text:
# Light Axion within the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

## 1 Introduction

In spite of the phenomenological success of the Standard Model (SM), new physics is expected to appear at some higher energy scale, and hopefully to provide a solution to the hierarchy problem, the origin of fermion masses and CP-violation, and other theoretical puzzles. The new physics may change the properties of the Higgs boson, with a substantial impact for Higgs searches in collider experiments. This is the case in extensions of the SM that include gauge singlet scalars, leading to Higgs boson decays into pairs of light neutral scalars .

Here we point out that the Higgs sector of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM)  includes an axion, i.e., a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson associated with an anomalous $`U(1)`$ symmetry, which for a range of parameters is significantly lighter than the other scalars. The NMSSM is a well motivated candidate for physics beyond the Standard Model. Not only does it provide a solution to the hierarchy problem when combined with dynamical supersymmetry breaking, but it is also free of the $`\mu `$ problem that plagues the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM).

In what follows we shall investigate in some detail the Higgs spectrum and couplings in the NMSSM. The purpose of our study is twofold. First, we seek to delineate the region of the NMSSM parameter space consistent with the existing collider data which exhibits a light axion. Second, for the part of parameter space in question, we compute the strength of the SM-like Higgs boson coupling to axion pairs. If this coupling is sizable, it will have a profound effect on the collider searches for the Higgs boson, as the Higgs boson then decays mainly into light axion pairs, and the $`b\overline{b}`$ signature is diluted.

The Higgs boson decay to axions persists even when the scale of supersymmetry is very large and the superpartners decouple. Furthermore, this phenomenon may occur in non-supersymmetric theories, e.g., composite Higgs models  or Majoron models .

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we introduce our notation, derive the general tree-level mass matrices of the Higgs sector, and list the trilinear couplings between one CP-even and two CP-odd Higgs bosons in the NMSSM. In Section 3 we concentrate on the case of a light axion, identifying the relevant range of NMSSM parameters and discussing the resulting masses and mixings in the CP-odd scalar sector. We then derive simple analytic expressions for the Higgs spectrum and couplings in two cases of interest — a decoupling limit (Section 4) and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (Section 5). A more generic case requires a numerical study, the results being presented in Section 6. Section 7 is reserved for our conclusions.

## 2 Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

The Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model has the field content of the MSSM with the addition of a gauge-singlet chiral superfield111We shall use hatted symbols to represent chiral superfields and symbols without hats for their lowest (scalar) components., $`\widehat{S}`$. In addition to the usual Yukawa-type couplings of the Higgs superfields, $`\widehat{H}_u`$ and $`\widehat{H}_d`$, to the three generations of quark and lepton superfields, the superpotential $`W`$ also includes the following terms involving $`\widehat{S}`$:

$$W=\lambda \widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d\widehat{S}+\frac{\kappa }{3}\widehat{S}^3.$$
(1)
We assume that the $`R`$-parity violating terms involving quarks and leptons, and the dimensionful $`\widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d`$, $`\widehat{S}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$ terms are forbidden by a gauge symmetry which is spontaneously broken above the TeV scale . A sector of dynamical supersymmetry breaking is supposed to induce masses for the squarks, sleptons and gauginos, as well as soft supersymmetry breaking terms involving the scalar components of $`\widehat{H}_u`$, $`\widehat{H}_d`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$:

$$V_{\mathrm{soft}}=M_{H_u}^2|H_u|^2+M_{H_d}^2|H_d|^2+M_S^2|S|^2+\sqrt{2}(m_\lambda H_u^{}i\sigma _2H_dS\frac{m_\kappa }{3}S^3+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.).$$
(2)
The $`H_uH_d`$, $`S^2`$ and $`S`$ soft terms are forbidden by the same symmetry which prevents the $`\widehat{H}_u\widehat{H}_d`$, $`\widehat{S}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$ terms in the superpotential.

In what follows we treat the NMSSM as a low-energy effective field theory valid below some scale, say in the TeV range. Therefore, we define the five mass parameters from $`V_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ as free parameters at the electroweak scale, $`v246`$ GeV. Phenomenologically, they are constrained by the requirement of having an electroweak asymmetric vacuum and a spectrum of scalars heavier than the current experimental bounds.

The scalar potential for the Higgs sector of the NMSSM is

$$V=\left|\lambda H_u^{}i\sigma _2H_d+\kappa S^2\right|^2+\lambda ^2\left(|H_u|^2+|H_d|^2\right)|S|^2+V_D+V_{\mathrm{soft}},$$
(3)
with the usual $`D`$-term contributions

$$V_D=\frac{M_Z^2}{2v^2}\left(|H_u|^2|H_d|^2\right)^2+2\frac{M_W^2}{v^2}\left|H_u^{}H_d\right|^2,$$
(4)
where $`M_W`$ ($`M_Z`$) is the $`W`$-boson ($`Z`$-boson) mass. If $`V`$ has a minimum where the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are aligned and non-zero, the electroweak symmetry is spontaneously broken. Then, in addition to the longitudinal $`W`$ and $`Z`$ (i.e. the Nambu-Goldstone modes $`G^+`$ and $`G^0`$, respectively) the scalar spectrum includes a charged Higgs boson, $`H^\pm `$, and five neutral states. In general all five neutral states mix. However, if $`\mathrm{Im}(\lambda \kappa ^{}m_\lambda m_\kappa ^{})v^2`$, then the scalar potential is approximately CP invariant. We will assume that this is the case, so that the mixing of the CP-even neutral scalars with the CP-odd ones can be ignored. It is convenient to derive the spectrum using the basis where the CP-even, $`h_v^0,H_v^0,h_s^0`$, and the CP-odd, $`A_v^0,A_s^0`$, states are defined as follows:

$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[(v+h_v^0iG^0)\mathrm{cos}\beta (H_v^0iA_v^0)\mathrm{sin}\beta \right]\\ G^{}\mathrm{cos}\beta +H^{}\mathrm{sin}\beta \end{array}\right),`$ (7)
$`H_u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}G^+\mathrm{sin}\beta +H^+\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[(v+h_v^0+iG^0)\mathrm{sin}\beta +(H_v^0+iA_v^0)\mathrm{cos}\beta \right]\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(s+h_s^0+iA_s^0\right),`$ (11)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta H_u^2/H_d^1`$. Notice that in order to generate masses for both up-type and down-type quarks one needs VEVs for both $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$. The $`m_\lambda H_u^{}i\sigma _2H_dS`$ soft term forces $`S`$ to have a non-zero VEV, $`s`$. We choose $`0<\beta <\pi `$, which requires $`s>0`$ in order to minimize the first term in Eq. (3).

There are several advantages of using the basis (11) from the beginning. First, notice that $`h_v^0`$ is rotated in the same way as $`v`$, and is exactly the linear combination of $`H_d^1`$ and $`H_u^2`$ responsible for the masses of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ gauge bosons. Consequently, $`h_v^0`$ is also the state which has trilinear couplings to $`W`$ and $`Z`$ pairs, and can be produced in association with a $`W`$ or $`Z`$ at the Tevatron or LEP. In short, $`h_v^0`$ can be identified with the SM-like Higgs boson, $`h^0`$. In addition, the Nambu-Goldstone modes $`G^\pm `$ and $`G^0`$ decouple from the corresponding mass matrices and need not be considered in our further analysis. (The basis (11) was considered also in ; for results in the more conventional basis see, e.g. .)

The extremization conditions for the scalar potential allow us to replace the three mass-squared parameters from $`V_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ by the three VEVs, $`v\mathrm{sin}\beta ,v\mathrm{cos}\beta ,s`$:

$`M_{H_d}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\left(s^2+v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa }{2}}s^2\mathrm{tan}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\beta +m_\lambda s\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$
$`M_{H_u}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\left(s^2+v^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa s^2}{2\mathrm{tan}\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}2\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{m_\lambda s}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }},`$
$`M_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa }{2}}v^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta \kappa ^2s^2+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\lambda v^2}{2s}}\mathrm{sin}2\beta +m_\kappa s.`$ (12)
Therefore, the scalar masses depend on the following six unknown parameters: $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\lambda ,\kappa `$, $`s`$, $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa `$.

The squared-mass matrix for the CP-even scalars, $`h_v^0,H_v^0,h_s^0`$, is given by

$$_h^2=v^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}r+\frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}& r\mathrm{cot}2\beta & \lambda ^2\frac{s}{v}R\\ r\mathrm{cot}2\beta & r+\frac{\lambda \kappa s^2+2m_\lambda s}{v^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta }& R\mathrm{cot}2\beta \\ \lambda ^2\frac{s}{v}R& R\mathrm{cot}2\beta & \frac{s}{v^2}\left(2\kappa ^2sm_\kappa \right)+\frac{m_\lambda }{2s}\mathrm{sin}2\beta \end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where we have defined

$$r\left(\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\beta ,$$
(14)
and

$$R\frac{1}{v}\left(\lambda \kappa s+m_\lambda \right)\mathrm{sin}2\beta .$$
(15)
We label the CP-even mass eigenstates in order of increasing mass,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1^0\\ H_2^0\\ H_3^0\end{array}\right)=U\left(\begin{array}{c}h_v^0\\ H_v^0\\ h_s^0\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where the $`3\times 3`$ orthogonal matrix $`U`$ may be obtained by diagonalizing $`_h^2`$. Whenever there is no confusion, we shall use an alternative labelling of the Higgs boson mass eigenstates, in analogy to the MSSM. We shall use $`h^0`$ for the SM-like mass state, i.e. the one with the largest projection onto $`h_v^0`$; $`H^0`$ for the state corresponding to the “heavy” CP-even Higgs boson of the MSSM, i.e. the one with the largest projection onto $`H_v^0`$; and $`H^0`$ for the state corresponding to the additional singlet of the NMSSM, i.e. the one with the largest projection onto $`h_s^0`$. As can be readily seen from (13), in the limit of large $`s`$, the SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$ is identified with $`H_1^0`$. However, for small values of $`s`$, $`h^0`$ can also be $`H_2^0`$ or even $`H_3^0`$, depending on the other parameters.

