# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$, is potentially a significant constraint for any extension of the Standard Model (SM). The measured value quoted by the Particle Data Group  is

$$a_\mu ^{PDG}=(\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}230}\pm 84)\times 10^{10}.$$
(1)   
This value does not take into account the early results <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The 1998 result is still preliminary. from the E821 experiment at BNL 

$`a_\mu ^{BNL\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}97}}=(\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}250}\pm 150)\times 10^{10},`$ (2)   
$`a_\mu ^{BNL\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}98}}=(\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}191}\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}59})\times 10^{10}.`$ (3)   
On the other hand, the SM prediction yields ( and references therein)

$$a_\mu ^{SM}=(\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}659\hspace{0.17em}159.6}\pm 6.7)\times 10^{10},$$
(4)   
where the QED, electroweak and hadronic contributions are sumed and the errors are combined in quadrature. When we take into account all these results, contributions from new physics beyond the SM are constrained to fit within the window

$$28\times 10^{10}<\delta a_\mu ^{NEW}<+124\times 10^{10},\mathrm{at}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\%C.L.$$
(5)   
The width of the window is at present dominated by the experimental uncertainty. That, however, will change after the E821 experiment is completed. The inclusion of the current BNL data already reduces the available window by a factor of 2. After two more years of running the E821 is eventually expected to reach the accuracy $`\pm 3\times 10^{10}`$. If the measured central value then turns out to be exactly equal to the SM prediction, eq.(4), the new constraint will be

$$12\times 10^{10}<\delta a_\mu ^{NEW}<+12\times 10^{10},\mathrm{at}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}90}\%C.L.,$$
(6)   
with the window for new physics narrowed by more than a factor of 6. <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2 This estimate does not take into account possible improvements over time in the hadronic uncertainty, and thus the constraint on new physics may actually be even tighter. 

In the MSSM, there are significant contributions from new physics due to the chargino-sneutrino and neutralino-smuon loops:

$`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{A\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha }^2}}\left[(|C_{A\alpha }^L|^2+|C_{A\alpha }^R|^2)F_1(x_{A\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _A^+}}{m_\mu }}Re\{C_{A\alpha }^LC_{A\alpha }^R\}F_3(x_{A\alpha })\right],`$ (7)   
$`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\alpha }^2}}\left[(|N_{a\alpha }^L|^2+|N_{a\alpha }^R|^2)F_2(x_{a\alpha })+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\chi _a^0}}{m_\mu }}Re\{N_{a\alpha }^LN_{a\alpha }^R\}F_4(x_{a\alpha })\right],`$ (8)   
where $`x_{A\alpha }=m_{\chi _A^+}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha }^2`$, $`x_{a\alpha }=m_{\chi _a^0}^2/m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\alpha }^2`$,

$`C_{A\alpha }^L`$ $`=`$ $`g_2V_{A1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu L}^{})_{2\alpha },`$   
$`C_{A\alpha }^R`$ $`=`$ $`+\lambda _\mu U_{A2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu L}^{})_{2\alpha },`$   
$`N_{a\alpha }^L`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\mu N_{a3}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eR}^{})_{2\alpha }+({\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{\sqrt{2}}}N_{a1}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}}N_{a2})(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eL}^{})_{2\alpha },`$   
$`N_{a\alpha }^R`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _\mu N_{a3}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eL}^{})_{2\alpha }\sqrt{2}g_1N_{a1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eR}^{})_{2\alpha },`$ (9)   
and the standard integrals over the two-dimensional Feynman parameter space are

