text:
# Pseudogap Phenomena and Phase Diagram in the 2-Band Hubbard Model

Since the discovery of the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconducting materials (HTSC), the anomalous metallic phase have attracted much attention, where various anomalous properties have been observed in considerably wide temperature range higher than the superconducting transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The antiferromagnetic fluctuations (AF fluctuations) are observed in various experiments, e.g. the NMR, the neutron scattering and the Hall coefficients. On the other hand, the pseudogap is also observed in various experiments, e.g. the tunneling spectroscopy and the angle-resolved photo emission spectroscopy (ARPES), which is of the same size and has the same $`𝐤`$-dependence as the superconducting gap (SC gap). There are several different views regarding the origin of the anomalous metallic phase, especially concerning the pseudogap. For example, the pseudogap may be interpreted as a spin-excitation gap in the singlet RVB states obtained in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model, or as precursor of the SC gap.

Based on the above experimental results, we have suggested a mechanism of the superconductivity and the anomalous metallic phase, where the AF fluctuations and the superconducting fluctuations (SC fluctuations) play essential roles as described in the followings. These fluctuations are induced by significant features of the HTSC, i.e. a quasi-$`2`$ dimentional metal in the vicinity of the Mott insulator. In metals near Mott insulators, doped carriers create narrow quasi-particle band inside the charge transfer gap called as in-gap states, which have band width proportional to the hole doping rate $`\delta `$ and interact with each other through the superexchange interaction $`J_\mathrm{s}`$. It is essentially the strong correlation effects. Strong AF fluctuations are induced by $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ in the in-gap state. The pairing interaction mediated by the AF fluctuations induces the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ superconductivity with $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry. At the same time, the pairing interaction promotes strong SC fluctuations because of the quasi-2D electronic system, which induces the pseudogap in the quasi-particle spectrum. The pseudogap suppresses the AF fluctuations. Thus, effects of both of the AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations need to be treated in a consistent way.

In our previous studies, we have shown that the SC fluctuations induce the pseudogap and plays key roles in the anomalous metallic phase by using the self-consistent $`t`$-matrix approximation based on the in-gap state and $`J_\mathrm{s}`$, which are derived in the 2-band Hubbard model with the help of the slave boson technique together with the $`1/N`$-expansion theory. We have shown that $`1/T_1T`$ of the NMR increases as T decreases at high temperatures, and reaches a maximum at $`T_{\mathrm{sg}}`$ followed by a sharp drop in the under-doped region, due to the evolution of the pseudogap. The evolution is consistent with those of the ARPES experiments. It has been also shown that $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is suppressed by the SC fluctuations in the under-doped region.

In the present study, we demonstrate the above senario explicitly by taking the AF fluctuations in the fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) approximation and the SC fluctuations in the self-consistent $`t`$-matrix approximation to treat both fluctuations on the equal footing, which are also based on the in-gap state and $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ in the 2-band Hubbard model. By using the Green’s functions thus obtained, we calculate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the antiferromagnetic transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{N}`$, $`1/T_1T`$, the spin susceptibility and the density of states. As a result, we obtain the $`T`$-$`\delta `$ phase diagram which is consistent with that observed in HTSC.

First, we describe our model and formulation. We take the simplest version of the $`U=\mathrm{}`$ 2-band Hubbard model for describing the electronic system in the $`\mathrm{CuO}_2`$ plane:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _p{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}c_{𝐤\sigma }^+c_{𝐤\sigma }+\epsilon _d{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}d_{i\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`N_\mathrm{L}^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i𝐤\sigma }{}}\{t_{i𝐤}c_{𝐤\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }b_i^++h.c.\},`$
which is treated within the physical subspace where local constraints $`\widehat{Q}_i=_\sigma d_{i\sigma }^+d_{i\sigma }+b_i^+b_i=1`$ hold. In the above, $`c_{𝐤\sigma }`$, $`d_{i\sigma }`$ and $`b_i`$ are annihilation operators for a $`p`$-hole with wave vector $`𝐤`$ and spin $`\sigma `$, a $`d`$-hole at i-th site with spin $`\sigma `$ and a slave boson at i-th site, respectively, and $`t_{i𝐤}=t_𝐤\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐑_i)`$, with $`t_𝐤=2t[1\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}k_xa+\mathrm{cos}k_ya)]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ ,where $`a`$ is the lattice constant (we set $`a=1`$), and $`N_\mathrm{L}`$ is the total number of lattice sites.