The CP-odd states, $`A_v^0,A_s^0`$ have the following squared-mass matrix:

$$_A^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\lambda \kappa s^2+2m_\lambda s}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }& v\left(\lambda \kappa sm_\lambda \right)\\ v\left(\lambda \kappa sm_\lambda \right)& \left(\lambda \kappa +\frac{m_\lambda }{2s}\right)v^2\mathrm{sin}2\beta +3sm_\kappa \end{array}\right).$$
(17)
The CP-odd mass eigenstates may be written in terms of the $`A_v^0`$ and $`A_s^0`$ states:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_1^0\\ A_2^0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _A& \mathrm{sin}\theta _A\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _A& \mathrm{cos}\theta _A\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_v^0\\ A_s^0\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
with a mixing angle $`\theta _A`$ that satisfies

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _A=\frac{4vs(\lambda \kappa sm_\lambda )\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{v^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta (2\lambda \kappa s+m_\lambda )2s^2(\lambda \kappa s+2m_\lambda 3m_\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )}.$$
(19)
Finally, the charged Higgs boson has a mass

$$M_{H^\pm }^2=\frac{\lambda \kappa s^2+2m_\lambda s}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}v^2+M_W^2.$$
(20)
The vacuum defined by Eq. (11) is indeed a viable minimum of the scalar potential provided all physical scalars have positive masses. Therefore, all eigenvalues of $`_h^2`$ and $`_A^2`$ have to be positive, and $`M_{H^\pm }^2>0`$. We will analyze the constraints on the parameter space imposed by these conditions both numerically (Section 6) and analytically in certain interesting limits (Sections 4 and 5).

In particular, we will be concentrating on the case where one of the CP-odd scalars is light, and therefore the neutral CP-even scalars may decay into a pair of CP-odd states. The relevant trilinear couplings in the basis (11) are given at tree-level by

$`_{HAA}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2}}\{[({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}+r\mathrm{cot}^22\beta )h_v^0r\mathrm{cot}2\beta H_v^0+(R+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{s}{v}})h_s^0](A_v^0)^2`$ (21)
$`+\left[\lambda \left(\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta +\lambda \right)h_v^0+\lambda \kappa \mathrm{cos}2\beta H_v^0+2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2sm_\kappa }{v}}h_s^0\right](A_s^0)^2`$
$`2({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa sm_\lambda }{v}}h_v^0+\lambda \kappa h_s^0)A_vA_s\}.`$
In order to compute the Higgs decay width into CP-odd scalars, one has first to determine the rotation matrix $`U`$ and the mixing angle $`\theta _A`$, and then to derive the trilinear couplings in the mass eigenstate basis. We will perform this computation in the following sections.

## 3 The Case of a Light Axion

### 3.1 Approximate $`R`$-symmetry

The scalar potential $`V`$ has no global continuous symmetry. However, in the limit where the coefficients of the trilinear terms vanish, $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa 0`$, the potential has a global $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry under which the $`S`$ charge, $`y_S0`$, is half the charge of $`H_uH_d`$. This symmetry is spontaneously broken by the VEVs of $`H_u,H_d`$ and $`S`$, so that apparently there is a Nambu-Goldstone boson in the spectrum. In addition, $`U(1)_R`$ is explicitly broken by the QCD anomaly. To see this, note that the Yukawa terms responsible for quark masses impose constraints on the $`U(1)_R`$ charges of the quarks such that the $`[SU(3)_C]^2\times U(1)_R`$ anomaly is proportional to $`y_S`$. Hence the Nambu-Goldstone boson is in fact an axion, and there is a small contribution to its mass from QCD.

Furthermore, there is another source of explicit $`U(1)_R`$ breaking. To see this, note that the form of the superpotential (1) requires that $`U(1)_R`$ does not commute with supersymmetry, i.e. the fermion components of the $`\widehat{H}_u,\widehat{H}_d`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$ superfields have different $`U(1)_R`$ charges than the corresponding scalars. Therefore, this $`U(1)_R`$ is an $`R`$-symmetry. Given that the gauginos carry $`R`$-charge, it follows that $`U(1)_R`$ is explicitly broken by the gaugino masses. This effect appears in the effective potential via one-loop diagrams with $`H_{u,d}`$-gaugino-Higgsino vertices. Although this contribution to the axion mass is larger than the contribution from the anomaly, the loop suppression implies that the axion is lighter than the other scalars by more than an order of magnitude in the limit $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa 0`$.

One has to be alert for potential confusions regarding the “axion” label used in this paper. This axion is not useful for solving the strong CP problem because the explicit $`U(1)_R`$ breaking due to gaugino masses exceeds the anomaly contribution. Also, the axion associated with this approximate $`U(1)_R`$ is different from the Peccei-Quinn axion associated with the global $`U(1)`$ recovered in the $`\kappa ,m_\kappa 0`$ limit.

Another confusion may be caused by the $`R`$-axion from the dynamical supersymmetry breaking sector. Typically, the models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking have a spontaneously broken $`R`$-symmetry . The associated Nambu-Goldstone boson is called an $`R`$-axion and would be massless in the absence of a source of $`R`$-symmetry breaking, such as a term in the superpotential required for cancelling the cosmological constant . If there is a hidden sector where supersymmetry is dynamically broken, and supersymmetry breaking is mediated from this sector to the NMSSM via supergravity, gauge interactions, or any other mechanism, then there is mixing between the $`R`$-axion and the axion discussed in this paper. However, this mixing is suppressed by the scale associated with supersymmetry breaking mediation, and may be ignored for practical purposes. It is important however, that the spontaneous breaking of the $`R`$-symmetry within the hidden sector is the source of gaugino masses in the NMSSM. Therefore, the existence of the $`R`$-axion in the hidden sector requires a mass for the $`U(1)_R`$ axion from the NMSSM.

### 3.2 Properties of the axion

The light axion may also be identified by studying the spectrum of CP-odd states given in Section 2. In what follows we will expand in $`m_\lambda /v`$ and $`m_\kappa /v`$, neglecting the loop effects, which is appropriate for $`1m_{\lambda ,\kappa }/v\begin{array}{c}\\ >\end{array}𝒪(10^3)`$. The lightest CP-odd neutral scalar, $`A_1^0`$, is the axion associated with the approximate $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, and its mass,

$$M_{A_1}=\sqrt{3s}\left(m_\kappa \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _A+\frac{3m_\lambda \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _A}{2\mathrm{sin}2\beta }\right)^{1/2}+𝒪(m_{\lambda ,\kappa }^{3/2}/\sqrt{v}),$$
(22)
vanishes in the limit $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa 0`$, in agreement with the arguments presented above. The other CP-odd neutral scalar, $`A_2^0`$, has a mass

$$M_{A_2}\frac{v}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _A}\sqrt{\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta }+𝒪(m_\lambda ,m_\kappa ).$$
(23)
The mixing angle $`0<\theta _A<\pi /2`$ also has a simple form:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _A=\frac{s}{v\mathrm{sin}2\beta }+𝒪(m_{\lambda ,\kappa }/v).$$
(24)
Notice that in the small $`m_\lambda `$, $`m_\kappa `$ limit the axion mass $`M_{A_1}`$ depends on only four out of the six input parameters of the Higgs sector: $`s,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$. The dependence on $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ drops out because they are not related to the breaking of the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry.

The couplings of the axion to quarks and leptons may easily be derived by observing that its $`A_v^0`$ component has the couplings of the MSSM CP-odd scalar while $`A_s^0`$ does not couple to the quarks and leptons. Therefore, the couplings are proportional to the fermion masses within the up- and down-type sectors separately:

$$\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _A}{v}\left(m_u\mathrm{cot}\beta \overline{u}\gamma _5u+m_d\mathrm{tan}\beta \overline{d}\gamma _5d\right)iA_1^0.$$
(25)
However, in contrast to the MSSM CP-odd scalar, the couplings of $`A_1^0`$ to down-type fermions are not enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ because in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit Eq. (24) gives

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _A\frac{v}{s}\frac{2}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }.$$
(26)
We then see that the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ enhancement of the $`A_v^0`$ coupling to down-type fermions is exactly compensated by a $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ suppression in the mixing angle $`\theta _A`$. On the other hand, the $`A_1^0`$ couplings to up-type fermions are doubly suppressed by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and Eq. (25) becomes

$$\frac{2}{s}\left(\frac{m_u}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }\overline{u}\gamma _5u+m_d\overline{d}\gamma _5d\right)iA_1^0.$$
(27)
The phenomenological implications of this result are clear: when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1`$ the cross-sections for $`A_1^0`$ production in association with a pair of down-type fermions (e.g. $`b\overline{b}`$) do not depend on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, while the $`A_1^0`$ branching ratios into down-type fermions are enhanced.

Of special interest for Higgs phenomenology is the axion coupling to the SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$,

$$_{h^0A_1^0A_1^0}=\frac{c}{2}vh^0A_1^0A_1^0,$$
(28)
where

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{v^2}{s^2}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta }}\{U_{i1}[\lambda (\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta +r\mathrm{cos}^22\beta )]`$ (29)
$`+U_{i2}\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left(\lambda \kappa {\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}r\mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)`$
$`+U_{i3}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{v}}[2\kappa ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\beta (\kappa \mathrm{sin}^22\beta 2\kappa +\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\beta )]\}.`$
Here the index $`i`$ labels the mass eigenstate corresponding to $`h^0`$. Although analytical expressions for the elements of the rotation matrix $`U`$ may be written in general , here we prefer to derive the trilinear coupling $`c`$ as a series in $`v/s`$ (Section 4) or $`1/\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (Section 5), which should help the reader gain some insight into the numerical results of Section 6.

## 4 The Decoupling Limit, $`sv`$

In this Section we study the decoupling limit of the NMSSM in which $`A_1^0`$ and the lightest CP-even scalar, $`H_1^0`$, are much lighter than the other scalars. This situation arises when the gauge-singlet VEV is large222Note that the dimensionless couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ from the superpotential of the Higgs sector are usually assumed to be roughly of order one, i.e. we ignore cases where a hierarchy is generated through some kind of fine-tuning of the couplings., $`sv`$, as can be seen by inspecting the expressions for $`_h^2`$, $`_A^2`$ and $`M_{H^\pm }^2`$ given in Section 2. Under those circumstances, $`H_1^0`$ is simply the SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$, and the low-energy limit of the model is just the SM, with the addition of one (mostly singlet) CP-odd scalar, $`A_1^0`$.