$`F_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(x1)^4}}(x^36x^2+3x+2+6x\mathrm{ln}x),`$   
$`F_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12(x1)^4}}(2x^3+3x^26x+16x^2\mathrm{ln}x),`$   
$`F_3(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x1)^3}}(x^24x+3+2\mathrm{ln}x),`$   
$`F_4(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(x1)^3}}(x^212x\mathrm{ln}x).`$ (10)   
In these relations, notation of  is assumed. $`C`$’s and $`N`$’s are the couplings of the chiral muon states with the charginos and neutralinos, respectively. $`U_{A2}`$, $`V_{A1}`$ and $`N_{a3}`$ are the elements of the chargino and neutralino mixing matrices, $`A=1,2`$; $`a=1,4`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are the mixing matrices of the sleptons after the flavor eigenstates have been first rotated by the unitary matrices which diagonalize the respective fermionic states. Note that $`\alpha =1,3`$ for sneutrinos and $`\alpha =1,6`$ for charged sleptons. In particular, for the charged sleptons each $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_e)_{\alpha i}`$ is a 6$`\times `$3 matrix defined as $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eL})_{\alpha i}=Z_{\alpha i}`$, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eR})_{\alpha i}=Z_{\alpha i+3}`$, ($`i=1,3`$), where $`Z`$ is a 6$`\times `$6 mixing matrix for charged sleptons of all three generations. For 3 sneutrinos, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu L}`$ directly diagonalizes the 3$`\times `$3 sneutrino mass matrix. $`m_{\chi _A^+}`$, $`m_{\chi _a^0}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\alpha }^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\alpha }^2`$ are the chargino, neutralino, sneutrino and charged slepton mass eigenvalues, $`m_\mu `$ and $`\lambda _\mu `$ are the muon mass and diagonal muon Yukawa coupling, and $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are the electroweak gauge couplings.

Note that at first glance the terms proportional to $`F_3`$ and $`F_4`$ in eqs.(7, 8), respectively, are enhanced by $`m_\chi /m_\mu `$. The net enahncement is actually of the order $`v_u/v_d\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. ($`v_d`$ and $`v_u`$ are the Higgs vevs which give masses to the $`d`$-quarks and charged leptons, and to the $`u`$-quarks, respectively.) <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3 Note that there is no additional enhancement due to $`1/\lambda _\mu `$ in the terms proportional to $`F_3`$ and $`F_4`$ after the sum over the mass eigenstates is performed. In fact, any combination of chiral muon states contributes to $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ with the net contribution suppressed by small Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _\mu `$, as one can see, for instance, from the relevant Feynman diagrams in terms of flavor eigenstates (i.e., in the interaction basis). That also explains why the electron anomalous magnetic moment is less sensitive to new physics than its muon analogy.  The enhancement by tan$`\beta `$ can be traced back to the diagrams with the chirality flip inside the loop (or in one of the vertices) as opposed to the terms proportional to $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ where the chirality flip takes place in the external muon leg. There are no similarly enhanced terms in the SM, where the chirality can only be flipped in the external muon leg. Thus for tan$`\beta 1`$ we expect that the terms proportional to $`F_3`$ and $`F_4`$ dominate in eqs.(7) and (8), and that compared to the SM electroweak gauge boson contribution $`\delta a_\mu ^{EW}`$, the SUSY contribution scales approximately as

$$\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}\delta a_\mu ^{EW}\left(\frac{M_W}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta 15\times 10^{10}\left(\frac{100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{\stackrel{~}{m}}\right)^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ,$$
(11)   
where $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ stands for the heaviest sparticle mass in the loop. The effect has been noticed and emphasized by the earlier studies focusing on the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the context of the MSSM .

Relation (11) predicts a very simple tan$`\beta `$ dependence. It suggests that the large tan$`\beta `$ regime of the MSSM may already be constrained by the currently allowed window, eq.(5). That is of interest for models of grand unification based on simple SO(10), since the SO(10) GUT constraint $`y_t=y_b=y_\tau `$ for the Yukawa couplings of the third generation implies tan$`\beta 50`$. In this study, we first apply our analysis to the MSSM constrained only by gauge coupling unification and, as a warm-up, compute the muon anomalous magnetic moment for fixed values tan$`\beta =2`$ and tan$`\beta =20`$. Next, we proceed to the best fits of a simple SO(10) SUSY GUT . We present our results in terms of the contour lines of constant $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ drawn in the SUSY parameter space. In section 2, we review our numerical analysis. Sections 3 and 4 discuss the results and prospects for the future.

