# WHAT IS THE UPPER LIMIT ON THE LIGHTEST SUPERSYMMETRIC HIGGS MASS?Work presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (PASCOS-98), Northeastern University, Boston MA 02115, USA, March 22-29 1998.

## 1 Introduction: MSSM and gauge unification

Low-energy supersymmetry (MSSM)  is a key ingredient in the best-qualified candidate models to supersede the Standard Model (SM) at energies beyond the TeV range. The MSSM is supported both by theoretical arguments and experimental indirect hints. From the theoretical point of view supersymmetry achieves cancellation of ultraviolet quadratic divergences which is welcome to alleviate the hierarchy problem. From the experimental side, using LEP electroweak precision data, the MSSM achieves gauge coupling unification at a value and scale given by

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}1/25,M_{\mathrm{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(1)   
On the other hand, the extensive experimental search of the (super)-partners of SM elementary particles predicted by supersymmetry (SUSY) has been unsuccessful so far, challenging , with the rise of experimental mass limits, the naturalness and relevance of SUSY for electroweak-scale physics.

In this context, the sector of the theory responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking has a special status. While all superpartners of the known Standard Model particles can be made heavy by simply rising soft supersymmetry-breaking mass parameters in the model, the Higgs sector necessarily contains a physical Higgs scalar whose mass does not depend sensitively on the details of soft masses but is fixed by the scale of the electroweak symmetry breaking<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Here and throughout we assume symmetry breaking is achieved in a weakly interacting Higgs sector. This is specially well motivated and natural in SUSY models. The reader should be aware of other more complicated possibilities .. More in detail, in the MSSM, unlike in the SM, the quartic coupling is not an independent parameter but

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2}(g_2^2+\frac{3}{5}g_1^2)\mathrm{cos}^22\beta ,$$
(2)   
where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_2^0/H_1^0`$ and $`g_2`$ and $`\sqrt{3/5}g_1`$ are the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge couplings.

Equation (2) has the important consequence that the value, and renormalization, of the quartic coupling in the MSSM is related to that of $`g_2^2+3g_1^2/5`$. This means in turn that the mass of one (usually the lightest one) of the CP-even scalar mass eigenvalues is not controlled by the SUSY breaking parameters, but by the electroweak breaking ($`v=174.1`$ GeV). The existence of the SM-like Higgs is a generic feature of all Supersymmetric Standard Models (SSM). In the MSSM the bound

$$m_h^2M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta M_Z^2,$$
(3)   
follows directly from (2). Eq. (3) seems an indication that non-discovery of the Higgs boson at LEP could rule out the MSSM independently of any direct SUSY searches. In fact, since present experimental bounds at LEP already set fairly stringent bounds on the Higgs mass

$$m_h\stackrel{>}{_{}}90\mathrm{GeV},$$
(4)   
does it mean that the MSSM is already ruled out?

## 2 Bounds in the MSSM

Were it not for radiative corrections  the MSSM would have already been excluded! The leading effects are included in radiative corrections from the top-stop sector, with $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{L,R}`$ mixing parameterized by

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_t\frac{A_t\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta }{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}}.$$
(5)   
In the absence of mixing, leading higher-order corrections  are resummed by shifting the energy scale ($`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}\sqrt{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_t}`$) in the one-loop result<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The physical top-quark mass $`M_t`$ is related to the running $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ top-quark mass $`m_t`$ by the relation $`m_t=M_t/[1+4\alpha _3(M_t)/3\pi ]`$, where $`g_3`$ is the $`SU(3)`$ coupling constant.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{h,rad}^2=\frac{3}{4\pi ^2v^2}m_t^4\left(\sqrt{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}m_t}\right)\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2}{m_t^2}.$$
(6)   
In the presence of mixing there is an important (threshold) contribution as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{h,th}^2=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\frac{m_t^4}{v^2}\stackrel{~}{A}_t^2\left(2\frac{1}{6}\stackrel{~}{A}_t^2\right).$$
(7)   
These corrections push the upper mass limit for the lightest Higgs boson of the MSSM up to $`125`$ GeV (for a top-quark mass $`M_t=175`$ GeV and $`M_{SUSY}<1`$ TeV), as can be seen from the lowest curve in the right panel of Fig. 1. So there appears an immediate question: what would happen if (when) experimental bounds on the Higgs mass reach (and overcome) $``$ 125 GeV? Should we give up SSMs?