In order to analyze the CP-even neutral states we diagonalize $`_h^2`$ by expanding in $`v/s`$. We keep only the leading order in $`m_{\lambda ,\kappa }/v`$ because we will only be interested in the region of parameter space where there is a light axion. The CP-even mass eigenstates are given by Eq. (16), with

$`U_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{8\kappa ^4}}\left(\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)^2+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^4}{s^4}}\right),`$
$`U_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\kappa ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\lambda ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}}\mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)\mathrm{sin}4\beta +𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^3}}\right),`$
$`U_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2\kappa ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\lambda }}\mathrm{sin}2\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^22\beta }{4\kappa ^4}}(\lambda +\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )(\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^3}{4\kappa ^3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta }{4\kappa ^3}}(3\lambda ^26\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta +\kappa ^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta )\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}^22\beta ]\}`$
$`+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^4}{s^4}}\right).`$
The other elements of the orthogonal matrix $`U`$,

$`U_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s^2}}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2\kappa (\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\lambda \kappa v^2}}\right]+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^3}}\right),`$
$`U_{31}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2\kappa ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\lambda }}\mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^3}}\right),`$
$`U_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{32}={\displaystyle \frac{v}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta }}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^3}}\right),`$
$`U_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2s^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta }}\right)^2+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^4}{s^4}}\right),`$
$`U_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{2s^2}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta }}\right)^2+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda (\lambda \kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta )}{2\kappa ^2}}\right]^2\right\}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^4}{s^4}}\right),`$ (31)
are less important in what follows, and we only list them here for completeness. Notice the $`s/v`$ enhancement in the last line of Eq. (29), which requires us to compute $`U_{13}`$ up to an additional order in the $`v/s`$ expansion.

After computing the eigenvalues of $`_h^2`$ as a power series in $`v/s`$, we find the following CP-even scalar masses:

$`M_{h^0}`$ $`=`$ $`v\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}}\mathrm{cos}^22\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^3}{2\kappa ^2}}\left(\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)\right]^{1/2}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{s^2}}\right),`$ (32)
$`M_{H^0}`$ $`=`$ $`s\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \kappa }{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }}\right)^{1/2}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s}}\right),`$ (33)
$`M_{H^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\kappa s+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{s}}\right).`$ (34)
We see from Eqs. (33), (17) and (20) that to leading order in $`v/s`$, the $`H^0`$, $`A_2^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$ scalars are degenerate, forming a weak-doublet complex scalar of mass

$$s\left(\frac{\lambda \kappa }{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }\right)^{1/2}v.$$
(35)
These are the familiar “heavy” Higgs bosons of the MSSM. Eq. (34) confirms that the $`H^0`$ scalar is also heavy, with a mass of the order of the gauge singlet VEV $`s`$. Therefore, in the limit $`sv`$ considered in this section, the only surviving scalars with masses of order the electroweak scale or smaller are the SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$ and the axion $`A_1^0`$.

The above discussion is illustrated in Fig. 1, where we plot the exact tree-level masses of the CP-even Higgs bosons (solid lines), the CP-odd Higgs bosons (dashed lines) and the charged Higgs boson (dotted), as a function of $`s`$, for fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, $`\lambda =\kappa =0.5`$ and $`m_\lambda =m_\kappa =1`$ GeV. In order to guide the eye, we have added shading to trace the SM-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$, which from right to left is identified successively with $`H_1^0`$, $`H_2^0`$ and $`H_3^0`$.

In the limit $`sv`$, the condition $`M_{h^0}^2>0`$ is necessary and sufficient for the existence of the electroweak asymmetric vacuum described by Eq. (11). The resulting constraint on the parameter space is given at tree-level by

$$\frac{\lambda ^4}{2\kappa ^2}<\frac{M_Z^2}{v^2}\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\frac{\lambda ^3}{\kappa }\mathrm{sin}2\beta .$$
(36)
Alternatively, for $`s<v`$, we see from Fig. 1 that $`H_1^0=H^0`$ instead, and the requirement for positivity of the Higgs masses squared implies a lower bound of $`s`$. In any way, LEP-II bounds on $`M_{h^0}`$ should provide a stronger constraint on the parameters than the requirement of a local minimum of the potential.

Just as an aside, notice that Eq. (32) obeys the usual NMSSM tree-level upper bound on the lightest CP-even scalar ,

$$M_{H_1^0}^2<M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta ,$$
(37)
since Eq. (32) can be equivalently rewritten as

$$M_{h^0}^2=M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta \frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2v^2\left(\mathrm{sin}2\beta \frac{\lambda }{\kappa }\right)^2.$$
(38)
In this decoupling limit, $`h^0`$ couples to the quarks and leptons exactly like the Standard Model Higgs boson. Nevertheless, the decays of $`h^0`$ may be very different than in the SM, if $`M_{A_1}<M_h/2`$, since the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decay mode is then kinematically open. In order to assess the partial width for this decay mode ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)=\frac{c^2v^2}{32\pi M_{h^0}}\left(14\frac{M_{A_1}^2}{M_{h^0}^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
(39)
we need to compute the coefficient $`c`$ of the trilinear term $`_{h^0A_1^0A_1^0}`$ shown in Eq. (28). Plugging the elements of $`U`$ shown in Eqs. (30) into Eq. (29), after a somewhat tedious calculation we find a simple result:

$$c=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\left(\lambda 2\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)\left(\lambda +\kappa \mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)\frac{M_h^2}{s^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{v^3}{s^3}\right).$$
(40)
This compact formula has a simple physical interpretation. In the polar coordinates parametrization of the axion field, the axion has only derivative couplings, suppressed by the axion decay constant, $`f_A`$. Since the axion decay constant is given by the $`U(1)_R`$ breaking VEV, in the $`sv`$ limit we find $`f_As`$, while the derivatives in the coupling yield a factor of $`M_{h^0}^2`$, after taking into account the equations of motion. In addition, the coupling of the Higgs boson to pairs of axions has to be proportional to the Higgs VEV. Therefore, the amplitude for $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ is proportional to $`vM_{h^0}^2/s^2`$. The amplitude has to be the same in the polar and orthogonal coordinates, which explains both the appearance of the Higgs boson mass $`M_{h^0}`$ rather than $`v`$ in the numerator of Eq. (40), as well as the cancellation of the terms of order $`(v/s)^0`$ and $`(v/s)^1`$. In the Appendix we provide the derivation of the Higgs coupling to axion pairs in the polar coordinates parametrization.

Since $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ are expected to be of order one, the size of $`c`$ is basically dictated by the degree of decoupling of the heavy scalars. The quality of the approximation is shown in Fig. 2, where we compare the prediction of the analytical formula (40) (dashed line) with the exact numerical results for the absolute value of the tree-level coefficient $`|c|`$ (solid lines), as a function of $`s`$, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, $`\lambda =\kappa =0.5`$, and three different values of $`m_\lambda =m_\kappa `$ (shown in GeV).

We see that as expected, at large $`s`$ the analytic approximation agrees pretty well with the exact result for the smallest values of $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$. The approximation fails either at small $`s`$, or for larger $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$ — recall that we neglected terms of order $`m_\lambda /v`$ and $`m_\kappa /v`$, while the leading term in Eq. (40) is of order $`v^2/s^2`$. The dip around $`s200`$ GeV is due to the fact that $`c`$ changes sign, as we switch from $`h^0=H_1^0`$ to $`h^0=H_2^0`$.

## 5 The Large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ Limit

In this section we shall obtain the coefficient $`c`$ in the limit of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. To this end we follow the procedure from the previous Section — expand $`U`$ in powers of $`1/\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and substitute the result in Eq. (29). However, we will not take the limit $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa 0`$, but instead will keep the full dependence on $`m_\lambda ,m_\kappa `$, as this does not cause too much complication. Keeping only leading order terms, Eq. (29) simplifies to

$$c=U_{i1}\lambda ^2+U_{i2}\lambda \kappa U_{i3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\kappa ^2\frac{s}{v}.$$
(41)
The relevant mixing angles in the CP-even Higgs sector are also easy to compute — notice that in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit, $`H^0`$ decouples and to leading order $`H_1^0`$ is a linear combination of $`h_v^0`$ and $`h_s^0`$ only. We find

$$U_{11}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _H,U_{12}=0,U_{13}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _H,$$
(42)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta _H=\frac{2\lambda ^2sv}{2\kappa ^2s^2M_Z^2m_\kappa s}.$$
(43)
The coefficient $`c`$ is then simply

$$c=\lambda ^2\mathrm{cos}\theta _H+2\kappa ^2\frac{s}{v}\mathrm{sin}\theta _H+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }\right).$$
(44)
In Fig. 3 we show the validity of the approximation (44). In analogy to Fig. 2, we plot $`|c|`$, but this time versus $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for a fixed value of $`s=300`$ GeV. We see reasonable agreement between the exact result and our approximation, given the large cancellations between the leading order terms. We have checked that each individual term contributing to $`c`$ is reproduced with an accuracy of a few percent, and the remaining difference in the total seen in the Fig. 3 is due to a large cancellation between the first and third terms of Eq. (41). Although the analytical approximations presented here are not intended to substitute the full result, they illustrate these leading order cancellations. It is also easy now to understand why $`c`$ vanishes for a particular value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in Fig. 3: for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\lambda /(2\kappa )`$ the analytical approximation (40) gives $`c=0`$.

In conclusion of this section, we note that when in addition we take the limit of large $`s`$, Eq. (44) reduces to

$$c=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\kappa ^2}\frac{M_h^2}{s^2}+𝒪(\frac{v^3}{s^3},\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }),$$
(45)
which is also in agreement with the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit of Eq. (40).

## 6 Numerical Results

In this section we shall study numerically the scalar spectrum and the coupling (28) of the Standard Model-like Higgs boson $`h^0`$ to axion pairs. There are several experimental (Section 6.1) and theoretical (Section 6.2) constraints on our scenario. Most importantly, we must account for all existing experimental bounds on the Higgs bosons and their superpartners. (We do not consider experimental bounds from other superpartner searches, since those depend on the particular framework of supersymmetry breaking, which we never had to specify for our Higgs sector analysis.)

The Higgs structure considered here must eventually be embedded in some more fundamental theory, defined at a much higher scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, possibly the Planck or the string scale. Hence, the low-energy Higgs sector parameters should be derived in terms of the parameters from the fundamental theory without excessive fine-tuning. It is also theoretically desirable that the couplings in the theory are free of Landau poles at least up to the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Our numerical analysis in this Section is designed to address these issues.

### 6.1 Collider constraints

Let us first start with the Higgs sector. LEP is typically able to rule out new particles with order one couplings close to its kinematic limit. For example, the charged Higgs bosons $`H^\pm `$ can be produced in $`s`$-channel $`Z/\gamma `$ processes. The current LEP bound is $`m_{H^+}\begin{array}{c}\\ >\end{array}85`$ GeV  and we expect it to be valid in the case of the NMSSM discussed here as well.