## 2 Numerical Analysis

Our numerical analysis has relied on the top down global analysis introduced in . The soft SUSY breaking mediated by supergravity (SUGRA) was assumed throughout this paper. As explained at the end of the previous section, the magnitude of tan$`\beta `$ is of special interest for the analysis. Hence we discuss separately three cases with low, medium, and large value of tan$`\beta `$. First, fixed tan$`\beta =2`$ was considered, along with the scalar trilinear parameter $`A_0`$ set to zero to simplify the analysis which is insensitive to $`A_0`$ in this case. Next, tan$`\beta `$ was raised to $`20`$ and $`A_0`$ set free to vary. In the third case, we used the results of the global analysis of model 4c, a simple SO(10) model with minimal number of effective operators leading to realistic Yukawa matrices. The model was suggested by Lucas and Raby  and its low-energy analysis was presented in . A direct model dependence of $`a_\mu `$ on the details of the Yukawa matrices is, however, very limited. In this case, tan$`\beta `$ was not fixed to any particular value. Instead, it was a free parameter of the global analysis but since the model predicted exact $`tb\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification, the best fit values of tan$`\beta `$ were always found between 50 and 55, dependent on a particular $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ point as explained below. $`A_0`$ was free to vary — as for tan$`\beta =20`$ — which allowed the best fits to optimize the effects of the left-right stop mixing, which is enhanced by tan$`\beta `$, in the analysis.

In each of the three cases, gauge coupling unification was imposed up to a small (less than 5%) negative correction, called $`ϵ_3`$, to $`\alpha _s`$ at the unification scale $`M_G`$. Scale $`M_G`$ has been defined as the scale where $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are exactly equal to the common value $`\alpha _G`$. For low and medium tan$`\beta `$ ($`2`$ and $`20`$), the minimal set of the initial SUSY parameters

$$M_{1/2},m_0,A_0,\text{sign}\mu ,\text{and tan}\beta $$
(12)   
was assumed, with $`M_{1/2}`$, $`m_0`$, and $`A_0`$ (the universal gaugino mass, scalar mass and trilinear coupling) introduced at $`M_G`$. The Yukawa couplings of the third generation fermions at $`M_G`$ were unconstrained and free to vary independently on each other. For large tan$`\beta `$ in the third case, the scalar Higgs masses were allowed to deviate from $`m_0`$ in order to alleviate strong fine-tuning required for the correct electroweak symmetry breaking. Thus instead of (12), the set

$$M_{1/2},m_0,(m_{H_d}/m_0)^2,(m_{H_u}/m_0)^2,A_0,\text{sign}\mu ,\text{and tan}\beta $$
(13)   
was actually used as initial SUSY parameters. As already mentioned, the third generation yukawas were strictly set equal to each other at $`M_G`$ in this case. In fact, the SO(10)-based equality among them is the main reason why such a large tan$`\beta `$ is attractive.

The rest of the analysis was then the same for each of the three cases. Particular values of $`m_0`$ and $`M_{1/2}`$ were picked up, while the rest of the initial parameters varied. That included varying $`\alpha _G`$, $`M_G`$, $`ϵ_3`$, the third generation Yukawa couplings, and $`A_0`$ (for medium and large tan$`\beta `$). Using the 2-loop RGEs for the dimensionless couplings and 1-loop RGEs for the dimensionful couplings the theory was renormalized down to the SUSY scale, which was set equal to the mass of the $`Z`$ boson. The electroweak symmetry breaking was checked to one loop as in , based on the effective potential method of ref.. One-loop SUSY threshold corrections to fermion masses were calculated consistently at this scale. That is of particular importance for $`m_b`$ which receives significant corrections if tan$`\beta `$ is large. Also, the experimental constraints imposed by the observed branching ratio $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ and by direct sparticle searches were taken into account. Finally, $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^+}+\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^0}`$ was evaluated following eqs.(7) and (8) for those values of the initial parameters which gave the lowest $`\chi ^2`$ calculated out of the ten low energy observables $`M_Z`$, $`M_W`$, $`\rho _{new}`$, $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$, $`\alpha `$, $`G_\mu `$, $`M_t`$, $`m_b(M_b)`$, $`M_\tau `$, and $`BR(bs\gamma )`$. Details of the low energy analysis can be found in . The calculated value of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ did not have any effect on the $`\chi ^2`$ calculation and the subsequent selection of the SUSY parameter space.