The quasi-particle Green’s functions of the leading order in the $`1/N`$-expansion are given by

$`G_0(𝐤,\omega )={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma =\pm }{}}A_\gamma (𝐤)/(\omega E_\gamma (𝐤)+\mathrm{i0}^+),`$ (2)
with $`E_\gamma (𝐤)=\frac{1}{2}[\epsilon _p+\omega _0+\gamma ((\epsilon _p\omega _0)^2+4bt_𝐤^2)^{1/2}]`$ , $`A_\gamma (𝐤)=\gamma (E_\gamma (𝐤)\omega _0)/(E_+(𝐤)E_{}(𝐤))`$, where $`N`$ represents the spin-orbital degeneracy of $`d`$-hole and then we set $`N=2`$ in the present case. The binding energy $`\omega _0`$ and the residue $`b`$ of the pole in the slave-boson Green’s function are self-consistently determined together with the chemical potential $`\mu `$. Here, it is noted that the solution $`E_{}(𝐤)`$ denotes the in-gap state emerging inside the charge transfer gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon _p\epsilon _d`$, upon doping carriers to a Mott insulator. The band width and the residue of the in-gap state roughly equal $`2\omega _0`$ and $`b`$, respectively, and are proportional to $`\delta `$ in the under-doped region. The effects of the interactions among the in-gap states are of higher-order terms in the $`1/N`$-expansion. Recently, it has been shown that quasi-particle interactions via the superexchange interaction $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ play dominant roles in under-doped systems.

Now, we derive the coupled equations of the AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations. The AF fluctuations via $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ are given by

$$V(𝐪,\omega )=J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)/(1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )),$$
(3)
with $`J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)=J_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{cos}(q_x)+\mathrm{cos}(q_y))`$ and the irreducible spin susceptibility

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤+𝐪,𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dxf(x)}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`[\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤+𝐪,x)G(𝐤,\omega +x)^{}`$
$`+`$ $`G(𝐤+𝐪,\omega +x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,x)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Im}F(𝐤+𝐪,x)F(𝐤,\omega +x)^{}`$
$``$ $`F(𝐤+𝐪,\omega +x)\mathrm{Im}F(𝐤,x)],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=b^2t_𝐤^2t_𝐤^{}^2/((E_{}(𝐤)\omega _0)^2(E_{}(𝐤^{})\omega _0)^2)`$.

It was shown that a component with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry among various components of the spin-fluctuation-mediated interaction contributes dominantly to the pairing interaction. We take only the component with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry of the pairing interaction as

$$v_d=N_\mathrm{L}^2\underset{𝐤}{}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}\psi _𝐤V(𝐤𝐤^{},0)\psi _𝐤^{},$$
(5)
with $`\psi _𝐤=\mathrm{cos}(k_xa)\mathrm{cos}(k_ya)`$.

The pairing susceptibility $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )`$, which is the irreducible part of the $`t`$-matrix, is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\mathrm{a}^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\mathrm{a}^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )/(1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }_\mathrm{n}^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )),`$
where the pairing susceptibility due to the normal Green’s fucntions is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ $`{}_{\mathrm{n}}{}^{\mathrm{p}}(𝐪,\omega )=N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _𝐤^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐪𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}x`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`[f(x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,x)G(𝐪𝐤,\omega x)`$
$``$ $`f(x)G(𝐤,\omega x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐪𝐤,x)],`$
while that due to the anomalous Green’s fucntions by

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ $`{}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{\mathrm{p}()}(𝐪,\omega )=N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _𝐤^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐪𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}x`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`[f(x)\mathrm{Im}F^{()}(𝐤,x)F^{()}(𝐪𝐤,\omega x)`$
$``$ $`f(x)F^{()}(𝐤,\omega x)\mathrm{Im}F^{()}(𝐪𝐤,x)]`$
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=b^2t_𝐤^2t_𝐤^{}^2/((\pi T)^2+\omega _0^2)^2`$. In the above both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$ are the vertices connecting $`p`$\- and $`d`$-holes.