The Standard Model Higgs search at LEP, when reinterpreted as a search for the lightest CP-even Higgs boson of the MSSM, provides an additional constraint on our parameter space. The current combined LEP limit is around 113 GeV. As is well known however, the one-loop corrections to $`M_h`$ involving third generation quarks and their superpartners are positive and potentially large , so that the LEP constraint on the tree-level Higgs boson mass $`M_h`$ is much weaker. Depending on the stop/sbottom masses and the amount of squark mixing, the radiative corrections can shift the tree-level value of the Higgs mass by up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_h2030`$ GeV . Hence we shall allow for tree-level Higgs boson masses as low as 80-90 GeV. Of course, within any given supersymmetric model framework, one can compute this difference exactly in terms of the parameters of the squark sector. Here we prefer to stay within our model-independent approach and avoid specifying a particular model of supersymmetry breaking and/or squark spectrum and mixing angles, as this will hinder the universal applicability of our results. Furthermore, the novel effect of $`hA_1^0A_1^0`$ decays is maximally operational for large $`h^0`$ masses (see, e.g. Eq.(45)), where the LEP bound is likely to be satisfied.

Finally, LEP has also searched for superpartners of the $`SU(2)`$ Higgs bosons, as part of their chargino search. Independent of their mass splitting, charged higgsinos lighter than $`72`$ GeV  have been ruled out. For typical values of the higgsino mass splittings, the bound extends up to the LEP kinematic limit. The higgsino masses are typically of order $`|\mu |`$, where the $`\mu `$ parameter, familiar from the MSSM, is given in our notation by

$$\mu \frac{\lambda s}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(46)
Thus the chargino mass limit constrains the product of $`\lambda `$ and $`s`$. The exact bound depends on the amount of mixing between the neutralinos, which again would require us to specify the gaugino masses within a particular model. It also depends on the particular framework of supersymmetry breaking, e.g. in models with low-scale supersymmetry breaking the bound from prompt decays of a higgsino NLSP  from the Tevatron can be stronger. We therefore again choose to stay on a model-independent path, and we consider (rather conservatively) any value of $`\mu \begin{array}{c}\\ >\end{array}100`$ GeV as allowed.

Searches for the superpartners of the two neutral $`SU(2)`$-singlet Higgs bosons (i.e. “singlinos”) are quite challenging. The couplings of the singlinos to gauge bosons are suppressed by the neutralino mixing angles, and there are practically no limits coming from direct singlino production or $`Z`$-decays . The constraints on a light CP-odd scalar with small couplings to SM fermions are also very loose . For example, no significant constraints on the axion mass have been set from $`ZA^0\gamma `$ at LEP , from the Yukawa process $`e^+e^{}f\overline{f}A_1^0`$ , from direct $`A^0`$ production through gluon fusion at the Tevatron , from fits to the electroweak data , or from meson decays . The LEP searches for $`Z^{}h^0A^0A^0A^0A^0`$ within the MSSM  can be reinterpreted as axion searches, but the limits are diluted because the axion coupling to the $`Zh^0`$ in our case is smaller by a factor of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _A`$ \[see Eq. (26)\]. The relevant lower bounds on $`M_A`$ currently come from beam dump experiments , in the MeV range, and from star cooling rates, $`M_A\begin{array}{c}\\ >\end{array}0.2`$ MeV .

Having summarized the relevant collider constraints, we now present our exact numerical results for $`c`$. In Fig. 4 we show contours of the masses of the SM-like Higgs boson, $`M_{h^0}`$, \[horizontal dotted (blue) lines\] and the lightest CP-odd Higgs boson, $`M_{A_1^0}`$, \[vertical dotted (red) lines\] as a function of $`s`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for fixed $`\lambda =\kappa =0.5`$ and $`m_\lambda =m_\kappa =1`$ GeV. The thick (green) vertical line denotes the assumed higgsino mass bound of $`\mu =100`$ GeV and the region to its left is disfavored. Inside the (green) shaded area there is either a tachyon in the spectrum, or the charged Higgs mass is below the experimental bound. While it is in principle possible that the radiative corrections to the Higgs boson masses, neglected here, may shrink, or even eliminate this excluded region, we do not find this latter part of parameter space particularly attractive, since it is associated with very light higgsinos.

Throughout most of the parameter space shown in Fig. 4, the SM-like Higgs boson is the lightest CP-even mass eigenstate: $`h^0=H_1^0`$. However, at small values of $`s`$, $`H^0`$ and $`H^0`$ become light as well (see Fig. 1). The dotdashed (magenta) line going vertically marks the point at which the SM-like Higgs boson changes its identity — from $`h^0=H_1^0`$ (to the right of the line) to $`h^0=H_2^0`$ (to the left).

In Fig. 4 we only show the masses of the $`H_1^0`$ and $`A_1^0`$ Higgs bosons, since we are interested in the phenomenology of the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decay. The first important result seen in Fig. 4 is the location of the region of parameter space, where this decay is open. The dashed line in Fig. 4 delineates the relevant part of parameter space where $`M_{H_1^0}>2M_{A_1^0}`$ at tree-level. The location of this region is easily understood. Recall that $`M_{A_1^0}`$ scales with $`\sqrt{s}`$, as evident from the Figure, as well as Eq. (22). Then notice that unlike the case of the MSSM, here the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass decreases with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, so that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values as low as $`13`$ are possible. Combining these two observations, we easily see that the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decay is most likely to be open at small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and small $`s`$.

Our second main result shown in Fig. 4 is the strength of the Higgs to axion coupling. We show contours of the absolute value of the dimensionless coupling $`|c_{111}|`$, which we define in analogy to Eq. (28):

$$_{H_i^0A_j^0A_k^0}=\frac{v}{2}\underset{i,j,k}{}c_{ijk}H_i^0A_j^0A_k^0.$$
(47)
As we already explained above, to the right of the vertical dotdashed magenta line, $`c_{111}`$ is identical to the coefficient $`c`$ defined in Eq. (28). We see that in the region of parameter space, free of any experimental constraints, $`c`$ can be as large as $`0.05`$. We also see the possibility of exact cancellation and vanishing $`c`$. Indeed, in the limit of large $`s`$, our leading order approximation Eq. (40) vanishes for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2+\sqrt{3}3.7`$, in reasonable agreement with Fig. 4. In the small $`s`$ region, where $`h^0=H_2^0`$, the corresponding $`c_{211}`$ can be even larger, on the order of 10% or more.

In summary, our main conclusion from Fig. 4 is that for fixed $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$, values of $`c`$ are typically maximized at small $`s`$ and small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ — exactly in the spot where the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ channel is most likely to be open. This could also have been anticipated from the approximate scaling $`cM_{h^0}^2`$, which we found in the two limiting cases considered earlier.

We now turn our attention to the dependence on the other two main parameters: $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$. To this end, we fix $`s=300`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, and show the Higgs spectrum and $`|c_{111}|`$ in Fig. 5 as a function of $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$, again with fixed $`m_\lambda =m_\kappa =1`$ GeV. The (green) shaded area is again excluded because of tachyonic or light charged Higgs states, and the (green) vertical line denotes the assumed higgsino bound $`\mu =100`$ GeV, with the region to the left of it being disfavored. This time the SM-like Higgs boson is unambiguously identified as $`h^0=H_1^0`$. On the other hand, the axion mass is completely fixed in terms of $`m_\lambda `$, $`m_\kappa `$, $`s`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ \[recall the discussion after Eq. (24)\]. For the values of the parameters considered here, $`M_{A_1^0}=33.72`$ GeV and its fractional variation throughout the whole Figure is less than 1 part in $`10^5`$. The dashed line, depicting the region $`M_{H_1^0}>2M_{A_1^0}`$, is therefore coincident with the contour of $`M_{H_1^0}=67.44`$ GeV.

We see from Fig. 5 that large ratios of $`\lambda /\kappa `$ are disfavored. This can be easily understood from Eq. (32) — the second term gives a large negative contribution to the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass, which results in $`M_{h^0}^2<0`$. Nevertheless, there is a significant allowed region with naturally large couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$. Now the lightest CP-even Higgs boson mass can be larger than the LEP limit already at tree-level. The coefficient $`c`$ is again maximized in the region with the largest $`M_{h^0}`$, and again values of $`c0.05`$ are possible.

Given that the small axion mass allows for the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decays in principle, and that the coefficient $`c`$ can be sizable (see Figs. 4 and 5), it is interesting to quantify how the branching fractions of the SM-like Higgs boson, $`h^0`$, are affected. To this end, one must use the physical mass $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$, as the partial widths for $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ and $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ have the opposite dependence on $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$. So, by using the (smaller) tree-level mass, one would be overestimating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)`$ and underestimating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0b\overline{b})`$.

This is why in Fig. 6 we show the branching ratio for $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decays

$$B(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)},$$
(48)
as a function of the physical Higgs mass $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ and the value of the coefficient $`c`$, assuming $`M_{A_1^0}M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ and $`M_{A_2^0}M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$. Here we have taken $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ as the width of the SM Higgs boson. Fig. 6 should be interpreted as follows. After fixing the fundamental input parameters $`\lambda `$, $`\kappa `$, $`m_\lambda `$, $`m_\kappa `$, $`s`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, one should compute the physical Higgs boson mass $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ in terms of the parameters of the squark sector derived within a given model. Then the coefficient $`c`$ can be read off from Figs. 4 and 5, and the corresponding branching fraction $`B(h^0A_1^0A_1^0)`$ for the resulting values of $`c`$ and $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ is given in Fig. 6.

From Fig. 6 we can see the potential importance of the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ decay mode. In the theoretically preferred mass range $`M_{h^0}^{\mathrm{phys}}\begin{array}{c}\\ <\end{array}160180`$ GeV of the NMSSM, this decay mode completely dominates for $`c\begin{array}{c}\\ >\end{array}0.1`$. We have seen that such values of $`c`$ are in principle possible, although in limited regions of parameter space. For the more typical values of $`c0.020.05`$, the Higgs boson branching fraction into axions is comparable, if not larger, than $`B(hb\overline{b})`$, and may still significantly affect the Higgs boson collider searches utilizing the $`b\overline{b}`$ mode.

### 6.2 Theoretical prejudice

The theoretical constraints discussed in this subsection are less robust, since one must define a framework. For example, when requiring the absence of Landau poles for the Higgs couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$, one must specify the high-energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, at which the effective theory description of the NMSSM breaks down. Naturally, the constraints would be stronger, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is identified with the GUT or Planck scale, rather than some intermediate scale, related to the (mediation of) supersymmetry breaking.

The Renormalization Group equations (RGE’s) for the Yukawa couplings of the NMSSM have been extensively studied in relation to the question of the absolute upper limit on the lightest CP-even Higgs mass . If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is identified with the GUT scale, the perturbativity requirement implies $`\lambda \begin{array}{c}\\ <\end{array}0.87`$ and $`\kappa \begin{array}{c}\\ <\end{array}0.63`$ . If, however, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is identified with an intermediate scale, as in gauge-mediated models , then the bounds can be somewhat relaxed, e.g. $`\kappa \begin{array}{c}\\ <\end{array}1.36`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }50100`$ TeV . We see that these constraints still leave a lot of the available parameter space in Figs. 4 and 5, where the new decay $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ is possible, and its branching ratio is sizable.