## 3 Bounds in the MSSM with a gauge singlet

A singlet field $`S`$ added to the MSSM does not spoil unification and from this point of view it is as legitimate as the MSSM itself. But the $`S`$ field can couple in the superpotential $`W`$ to the Higgs sector as

$$W=\lambda _1SH_1H_2,$$
(8)   
leading to a contribution to the Higgs quartic coupling as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _1^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta .$$
(9)   
The contribution (9) can be sizable for small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. An upper triviality limit on $`\lambda _1`$ (and thus on $`\lambda (M_Z)`$) exists if one requires perturbativity of all parameters of the theory in the energy range \[$`M_Z,M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$\]. In fact the absolute limit is reached when $`\lambda _1(Q)`$ goes non-perturbative, i.e. when <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3The actual value on the right hand side of Eq. (10) does not matter for the precise value of the bound since the transition to the non-perturbative regime is very abrupt.

$$\frac{\lambda _1^2(M_{\mathrm{GUT}})}{4\pi }=𝒪(1).$$
(10)   
This constraint is very strong, since $`\lambda _1`$ increases rapidly with the scale, and the gain in $`m_h`$ with respect to the MSSM value is modest .

Inspection of the renormalization group equations 

$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(h_t^2+h_b^2)+2\lambda _1^2\right]\lambda _1`$   
$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dh_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{13}{30}}g_1^2+3h_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\lambda _1^2\right]h_t`$   
$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dh_b}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{30}}g_1^2+3h_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\lambda _1^2\right]h_b`$ (11)   
shows that the presence of gauge couplings slows down the evolution of the couplings $`\lambda _1`$, $`h_{t,b}`$ with the renormalization scale. Therefore, the stronger the gauge couplings, the slower the evolution of $`\lambda _1`$, the larger values of $`\lambda _1(M_Z)`$ are consistent with perturbativity, and finally the higher values of $`m_h`$ can be reached. Gauge couplings can be strengthened, without spoiling gauge unification, by adding complete (anomaly free) $`SU(5)`$ representations . The simplest possibility is adding a number $`N_5`$ of pairs $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$. In fact for $`N_5=4`$ perturbativity is almost saturated ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}1/5`$) if $`M_{5\overline{5}}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4Of course other possibilities are accessible by introducing intermediate scales, but the previous one will lead to the highest upper bounds..

The unification of the gauge couplings and the upper bounds on $`m_h`$ for the MSSM plus a singlet and $`N_5=4`$ are shown in the left and right panels, respectively, of Fig. 1.

We observe from Fig. 1 that the maximum value of $`m_h`$ is at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1.8`$ and corresponds to $`m_h155`$ GeV, which is a more sizable increase with respect to the MSSM.

Suppose again that our experimental colleagues exclude, in a few years from now (LHC) a Higgs as light as $``$ 155 GeV! Should we (once for all) exclude the SSM? We will next describe what we consider to be the absolute upper bound on the lightest Higgs mass in SSM consistent with gauge unification, or even with perturbativity for scales below the Planck mass.

## 4 Absolute bound and gauge unification

To maximize the upper bound on $`m_h`$ we next assume that the model also contains extra chiral multiplets with the appropriate quantum numbers to give couplings of the form $`W=h_XXH_iH_j`$. Thus, $`X`$ can only be a singlet ($`S`$) or a $`Y=0,\pm 1`$ triplet ($`T_Y`$. Such terms modify the quartic Higgs coupling via $`F`$-terms. From the gauge-invariant trilinear superpotential

$$W=\lambda _1H_1H_2S+\lambda _2H_1T_0H_2+\chi _1H_1T_1H_1+\chi _2H_2T_1H_2,$$
(12)   
the tree-level mass bound follows:

$`m_h^2/v^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^2)\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\left(\lambda _1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _2^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\beta `$ (13)   
$`+`$ $`4\chi _1^2\mathrm{cos}^4\beta +4\chi _2^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta .`$   
Different terms have different $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence and are important in different regimes. For example, the $`\chi _2`$ contribution will be crucial for the upper limit in the large-$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. $`S`$ and $`T_0`$ induce the same $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence but the $`\lambda _1`$ correction can be more important than that of $`\lambda _2`$. For this reason we do not take into account the possible effect of $`T_0`$ representations.

To achieve unification with only one scale $`M_{SUSY}`$ ($`=`$ 1 TeV) is not completely trivial. When the MSSM is enlarged by one singlet $`S`$ and a pair $`\{T_1,T_1\}`$ (to cancel anomalies) the running $`g_1^2`$ and $`g_2^2`$ meet at $`M_X10^{17}`$ GeV. Interestingly enough, this is closer to the heterotic string scale than the MSSM unification scale. Of course, $`g_3^2`$ fails to unify unless extra matter is added. This can be achieved, for example, by adding 4 ($`3+\overline{3}`$) \[$`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ ‘singlet quark’ chiral multiplets\] or ($`3+\overline{3}`$) plus one $`SU(3)_c`$ octet. In addition to this, we can still have a ($`5+\overline{5}`$) $`SU(5)`$ pair, which will not change the unification scale. The unification of the couplings is shown in Fig. 2 (left panel, solid lines).