Self-energy corrections due to the SC fluctuations in the $`t`$-matrix approximation are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )=\psi _𝐤^2N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐪𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dx}`$
$`\times [f(x)T(𝐪,x+\omega )\mathrm{Im}G(𝐪𝐤,x)`$
$`g(x)\mathrm{Im}T(𝐪,x)G(𝐪𝐤,x\omega )^{}],`$ (9)
with the $`t`$-matrix of the SC fluctuations

$`T(𝐪,\omega )=v_d^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )/(1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(𝐪,\omega )),`$ (10)
where $`g(E)=(\mathrm{exp}\{E/k_\mathrm{B}T\}1)^1`$.

Self-energy corrections due to the AF fluctuations in the fluctuation exchange (FLEX) approximation are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )=N_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤𝐪}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dx}`$
$`\times [g(x)\mathrm{Im}V(𝐪,x)G(𝐤𝐪,\omega x)`$
$`f(x)V(𝐪,\omega x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤𝐪,x)].`$ (11)
The renormalized Green’s function is given by

$`G(𝐤,\omega )=[G_0(𝐤,\omega )^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤,\omega )`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )]^1,`$ (12)
and the anomalous Green’s function is

$`F(𝐤,\omega )=G_\mathrm{n}(𝐤,\omega )^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤)G(𝐤,\omega ),`$ (13)
where the self-energy due to the SC gap

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤,\omega )=b^2G_\mathrm{n}(𝐤,\omega )^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤)|^2,`$ (14)
the renormalized Green’s function without $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤,\omega )`$ by

$`G_\mathrm{n}(𝐤,\omega )=[G_0(𝐤,\omega )^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )]^1`$ (15)
and the SC gap with the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{SC}}(𝐤)=v_d\psi _𝐤t_𝐤^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{SC}}`$. The order parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{SC}}`$ is determined by

$`1\alpha =v_dN_\mathrm{L}^1{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\psi _𝐤^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐤,𝐤}\pi ^1{\displaystyle dx}`$
$`\times [f(x)\mathrm{Im}G_n(𝐤,x)G(𝐤,x)`$
$`f(x)G_n(𝐤,x)\mathrm{Im}G(𝐤,x)].`$ (16)
Both the SC and AF fluctuations are self-consistently treated by solving the coupled equations (3)-(16).

At $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$, eq. (16) corresponds to the Thouless criterion, $`1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)\alpha =0`$, where $`\alpha `$ represents degree of the $`3`$D effect in the quasi-$`2`$D electronic system. In the present model $`1v_d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)`$ does not reach zero at finite temperatures by the effect of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SCf}}(𝐤,\omega )`$, because we take a 2D electronic ststem in the calculation of the above coupled equations. We take $`\alpha =0.5`$ in the present study so as to have finite $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ of $`O(100\mathrm{K})`$.

We define $`T_\mathrm{N}`$ as the temperature where $`1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐐)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐐,0)\beta =0`$, where $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$ and $`\beta `$ represents degree of the $`3`$D effect. In the present model $`1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐐)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐐,0)`$ also does not reach zero at finite temperatures by the effect of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{AFf}}(𝐤,\omega )`$ in the 2D electronic ststem. We take $`\beta =0.02`$ in the present study.

By using the solusions of the above coupled equations, we calculate the NMR relaxation rate,

$$(T_1T)^1=N_\mathrm{L}^1\underset{q}{}F_{ab}(𝐪)\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\mathrm{Im}\chi ^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )/\omega ,$$
(17)
where $`\chi ^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )=\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega )/(1J_\mathrm{s}(𝐪)\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{s}(𝐪,\omega ))`$ and the factor $`F_{ab}(𝐪)`$ is given in Ref. 26.

In actual numerical calculations, throughout the present study, we set $`2t=1.0`$ (which is of $`O(1\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})`$ in real systems), $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2.5`$ and $`J_\mathrm{s}=0.1`$. For an example, we have $`\omega _0=0.0780`$ and $`b=0.0515`$ at $`\delta =0.1`$ The total number of discrete points taken for the $`𝐪`$-summation over the 2D first Brillouin zone is 32 $`\times `$ 32. The $`\omega `$-integral over the region from $`2\omega _0`$ to $`2\omega _0`$ is replaced by the $`\omega `$-summation of $`80`$ discrete points.

