text:
# Physics Opportunities at 𝝁⁺𝝁⁻ Higgs Factories 11footnote 1 Report of the Higgs factory working group of the ECFA-CERN study on Neutrino Factory & Muon Storage Rings at CERN. CERN-TH/2002-028

## 1 Introduction

Muon colliders produce Higgs bosons directly via $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ annihilation in the $`s`$-channel, unaccompanied by spectator particles. If the electroweak symmetry is broken via the Higgs mechanism, hadron machines, such as the Tevatron collider  and the LHC , will presumably discover at least one Higgs boson, but in an experimental environment contaminated by important backgrounds and accompanied by many other particles. An $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC)  would complement the hadron colliders by providing precise studies of the Higgs boson in a clean environment. However, the dominant production mechanisms create Higgs bosons in association with other particles, such as a $`Z^0`$ , two neutrinos or an $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. Moreover, the peak cross section for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider to produce a Higgs of $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ is around 60 pb, which can be compared with around 0.14 pb for an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating at 350 GeV.

The potential of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders for investigations of the Higgs system is very exciting, and has been the subject of much work, see, e.g., . However, if the study of an $`s`$-channel resonance is to be pursued experimentally, the event rate must be sufficiently large. In the case of a Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson $`H`$, this means that the mass must be somewhat less than twice $`M_W`$, otherwise the large width reduces the peak cross section. This condition need not apply to more complicated Higgs systems, for instance the heavier neutral Higgses of supersymmetry.

Since a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider is able to work near optimally over only a limited range of centre-of-mass energies, knowledge of the Higgs mass is crucial in designing such a machine. A combined fit to precision electroweak observables yields an indirect estimate for the SM Higgs boson mass of

$$m_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}88}_{35}^{+53}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(1.1)
with a one-sided 95% confidence-level upper limit of $`196\mathrm{GeV}`$ , including theoretical uncertainties. These numbers are increased by about $`20\mathrm{GeV}`$ if one uses the estimate  of the effective value of $`\alpha _{em}`$ at the $`Z^0`$ peak. The range (1.1) should be compared with the lower limit from direct searches of $`114.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ , and suggests that the most probable value for the Higgs mass is not much greater than this lower limit , as seen in Fig. 1. The analysis leading to Fig. 1 is valid within the Standard Model, or any new physics extension of it in which the new physics effects decouple from the precision electroweak observables, as occurs for example in minimal supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, when all supersymmetric particle masses are above the weak scale.

In fact, the 2000 run of the LEP collider yielded a 2.1 $`\sigma `$ excess in the search for the SM Higgs boson, with a preferred mass of

$$m_H=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}115.6}_{1.1}^{+1.4}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(1.2)
The excess seen is consistent with the expectations from such a signal: the most significant candidate events have been seen in the $`H\overline{b}b`$ decay mode, with $`Z^0\overline{q}q`$, and the production cross section is quite compatible with that expected for a SM Higgs boson. The mass (1.2) is highly consistent with the range (1.1). Moreover, both are also highly compatible with the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), which predicts the existence of a light Higgs boson weighing less than about $`130\mathrm{GeV}`$ . If the observation (1.2) were to be confirmed, it would provide an excellent opportunity for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider Higgs factory. As was outlined in , the measurement of the $`H\overline{b}b`$ decay mode for a mass around $`100\mathrm{GeV}`$ suffers from excessive background if $`m_H`$ is close to the $`Z`$ peak, and from the rapidly-increasing Higgs width, and therefore reduced on-peak cross section, as $`m_H`$ increases toward the $`W^+W^{}`$ threshold. The optimal Higgs mass identified in  was in fact $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In the coming years, first the Tevatron collider  and subsequently the LHC  will have opportunities to discover the SM Higgs boson. In the case of the (constrained) MSSM, it has been shown that the prospects for the lightest Higgs boson are nearly as good as for the SM . One may expect to measure the mass of the SM or MSSM Higgs boson at the hadron colliders with a precision better than $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$. Detailed follow-up measurements would then be possible with an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider . Unfortunately, the existence of a Higgs boson weighing $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ will probably not be clarified by the Tevatron collider or the LHC for several more years.

On the other hand, much work is still required before the feasibility of a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider can be demonstrated. We recall that the muon collection and storage facility foreseen for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider has many parameters in common with those required for a neutrino factory , whose storage ring requires $`10^{14}`$ muons per second to be injected with a preferred energy of 50 GeV. This energy is close to that required for a first-generation $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider. However, a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider would need about an order of magnitude more muons than are foreseen in the neutrino factory, and it is not yet clear what combination of higher-efficiency beam preparation and increased proton power will be the most effective way to achieve this. Moreover, the normalised emittance envisaged for a neutrino factory is 1.67 mm.rad, whereas 0.2 mm.rad is anticipated in $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider designs . Thus, considerably more beam cooling would be required for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider. We recall also that the bunch structure foreseen for a neutrino factory, namely a train of 140 bunches injected at 75 Hz, would need to be modified. The luminosity of a collider scales with the square of the bunch current squared multiplied by the repetition rate. To convert the neutrino factory into a muon collider, the basic repetition rate of 75 Hz is quite suitable, but one requires just one bunch in each cycle. If this can be done, and a six-dimensional emittance of $`1.7\times 10^{10}(\pi m)^3`$ can be achieved , a luminosity of $`10^{31}`$ cm-2 s-1 may be achieved, colliding beams with an energy spread of 0.01%.

In this report, we revisit first the physics prospects for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider SM Higgs factories, examining in particular two effects that were overlooked in . One is the $`WW^{}`$ decay mode, which is rather clean and has a branching ratio of at least 8% in the SM. The other is the effect of the beam energy spread, for which we consider values larger than the 0.003% considered previously. In this way, the range of SM Higgs masses for which useful measurements of the cross sections can be made extends up to about 160 GeV.

We recall that there is a richer Higgs sector in the MSSM, including three neutral Higgs bosons $`h`$, $`H`$ and $`A`$, where the first two have scalar couplings in the CP-conserving limit, and the latter pseudoscalar couplings. As was also discussed in  there, are excellent prospects for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider tuned to the similar masses of the heavier neutral Higgs bosons $`H,A`$. If they weigh several hundred $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ or more, these might be difficult to observe and study at the LHC or a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. A Higgs boson weighing as little as $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$ is not only consistent with supersymmetry, but even seems to require something very like it, if the effective Higgs potential is not to become unstable at a relatively low energy scale . Thus, confirmation of the hint (1.2) would also be a strong encouragement to envisage a second $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ Higgs factory, even if the $`H`$ and $`A`$ have not been observed directly. In this context we study the influence of supersymmetric radiative corrections on the peak cross sections and branching ratios of $`h,H,A`$ compared to a SM Higgs boson.

Both the first $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$$`h`$ factory (FMC) and the second $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$$`(H,A)`$ factory (SMC) will provide unique opportunities to study CP violation in the Higgs sector of the MSSM . There have recently been improved studies of this possibility , in the light of which we revisit here the prospects for measuring various CP-violating observables at $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders. Finally, we also discuss the prospects for measuring the $`H,A`$ couplings to charginos at such a second $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$$`(H,A)`$ factory.

## 2 CP-Conserving Studies

### 2.1 The $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑯\mathbf{}𝑿`$ Cross Section

The effective cross section for Higgs production at $`\sqrt{s}m_H`$ is obtained by convoluting the standard $`s`$-channel Breit-Wigner resonance with the beam energy distribution, which we model as a Gaussian distribution with width $`\sigma _E`$. At $`\sqrt{s}=m_H`$, initial-state radiation (ISR) effects can be approximated by a constant reduction factor $`\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is a function of the various parameters, $`\alpha `$, $`m_H`$, $`m_\mu `$, …, that we do not discuss here. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m_H`$, quite a compact expression can be derived for the peak cross section:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}=\sigma (\sqrt{s}=m_H)=\frac{4\pi B(H\mu ^+\mu ^{})B(HX)}{m_H^2}\eta \pi ^{1/2}Ae^{A^2}(1\mathrm{Erf}(A)),$$
(2.3)
where

$$A=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma _E}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{Erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^xe^{t^2}𝑑t.$$
(2.4)
The peak cross section depends critically on the beam-energy spread $`\sigma _E`$ compared to the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There are two important limits:

$`\sigma _E\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \eta B(H\mu ^+\mu ^{})B(HX)}{m_H^2}},`$ (2.5)
$`\sigma _E\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $``$ $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi ^3}\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }(H\mu ^+\mu ^{})B(HX)}{m_H^2\sigma _E}}.`$ (2.6)
Figure 2(a) shows the $`\sqrt{s}`$ dependence of $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}Hb\overline{b})`$ for a SM Higgs boson $`H_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ weighing $`115\mathrm{GeV}`$, compared with that the lightest MSSM Higgs boson, denoted here by $`H_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$, for various values of the beam-energy resolution $`R\sqrt{2}\sigma _E/\sqrt{s}`$. ISR is neglected. The peak cross section is plotted as a function of $`R`$ in Fig. 2 (b). As can be seen, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ reaches a plateau for $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bb}/m_H`$, in accordance with (2.5), (2.6). Note also that the resonance is washed out in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/\sigma _E0`$.