## 3 Results and Discussion

The results for tan$`\beta =2`$ and tan$`\beta =20`$ are shown in figures 14. The figures 1 and 2 show the contour lines of constant $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}\times 10^{10}`$ in the $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane. These results are then transformed into the dependence on physical masses in figures 3 and 4, where we chose the $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }},m_{\chi ^+})`$ plane, with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ being the muon sneutrino mass and $`m_{\chi ^+}`$ being the mass of the lighter chargino. The contour lines in these figures are bound from below by the limit on the neutralino mass (a limit $`m_{\chi ^0}>55`$GeV was imposed flatly, for simplicity), and from above by the stau mass ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}>60`$GeV, in this analysis). The important observation is that the present limits on $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$, eq.(5) are not excluding any region of the parameter space which is left available by other experiments. The size of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ is in agreement with the results of Chattopadhyay and Nath, and of Moroi . We can also confirm their observation that the neutralino contribution $`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^0}`$ is generally much smaller than the chargino contribution $`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^+}`$ in the whole parameter space available. Yet several interesting characteristics of the presented results cannot be read off directly from the earlier studies. It is first of all the simple pattern suggested by figures 3 and 4. The pattern in the figures shows a strong dependence of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ on the sneutrino mass and very little sensitivity to the mass of the lighter chargino. That can be understood from the fact that the loop integrals are in general most sensitive to the heaviest mass in the loop, and the universal initial conditions (see (12)) together with the experimental limits from direct searches always lead to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}m_{\chi ^+}`$ at the electroweak scale. Actually, the figures show how well the approximate relation (11) works. One could e.g., directly read out the value of sneutrino mass from a figure of this type once a more accurate measurement of $`a_\mu `$ and the value of tan$`\beta `$ become available. Alternatively, a more accurate measurement of $`a_\mu `$ can be converted into a limit on tan$`\beta `$ in a straightforward way, if the sneutrino mass is known. Also note how well the linear dependence $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ holds. If we overlapped figures 3 and 4, the contour lines marked as 10, 5, 2, 1, and 0.5 in figure 3 would be practically on top of the contour lines marked as 100, 50, 20, 10, and 5 in figure 4. That suggests that the tan$`\beta `$ enhanced terms in eqs.(7) and (8) become dominant already for tan$`\beta 2`$. We checked this feature in the numerical analysis: typically, the term proportional to $`F_3`$ in eq.(7) accounts for about 80–85% of the net $`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^+}`$ for tan$`\beta =2`$, while it is 97-99% for tan$`\beta =20`$. (The analogous term in eq.(8) is less dominant, but has a smaller net effect since $`\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^0}<\delta a_\mu ^{\chi ^+}`$.)

From these results one could extrapolate that the current $`a_\mu `$ limit, eq.(5), places an important constraint on the analysis if tan$`\beta `$ is as large as 50.

However, case tan$`\beta 50`$ is qualitatively different. As discussed in the study by Blažek and Raby , the global analysis yields two distinct fits, figs. 5a–b. The fits differ by the sign of the Wilson coefficient $`C_7^{MSSM}`$ in the effective quark Hamiltonian below the electroweak scale. (The coefficient $`C_7`$ determines the $`bs\gamma `$ decay amplitude, after the QCD renormalization effects are taken into account .) In the MSSM with large tan$`\beta `$, the sign of $`C_7`$ can be the same, or the opposite, as in the SM. It can be reversed due to the fact that the chargino contribution can be of either sign. This contribution is enhanced by tan$`\beta `$ compared to the SM and charged Higgs contributions, whose signs are fixed and alike, and thus the flipped sign of $`C_7^{MSSM}`$ cannot be obtained for low tan$`\beta `$. <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4 The contributions with neutralinos or gluinos in the loop always turn out to be small in our analysis.  For tan$`\beta 50`$ the fit with the flipped sign is equally good as the fit with the sign unchanged, see figure 5. The fits differ in the range of the allowed SUSY parameter space: to reverse the sign the chargino contribution accepts lower squark masses and different values of $`A_0`$ than in the case when the sign is unchanged.