Figure 1 shows the $`T`$-$`\delta `$ phase diagram obtained by solving the above coupled equations. Both the AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations begin to increase at $`TT_0`$ as $`T`$ decreases. The AF fluctuations dominate in the region of $`T_{\mathrm{sg}}\stackrel{<}{_{}}T\stackrel{<}{_{}}T_0`$, while the SC fluctuations dominate in the region of $`T_\mathrm{c}<T\stackrel{<}{_{}}T_{\mathrm{sg}}`$, where $`T_0`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{sg}}`$ increase monotonically when $`\delta `$ decreases. This crossover behavior induces the anomalous $`T`$-dependence of $`1/T_1T`$ as discussed in Fig. 2. As a result of the domination by the SC fluctuations in the under-doped region, $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ has a maximum at $`\delta 0.1`$ and decreases as $`\delta `$ decreases. The key factor for obtaining these reasonable features is the narrow in-gap state with strong $`J_\mathrm{s}`$, i.e. $`J_\mathrm{s}/W\stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ in the under-doped region, where the band-width $`W`$ is approximately proportional to $`\delta `$. This phase diagram accounts for essential features of the phase diagram observed in HTSC .

Figure 2 shows $`T`$-dependences of $`1/T_1T`$ obtained by applying 3 different types of approximations for $`\chi ^\mathrm{s}`$ in eq. (17) at $`\delta =0.1`$. In the case of RPA, $`1/T_1T`$ diverges at $`T=T_\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{RPA}}`$, which indicates the system becomes the antiferromagnetic state. In the case of FLEX, $`1/T_1T`$ does not diverge but increases monotonically as $`T`$ decreases. By solving the coupled equations including both the AF fluctuations and the SC fluctuations, $`1/T_1T`$ is strongly suppressed in the low temperature region, and then has a maximum at $`T_{\mathrm{sg}}`$. It is a typical example of the crossover behavior of the fluctuations in the anomalous phase.

Figure 3 shows $`\omega `$-dependences of the normalized density of states $`\rho (\omega )/\rho ^0(\omega _0)`$ at $`\delta =0.1`$. The pseudogap begins to open at $`T=0.06T_0`$ and develops gradually as $`T`$ decreases, suppressing the AF fluctuations, which induces the crossover of the fluctuations. The pseudogap is induced by the SC fluctuations via the self-energy corrections, and has the same size and the same $`𝐤`$-dependence as the SC gap, i.e. the precursor of the SC gap.

The present study sheds light on a new problem in strongly correlated systems where two kinds of strong fluctuations affect each other. We have shown that the phase diagram of HTSC is described by our senario consistently. The narrow in-gap state and strong $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ are the key factors for describing the features of the phase diagram in the under-doped region. As for the quasi-particle interaction, the on-site Coulomb interaction is not effetive in the under-doped region, because it is reduced to same order of the band-width of the in-gap state, while $`J_\mathrm{s}`$ remains to be finite almost independent of $`\delta `$ in the under-doping region.

The authors are grateful to Prof. M. Sato for fruitful discussions. The present work has been partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.


format: text

text:
# Extracting SUSY Parameters from the Higgs Boson Properties 1footnote 11footnote 1Talk given by S.Kiyoura at the Linear Collider Workshop 2000, October 24-28, 2000, Fermilab.

KEK-TH-739

UT-ICEPP 01-01

January 2001

## Abstract

We calculate the ratio of the two branching ratios, Br($`hb\overline{b})`$ and Br($`hc\overline{c}`$) $`+`$ Br($`hgg`$), in the minimal supersymmetric standard model taking into account the SUSY-loop corrections to the Higgs sector and the $`hb\overline{b}`$ vertex. We show that the heavy Higgs mass can be extracted from the ratio, almost independently of other SUSY parameters, in the region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \stackrel{<}{_{}}`$ 10.