As has been discussed previously, not only is the beam energy spread at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider potentially very small, but also the energy can be calibrated very accurately using the decays of polarized muons in the circulating beams. The very fine energy resolution and precision in $`\sqrt{s}`$ expected at the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider would allow the properties of the Higgs boson(s) to be determined with outstanding accuracy. One expects, for instance, to be able to measure the mass and width of a light ($`m_H<2M_W`$) Higgs boson to fractions of an MeV. If $`\sigma _E\stackrel{<}{_{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the best procedure is to simply scan the resonance, as was studied in detail in . For a very narrow resonance, e.g., for a light SM Higgs boson, it may, however, be that $`\sigma _E\stackrel{<}{_{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can only be achieved with substantial loss of luminosity. In this case it is of advantage to operate the collider at $`\sqrt{s}=m_H`$ and two different beam energy resolutions $`\sigma _E^{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\sigma _E^{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . One can then determine the width of the resonance from the ratio of the peak cross sections:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}(\sigma _E^{\mathrm{min}})/\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}(\sigma _E^{\mathrm{max}})=[2\sqrt{2}\sigma _E^{\mathrm{min}}]/[\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }].$$
(2.7)
The width of the SM Higgs boson is shown as a function of its mass in Fig. 3(a), as a line with triangles. Also shown, with solid circles, is the spread in the centre-of-mass energy for a collider with $`R=0.003\%`$. The open squares correspond to the spread in the centre-of-mass energy which is obtained if $`R`$ is varied so that the beam energy spread is always 40% of the Higgs width. It is assumed here that any value of $`R`$ can be obtained, and that the luminosity scales as $`R^{2/3}`$. This procedure approximately optimises the Higgs production rate, and hence the statistical error on the Higgs cross-section. Tighter beam energy spreads have lower luminosities, while increasing the spread reduces the Higgs cross-section. Figure 3(b) shows how the reduction factor given in (2.3) reduces the peak cross section in the two cases.

The decay mode $`Hb\overline{b}`$ was investigated in , and those results are updated in Fig. 3(c), taking account of the loss in peak cross section. The suppression is less important as the mass, and hence the width, rises. This means that the performance for $`m_H=140\mathrm{GeV}`$ is almost the same as for $`m_H=115\mathrm{GeV}`$. We also display results for the $`WW^{}`$ decay mode, which is rather clean and has at least an 8% branching ratio in the SM. The accuracy of the width measurement obtainable at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider in this channel is estimated by assuming that the efficiency and background achieved by the DELPHI collaboration in measuring $`WW`$ production at $`161\mathrm{GeV}`$ can be duplicated. This includes the conservative assumption that the spin information is not used to reduce the non-resonant $`WW`$ background. We note that for $`M_H=115\mathrm{GeV}`$ a 6% error on the $`b\overline{b}`$ cross-section and 32% on the $`WW^{}`$ are expected per $`300\mathrm{pb}^1`$, or three years of running.

The decay mode $`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is also an important channel, which provides power to distinguish between different Higgs models . The importance of this decay mode is discussed in more detail in  and in Sect. 2.3, but we recall here that a measurement of the branching ratio with a 16% statistical error could be made at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider using an integrated luminosity of $`100\mathrm{pb}^1`$.

We conclude that if one varies $`R`$ at centre-of-mass energies above $``$145 GeV, useful cross section measurements are possible up to about 160 GeV. Beyond this point, the Higgs resonance is simply too wide for a peak cross-section measurement to be feasible. However, we can confidently expect at least one Higgs boson in the mass range accessible to a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider.

The accuracies for the branching ratio measurements have to be compared with the corresponding numbers at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider , where $`\mathrm{\Delta }BR/BR`$ of about 2.5%, 5%, 4% are achievable for the $`b\overline{b}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, $`WW^{}`$ modes respectively (for $`m_H=120\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`\sqrt{s}=350\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`=500`$ fb-1). We emphasize that the FMC accuracies quoted earlier for these modes are very dependent on the luminosity obtainable, and that these LC numbers include detailed detector simulations that are not yet available for the FMC. In addition, by combining LC and FMC data the branching ratio of $`H\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ can be measured to 4% accuracy .

It was observed in  that, for certain values of $`R`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}(\mu ^+\mu ^{}Hb\overline{b})`$ becomes practically independent of $`m_b`$. More generally speaking, $`R`$ can be chosen such that the peak cross section for a given final state $`X`$ is insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$, i.e. $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}/d\mathrm{\Gamma }_X=0`$, or equivalently

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_X}1=\frac{2A}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{e^{A^2}}{1\mathrm{Erf}(A)}2A^2.$$
(2.8)
In practice, this is only relevant if (i) $`HX`$ is the dominant decay channel, $`B(HX)>0.5`$, and (ii) $`\sigma _E\stackrel{<}{_{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X`$. For both $`H_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{MSSM}}`$ these conditions can be simultaneously fulfilled only for $`X=b\overline{b}`$. Figure 4(a) shows contours of $`d\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}/d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bb}=0`$ in the $`m_H`$$`R`$ plane for various values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Assuming a conservative error in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ bottom mass determination, namely $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.30\pm 0.15`$ GeV, would imply a 15% indeterminacy in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Hb\overline{b})`$ partial width. If the accelerator parameters are tuned in such a way that (2.8) is fulfilled, the impact of this uncertainty on the theoretical prediction for the value of the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}Hb\overline{b}`$ peak cross section is minimized. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 b for a MSSM Higgs boson with a mass of 110 GeV, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$, and $`R=8.510^3`$.

In this way, the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}Hb\overline{b}`$ peak cross section may be used as a precision measurement that may be interpreted, for example to constrain MSSM parameters as we discuss later, without any ambiguity related to $`m_b`$.

### 2.2 Radiative Corrections to $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒉`$

Given the excellent experimental accuracy expected for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider, quantum corrections to the Higgs production and decay processes have to be taken into account. For definiteness, we concentrate here on the quantum corrections in the MSSM, assuming CP conservation, and leaving the extension to include explicit CP violation induced by loop effects to section 3 of this report. We discuss how quantum corrections affect the Higgs production cross sections and how they alter the Higgs branching ratios. Since these corrections depend on the underlying supersymmetry parameters, precise measurements of the Higgs boson masses, widths, branching ratios, etc. may be used to pin down the parameter space of the MSSM. They may also be used for important consistency checks of the model.

We focus on the three neutral Higgs bosons expected in the MSSM in the CP-conserving limit, namely the two scalars $`h`$ and $`H`$, and the pseudoscalar $`A`$. Table 1 shows their tree-level couplings to up- and down-type quarks/leptons and to the $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ bosons, relative to those of a SM Higgs boson. Here $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$ and $`\alpha `$ diagonalizes the CP-even Higgs sector, $`h=\mathrm{sin}\alpha H_1^0+\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_2^0`$, $`H=\mathrm{cos}\alpha H_1^0+\mathrm{sin}\alpha H_2^0`$. In the limit $`m_A\mathrm{}`$, $`H`$ and $`A`$ (and $`H^\pm `$) decouple from low-energy physics, whilst $`h`$ becomes SM-like. At tree level, one has $`m_hm_Z|\mathrm{cos}2\beta |`$ and $`\alpha \beta \pi /2`$ in this case.