One can anticipate that these differences will be reflected in the analysis of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ with tan$`\beta 50`$, since the quark sector is correlated with the lepton sector through the unification constraint, and the soft masses are interrelated through the universality assumption. Due to differences in SUSY spectra we can expect $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ to be more significant in the fit with the flipped sign of $`C_7^{MSSM}`$ than in the fit where the signs are the same. These expectations are indeed realized in our results in figs. 6a and 6b. In these figures, we plot the contour lines in the ($`m_0,M_{1/2}`$) plane of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$, calculated according to eqs. (7) and (8), with all the masses, mixings and couplings taken over from the best fit values at the specific ($`m_0,M_{1/2}`$) point in the SUSY space.<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5 We do not show plots in the $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }},m_{\chi ^+})`$ plane in this case. For large tan$`\beta `$ the best fits of the global analysis result in the lightest chargino being higgsino-like, with its mass close to the electroweak scale across the whole $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane. Thus the two-dimensional plots in the $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }},m_{\chi ^+})`$ plane would contract to a dependence on $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ only.  The important feature, which runs contrary to the naive extrapolation from the previous two cases, is that the MSSM contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment stays within the currently allowed range at $`90\%C.L.`$, even for tan$`\beta `$ as large as predicted by simple SO(10) GUTs. Despite the fact that figures 1-4 suggest that the analysis with tan$`\beta =5055`$ becomes sensitive to the current constraint on $`a_\mu `$, eq.(5), our results in fig.6 clearly indicate that this is not the case. The reson for this is that we consistently demand that all known particle physics constraints (besides those imposed by $`a_\mu `$) are accounted for. For tan$`\beta `$ as large as 50, the allowed SUSY parameter range is further reduced by strong constraints on the $`b`$ quark mass and the branching ratio $`BR(bs\gamma )`$, when compared to the regime where tan$`\beta =2`$ or $`20`$.

Finally, we make a note on the sign of $`\mu `$. As clearly indicated on the top of each figure, we have presented our results just for $`\mu >0`$. For this sign of the $`\mu `$ parameter, the SUSY contributions to $`a_\mu `$ are positive across the whole ($`m_0,M_{1/2}`$) plane. For $`\mu <0`$, the contributions change sign too. However, the chargino contribution to $`C_7`$ also changes sign in this case, which leads to unacceptable values of $`BR(bs\gamma )`$ for medium and large tan$`\beta `$. It is amazing to observe that for this range of tan$`\beta `$ the sign of the $`\mu `$ parameter favored by $`bs\gamma `$ is the same as the sign preferred by the experimental window open for $`\delta a_\mu ^{NEW}`$. <sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6 For low tan$`\beta `$, the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint disappears (the chargino contribution to $`C_7`$ is small) and $`\mu `$ can be negative. However, figure 1 shows that $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ is very small in this case. We know from the earlier studies  that no substantial change in the magnitude of $`\delta a_\mu ^{SUSY}`$ occurs for different signs of $`\mu `$. Thus we conclude that for $`\mu <0`$ only the low tan$`\beta `$ case is viable, but then the SUSY contributions to $`a_\mu `$ stay below the electroweak contributions and will be hard to observe even after the E821 experiment is completed. 

## 4 Prospects for the New BNL Experiment and Conclusions

When the future BNL experiment reduces the uncertainty on $`a_\mu `$ down to $`\pm 12\times 10^{10}`$ at 90%C.L., eq.(6), the muon anomalous magnetic moment will undoubtfully turn into a powerful constraint on the MSSM analysis. It is already clear from figures 1, 2, and 6 that it will be a major constraint for large and medium tan$`\beta `$ in the region $`m_0<400500`$GeV. Of course, the BNL result may drastically affect the MSSM analysis with any value of tan$`\beta `$ if the observed central value turns out to be below (or well above) the SM prediction. For such an outcome, the muon anomalous magnetic moment will actually become a dominant constraint for the MSSM analysis with the universal SUGRA-mediated SUSY breaking terms.

In the meantime, $`a_\mu `$ does not pose any new constraints on the MSSM analysis under the terms considered in this work.

Acknowledgments   

I would like to thank Greg Anderson, Stuart Raby and Carlos Wagner for helpful discussions, various suggestions and support.