For comparison, dashed lines show the running couplings when their RG beta functions are fixed in such a way that all couplings reach a Landau pole at the unification scale. In this case the low-energy couplings are fully determined by the ‘light’ matter content of the model (which fixes the RG beta functions). The dashed lines can be considered as the perturbative upper limit on the gauge couplings, and comparison with the solid lines shows that our model is close to saturation and represents a concrete realization of the most extreme scenario to maximize the $`m_h`$ bound. The emphasis here should lie in this fact rather than in the plausibility or physics motivation of the model per se.

Having optimized in this way the most appropriate running gauge couplings, we turn to the running of $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\chi _{1,2}`$. The relevant RG equations are :

$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(h_t^2+h_b^2)+3(\chi _1^2+\chi _2^2)+2\lambda _1^2\right]\lambda _1`$   
$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\chi _{1,2}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{10}}g_1^2+3h_{b,t}^2+7\chi _{1,2}^2+\lambda _1^2\right]\chi _{1,2}`$   
$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dh_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{13}{30}}g_1^2+3h_t^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_b^2+3\chi _2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1^2\right]h_t`$   
$`8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dh_b}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{30}}g_1^2+3h_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_t^2+3\chi _2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1^2\right]h_b.`$ (14)   
For a given value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (which influences the top and bottom Yukawa couplings entering the RGs) we find the maximum value of the particular combination of Yukawa couplings that enters the bound (13), compatible with perturbativity up to $`M_S`$. To add the important radiative corrections we follow Refs. , which include two-loop RG improvement and stop-mixing effects. We fix $`M_t=175`$ GeV.

Before presenting our results, it is worth discussing in more detail the bound presented in Eq. (13). If the extra fields responsible for the enhancement of $`m_h`$ sit at 1 TeV, should their effect not decouple from the low-energy effective theory? Indeed, in a simple toy model with

$$W=mS^2+\lambda _1H_1H_2S,$$
(15)   
the limit $`mM_Z,M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ leads to an effective superpotential in which no renormalizable coupling of $`S`$ to $`H_1H_2`$ exists \[technically, the $`F`$-term contribution ($`\lambda _1^2`$) to the Higgs doublet self-interactions is cancelled by a tree diagram that interchanges the heavy singlet, thus realizing decoupling\]. If, to avoid this, we take $`mM_Z`$, more than one light Higgs will appear in the spectrum. A complicated mixed squared-mass matrix results whose lightest eigenvalue does not saturate the bound (13). Is then this mass limit simply too conservative an overestimate of the real upper limit? It is easy to convince oneself that, in the presence of soft breaking masses, the perfect decoupling cancellation obtained in the large SUSY mass limit does not take place (we assume $`m\stackrel{<}{_{}}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$) and the final lightest Higgs mass depends in a complicated way on these soft mass parameters. The interesting outcome is that soft masses can be adjusted in order to saturate the bound (13); the numbers we will present can thus be reached in particular models and no limits lower than these can be given without additional assumptions (which we will not make here, in the interest of generality).

The final bound, with radiative corrections included, is presented in Fig. 2 (right panel). For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{_{}}2`$ the main contribution to the $`m_h`$ value comes from the $`\lambda _1`$ coupling. In particular for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1.8`$ the effect of $`\lambda _1`$ is maximized and yields a bound on $`m_h`$ 155 GeV, as in the model presented in the previous section . For larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the effect of $`\lambda _1`$ drops off and $`\chi _2`$ dominates. We also see that the bound can reach values as large as 205-210 GeV, that we should consider as the absolute bound in supersymmetric models, which are perturbative up to the high scale and without intermediate scales. Finally we can notice that the $`\chi _1`$ coupling does play a role only for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$  where the bound is $``$ 140 GeV.

## 5 Conclusions

In conclusion, we calculate a numerical absolute upper limit on the mass of the lightest supersymmetric Higgs boson for any model with arbitrary matter content compatible with gauge coupling unification around (and perturbativity up to) the string scale. With this assumption, we show that this light Higgs mass can be as high as $``$ 205 GeV. The model saturating this bound has asymptotically divergent gauge couplings and points toward non-perturbative unification. Besides being of obvious interest to the experimentalists, this result has interest for theorists too. If Higgs searches reach the MSSM bounds without finding a signal for a Higgs boson, this could be taken, if one is willing to stick to (perturbative) low-energy supersymmetry, as evidence for additional matter beyond the minimal model.