The CP-even Higgs mass matrix $`^2`$ is, however, subject to large radiative corrections, the leading effects being $`h_t^4`$ , with $`h_t`$ the top Yukawa coupling. A one-loop renormalization-group- (RG-)improved effective potential calculation gives

$`_{12}^2`$ $``$ $`\left[m_A^2+m_Z^2{\displaystyle \frac{h_t^4v^2}{8\pi ^2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}\mu ^2\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{A_t^2}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}\right)\right]\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta `$ (2.9)
$`+\xi \left[{\displaystyle \frac{h_t^4v^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mu A_t}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A_t^2}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}6\right)+3{\displaystyle \frac{h_t^2m_Z^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu A_t}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}}\right]`$
where $`\xi `$ accounts for the leading-logarithmic two-loop effects, $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is an overall supersymmetry scale, and $`A_t`$ is the trilinear soft SUSY-breaking parameter in the stop mass matrix. Diagonalizing the loop-corrected $`^2`$ gives the higher-order values of $`m_h`$, $`m_H`$, and the effective mixing angle $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, with

$$\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{2_{12}^2}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{Tr}^2)^24\mathrm{det}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}.$$
(2.10)
As has been shown analytically in , if supersymmetric vertex corrections are neglected, the improved tree-level couplings are obtained by replacing $`\alpha \alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in Table 1. Note, however, that the vertex corrections may well be important, as is discussed for the $`hb\overline{b}`$ and $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ vertices in Sect. 2.3.

While in a large fraction of the MSSM parameter space the couplings of $`h`$ to $`b\overline{b}`$, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are enhanced compared to those of a SM Higgs boson, it is, according to (2.9), also possible to have $`_{12}^20`$, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ or $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$. Thus $`g_{hbb}`$, $`g_{h\tau \tau }`$ or $`g_{h\mu \mu }`$ can be strongly reduced in the MSSM . This could lead to a highly suppressed production cross section for the lightest CP-even Higgs boson, even if it is in the kinematically accessible region.

We display in Fig. 5 the regions of parameter space where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{MSSM}}(\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)/\sigma _{\mathrm{SM}}(\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)<30\%`$ (for details, see ). Results obtained with the FeynHiggs code  are displayed in the $`m_A`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ plane for $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=300,1000\mathrm{GeV}`$. The off-diagonal entry in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ mass matrix is taken as $`X_tA_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta =\pm M_{\mathrm{SUSY}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. Moreover, we choose $`\mu =2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ and $`A_b=A_t`$. The other MSSM parameters are $`M_2=400\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, and we take $`m_t=175\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\overline{m}_b=\overline{m}_b(m_t)=2.97\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The top plots in Fig. 5 show the case with a relatively small supersymmetry mass scale, $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, for the two combinations $`X_t=\mu =600`$ GeV and $`X_t=300`$ GeV, $`\mu =600`$ GeV. In general, the regions with $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)<30\%`$ are obtained for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}15`$ and relatively small $`m_A`$: $`100\mathrm{GeV}\stackrel{<}{_{}}m_A\stackrel{<}{_{}}300\mathrm{GeV}`$. This follows from (2.9) in the limit $`_{12}^20`$, since $`m_A`$ has to be relatively small in order for the higher–order corrections to be of a size similar to $`(m_A^2+m_Z^2)\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta `$. Due to the functional dependence of $`_{12}^2`$ on $`\mu `$ and $`X_t`$ $`A_t`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}10`$ as seen in (2.9), the regions hardly change their shape if both $`X_t`$ and $`\mu `$ change their sign. However, their shape and location change drastically if only one sign flips. In the bottom plot in Fig. 5, we show the corresponding regions for a large supersymmetry mass scale, $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1000`$ GeV, and $`X_t=\mu =2000`$ GeV. As in the low $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ case, we find a non-negligible part of parameter space with a highly suppressed $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ 222The regions in Fig. 5 with suppressed production cross section are not significantly affected by the exclusion bounds obtained from the Higgs search at LEP .. A more extensive discussion can be found in Ref. .

The parameter regions where $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ goes to zero are clearly somewhat unusual, and this possbility is not realized in the constrained MSSM (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses $`m_0`$ and gaugino masses $`m_{1/2}`$ are required to be universal at an input GUT scale . This is exemplified in Fig. 6, where we show $`[\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)\times \mathrm{B}(hb\overline{b})]_{\mathrm{CMSSM}}`$ in terms of standard deviations from the SM value in the $`m_{1/2}m_0`$ plane for $`\mu >0`$ and two combinations of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`A_0`$, together with the constraints from $`\mathrm{B}(bs\gamma )`$ , $`g_\mu 2`$  and the requirement that the LSP is uncolored and uncharged . The mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson is also indicated . We have assumed an accuracy of 3%  in the determination of $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)\times \mathrm{B}(hb\overline{b})`$. No suppression of Higgs production can be observed for the CMSSM parameter space. On the contrary, the production and decay is always enhanced compared to the corresponding SM value, over the entire CMSSM parameter space . However, the existence in principle of the regions in the unconstrained MSSM with suppressed Higgs production cross section does point up the interest of measuring this observable.

We note also that, even when $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ does vanish, the production cross sections of $`H`$ and $`A`$ are unsuppressed and even enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Moreover, $`H`$ and $`A`$ would mainly decay into $`b\overline{b}`$ or $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. We find that in this case the usual mass hierarchy between $`H`$ and $`A`$ is inverted: The CP–odd Higgs-boson mass $`m_A`$ turns out to be larger than $`m_H`$ by up to $`25\mathrm{GeV}`$. For a considerable fraction of the parameter regions with suppressed $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$, the mass splitting $`m_Am_H`$ is larger than the sum of the total widths of $`A`$ and $`H`$ (this holds in particular for not too large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$). Thus, in these regions $`A`$ and $`H`$ should not only be produced with sufficiently high rates but should also be resolvable as separate resonances. Even in the regions where $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ is suppressed, the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider would therefore possess a promising potential for probing the neutral MSSM Higgs sector via resonant production of $`H`$ and $`A`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 7, where the peak cross sections of $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\{h,H\mathrm{or}A\}b\overline{b}`$ are shown as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`m_A=140`$ GeV and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=\mu =A_t=1`$ TeV. Note that, for a large range of values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}hb\overline{b}`$ cross section is much larger than that of a SM Higgs boson of the same mass. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$, however, $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}0`$ and $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ vanishes. On the other hand, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}(\mu ^+\mu ^{}H,Ab\overline{b})`$ increases almost linearly for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{>}{_{}}10`$.

### 2.3 Corrections to the $`𝒉𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ and $`𝒉𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ Vertices

An interesting topic that could be investigated at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider is the effect of supersymmetric threshold corrections on the Yukawa interactions. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu `$ one expects relative deviations of order unity of the couplings from their tree-level values, due to gluino (SUSY-QCD) and, to a lesser extent, higgsino (SUSY-EW) radiative effects.333Large-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenarios, like those derived from some supersymmetric SO(10) models , have become more appealing since LEP searches for a light neutral Higgs boson started excluding the low-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region of the MSSM parameter space . Such deviations would be strongly correlated, as discussed below, allowing for non-trivial self-consistency checks of the model. Moreover, these corrections should of course be taken into account when determining the underlying SUSY parameters from the Higgs bosons production cross sections and branching ratios.

It can be proven that, in mass-independent renormalization schemes like $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, all-order SUSY corrections of the form $`\alpha _S^n\mathrm{tan}^n\beta `$ can be resummed in the following definition for $`h_b`$ :

$$h_bv_1=\frac{m_b}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }h_b^1/h_b+\mathrm{\Delta }h_b^2/h_b\mathrm{tan}\beta }\frac{m_b}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b},$$
(2.11)
with the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ being dominated by SUSY-QCD virtual effects:444A similar formula can be written for the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling, although the SUSY-EW contributions in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\tau `$ are (generally) smaller.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_b\mathrm{\Delta }m_b^{\mathrm{SQCD}}=\frac{2\alpha _S}{3\pi }\mu m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{tan}\beta I(m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1},m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2},m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}),$$
(2.12)
where $`I`$ is the limit of the Passarino-Veltman function $`C_0`$ for vanishing external momenta. It can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b`$ does not vanish in the limit $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}\mathrm{}`$. In fact, it approaches $`\alpha _S/(3\pi )\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ asymptotically. This should not be understood as a non-decoupling effect, as its physical consequences in low-energy observables do vanish in the limit $`m_A\mathrm{}`$, when the SM is recovered as an effective theory, as discussed below. There is, however, an important phenomenological consequence of the non-vanishing behaviour of (2.12): even for a very heavy supersymmetric spectrum (but not too large $`m_A`$), one expects large deviations from the normal ratio

$$g_{hbb}/g_{h\tau \tau }=m_b/m_\tau ,$$
(2.13)
which holds not only in the SM, but also in two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDMs) of types I and II . This translates for instance, into the corresponding ratio of branching fractions, as can be seen in Fig. 8. Since this ratio may be measurable with a precision better than 16%, as mentioned previously, multi-standard-deviation discrimination between the MSSM and the SM is possible for small $`m_A`$.