It was pointed out that the CP-odd Higgs mass $`m_A`$ can be determined by the measurements of the lightest Higgs decay branching ratios in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)KOTrbr . Since there is the region of moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ where LHC may not be able to detect the CP-odd Higgs boson, $`m_A\stackrel{>}{_{}}200`$GeVwas , it is important to study such an option to indirectly constrain $`m_A`$. Ref.KOTrbr  showed that we could extract $`m_A`$ from the double ratio,

$`R_{br}{\displaystyle \frac{Br(hc\overline{c})+Br(hgg)}{Br(hb\overline{b})}},`$
taking into account the SUSY-loop corrections to the Higgs sector.

Since the dependence of the $`hb\overline{b}`$ and $`hc\overline{c}`$ branching ratios on the mixing angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the Higgs sector is given by $`Br(hb\overline{b})\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }`$ and $`Br(hc\overline{c})\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }`$, the double ratio between $`Br(hb\overline{b})`$ and $`Br(hc\overline{c})`$ becomes $`R_cBr(hc\overline{c})/Br(hb\overline{b})1/(\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{tan}\beta )^2`$, where the scalar-top-quark corrections to the Higgs sector are implicit in $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. When the CP-odd Higgs boson is heavy, $`m_Am_hm_Z`$, and the left-right mixing of the scalar top quarks is small, the double ratio $`R_c`$ is approximately proportional to $`(m_h^2m_A^2)^2/(m_Z^2+m_A^2)^2`$. From this expression, you can see that, once we measure the lightest Higgs mass $`m_h`$, the double ratio $`R_c`$ determines $`m_A`$. Furthermore, $`Br(hgg)`$, dominantly induced by the top quark exchange, has the same dependence on the mixing angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as the $`Br(hc\overline{c})`$, and therefore we can expect the double ratio $`R_{br}`$ determines the mass scale of the CP-odd Higgs boson.

In the above discussion, we assume that Higgs-fermion Yukawa couplings are the same as those in the type-II two Higgs doublet model (THDM). Recently, the SUSY-loop corrections to the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling constant have been studied by many authorshbb ; hH . The one-loop-level coupling of a bottom quark to the neutral Higgs fields is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`f_b\overline{b}_Lb_RH_d^0+ϵ_bf_b\overline{b}_Lb_RH_u^0+h.c.,`$ (3)
$`ϵ_b{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _S}{3\pi }}\mu M_3f(M_3^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_t^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mu A_tf(\mu ^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2),`$
$`f(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_3^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x\mathrm{log}x}{1x}}{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{log}y}{1y}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xy}},x{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{m_3^2}},y{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{m_3^2}}`$
where $`ϵ_b`$ is induced by the gluino- and Higgsino-exchange diagrams. In Eq.(3) the second term proportional to $`ϵ_b`$ is absent at the tree level in the MSSM (and also in the type-II THDM). The b-quark mass and the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling constant are then expressed as,

$`m_b`$ $`=`$ $`f_bv_d+f_bϵ_bv_u=f_bv\mathrm{cos}\beta \times (1+ϵ_b\mathrm{tan}\beta ),_{hbb}={\displaystyle \frac{m_b\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }}\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ_b/\mathrm{tan}\alpha }{1+ϵ_b\mathrm{tan}\beta }}\right].`$
We can see that the effect of the $`ϵ_b`$ on the b-quark mass and the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling constant becomes significant when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. In this case the effective theory below the SUSY-breaking scale becomes the general THDM.

The double ratios between the Higgs decay branching ratios are proportional to the following expressions:

$`R_{br}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{tan}\beta )^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+ϵ_b\mathrm{tan}\beta )}{(1ϵ_b/\mathrm{tan}\alpha )}}\right]^2,`$
$`R_\tau `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Br(h\tau ^+\tau ^{})}{Br(hb\overline{b})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1+ϵ_b\mathrm{tan}\beta )}{(1ϵ_b/\mathrm{tan}\alpha )}}\right]^2.`$
When $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large, the effect of $`ϵ_b`$ on the double ratios, $`R_{br}`$ and $`R_\tau `$, becomes significant whereas the ratio $`R_{br}/R_\tau `$ is $`ϵ_b`$ independent. In addition, if the stop mixing parameter $`A_t`$ is large, the SUSY-loop corrections to the Higgs sector modify the approximate relation, $`1/(\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{tan}\beta )^2(m_h^2m_A^2)^2/(m_Z^2+m_A^2)^2`$hH .

