can simply claim that the squark masses are sufficiently massive as to contribute little to $`B(bs\gamma )`$. From the discussions above, we conclude that $`B(bs\gamma )`$, as with all other observables, usually adds no significant burden in a quest to find a supersymmetric explanation for $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$.

Acknowledgements: SPM is supported in part by the National Science Foundation grant number PHY-9970691, and JDW is supported in part by the Department of Energy and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.