Using (2.11), and after adding the process-dependent SUSY vertex corrections, the renormalized amplitudes for $`hb\overline{b}`$, $`Hb\overline{b}`$ and $`Ab\gamma _5\overline{b}`$ read :

$`𝒜(\overline{b}bh)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}{\mathrm{tan}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{tan}\beta }}\right),`$ (2.14)
$`𝒜(\overline{b}bH)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}\right),`$ (2.15)
$`𝒜(i\overline{b}\gamma _5bA)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{v}}\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}}.`$ (2.16)
As can be checked in (2.14) one recovers the SM coupling for $`hb\overline{b}`$ (and $`G^0b\overline{b}`$) as $`m_A/M_W\mathrm{}`$, because $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}1/\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We see in (2.14) how a radiative zero of the $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}hb\overline{b}`$ cross section could occur if

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }g_{hbb}0.$$
(2.17)
At the same time, $`g_{h\mu \mu }`$ and $`g_{h\tau \tau }`$ are not zero but

$$g_{h\tau \tau (\mu \mu )}=\frac{m_{\tau (\mu )}}{v}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\tau (\mu )}}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\tau (\mu )}}.$$
(2.18)
For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_b𝒪(1)`$, this is of the same order as the corresponding coupling in the SM. Hence $`\sigma (\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ is not suppressed, but $`h`$ does not decay into $`b\overline{b}`$. Instead, it mainly decays into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ or $`WW^{}`$. The total decay width, however, becomes very small, of the order of a few MeV, leading to an extremely narrow resonance even for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. An example is shown in Fig. 9, where we plot $`\sigma _{\mathrm{peak}}(\mu ^+\mu ^{}h)`$ as a function of $`\delta \sqrt{s}\sqrt{s}m_h`$ for various $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. Notice that, for small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ values, the actual width of the resonances is approximately given by $`R\sqrt{s}\sigma _E`$ (see (2.6)).

Last but not least, it should be mentioned that the treatment of the vertex corrections in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{b(\tau )}`$ is a very good approximation for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_A`$. For $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_A`$, however, this should be complemented with the remaining neglected terms in a full one-loop computation . Here the problem of a consistent treatment of the stop and sbottom system arises. For a prescription which includes a consistent renormalization of the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ sectors and which is, moreover, valid for all allowed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values, see .

## 3  CP Violation at $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ Colliders

### 3.1 Introduction

In this Section, we discuss ways in which models of CP violation may be probed at both the FMC and the SMC. We recall that, although the effective Higgs potential of the Standard Model (SM) conserves CP, at least up to the two-loop level, this symmetry is generically violated in models which extend the Higgs sector even minimally, such as the two-Higgs-doublet model . Very interestingly, even though CP symmetry can be imposed on the complete Lagrangian of a three-Higgs-doublet model, it can still be broken spontaneously by the Higgs ground state . In supersymmetric theories, CP violation may be generated either spontaneously  or explicitly  via loop effects. In particular, the MSSM with explicit radiative CP breaking in the Higgs sector constitutes a prototype scenario for studying CP violation at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ machine. As we argue below, the option of muon polarization at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider would be a particularly valuable tool for determinating the CP properties of Higgs bosons.

In this connection, we first review briefly the basic mechanism for obtaining resonantly-enhanced CP asymmetries in Higgs-mediated processes at the FMC. Then we discuss the CP-violating effects due to vertex corrections in the MSSM. Next we define optimal CP-violating observables based on muon polarization and give estimates of the expected CP violation in the MSSM and other extended scenarios. We also summarize the requirements for reducing the CP-conserving background. Finally, we give an example of the possible impact of CP violation on the mass difference between the second and third neutral Higgs bosons in the MSSM with CP violation .

### 3.2 Resonant CP Violation due to Higgs-Mass Mixing

The general formalism for mass mixing in extended Higgs sectors with explicit CP violation induced by loop effects is well developed . It is instructive for our purposes here to recall the conditions necessary for CP asymmetries to exhibit resonant enhancement. For this purpose, we consider a generic process $`ab12`$, as shown in Fig. 10. Such a reaction may proceed via both CP-even and CP-odd Higgs bosons, $`H`$ and $`A`$, as intermediate states. The corresponding transition amplitude may be written as

$$𝒯=𝒯^{res}+𝒯^{\mathrm{box}}=V_i^P\left(\frac{1}{s(s)}\right)_{ij}V_j^D+𝒯^{\mathrm{box}},$$
(3.19)
where

$$s(s)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1(s)=s\text{1}\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_A^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AA}(s)& \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AH}(s)\\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HA}(s)& M_H^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HH}(s)\end{array}\right]$$
(3.20)
is the inverse-propagator matrix, which describes the dynamics of the $`HA`$ mass mixing.555For a full discussion, including three–state $`hHA`$ mixing, see . The propagator matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(s)`$ actually arises from summing a geometric series of $`HH`$, $`AA`$, $`HA`$ and $`AH`$ self-energies. In (3.20), the hat symbol $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the fact that the resummed self-energies should be renormalized within a gauge-invariant resummation approach that respects unitarity , e.g., the one implemented by the Pinch Technique (PT) .

Assuming that the non-resonant term $`𝒯^{\mathrm{box}}`$ in (3.19) is negligible, we may identify two sources of CP violation: (i) the non-vanishing scalar-pseudoscalar mixing term $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AH}(s)`$ in the effective Higgs-boson mass matrix, and (ii) CP violation in the production and decay vertices $`V_i^P`$ and $`V_i^D`$. By analogy with the neutral kaon system, we term these $`\epsilon `$\- and $`\epsilon ^{}`$-type effects, respectively. We first discuss the $`\epsilon `$-type effects, which will be resonantly enhanced if

$$|M_H^2M_A^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HH}(s)+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AA}(s)|\stackrel{<}{_{}}2|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HA}(s)|.$$
(3.21)
The condition (3.21) is naturally fulfilled in models where the CP invariance of the Higgs potential is minimally lifted by radiative effects, such as the MSSM  and heavy Majorana-neutrino models inspired by E6 theories .

In the constrained MSSM with universal soft supersymmetry-breaking masses $`m_0`$ for sfermions and $`m_{1/2}`$ for gauginos, as well as trilinear supersymmetry-breaking parameters $`A_i`$, there are two independent CP-violating phases. Without loss of generality, these may be taken as the phase of the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`A_t`$. As illustrated in Fig. 11, CP-violating scalar-pseudoscalar transitions $`_{SP}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HA}(0)`$ in the MSSM are predominantly induced by stop squarks. The qualitative behaviours of important CP-violating terms are given by

$$_{SP}^2\frac{m_t^4}{v^2}\frac{\mathrm{Im}(\mu A_t)}{32\pi ^2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}(1,\frac{|A_t|^2}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2},\frac{|\mu |^2}{\mathrm{tan}\beta M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2},\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\mu A_t)}{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}),$$
(3.22)
where $`\mu `$ is the supersymmetric parameter characterizing the mixing of the two Higgs superfields, and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2`$ specifies the common soft supersymmetry-breaking scale defined by the arithmetic average of the squared stop masses. We see from (3.22) that $`_{SP}^2`$ could in principle be as large as $`M_Z^2`$ .

This is possible if the phase of $`A_t`$ is large, which cannot be excluded a priori. There are important constraints on the CP-violating phases in the MSSM coming, in particular, from constraints on the electric dipole moments of the electron, neutron and 199Hg . However, cancellations are possible between different supersymmetric diagrams, and between different CP-violating operators . Moreover, the constraints apply directly only to the first and possibly second generation of matter fermions, and so may be more relaxed for the third-generation coupling $`A_t`$ , if one relaxes the assumption of universality between the different generations.