One may also wonder if the low values of $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$ needed in order to suppress the axion mass $`M_{A_1}`$ (see Eq. (22)) can appear naturally, without any significant fine-tuning. So far we have adopted a low-energy point of view and never specified the particular model framework for supersymmetry breaking and its communication to the NMSSM sector. The size of $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$ will depend on two factors: the boundary conditions at the high-energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters are generated, and second, the amount of (logarithmic) RGE running from that scale down to the electroweak scale $`v`$. Notice that due to the singlet nature of $`\widehat{S}`$, the one-loop beta function for $`m_\kappa `$ only depends on $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$. In the $`U(1)_R`$ limit both of these two parameters start out small at the high-energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the generated value for $`m_\kappa `$ at the weak scale is typically also rather small. On the other hand, the one-loop beta function for $`m_\kappa `$ depends on the gaugino masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, as well as the rest of the $`A`$-term parameters, which can be relatively large already at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus the induced value for $`m_\lambda `$ at the weak scale can be much larger than $`m_\kappa `$. However, a closer inspection of Eq. (22) reveals that the axion mass is usually more sensitive to $`m_\kappa `$ rather than $`m_\lambda `$. For example, in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit we have $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _A1/\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, hence

$$M_{A_1^0}^2𝒪\left(m_\kappa s\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{m_\lambda s}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }\right)𝒪\left(m_\kappa s\right).$$

Without a particular model, it is difficult to be more specific at this point. We shall therefore leave this question open for future studies. Let us only point out that there exist at least two very well motivated frameworks, in which the boundary conditions for $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$ are zero at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ — gauge mediation  and gaugino mediation .

## 7 Conclusions

We have discussed a limit of the NMSSM where a light CP-odd scalar (axion) is present in the Higgs spectrum. The light axion appears as a result of an approximate global $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry of the scalar potential, which is spontaneously broken. We found that the mass of the axion is proportional to the soft breaking trilinear couplings $`m_\lambda `$ and $`m_\kappa `$, and if those are in the GeV range, the axion can easily be lighter than half the SM-like Higgs boson mass, $`M_h^0`$. In those cases, we computed the $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ coupling and found that it can have a direct impact on phenomenology, as it can substantially modify the SM-like Higgs boson collider signatures.

In conclusion, we feel that our results fill a major gap in the extensive literature on the Higgs sector of the NMSSM. Previous NMSSM studies have mostly concentrated on setting absolute upper limits on the SM-like Higgs boson mass  (which is of primary interest for the production of $`h^0`$ in collider experiments) or the related singlino phenomenology . However, the case of a light CP-odd axion considered here has largely been overlooked. In light of the interesting phenomenological implications of the scenario presented here, and the symmetry reasons behind its motivation, it is worth pursuing the case of a light CP-odd scalar in future phenomenological studies.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank M. Carena, H.-C. Cheng, S. Mrenna, A. Pilaftsis, M. Schmaltz and C. Wagner for comments and questions. Fermilab is operated under DOE contract DE-AC02-76CH03000.

## Appendix: Higgs Coupling to Axions in Polar Field Coordinates

In this Appendix we derive the Higgs boson coupling to axion pairs using the polar field coordinates. Although the physical results are independent of the parametrization of the degrees of freedom, and the orthogonal field coordinates used in section 2 \[see Eq. (11)\] are convenient enough, the polar field coordinates are particularly appropriate for describing the axion in the limit where we neglect its mass.

Consider the following parametrization:

$`H_d`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[(v+h_v^0)\mathrm{cos}\beta H_v^0\mathrm{sin}\beta \right]e^{i(A_v^0\mathrm{tan}\beta G^0)/v}\\ G^{}\mathrm{cos}\beta +H^{}\mathrm{sin}\beta \end{array}\right),`$ (A.3)
$`H_u`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}G^+\mathrm{sin}\beta +H^+\mathrm{cos}\beta \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[(v+h_v^0)\mathrm{sin}\beta +H_v^0\mathrm{cos}\beta \right]e^{i(A_v^0\mathrm{cot}\beta +G^0)/v}\end{array}\right),`$ (A.6)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(s+h_s^0\right)e^{iA_s^0/s}.`$ (A.7)
With this parametrization, it is straightforward to derive the masses and mixing angle of the CP-odd states obtained in section 3.2.

More importantly, the scalar potential Eq. (11) does not involve the axion field in the $`m_{\lambda ,\kappa }0`$ limit. If we neglect the axion mass, then only the kinetic terms give rise to axion couplings. This is the usual statement that a Nambu-Goldstone boson has derivative couplings in the polar field coordinate parametrization. The kinetic terms for $`H_u,H_d`$ and $`S`$ include canonically normalized kinetic terms for the physical states as well as derivative couplings of CP-odd scalar pairs with CP-even scalars. The SM-like Higgs boson coupling to axion pairs can be easily derived:

$$_{h^0A_1^0A_1^0}^{}=\frac{c^{}v}{2M_h^2}h^0_\mu A_1^0^\mu A_1^0,$$
(A.8)
where the dimensionless parameter $`c^{}`$ is given by

$$c^{}=2\frac{M_h^2}{v^2}\left[\left(U_{11}+2U_{12}\mathrm{cot}2\beta \right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _A+\frac{v}{s}U_{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _A\right].$$
(A.9)
In the $`sv`$ limit, the elements of the matrix $`U`$ that rotates the CP-even scalars to the mass eigenbasis have been computed in section 4. Using Eq. (30) we find a very simple result:

$$c^{}=2c\left[1+𝒪(v/s,m_{\lambda ,\kappa }/s)\right],$$
(A.10)
where $`c`$ is given by Eq. (40). The last step of this computation is to check that the decay width for $`h^0A_1^0A_1^0`$ is the same as the one obtained using orthogonal coordinates \[see Eq. (39)\]. This straigthforward exercise provides the explanation for the $`M_h^2/s^2`$ dependence of $`c`$ in Eq. (40).


format: text

text:
# A STUDY OF THE SHADOWING OF GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS BY THE SUN IN A QUIET PHASE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY WITH THE TIBET AIR SHOWER ARRAY

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Sun casts the shadow in the galactic cosmic-ray flux coming from the direction of the Sun. As almost all cosmic rays are positively charged particles, they are somewhat bent by the magnetic fields between the Sun and the Earth if their energies are not so high and eventually this effect will make the Sun’s shadow shift to a position away from the apparent Sun’s direction. This effect was first observed with the Tibet-I air shower array, operating at Yangbajing in Tibet (4,300m above sea level) since 1990, in 1993 (Amenomori et al. 1993a ). We have also shown that the displacement of the Sun’s shadow is strongly correlated with the cycle of solar activity (Amenomori et al. 1993b  ; Amenomori et al. (1996)).

It is known that the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is formed as a result of the transport of the photospheric magnetic field by the solar wind flowing continuously from the Sun (Parker (1963)). Field lines near the solar equator form closed loops (neutral sheet), while field lines from the poles are dragged far into interplanetary space by the high speed solar wind of about 800 km/s. Furthermore, the magnetic field of the Sun changes sign from south to north across the neutral sheet. Accordingly the IMF is organized into large regions of opposite polarity separated by the neutral sheet, which is wavy and is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. Then, the large-scale structure of the warped neutral sheet causes a sector structure of the IMF with the field direction reversing across the sector boundary (Wilcox & Ness (1965)) so that the magnetic filed points inward in some sectors and outward in others. This sector structure (“toward” and “away”) observed in the IMF, however, would vary with the phase of the solar activity cycle. The existence of the neutral sheet has been well-established observationally since the work by Smith et al. (Smith et al. (1978)).

The IMF structure can be explained fairly well by the so-called “ballerina skirt” model assuming a rotating dipole in the Sun (Schultz (1973) ; Saito (1975) ; Svalgaad & Wilcox (1978)), though direct evidence for the presence of such rotating dipole has not been obtained yet. In this model the variations and the reversal of the polar fields are characterized in terms of the rotating dipole. Near solar minimum the dipole is aligned with the rotating axis. Rotating slowly, the dipole becomes equatorial near maximum and finally approaches the rotation axis again near the following minimum, but pointing in the opposite direction. This model also predicts a planar neutral sheet with relatively small warps near solar minimum.

The Ulysses mission explored the magnetic field of the Sun’s south polar region at the radial distance of about 2.3 AU from the Sun being at near solar minimum activity (Smith et al. (1995) ; Fisk (1997)). The radial component of the magnetic field is most easily related to the global solar magnetic field. If the solar magnetic field is of dipolar form, its magnitude is expected to vary with latitude and the field strength should show a significant increase over the polar region. Actually many models of the solar magnetic field discussed in the past had assumed a field similar to that of a dipole. Ulysses, however, found that the radial component of the magnetic field was independent of latitude (Simth & Balogh (1995) ; Balogh et al. (1995)), that is, the dipolar pattern of the field strength is not reflected in the heliospheric magnetic field. It is known that the magnetic field in the high speed solar wind originates in the polar coronal hole occupying a limited region near the pole of the Sun. Then, the Ulysses data may suggest that a dipolar pattern close to the surface of the Sun becomes a uniform pattern at the location where the solar wind begins to flow radially outward.

Fisk discussed a model to interpret the Ulysses data (Fisk (1996)). This model assumes that the magnetic field in the inner corona of the polar corona hole can be represented by a tilted dipole, which has a magnetic axis offset from the solar rotation axis, and which rotates rigidly at the equatorial rotation speed. The field lines are anchored in the photosphere, which differentially rotates, while corona holes rotate rigidly at near the equatorial rotation rate. Then a field line will move through the corona hole pattern and experience a variety of non-radial expansion in the corona hole. As the field lines open into the heliosphere, they expand in heliomagnetic latitude so that the magnetic field strength that is dipolar near the solar surface becomes uniform in the heliosphere.

In any case, as discussed above, the dipolar field of the Sun plays a major role for the origin of the IMF structure. In the previous papers (Amenomori et al. 1993b  ; Amenomori et al. (1996)), we showed that the Sun’s shadow is sensitive to the magnetic field close to the Sun ($`<10`$ times the solar radius), where any spacecraft mission can not approach. Hence the continuous observation of the Sun’s shadow over the cycle of solar activity may reveal a great deal about the behavior of a rotating dipole in the Sun, if it is in existence.