We first consider the uncertainties of the decay double ratios for the standard model (SM) Higgs boson due to the SM input parameters; the strong coupling constant $`\widehat{\alpha }_S(m_Z)`$, and the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ running quark masses of the bottom and charm quarks, $`\widehat{m}_b(m_b)`$ and $`\widehat{m}_c(m_c)`$. We assume the following center values and errors; $`\widehat{\alpha }_S(m_Z)=0.1181\pm 0.002,\widehat{m}_b(m_b)=4.20\pm 0.13\text{GeV}(\pm 3\%),\widehat{m}_c(m_c)=1.25\pm 0.06\text{GeV}(\pm 5\%).`$ For the $`hq\overline{q}`$ and $`hgg`$ partial widths, we used the same formulas as in Ref.KOTrbr . In the second column in Table 1, we show the SM theoretical uncertainties for the ratios obtained by varying the input parameters in the above range. In the third column, the expected statistical errors of the double ratios are given for the integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 and 500 fb-1 obtained by scaling the results of Ref.Nakamura . Totals of the theoretical and experimental errors for the three double ratios are shown in the forth column for the integrated luminosity of 100 fb-1 and 500 fb-1 respectively. Assuming the integrated luminosity of 500 fb-1, total errors for the three double ratios are about 10%.

We present the double ratios as functions of $`M_A`$ for typical SUSY parameters. For this purpose we introduce the SUSY-breaking scale $`M_S`$ and set the soft masses for squarks as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}^2=M_S^2`$, and the squark mixing parameters as $`A_t=X_tM_S`$ and $`A_b=0`$, where $`X_t`$ is a dimensionless parameter. Then we can calculate the Higgs masses $`m_{h,H}`$, the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ and the radiatively induced coupling $`ϵ_b`$ in Eq.(3) from the parameter set ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`M_A`$, $`M_S`$, $`X_t`$, $`M_3`$, $`\mu `$). In our numerical calculation, we solve the renormalization group equations of the Higgs sector given in Ref.Haber  to obtain the Higgs boson masses and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$.

In Fig.1 we plot the double ratios $`R_{br}`$ and $`R_\tau `$ in the upper and lower rows respectively for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =`$ 10, 30, and 50 as functions of $`M_A`$. We set ($`M_3`$, $`\mu `$) to (300GeV, 300GeV) and solve $`M_S`$ such that the lightest Higgs mass $`m_{h^0}`$ becomes 120GeV for each $`M_A`$ with fixing the ratio $`X_t`$. For the present parameter set, $`R_{br}`$ has the maximum (minimum) value when $`X_t`$ is set to $`2(2.5)`$ and $`R_\tau `$ has the maximum (minimum) value at $`X_t=1.6(2.5)`$ in the range of $`2.5X_t2.5`$. The dependence of $`X_t`$ comes from both the induced coupling $`ϵ_b`$ and the mixing angle $`\alpha `$. The shaded regions in the graphs for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,30`$ show the constrained region of the CP-odd Higgs mass assuming that $`R_{br}`$ were determined with the 10% accuracy. We can see that $`M_A`$ is well (weakly) constrained by $`R_{br}`$, when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=10 (30). When $`R_{br}`$ receives the significant corrections, $`R_\tau `$ also receives corrections of the similar magnitude. For moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$10, both the ratios $`R_{br}`$ and $`R_{br}/R_\tau `$ are approximately proportional to $`(m_h^2m_A^2)^2/(m_Z^2+m_A^2)^2`$.

To summarize, we estimated the theoretical uncertainties due to the SUSY-loop corrections on the double ratios between the branching fractions of the lightest Higgs boson. In the region of moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$, where LHC will not be able to detect the CP-odd Higgs boson of $`m_A\stackrel{>}{_{}}200`$GeVwas , we can constrain the range of the CP-odd Higgs mass from the ratios, $`R_{br}`$ and $`R_{br}/R_\tau `$. On the other hand, if LHC detects the CP-odd Higgs boson, we may be able to obtain information on the SUSY sector by the branching ratios of the Higgs boson at the future LC.

YO was supported by the Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Government of Japan (No. 09640381), Priority area “Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles” (No. 707), and “Physics of CP Violation” (No. 09246105).