Analogously, in heavy Majorana-neutrino models, scalar-pseudoscalar mixings are induced after integrating out the heavy Majorana neutrinos, and may also be non-negligible. However, we do not discuss such models in any further detail here.

### 3.3 CP-Violating Vertex Effects

In addition to the CP-violating self-energy effects, CP-violating vertex effects involving gluinos, higgsinos and squarks of the third generation  may drastically modify the top- and bottom-quark Yukawa couplings $`h_t`$ and $`h_b`$. These effects could play a significant rôle not only in the effective Higgs potential  at the two-loop level, but may also affect directly the production of reconstructed polarized top and bottom quarks. We therefore generalize the discussion of CP-conserving vertex effects in the previous subsection of this report to include CP-violating vertex corrections. The Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 12 induce the following CP-violating effective Lagrangian for the couplings:

$$^{\mathrm{eff}}=\left[(h_b+\delta h_b)\varphi _1^0+\mathrm{\Delta }h_b\varphi _2^0\right]\overline{b}_Rb_L+\left[(h_t+\delta h_t)\varphi _2^0+\mathrm{\Delta }h_t\varphi _1^0\right]\overline{t}_Rt_L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(3.23)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta h_b}{h_b}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{}A_b}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|h_t|^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |^2}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|\mu |^2)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }h_b}{h_b}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{}\mu ^{}}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|h_t|^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_t^{}\mu ^{}}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|\mu |^2)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta h_t}{h_t}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{}A_t}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|h_b|^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |^2}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|\mu |^2)}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }h_t}{h_t}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^{}\mu ^{}}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}|^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|h_b|^2}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_b^{}\mu ^{}}{\mathrm{max}(M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2,|\mu |^2)}},`$ (3.24)
and

$`h_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_wm_b}{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{cos}\beta [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\delta h_b/h_b+(\mathrm{\Delta }h_b/h_b)\mathrm{tan}\beta ]}},`$
$`h_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_wm_t}{\sqrt{2}M_W\mathrm{sin}\beta [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\delta h_t/h_t+(\mathrm{\Delta }h_t/h_t)\mathrm{cot}\beta ]}}.`$ (3.25)
We see from these last relations that the modification of the Higgs-bottom Yukawa coupling is sizeable for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, whilst the corresponding corrections to the Higgs-top Yukawa coupling are less relevant.

### 3.4 CP Asymmetries

The possibility of muon polarization at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider could play an essential role in unravelling the CP nature of the Higgs boson(s) and/or in probing CP violation in the Higgs sector. We display in Fig. 13 a general configuration of the polarizations of the initial muons. There are several CP-violating observables that can be constructed using muon polarization vectors and/or the three-momenta and spins of the final particles. For our illustrations, however, we concentrate on the following two representative CP-odd observables :

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_x)\mu ^+(s_y)f\overline{f})\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_x)\mu ^+(s_y)f\overline{f})}{\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_x)\mu ^+(s_y)f\overline{f})+\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_x)\mu ^+(s_y)f\overline{f})}},`$ (3.26)
$`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_z)\mu ^+(s_z)f\overline{f})\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_z)\mu ^+(s_z)f\overline{f})}{\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_z)\mu ^+(s_z)f\overline{f})+\sigma (\mu ^{}(s_z)\mu ^+(s_z)f\overline{f})}},`$ (3.27)
where $`s_{x,y,z}`$ are the $`x,y,z`$-projections of the spin $`s`$ of the muon. Note that we define the positive $`z`$ axis as the direction of the $`\mu ^{}`$ beam, and the $`y`$ axis perpendicular to the earth surface pointing upwards to the sky. The CP-violating observable $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ is even under naive CP‘T’ transformations, whereas $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l`$ is odd. To leading order, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ is generated by dispersive terms, whilst $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l`$ requires non-vanishing absorptive contributions.

The interactions of Higgs bosons $`H_i`$ with mixed CP to fermions $`f`$ are given by

$$_{\mathrm{int}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}H_i\frac{g_wm_f}{2M_W}\overline{f}\left(g_{H_iff}^S+ig_{H_iff}^P\right)f.$$
(3.28)
In the MSSM, the reduced scalar and pseudoscalar couplings $`g_{H_iff}^S`$ and $`g_{H_iff}^P`$ receive contributions from both self-energy and vertex corrections similar to those discussed previously in the CP-conserving case, and their analytic forms have been derived in . Neglecting the $`\gamma ,Z`$ background, as appropriate at energies close to any Higgs-boson resonance $`H_i:i=1,2,3`$, the CP-violating observable $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ reads

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t=\frac{2g_{H_i\mu \mu }^Sg_{H_i\mu \mu }^P}{(g_{H_i\mu \mu }^S)^2+(g_{H_i\mu \mu }^P)^2}.$$
(3.29)
We display in Fig. 14(a) the dependence of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ on $`\mathrm{arg}(A_t)`$ for the lightest Higgs boson $`H_1`$, and Fig. 14(b) shows numerical estimates of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t`$ for transversely-polarized up-type fermions. Correspondingly, numerical estimates related to the next-to-lightest $`H_2`$ boson are exhibited in Fig. 15.

The CP-violating observable $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l`$ defined by (3.27) may be approximated by :

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l\frac{2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HA})\mathrm{Im}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AA}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HH})}{(M_H^2M_A^2)^2+(\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{AA})^2+(\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HH})^2}.$$
(3.30)
The expression (3.30) is derived under the assumption that only one CP-even Higgs boson $`H`$ mixes actively with a CP-odd scalar $`A`$, after integrating out heavy degrees of freedom which amounts to a vanishing or rather suppressed $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{HA}`$ for energies below the TeV scale. Such a scenario has been studied in , within the context of a heavy-Majorana-neutrino model. We display in Fig. 16 numerical values for two scenarios with $`M_A=170`$ and 400 GeV. In agreement with our earlier discussion, we observe that $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l`$ may become of order unity if $`M_HM_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_H,\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$. As was discussed in  and is displayed in Fig. 17(c), (d) and (f), analogous features may be found in the MSSM with explicit radiative CP violation in the Higgs sector, where $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^t=\sigma _{}/(\sigma _{LL}+\sigma _{RR})`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{CP}}^l=(\sigma _{LL}\sigma _{RR})/(\sigma _{LL}+\sigma _{RR})`$.

This pilot study indicates that the option of polarization for the $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ beams may be very valuable for determining the CP nature of a Higgs boson and/or for analyzing a two-Higgs-boson-mixing system. However, the effective degree of polarization provided naturally in a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$collider is currently not expected to be much larger than $`P0.4`$ for each beam . Thus, the actual CP asymmetries must be reduced by a factor $`P^21/10`$ compared to the above predictions. Nevertheless, there may well be large observable effects. A complete evaluation of this opportunity requires further studies of both theoretical and experimental aspects, including background analyses originating from $`\gamma ,Z`$-exchange graphs as well as the effects of polarization dilution.

### 3.5 Heavy Neutral Higgs-Boson Masses in the MSSM with Explicit CP Violation

We demonstrated earlier how resonant Higgs scalar-pseudoscalar transitions may lead to enhanced CP asymmetries at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider. We now explore an appealing theoretical framework for such studies, namely the MSSM with explicit radiative CP violation. In this case, the lightest neutral Higgs boson $`H_1`$ already offers interesting physics prospects. However, further opportunities are offered by the two heavier neutral Higgs bosons $`H_{2,3}`$, which are in general largely mixtures of the heavier ‘CP-even’ Higgs boson $`H`$ and the ‘CP-odd’ pseudoscalar $`A`$, which can naturally have a mass splitting comparable to their widths . This mass splitting will in general be increased by scalar-pseudoscalar mixing (3.22), as seen in Fig. 18. This figure contrasts recent results found for pole masses of $`H_{2,3}`$  using the code cph$`+`$.f  with previous results found in an effective-potential approach . We see that these calculations are significantly different, in particular for larger values of the charged Higgs-boson mass, $`m_{H^+}`$, and in the vicinity of the stop threshold.

The results are plotted as functions of Arg($`A_t`$), the CP-violating phase of $`A_t`$. We see that the difference in masses between the two heavier neutral Higgs bosons may easily be increased by a large factor if Arg($`A_t`$) is large. The detailed study of CP-violating observables as a function of the centre-of-mass energy across the double $`H_{2,3}`$ peak is left for another occasion, but it is clear that the beam polarization discussed earlier would be a valuable tool, as well as studies of the polarization states of $`H_{2,3}`$ decay products.