When the Sun is in a quiet phase, the solar magnetic field is symmetric between the northern and southern hemisphere of the Sun. Certainly Ulysses in 1994 observed nearly the same magnetic field in both hemispheres. With increasing solar activity, however, the number and the activity of solar active regions tend to increase and these active regions disturb the configuration of the solar magnetic field. This effect should be reflected on the Sun’s shadow. Actually, the Sun’s shadow was observed in the direction shifted considerably from the Sun’s direction to the south-westward in 1990-1993 (Amenomori et al. 1993a  ; Amenomori et al. (1996)). This period was just in the active phase of solar cycle, so the observed displacement can be attributed to a change of the solar magnetic field. The solar activity, however, was near minimum in 1996-1997. During this period, then, we may be able to observe a direct effect of the equivalent solar dipole field on the Sun’s shadow. We examine this for the first time in this paper.

## 2 EXPERIMENT

The Tibet-I air shower array (Amenomori et al. (1992)) was updated by increasing the number of counters in 1995. Since then this new air shower array (Tibet-II) has been successfully operated. The Tibet-II array, consisting of 221 scintillation counters each being placed on a lattice of 15 m spacing with a covering area of 36,900 m2, has been triggering the air shower events at a rate of about 200 Hz under any 4-fold coincidence in the detectors. Its effective area is about 7 times as large as the Tibet-I array.

We analyzed the data set taken during the period from 1995 October through 1997 August. The event selection was made as in our previous analysis (Amenomori et al. 1993a ). For the analysis of the shadows of the Moon and the Sun, we further selected the events within a circle of the radius $`8^{}`$ of the Moon and the Sun with the zenith angle less than 45. A coordinate system was fixed on the object, putting the origin of coordinates on its center. The position of each event observed is then specified by the angular distance $`\theta `$ and the position angle $`\varphi `$, where $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are measured from the center and from the north direction, respectively. In the following, we chose the equatorial coordinates for the Moon and the ecliptic coordinates for the Sun, respectively. The event distributions plotted in such coordinate systems are used to examine the shadowing of cosmic rays by these objects (Amenomori et al. 1993a ).

In this paper, our analysis is focused on the Sun’s shadow observed with the Tibet II array during the period from 1995 through 1997, which almost corresponds to near minimum of the cycle of solar activity changing with a 11 year period. The Ulysses result (Fisk (1997)) shows that during the current cycle the polarity is outward in the northern hemisphere and inward in the southern hemisphere, that is, N-pole of the solar dipole is in the northern hemisphere.

## 3 MOON’S SHADOW AND GEOMAGNETIC FIELD

As discussed in the previous paper (Amenomori et al. 1993a ), the Moon’s shadow provides a good estimate of the angular resolution and systematic pointing accuracy of the air shower array at high energies. The angular resolution of this array has been confirmed to be better than 1 by observing the Moon’s shadow (Amenomori et al. 1993a ), and the mode energy of primary cosmic rays responsible for generating air showers detected by this array is estimated to be about 8 TeV for protons.

It is also noted that the Moon’s shadow and the geomagnetic field, which acts as a convenient momentum analyzer, enables us to calibrate the results obtained by assigning primary energies to all air shower events. Actually, the deflection angle of a proton of energy $`E`$ by the geomagnetic field is calculated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =1.6^{}\times (E/1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^1`$ and the direction of this field should make the shadow shift to the west.

We first examine a correlation between the deflection angle of the Moon’s shadow and the air shower size using the events observed with the Tibet-II array. For this, we searched for the deficit center of the Moon’s shadow by dividing the events into four size regions of $`15<\rho <50`$, $`50<\rho <100`$, $`100<\rho <300`$ and $`300<\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the sum of the number of particles observed in each detector. Using the Monte Carlo simulation, the mean energies of the primary particles generating the events fallen in respective size regions are estimated to be about 8 TeV, 15 TeV, 35 TeV and 100 TeV, respectively.

Figure 1 shows the event density map of the Moon’s shadow in each size region, obtained using the events with $`\rho >15`$ observed during the period from 1995 to 1997. It is seen that the center of the Moon’s shadow is observed in the direction shifted to the west in small shower size region.

The positions of the most deficit center in respective size intervals are estimated to be $`0.21_{}^{}{}_{0.18^{}}{}^{+0.15^{}}`$W, $`0.18_{}^{}{}_{0.13^{}}{}^{+0.19^{}}`$W, $`0.04_{}^{}{}_{0.08^{}}{}^{+0.07^{}}`$W and $`0.04_{}^{}{}_{0.06^{}}{}^{+0.08^{}}`$E, respectively. Here, a maximum likelihood method was used by assuming a 2-dimensional Gaussian type probability function for the event density.

Figure 2 (a) and (b) show the plots between the deflection angle and the mean primary energy in the east-west direction and north-south direction, respectively. As shown in Figure 2 (a), the east-westward displacement of the Moon’s shadow is consistent with that expected from the effect of geomagnetic field, while Figure 2 (b) provides an estimate of the pointing accuracy of the air shower array, which is smaller than 0.1.

## 4 YEARLY VARIATION OF THE SUN’S SHADOW

Table 1 shows a yearly variation of the magnitude of solar and interplanetary magnetic fields taken from the data of Stanford Mean Solar Magnetic Field (NOAA/NGDC ) and IMP8 (NASA/NSSDC ). This table tells us that the strength of IMF near the Earth is rather stable despite changes of solar activity, but the mean strength of solar magnetic field reached a maximum around 1991 and then decreased rapidly with decreasing of the solar activity. This data also shows that the cycle of solar activity reached near minimum between 1996 and 1997.

Shown in Figure 3 is a yearly variation of the Sun’s shadow observed with the Tibet-I and Tibet-II arrays. The observation period for each shadow is as follows : 1991 (1991.4-1991.8) ; 1992 (1992.3 - 1992.7) ; 1996 (1996.3-1996.8) and 1997 (1997.3-1997.8). As discussed in detail in the previous paper (Amenomori et al. (1996)), a considerable change is observed between 1990 and 1993 corresponding to the period near maximum or at declining phase of solar activity, and its movement seems to become quick steps after that. It is observed that during the active phase the Sun’s magnetic dipole changed its direction often and abruptly and finally its field polarity was completely reversed. A sudden change of the Sun’s polar fields that caused an asymmetry of the away and toward sector field would create such a large displacement of the shadow in 1991-1993. Therefore, the Sun’s shadow correlates strongly with a variation of large scale structure of the solar magnetic field changing with the phase of solar cycle.

Compared with the data in 1991 and 1992, however, the Sun’s shadows observed in 1996 and 1997 were found almost at the apparent solar position. In the following we discuss the behavior of the Sun’s shadow observed in the quiet phase of solar activity.

## 5 SUN’S SHADOW NEAR SOLAR MINIMUM

In Figure 4, we show the event density maps of the Sun’s shadow in four different size regions, which were observed with the Tibet-II array in 1996. Each size interval is the same as that in Figure 1. The observed displacement of each Sun’s shadow in this figure is a superposition of the effects of the solar magnetic field and the geomagnetic field. It is of a great interest to note that the shadow of each size region was observed almost in the apparent direction of the Sun, independent upon the air shower size or primary energy. This suggests that the effects of the solar magnetic field and the geomagnetic field may be canceled each other, resulting in that the shadow remained just in the Sun’s direction. In order to see this in detail, we examined separately an energy dependence of the displacement of the shadow in the away and toward sectors. For this, the Tibet-II data set was divided into three subsets according to the away field (field strength $`>`$ 0.5 nT), toward field ($`<`$ -0.5 nT) and boundary field (between -0.5 nT and 0.5 nT) using the IMP8 data (NASA/NSSDC ). The fraction of each data set is 3.8 : 3.3 : 2.9.

The displacement of the shadow in the east-west direction is shown in Figure 5(a) for both the away and toward sectors. No obvious displacement is seen for the shadow in each sector, independent upon the primary energy. For the north-southward displacement, however, the Sun’s shadow in each sector of the IMF is shifted in the opposite direction according to the direction of the sector field, and its displacement is symmetric to the ecliptic plane, as seen in Figure 5(b). The Sun’s shadow was not clearly observed in the boundary field because of non-uniformity of the field direction.

It is known that near solar minimum the solar magnetic field is symmetric between the north and south hemisphere of the Sun and the neutral sheet is laid on the ecliptic plane with relatively small warp. The IMF near the Earth is almost parallel to the ecliptic plane and has an Archimedian spiral configuration (Parker (1963)). The azimuthal component of this Parker field becomes dominant at large distance from the Sun. Typical crossing angle of this field and Earth’s orbit is about 45. The field strength decreases inverse proportion to the distance. Average value of this field observed by IMP8 during the period from 1996 to 1997 is 3.4 nT near the orbit of the Earth. The field component at right angles to the cosmic ray trajectories will make the shadow shift to the north in the away sector and to the south in the toward sector. Furthermore, the geomagnetic field shifts the Sun’s shadow to the west only, since the direction of the Earth’s magnetic dipole is almost parallel to the rotation axis of the Earth. Therefore, the north-southward displacement of the shadow observed in the away and toward sectors can be mostly attributed to the effect of the IMF.

On the other hand, the IMF will scarcely make the Sun’s shadow shift to the east-westward because of a symmetric distribution of the away and toward field to the ecliptic plane in the period near solar minimum. Therefore, the displacement in the east-west direction is, for the most part, caused by the effects of the solar dipole field and the geomagnetic field. The observed results shown in Figure 5(a) suggest that the eastward displacement of the shadow by the solar dipole field was seemingly pushed back by the westward displacement due to the geomagnetic field so that no displacement in the east-west direction was found for the Sun’s shadows observed in the away and toward sectors.

The behavior of the shadow observed in 1997 is almost same as in 1996. We expect that the Sun’s shadow in each sector should show a different behavior according to the change of solar activity as in 1991-1993, and this may be further checked with better statistics during the present solar cycle 23.