## 4 Precise Determination of the Higgs–Chargino Couplings in Chargino-Pair Production

We now give one example of the interesting CP-conserving physics accessible at a second $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$$`(H,A)`$ factory: chargino-pair production at such a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider offers an outstanding possibility for the precise determination of the Higgs-chargino couplings. Within the framework of the MSSM, decays of the heavy neutral Higgs bosons $`H`$, $`A`$ into two light charginos can be observed with significant branching ratios in certain parameter regions. Fig. 19 shows branching ratios up to 50 % in mixed scenarios with $`|\mu |M_2`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`m_A=350`$ GeV, assuming CP symmetry 666There are interesting additional physics opportunities in chargino production and decay in the MSSM with CP violation, extending the analysis of the previous section, which we leave for a future occasion.. We study the pair production of light charginos with mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }=155`$ GeV in such a mixed scenario with $`M_2=\mu =188`$ GeV, and in a scenario with a gaugino-dominated light chargino: $`M_2=155`$ GeV, $`\mu =400`$ GeV for comparison.

The cross section for chargino-pair production, $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$, around the $`H`$ and $`A`$ Higgs resonances with no energy spread and a finite energy resolution $`R=0.06\%`$, is shown in Fig. 20. Since the energy separation between the resonances is in this case larger than their widths and the energy spread, the two Higgs resonances can be separated clearly. Since we assume here CP conservation, the $`H`$ resonance is P-wave suppressed by the factor $`(14m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }^2/s)`$. The peak of the $`A`$ resonance is thus higher than the $`H`$ peak in both scenarios, although chargino couplings to $`H`$ are larger. Comparing the scenarios, the $`A`$ resonance is lower in the mixed scenario despite larger couplings and branching ratios, since also the $`A`$ decay width becomes larger, because of decay channels into neutralinos.

The ratio of the Higgs-chargino couplings

$$x:=\frac{c_{H\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2}{c_{A\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}}^2}$$
(4.31)
can be determined by measuring the ratio of the cross sections on the Higgs resonance peaks:

$$r=\frac{\sigma _H(m_H)+\sigma _A(m_H)}{\sigma _H(m_A)+\sigma _A(m_A)}=\frac{\sigma _{tot}(m_H)\sigma _{\gamma Z\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(m_H)}{\sigma _{tot}(m_A)\sigma _{\gamma Z\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(m_A)},$$
(4.32)
where $`\sigma _H(m_{H,A})`$, $`\sigma _A(m_{H,A})`$ and $`\sigma _{\gamma Z\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(m_{H,A})`$ are the contributions to the chargino-pair production cross section from $`H`$ exchange, $`A`$ exchange and $`\gamma /Z/\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ exchanges at the top of the $`H,A`$ resonances, respectively, neglecting the contribution of the lightest Higgs scalar $`h`$. Interference between the two Higgs-boson exchange channels vanishes when CP is conserved, as we assume here. It would be interesting to study the same reaction in the MSSM with explicit loop-induced CP violation, along the lines discussed in the previous section. Interferences between the Higgs channels and the non-Higgs channels are of order $`𝒪(m_\mu /\sqrt{s})`$, and are therefore neglected.

We note that the ratio $`r`$, and therefore also $`x`$, is independent of the chargino decay characteristics. Then the error in the determination of the Higgs-chargino couplings plotted in Fig. 21 depends on the energy resolution of the muon beams and on the error in the measurement of the non-Higgs contributions at the Higgs resonances in $`r`$, that can be estimated, e.g., from cross-section measurements off the resonances. The effect of the energy resolution on the cross sections and widths is larger if the widths are narrower. With an energy resolution of $`R=0.04\%`$, the relative error on $`x`$ in the mixed scenario is larger than 10%, whereas in the gaugino scenario it lies around 50%. If, on the other hand, values of $`R0.01\%`$ are achieved, the error induced is in both cases of the order of 1%. With knowledge of the energy spread, the errors in the widths and cross sections can be substantially reduced . A detailed analysis of chargino and neutralino production at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider and the precise determination of the Higgs couplings will be given in .

We conclude that chargino production via $`s`$-channel Higgs exchange at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider may allow a precise determination of the Higgs-chargino couplings in the MSSM, if the resonances can be separated. We leave for a future occasion discussions of the cases where the resonances overlap, and when CP violation is important.

## 5 Conclusions

We have seen in this chapter some of the physics opportunities offered by $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ colliders operated as Higgs factories. Interest in these opportunities has been stimulated by the possible existence of a light Higgs boson. The case outlined here depends indeed upon the mass of this lightest Higgs boson, and, although all the indications are favourable, this remains an unknown parameter.

A first muon collider (FMC) operating around the peak of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson, that is expected to weigh $`120\mathrm{GeV}`$, as seen in Fig. 1, offers interesting prospects for precision measurements of properties of the SM Higgs boson, such as its mass and decay width. The mass could be measured to an unprecedented accuracy in the sub-MeV region. A direct width determination would be possible to an accuracy of $`𝒪(1)`$ MeV. By varying judiciously the beam-energy spread, an interesting peak event rate could be attained for a SM Higgs mass up to about $`160\mathrm{GeV}`$, and measurements of decays into $`\overline{b}b`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`WW^{}`$ may be possible. The accuracies obtained for these branching ratios are in the same ball park as those expected at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider (LC). However, they are highly dependent on the available luminosity and the details of the detector, which are not yet fixed for the FMC. Notice also that by combining with LC measurements the coupling of the Higgs boson to $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ could be determined with an accuracy of $`4\%`$ at the FMC .

If supersymmetry plays a rôle at the electroweak scale, one expects a richer Higgs sector, containing three neutral Higgs bosons $`h,H,A`$. As we have shown, the production cross sections and branching ratios of $`h,H,A`$ are very sensitive to supersymmetric radiative corrections. As we have also shown, polarized $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ beams would offer in addition interesting opportunities to explore CP violation in decay vertices and/or Higgs-mass mixing. The masses of $`H,A`$ may already be estimated quite accurately using FMC measurements. A second Higgs factory (SMC) tuned to the twin $`H,A`$ peaks offers valuable prospects for measuring the two masses independently (due to the fine energy resolution reachable at a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider), the couplings of the heavy Higgs bosons to SM and supersymmetric particles, as well as the opportunity for further interesting measurements of possible CP violation in the MSSM Higgs sector.

We have not discussed in this report the physics prospects offered by a high-energy $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider. As is well known, this would have certain advantages over a high-energy $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, notably in the beam energy spread and in the accuracy with which the beam energy could be calibrated using the precession of the $`\mu ^\pm `$ polarization. However, it is too early to know whether these advantages would be conclusive, and a multi-TeV $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider would presumably need to be preceded by one or more lower-energy Higgs factories.

## Acknowledgements

S.K. thanks the CERN Theory Division for financial support during a stay at CERN. The work of D.G. is supported by the European Commission TMR programme under the grant ERBFMBICT 983539.


format: text

text:
# A 𝑝-complete version of the Ganea Conjecture for co-H-spaces

## 1. Fundamentals and Results

When $`Y`$ is a homotopy associative H-space or when $`X`$ is a (homotopy) associative co-H-space, the set of based homotopy classes $`[Z,Y]`$ or $`[X,Z]`$ respectively, is a group natural in the $`Z`$ argument. If the H-multiplication on $`Y`$ is not known to be homotopy associative, the induced structure on $`[Z,Y]`$ is that of an algebraic loop; in particular, left and right inverses exist but they may be distinct. One cannot make as general a statement for $`[X,Z]`$ when $`X`$ is a co-H-space. The immediate problem is that whereas the shearing map for an H-space induces isomorphisms of homotopy groups, the co-shearing map for a co-H-space induces isomorphisms of homology groups. This general situation has been well understood for some decades.

We assume that spaces have the homotopy types of CW-complexes, are based and that maps and homotopies preserve base points. A space $`X`$ is a co-H-space if there is a comultiplication map $`\nu :XXX`$ satisfying $`j\nu \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }:XX\times X`$ where $`j:XXX\times X`$ is the inclusion and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the diagonal map. Equivalently, $`X`$ is a co-H-space if the Lusternik-Schnirelmann category $`\text{cat }X`$ is one.