## 6 COMPARISON WITH A SIMULATION

A calculation of the shadows of the Sun and the Moon was made using a simple model of the solar and interplanetary magnetic field (Suga et al. (1999)). The assumptions made on the magnetic fields are as follows,

1. For the geomagnetic field, a dipole field with the magnetic moment of $`M_E=8.1\times 10^{15}`$ T$``$m3 is assumed. The axis of the dipole is inclined at 11.7 degrees from the rotation axis of the Earth.
2. For the solar magnetic field, a dipole field with the magnetic moment of $`M_S=B_0R_{}^3=1.7\times 10^{22}`$ T$``$m3 is assumed within a radius of about 10 $`R_{}`$, where $`B_0`$ is the field strength at the surface of the Sun and $`R_{}`$ the solar radius. The dipole axis is parallel or anti-parallel to the rotation axis of the Sun, that is, perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic. The field strength of the dipole field at the radial distance $`r`$ from the Sun’s center is expressed as $`B=B_0(R_{}/r)^3\sqrt{1+3\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the angle measured from the plane of ecliptic. The strength of the dipole field decreases in proportion to $`r^3`$ and the magnetic moment gives the field strength of 100 $`\mu `$T at the polar surface ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=90^{}`$) and 50 $`\mu `$T at the equatorial surface of the Sun ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=0^{}`$), respectively.
3. The IMF is continuously generated by the steady solar wind blowing from the corona with a constant velocity of $`v_r`$ = 450 km/s. The solar wind spreads two-dimensionally in the plane of the ecliptic and the IMF has an Archimedean spiral configuration as the Sun rotates. The radial and azimuthal components of the IMF at the distance $`r`$ from the Sun are expressed as $`B_r=B_0(R_{}/r)^2`$ and $`B_\varphi B_0(R_{}/r)^2(r\omega _0/v_r)(r>>R_{})`$ near the equatorial plane, respectively, where $`\omega _0`$ is the rotation angular velocity of the Sun. Then, $`B=\sqrt{B_r^2+B_\varphi ^2}B_0(R_{}/r)^2\sqrt{1+r^2\omega _0^2/v_r^2}`$. It is seen that the field strength decreases inversely proportional to $`r`$ when the distance $`r`$ is very far from the Sun. Here, the magnitude of $`B_\varphi `$ is taken to be 2 nT at the Earth’s orbit ( $`r`$ = 1 AU) with the garden hose angle of $`45^{}`$. The magnitudes of solar dipole field and IMF take the same value of 40 nT at $`r10.8R_{}0.05`$ AU, at which the magnetic field is switched from the solar dipole one to the IMF, though the direction of line of force makes a jump. But, this jump has no effect on the result.
4. The IMF near solar minimum consists of four sectors, two away and two toward sectors. Actually the observation data of the IMF (NOAA/NGDC  ; NASA/NSSDC ) show a structure close to four sectors in the period from 1996 through 1997. These are axial symmetric on the plane of the ecliptic and make the Archimedian spirals. The IMF changes its strength periodically across the sectors in the azimuthal direction. We further assumed that its variation can be described in terms of the sin of azimuth angle for a fixed distance $`r`$. The field strength becomes zero on the spiral boundaries between the away and toward sectors and its absolute value reaches the maximum at the center of each sector for the fixed distance $`r`$. The root mean square value of the field strength averaging over the azimuth angle is taken to be equal to the value discussed above.

Of course, the solar magnetic field near the Sun is more complicated than the dipole as found by Ulysses. It is, however, known that the polarity of the field is opposite in the north and south across the neutral sheet, which is almost parallel to the plane of ecliptic near solar minimum. In this sense, the global field structure near the Sun is similar to that of a dipole, while the high-latitude magnetic field may deviate from the expected dipole geometry according to the Ulysses observation (Simth & Balogh (1995) ; Balogh et al. (1995)). Also, the Sun’s shadow near solar minimum is not so sensitive to the field components in the polar direction. Hence, our model for the solar magnetic field may be a good enough approximation for the present work. Furthermore, such simplification is very helpful in understanding how the Sun’s shadow is affected by the dipole component of the solar magnetic field.

Trajectories of charged particles are calculated by emitting anti-charged particles from Yangbajing in the wide angular range of 25$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 25^{}`$ in real angle around the Moon and the Sun. The simulation results were re-sampled by taking into account the energy spectra of primary particles and the angular resolution of the Tibet-II array. Primary particles are assumed to be composed of protons and helium nuclei with a power-law spectrum of $`E^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ = 2.7 for both particles, since other nuclei give a minor contribution. The flux ratio of protons to helium nuclei is taken to be 1.5. Trigger efficiencies of the events induced by primary cosmic rays were calculated by the simulation.

Figure 6 shows the shadows of the Moon and the Sun obtained by the simulation under the same observation conditions as the experiment. The Moon’s shadow shown in Figure 6(a) is consistent with the experiment, which is shifted to the west by about 0.15. For the Sun’s shadow, we examined two cases that the dipole directions of the Sun and the Earth are (1) parallel and (2) anti-parallel, respectively. In case of (1) the displacement by the Sun’s dipole is the same direction as that by the Earth’s dipole, while in case of (2) the direction of each displacement becomes opposite. The simulation results by both cases are shown in Figure 6(b) and (c), respectively. The case (2) may correspond to the shadow observed during the period from 1996 to 1997, and it is consistent with the experiment. This simulation may suggest that the most suitable value, $`M_s`$, for the magnitude of the Sun’s magnetic moment can be estimated from a detailed analysis of the Sun’s shadow near solar minimum.

We also examined the displacement of the Sun’s shadow by the IMF. The simulation results (Suga et al. (1999)) show that the shadow is shifted to the north by the away IMF and to the south by the toward IMF, which are consistent with the experiment as shown in Figure 5(b). Because of a difficulty of separating the away and toward field from the observation data, the observed displacements of the shadow in each sector are slightly smaller than the simulation results. It may be also seen that the Sun’s shadow shown in Figure 4 shows an oval in shape with the major axis in the north-south direction. This deformation can be explained by the effect of IMF.

A comparison with the simulation and the experiment may strongly support the following : 1) Near solar minimum, the displacement of the Sun’s shadow in the east-west direction is mostly caused by the effect of the dipole component of the solar magnetic field ; and 2) the displacement in the north-south direction is due to the effect of the IMF. In the last solar minimum, the effect of the dipole field of the Sun was almost canceled by the geomagnetic field so that the Sun’s shadow seemingly stayed almost in the Sun’s direction. In the next solar minimum, however, the Sun’s shadow will be shifted to the west as in Figure 6 (b) since the polarity of the Sun’s dipole is reversed again by that time (case(1)).

## 7 SUMMARY

Using the data obtained with the Tibet air shower array during the period from 1995 October to 1997 August, we examined the behavior of the Sun’ shadow and compared it with a simulation. In this period, the Sun’s shadow was observed almost in the apparent Sun’s direction, and shows a remarkable difference compared with those observed in 1990 - 1993. It is confirmed that the polarity of the Sun’s dipole was reversed in 1992 - 1993 and since then the Sun’s dipole has been in the opposite direction to the Earth’s dipole (anti-parallel). From a comparison of the observed shadows and the simulation results using a model of the solar and interplanetary magnetic field, we confirmed that the eastward displacement of the shadow due to the solar magnetic field was almost forced back by the effect of the geomagnetic field. We also examined that during this period the IMF made the shadow shift to the north in the toward sectors and to the south in the away sectors. A detailed analysis of the Sun’s shadow near solar minimum may enable us to estimate a magnitude of the magnetic moment of the Sun’s (equivalent) dipole.

The Sun is now going toward the active phase of the cycle 23 and will reach a maximum around the year of 2001. Then, the angle of the dipole component should rotate from north to south during the cycle, reversing near maximum. The behavior of a dipole may be directly examined from the observation of the Sun’s shadow during the period near maximum or at declining phase of solar cycle with a two sector structure of the IMF polarity. During the coming active phase, the Sun’s shadow would be found in the direction fairly away from the Sun’s direction as in 1990 - 1993, but possibly shifted to the north-eastward, though its direction and magnitude may depend upon the dominance of the dipole component.

A new Tibet air-shower array will be operated in very near future. This array consists of 545 scintillation detectors, which are placed on a 7.5 m grid with a covering area of 2 $`\times 10^4`$ m2. Using this array, air shower events with energy in excess of about 3 TeV can be detected with no serious bias. Then, we can study the Sun’s shadow in a wide energy range from 3 TeV to 100 TeV with better statistics. A further observation of the Sun’ shadow may provide a unique and important means for clarifying a dynamical change or structure of the solar and interplanetary magnetic fields close to the Sun and also provide new clues how to study the three dimensional configuration of the solar magnetic field under the influence of the solar activity changing with a 11 year period.

This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research and also for International Science Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan and for International Science Research from the Committee of the Natural Science Foundation and the Academy of Sciences in China. The authors thank the anonymous referee for critical and valuable comments.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of gluon self-coupling in QCD suggests that, in addition to the conventional qq states, there may be non-qq mesons \- bound states including gluons (glueballs and qqg hybrids). The existence of glueball states made from gluons is one of the important predictions of QCD. The discovery of these glueball states would be the strong support to the QCD theory. Therefore the search and identification of glueballs have been a very attractive research task. The abundance of qq mesons and possible mixing of glueballs and ordinary mesons make the current situation with the identification of glueball states rather complicated. So the spectrum of QCD is expected to contain glueballs hybrids and multiquark states. However, the theoretical quittance on the properties of unusual states is often contradictory, and models that agree in qq sector differ in their predictions about new states. Moreover, the abundance of qq meson states in the region $`12GeV`$ and glueball-quarkonium mixing makes the identification of the lightest non-qq mesons difficult. Whereas there is a general agreement that the lightest glueball should have quantum numbers $`0^{++}`$ its mass remains controversial. The one of the possibilities to distinguish between possibilities is to study of production rates and decays branching ratios which are expected to be sensitive to the constituent structure. Glueballs are preferentially expected in production of gluon rich environment such as $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ \- , central production in hadron - hadron collisions by double Pomeron exchange and pp annihilation into mesons near threshold, or jj collision.

The quark model predicts that there are two mesons with $`I=0`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ qq nonet but apart from the states $`f_j\left(1710\right)`$ with $`J=0`$ or (and) $`2`$, four states $`f_0\left(4001200\right)`$, $`f_0\left(980\right)`$, $`f\left(1370\right)`$ and $`f_0\left(1500\right)`$ are listed by Particle Data Group. There are too many controversies about these states. One of the possibilities is to put aside the $`f_0\left(4001200\right)`$ and $`f_0\left(980\right)`$ and focus on $`f\left(1370\right)`$, $`f_0\left(1500\right)`$, $`f_j\left(1710\right)`$ although the spin parity of the $`f_j\left(1710\right)`$ is $`J^{PC}=0^{++}`$ or (and) $`2^{++}`$ controversial. Recently several authors study the quarkonia-glueball contents of the $`f\left(1370\right)`$, $`f\left(1500\right)`$, $`f_j\left(1710\right)`$ by studying the mixing of these three states. The same situation is also in the case of identification of the $`2^{++}`$ glueball. Some progress has been made recently in the $`0^{++}`$ scalar and $`2^{++}`$ tensor glueball sector, where both experimental and QCD lattice simulation results seem to converge.