Statements $`(1.1)`$ and $`(1.2)`$ below were shown to be equivalent in , see also Theorem 0.1 of .

1. $`X`$ is a co-H-space and the comultiplication can be chosen so that $`[X,Z]`$ is an algebraic loop for all $`Z`$.
2. The space $`X`$ has the homotopy type of a wedge of a bunch of circles and a simply-connected co-H-space.

Problem 10 in  asks “Is any (non-simply-connected) co-H-space of the homotopy type of $`S^1\mathrm{}S^1Y`$ where there may be infinitely many circles and $`\pi _1(Y)=0`$?” The positive statement has become known as ‘the Ganea conjecture’ for co-H-spaces (see section 6 of ). The conjecture was resolved thirty years after being raised when the second author constructed in  infinitely many finite complexes which are co-H-spaces but which do not have the homotopy type described in Problem 10. This leaves open a $`p`$-complete version of Ganea’s conjecture, and probably more difficult, a $`p`$-local version (see Conjecture 1.6 of ). The rational version was established in  as a prime decomposition theorem for an ‘almost rational’ co-H-space. In this note, we address the $`p`$-complete problem at a prime $`p`$.

Some comments are required on $`p`$-completion. The $`p`$-completion of a simply connected co-H-space is rarely a co-H-space (unless it is a ‘finite torsion space’ in the sense of ) as a wedge of $`p`$-complete spaces need not be $`p`$-complete; it becomes a co-H-object in a categorical sense, which is adequate for some purposes. More seriously, we are interested in non-simply-connected co-H-spaces and it is shown in  that when $`X`$ is a co-H-space,

1. $`\pi _1(X)`$ is a free group.

We therefore use fibrewise $`p`$-completion which we describe after introducing more notation.

Let $`X`$ be a co-H-space and $`B=B\pi _1(X)`$, so that $`B`$ can be chosen as a bunch of circles by $`(1.3)`$. Let $`i:BX`$ represent the generators of $`\pi _1(X)`$ associated with the circles and $`j:XB`$ be the classifying map of the universal cover $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$. We may assume that $`ji`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`1_B`$, and so $`B`$ is a homotopy retract of $`X`$. Also let $`c:XC`$ be the cofibre of $`i:BX`$, so $`C`$ is simply connected. One seems tantalizingly close to Ganea’s original conjecture as there are homology equivalences $`XBC`$ and $`BCX`$ inducing isomorphisms of fundamental groups.

For each prime $`p`$, we consider the fibrewise $`p`$-completion of $`j:XB`$, $`\widehat{e}_p^a:X\widehat{X}_p^a`$ which commutes with projections to $`B`$. The map $`\widehat{e}_p^a`$ induces an isomorphism of fundamental groups and acts as standard $`p`$-completion on the fibre $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{X}_p^a}\mathrm{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{X}}_p`$. Following earlier authors, we refer to this fibrewise $`p`$-completion for $`j:XB`$ as ‘almost $`p`$-completion’. A general reference for fibrewise $`p`$-completion is ,  or . Also it is shown in  that a co-H-space $`X`$ is a co-H-space over $`B`$ up to homotopy, and so $`\widehat{X}_p^a`$ becomes a co-H-object over $`B`$ in the sense of  and .

The main result of this note is the following.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a finite, connected, based CW-complex and a co-H-space. After almost $`p`$-completion, $`\widehat{X}_p^a`$ has the homotopy type of $`\widehat{(BC)}_p^a`$ where $`B`$ is a finite bunch of circles and $`C`$ is a simply-connected finite complex and a co-H-space.

Let $`YB`$ be a fibration with cross-section.

###### Corollary 1.2.

The homotopy set $`[\widehat{X}_p^a,\widehat{Y}_p^a]_B`$ inherits an algebraic loop structure from $`C`$.

Since $`C`$ is a simply-connected co-H-space, results of  imply that $`\widehat{C}_p`$ can be decomposed, uniquely up to homotopy, as a completed wedge sum of simply-connected $`p`$-atomic spaces.

###### Corollary 1.3.

$`\widehat{X}_p^a`$ has the homotopy type of the almost $`p`$-completion of a wedge sum of circles and simply-connected $`p`$-atomic spaces.

The general strategy used to prove Theorem 1.1 first occurs in  in establishing the Ganea conjecture for complexes of dimension less than $`4`$. The existence of a co-H-multiplication enabled the authors to construct a new splitting $`CX`$ to obtain a homotopy equivalence $`BCX`$. In our case, we adopt techniques for simply-connected $`p`$-complete spaces of  and  for a similar purpose.

The first author expresses his gratitude to the Kyushu University and the second to the University of Aberdeen for their hospitality.

## 2. Finite co-H-complexes

We give a different proof of Theorem 3.1 of  and include a converse statement for completeness.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X`$ have the homotopy type of a based CW complex. Then $`X`$ has the homotopy type of a finite complex which is a co-H-space if and only if there are a finite bunch of circles, a connected finite complex $`D`$ and maps

$$\rho :B\mathrm{\Sigma }DX\text{and}\sigma :XB\mathrm{\Sigma }D$$

satisfying $`\rho \sigma \mathrm{}1_X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be a finite complex and a co-H-space. Then by , $`X`$ is dominated by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }X`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }X\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }(_{\tau \pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau X)`$ and $`\pi =\pi _1(X)`$ is a free group. As $`X`$ is a finite complex, the rank of $`\pi `$ is finite and $`B=B\pi `$ is a finite bunch of circles and $`X`$ is dominated by $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }(_{\tau \pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau X)`$. The image of $`X`$ can be taken as a finite subcomplex of $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }(_{\tau \pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau X)`$ and so there is a finite subcomplex $`D`$ in $`_{\tau \pi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\tau X`$ such that $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ dominates $`X`$.

Conversely, let $`X`$ be dominated by $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }W`$ where $`B`$ is a finite bunch of circles indexed by a finite set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`W`$ is a connected finite complex. Then $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }W=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }W)`$, and $`\text{cat }X\text{cat }(\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }W))=1`$. Thus $`X`$ is a co-H-space. Also $`X`$ is dominated by the finite complex $`B\mathrm{\Sigma }W`$ whose fundamental group is free of finite rank. The finiteness obstruction for $`X`$ lies in the Whitehead group $`Wh(\pi )=K_0(\pi _1(X))/\pm 1`$ ( and ) which is zero (see  and ). Thus $`X`$ has a homotopy type of a finite complex. This completes the proof. ∎

Let $`P=\sigma \rho :B\mathrm{\Sigma }DB\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ be the homotopy idempotent given by Theorem 2.1. So $`P`$ restricted to $`B`$ can be chosen as the inclusion $`\mathrm{in}_B:BB\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ and $`P`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ lifts to $`P_0:\mathrm{\Sigma }D\stackrel{~}{B\mathrm{\Sigma }D}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{B\mathrm{\Sigma }D}\mathrm{}_{\tau \pi }\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ is simply connected. As $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ is a finite complex, $`P_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }D)`$ is included in a finite subcomplex $`_{i=1}^t\tau _i\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$. So the restriction of $`P`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ equals the composition

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }D\stackrel{P_0}{}_{i=1}^t\tau _i\mathrm{\Sigma }D\stackrel{~}{B\mathrm{\Sigma }D}\stackrel{𝑝}{}B\mathrm{\Sigma }D.$$

Therefore we have the commutative diagram

(2.1)
which plays a crucial role in the next section.

We will need also maps $`\sigma ^{}:C\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ and $`\rho ^{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }DC`$ defined by the commutative diagram below in which the columns are cofibrations:

(2.2)
chosen so that $`\rho ^{}\sigma ^{}\mathrm{}1_C`$, as $`\rho \sigma \mathrm{}1_X`$. Thus the self map $`P^{}=\sigma ^{}\rho ^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ is also a homotopy idempotent.

## 3. Almost $`p`$-complete co-H-objects

Using the universality of almost $`p`$-completion, we have the natural equivalences between homotopy sets.

$`[\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]_B=[B\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]_B=[\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]`$
$`=[\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\stackrel{~}{\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a}]=[\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\widehat{(\stackrel{~}{B\mathrm{\Sigma }D})}_p]=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{}_{\tau \pi }\tau \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$
where $`\widehat{}`$ denotes the completed wedge sum. Projecting to its factors $`\tau \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p`$, we have a map

$$\beta :[\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]_B=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{}_{\tau \pi }\tau \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]$$

to the product and the image of $`\beta `$ contains the sum $`_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$. Indeed $`\beta `$ is a continuous homomorphism of topological groups, where the group structure is inherited from the co-H-space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$.

We give an alternative description of the closed subgroup which is the image of $`\beta `$. Let $`\{g_\tau \}_{\tau \pi }`$ denote an element of the product $`{\displaystyle \underset{\tau \pi }{}}\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]={\displaystyle \underset{\tau \pi }{}}\tau [\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The element $`\{g_\tau \}_{\tau \pi }`$ lies in the image of $`\beta `$ if and only if $`\{\chi g_\tau \}_{\tau \pi }_{\tau \pi }\tau [\mathrm{\Sigma }D,K]`$ for any map $`\chi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_pK`$ and any space $`K`$ all of whose homotopy groups are finite p-groups.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p\widehat{}_{\tau \pi }\tau \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p`$ and $`\beta (f)=\{f_\tau \}_{\tau \pi }{\displaystyle \underset{\tau \pi }{}}\tau [\mathrm{\Sigma }D,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$. Since $`(\widehat{}_{\tau \pi }\tau \chi )f`$ lies in $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{}_{\tau \pi }\tau K]=[\mathrm{\Sigma }D,_{\tau \pi }\tau K]`$, the map $`\{\chi f_\tau \}_{\tau \pi }`$ lies in $`_{\tau \pi }\tau [\mathrm{\Sigma }D,K]`$ as required. The converse statement holds by naturality and fundamental properties of $`p`$-completion. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`\beta (\widehat{P}_p^a)_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$.

###### Proof.

The lemma follows from (2.1). ∎

We now recall results from  and . We define a homomorphism of near-algebras by mapping homotopy classes of self-maps of $`\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a`$ over $`B`$ to the induced endomorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a};𝔽_p)\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p\pi )`$ (see ) the $`𝔽_p`$-homology groups of the universal cover

$`\alpha :[\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]_B\text{End }_{𝔽_p\pi }\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p\pi )\}.`$
When $`B`$ is a point, the same definition gives a homomorphism

$`\alpha _0:[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]\text{End }_{𝔽_p}\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p)\}.`$
The homomorphisms $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _0`$ fit into a commutative diagram

Then $`\alpha ([\widehat{P}_p^a])\text{End }_{𝔽_p\pi }\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p\pi )\}`$, by Lemma 3.2.

The topological radical $`N`$ in the compact, Hausdorff space $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$ is defined by

$$N=\{n[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]|hn\text{ is topologically nilpotent for all }h\}.$$

The radical $`R`$ in the finite ring $`\text{End }_{𝔽_p}\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p)\}`$ is defined by

$$R=\{r\text{End }_{𝔽_p}\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p)\}|\text{For any }u\text{, there is }v\text{ such that }v(1+ur)=1\}.$$

Then (see section 3 in ), $`\alpha _0`$ induces a homomorphism of rings

$$\alpha _0^{}:[\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]/N\left\{\text{End }_{𝔽_p}\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p)\}\right\}/R$$

which is a monomorphism onto its image, which can be identified with $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i})`$ for some $`k`$, where $`𝔽_q`$ is a finite field of characteristic $`p`$ with $`q`$ elements.

###### Lemma 3.3.

There is an isomorphism of rings induced by $`\alpha `$.

$$\alpha ^{}:\underset{\tau \pi }{}\tau ([\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]/N)\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}\pi ).$$

###### Proof.

We identify $`𝔽_p\pi \text{End }_{𝔽_p}\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p)\}`$ with $`\text{End }_{𝔽_p\pi }\{\stackrel{~}{H}_{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p;𝔽_p\pi )\}`$ so that the image $`𝔽_p\pi (\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}))`$ of $`\alpha ^{}=_{\tau \pi }\tau \alpha _0`$ becomes $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}\pi )`$. ∎

## 4. The proof of Theorem 1.1

Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 imply that $`\widehat{P}_p^a[\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a,\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a]`$ is mapped in homology to a direct sum of idempotents $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}P_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}\pi )`$. We appeal to work of Bass ; each $`P_i`$ defines an $`𝔽_{q_i}\pi `$-homomorphism of $`(𝔽_{q_i}\pi )^{n_i}`$ and so there exists an $`𝔽_{q_i}\pi `$-isomorphism of $`(𝔽_{q_i}\pi )^{n_i}`$, $`A_i`$ say, such that

$$A_iP_iA_i^1=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}1& & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & & \text{0}& \\ & & 1& & & \\ & & & 0& & \\ & \text{0}& & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & & 0\end{array}\right]M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}\pi ).$$

This matrix also lies in $`M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i})`$. Let a ring homomorphism $`ϵ:𝔽_q\pi 𝔽_q`$ be defined by $`ϵ(\tau )=1`$ and so $`ϵ(P_i)`$ represents $`\widehat{P^{}}_p^a`$. We choose $`\varphi :\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a`$ lying in $`\beta ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p])`$ and a corresponding $`\varphi ^{}:\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p`$ representing the invertible matrices $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}A_i`$ in $`M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i}\pi )`$ and $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}ϵ(A_i)`$ in $`M(n_i,𝔽_{q_i})`$ respectively. So $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are homotopy equivalences as they induce isomorphisms of homology groups of universal covers by Lemma 3.3. Referring back to (2.2), we have a commutative diagram

The self map $`\varphi \widehat{P}_p^a\varphi ^1`$ of $`\widehat{(B\mathrm{\Sigma }D)}_p^a`$ is a homotopy idempotent represented by the matrix $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}A_iP_iA_i^1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑘}{}}ϵ(A_i)ϵ(P_i)ϵ(A_i)^1`$ which also represents $`\varphi ^{}\widehat{P^{}}_p\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. Therefore this matrix also represents $`\widehat{sr}_p^a`$ where $`s=1_B(\varphi ^{}\widehat{\sigma ^{}}_p):B\widehat{C}_pB\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p`$ and $`r=1_B(\widehat{\rho ^{}}_p\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}):B\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_pB\widehat{C}_p`$, and so $`rs\mathrm{}1_{B\widehat{C}_p}`$. We deduce

$$\beta (\varphi \widehat{P}_p^a\varphi ^1)\mathrm{}\beta (\widehat{(sr)}_p^a)mod_{\tau \pi }\tau N\text{in}_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p].$$

Let $`f=\widehat{\rho }_p^a\varphi ^1\widehat{s}_p^a:\widehat{(BC)}_p^a\widehat{X}_p^a`$ and $`g=\widehat{r}_p^a\varphi \widehat{\sigma }_p^a:\widehat{X}_p^a\widehat{(BC)}_p^a`$. Then

$`gf=(\widehat{r}_p^a\varphi \widehat{\sigma }_p^a)(\widehat{\rho }_p^a\varphi ^1\widehat{s}_p^a)=\widehat{r}_p^a(\varphi \widehat{P}_p^a\varphi ^1)\widehat{s}_p^a`$
whose image by $`\beta `$ is in $`_{\tau \pi }\tau [\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p,\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }D}_p]`$ and is homotopic modulo $`_{\tau \pi }\tau N`$ to that of
$`\widehat{r}_p^a\widehat{(sr)}_p^a\widehat{s}_p^a=\widehat{(rs)}_p^a\widehat{(rs)}_p^a\mathrm{}\widehat{(1_{B\widehat{C}_p})}_p^a\widehat{(1_{B\widehat{C}_p})}_p^a=1_{\widehat{(BC)}_p^a}.`$
Thus the self map $`gf`$ of $`\widehat{(BC)}_p^a`$ over $`B`$ induces an isomorphisms of homology groups of the universal cover by Lemma 3.3. Therefore

1. $`gf:\widehat{(BC)}_p^a\widehat{(BC)}_p^a`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

It is routine to check that

1. $`f`$ and $`g`$ induce isomorphisms of the $`𝔽_p`$-homology groups of universal covers,
2. $`f`$ and $`g`$ induce isomorphisms of fundamental groups.

We complete the proof by following . Statements (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) are similar to the conclusion of Lemma 1.6 of . One then makes minor changes to the proof of Theorem 1.5 given there to deduce Theorem 1.1.