In this paper we will study the problem of glueball mass spectra using the relativistic Dirac equation, which was used to the calculations of mesons spectra, and the Breit-Fermi approach which was also used to obtaining the hyperfine splitting in different mesons. Our approach is based on the assumption that the nature and the forces between two gluons are the same that between two quarks, and because that the chosen approaches in both cases must be similar. In our previous papers we obtained a good description of meson spectra, fine and hyperfine splitting in relativistic Dirac approach with screened potential. Because that we were able to calculate the glueball masses and decays in the same approach, with the same parameters.

## 2 Method Calculation of Glueballs states

For calculation of glueball mass-spectrum we used Dirac equation with mixing Lorentz structure of potential for glueballs with spin averaged masses

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{dF_{ij}\left(r\right)}{dr}+\frac{k}{r}F_{ij}\left(r\right)=\left[EmV\right]G_{ij}\left(r\right)\\ \frac{dG_{ij}\left(r\right)}{dr}+\frac{k}{r}G_{ij}\left(r\right)=\left[E+mV\right]F_{ij}\left(r\right)\end{array}$$
(1)
where

$$\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}j\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ j\frac{3}{2}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\left(1+k\right).$$
(2)
Let us write to equation all possible potential type

$$i\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(r,t)}{t}=$$

$$=\left(\frac{\alpha }{i}+\beta \left[m+V^S\left(r\right)+\gamma ^5V^{PS}\left(r\right)+\gamma ^\mu V_\mu ^V\left(r\right)+\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5V_\mu ^A\left(r\right)+\sigma ^{\mu \eta }V_{\mu \eta }^T\right]\right).$$
(3)
The vector and scalar part we present in the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}V_V\left(r\right)=V_{OGE}\left(r\right)+\epsilon V_{conf.}\left(r\right)\hfill \\ V_S\left(r\right)=\left(1\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and substituted it to $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)m\right)F\left(r\right)=\frac{k}{r}G\left(r\right)\frac{dG\left(r\right)}{dr}\hfill \\ \left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)+m\right)G\left(r\right)=\frac{k}{r}F\left(r\right)+\frac{dF\left(r\right)}{dr}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
$$\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)m\right)F\left(r\right)=$$

$$=\frac{k}{r}\frac{\frac{k}{r}F\left(r\right)+\frac{dF\left(r\right)}{dr}}{\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)+m\right)},$$
(6)
$$\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)m\right)F\left(r\right)=$$

$$=\frac{k}{r}\frac{\frac{k}{r}F\left(r\right)+\frac{dF\left(r\right)}{dr}}{\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)+m\right)}.$$
(7)
We obtain for the small component of the wave function $`G\left(r\right)`$:

$$\frac{dG\left(r\right)}{dr}=\left(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)m\right)F\left(r\right)$$

$$\frac{k}{r}\left[\frac{\frac{k}{r}F\left(r\right)+\frac{dF\left(r\right)}{dr}}{EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)+m}\right],$$
(8)
$$\left[\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)\right]G\left(r\right)+$$

$$+\left(E+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)+m\right)\frac{dG\left(r\right)}{dr}=$$
(9)
$$=\frac{k}{r^2}F\left(r\right)\frac{k}{r}F^{}\left(r\right)+F^{\prime \prime }\left(r\right).$$

Into the formula $`\left(\text{5}\right)`$ we substitute $`G\left(r\right)`$, so we obtain the second order equation for the wave function $`F\left(r\right)`$:

$$F^{\prime \prime }\left(r\right)\frac{\left[\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)\right]^{}}{\left(E+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)+m\right)}F^{}\left(r\right)+$$

$$+\{\frac{k}{r^2}\frac{k^2}{r^2}+\frac{\left[\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)\right]^{}}{\left(E+\left(12\epsilon \right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)+m\right)}\frac{k}{r}+$$
(10)
$$+(E+(12\epsilon )V_{conf.}\left(r\right)V_{OGE}\left(r\right)+m)(EV_{OGE}\left(r\right)V_{conf.}\left(r\right)m)\left\}F\right(r)=0.$$

As for the interaction potential we choose the same screened potential as in the case of Breit-Fermi equation. With the same interaction potential we obtained good results in meson spectroscopy, and because that we try to apply this approach to glueballs. In the frame of Breit-Fermi approach the spin - spin interaction term is

$$V_{SS}=\frac{2}{3m_{q_1}m_{q_2}}\stackrel{}{S_1}\stackrel{}{S_2}\mathrm{\Delta }V_V.$$
(11)
We suggest for calculation to use configuration interaction approach, which was very successfully applied in atomic physics.

## 3 Results

In the Table 2 we show the results obtained in potential model for spin average glueball masses in comparison with the data of other authors. As it is seen from this table for the lowest glueball state our result is close for to the results of other authors. In our model the first and second orbital as well radial excited states are lower then in the lattice calculation , . The same situation is also in the Table 3, where we show the results which incorporated the spin-spin effects. These probably mean, that the strong interaction between two gluons in glueball more strong than between two quarks in mesons. It is interesting to note, that to a same conclusion come J. Cui and H. Jin  during calculation of glueball masses, using Bethe-Salpeter equation.

Table 1. Spin averaged glueball masses from Dirac equation with $`\left(V_0=0.586GeV\right)`$.

| $`Quantum`$  $`numbers`$ | $`Our`$ $`results`$  $`M\left(GeV\right)`$ | $`Nonperturb.method`$  $`\left[4\right]`$ | $`Lattice`$ $`data`$  $`\left[1\right]`$ | $`Lattice`$ $`data`$  $`\left[2\right]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}=0,n_r=0`$ | $`4.68`$ | $`4.68`$ | $`4.66`$ | $`4.55`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}=1,n_r=0`$ | $`5.84`$ | $`6.0`$ | $`6.36`$ | $`6.1`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}=0,n_r=1`$ | $`6.22`$ | $`6.0`$ | $`6.68`$ | $`6.45`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}=2,n_r=0`$ | $`6.69`$ | $`7.0`$ | $`9.0`$ | $`7.7`$ |
| $`\mathrm{}=1,n_r=1`$ | $`6.96`$ | $`8.0`$ |  |  |

Table 2. Glueball masses from Breit-Fermi approach in comparison with other authors.

| $`J^{PC}`$ | $`our`$ $`results,M\left(GeV\right)`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[4\right]`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[2\right]`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[1\right]`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[5\right]`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[6\right]`$ | $`ref`$.$`\left[7\right]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0^{++}`$ | $`1.70`$ | $`1.58`$ | $`1.73`$ | $`1.74`$ | $`1.645`$ | $`1.686`$ | $`1.659`$ |
| $`2^{++}`$ | $`2.19`$ | $`2.59`$ | $`2.40`$ | $`2.47`$ | $`2.337`$ | $`2.380`$ | $`2.304`$ |
| $`3^{++}`$ | $`3.24`$ | $`3.58`$ | $`3.69`$ | $`4.3`$ |  |  |  |

The Decays of Glueballs to two light mesons:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1^3S_1XX\right)=55MeV`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2^3S_1XX\right)=24MeV`$,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3^3S_1XX\right)=15MeV`$.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

As it is note by Minkowski and Ochs ,  in the gluon jet in case of triplet neutralization the leading particles are the hadrons formed by the primary gluon and soft qq pairs. If there are hybrid mesons they may be formed in the fast color singlet qqg system alternatively the fast hadrons are ordinary qq mesons formed at the end of the parton cascade after having absorbed all gluon energy. If the octet mechanism is at work the leading gluon may also form a glueball. On the other hand in the quark jet neither the hybrid nor the glueball will be leading if the leading quark is only neutralized in color by a soft antiquark.

Table 3. Production of leading hadrons in the jet according .

|  | $`neutralization`$ | $`qq`$ | $`hybrid`$ | $`glueball`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`quark`$ $`jet`$ | $`triplet`$ | $`yes`$ | $`no`$ | $`no`$ |
| $`gluon`$ $`jet`$ | $`triplet`$ | $`yes`$ | $`yes`$ | $`no`$ |
|  | $`octet`$ | $`no`$ | $`no`$ | $`yes`$ |

As it is note by Burakovsky  it is widely believed that pseudoscalar mesons are the Goldstone bosons of broken SU(3)$`\times `$SU(3) chiral symmetry of QCD, and that they should be massless in the chirally symmetric phase. Because that it is not clear how the resonance spectrum would be suitable for the description of the pseudoscalar mesons.

It is firmly established that the lightest glueball state is the scalar glueball. According to Burakovsky, who obtained the glueball masses from the Regge phenomenology, with linear Regge trajectory with negative intercept

$$M^2\left(0^{++}\right)=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}M\left(\rho \right)$$

and

$$M^2\left(2^{++}\right)=\sqrt{2}M\left(0^{++}\right)$$

So $`M\left(0^{++}\right)=1620`$ $`MeV`$, $`M\left(2^{++}\right)=2290`$ $`MeV`$.

Tensor glueball is the lowest resonance lying on the Pomeron trajectory with unit intercept. As for this glueball state in PDG corresponds three candidates in this mass region $`f_j\left(2220\right)`$, $`J=2`$ or $`4`$, $`f_2`$ $`\left(2300\right)`$ and $`f_2\left(2340\right)`$.

As to the question of hybrids. If hybrid spectroscopy works like conventional mesons spectroscopy or glueball spectroscopy than as shown by Toussaint , we expect that the lowest multiplet of hybrids contains $`1^+`$, $`1^{}`$, $`0^+`$, $`2^+`$ particles both isovector and isoscalar which will be split by color hyperfine interaction. In this paper we restrict ourselves only with the calculations of glueball masses.

Using a non-perturbative method based on asymptotic behavior of Wilson loops A. Kaidalov and Yu. Simonov calculated the masses of glueballs and corresponding Regge trajectories. These results are shown in the Tables 1, 2.

The difficulties in identification of the glueball states, and the poor experimental data makes the investigation of the problem for glueballs actually. We try to obtain the mass spectrum of glueballs and the decay width in potential model approach. Using the same method and the same parameters as in the case of meson spectra calculation we obtained for glueball masses a good agreement with the possible experimental data. We obtained the results for spin average glueball states and the results which take into account the spin-spin interaction. Moreover, our results, as well as other authors results, shown, that the lowest scalar glueball mass is $`M\left(0^{++}\right)=1700`$ $`MeV`$, and the tensor glueball amass is $`M\left(2^{++}\right)=2290`$ $`MeV`$. Other results in Tables 1, 2 are predictions.