text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of radiative corrections to Standard Model (SM) couplings may provide crucial clues in exploring new physics beyond the reach of present accelerators. In particular, suppose that a light Higgs boson, $`h^0`$, were discovered in the mass range predicted by the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), but supersymmetric (SUSY) particles were not found. Then, a precise measurement of Higgs couplings to SM particles, which are sensitive to radiative corrections, could provide indirect information about the existence of SUSY in Nature and some indication of the preferred region of the SUSY parameter space. For example, one could predict (in the context of the MSSM) whether the data favored a SUSY spectrum below the 1 TeV energy scale. Similar studies can be performed by considering alternative observables as, for instance, the partial widths of top and Higgs decays into SM particles, and by comparing their predictions in the MSSM and the SM.

In this comparison of the MSSM and SM predictions for observables involving SM particles in the external legs, it is interesting to consider some particular limiting situations. The first one is when the genuine SUSY spectrum is very heavy as compared to the electroweak scale, $`M_{SUSY}M_Z`$, where $`M_{SUSY}`$ represents generically the masses of the SUSY particles. This situation corresponds to the decoupling of SUSY particles from the rest of the MSSM spectrum, namely, the SM particles and the MSSM Higgs sector containing $`h^0`$, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$. The second one is when the extra Higgs bosons, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$ are very heavy, but $`h^0`$ and the genuine SUSY particles are closer to the electroweak scale. This decoupling limit can be reached by considering $`M_AM_Z`$, where $`M_A`$ is the mass of the CP-odd neutral Higgs boson of the MSSM. In addition, there is the limiting situation where both $`M_{SUSY}`$ and $`M_A`$ are large, and the decoupling of all non-standard particles from the SM physics is expected. This decoupling is known to occur in tree-level physics and in some one-loop physics. In particular, the tree-level couplings of $`h^0`$ to fermion pairs and gauge bosons tend to their SM values if $`M_AM_Z`$ . As a consequence of this decoupling, distinguishing the lightest MSSM Higgs boson in the large $`M_A`$ limit from the Higgs boson of the SM will be very difficult.

Formally, the decoupling of all non-standard MSSM particles implies that in the effective low-energy theory, all observables involving SM particles in the external legs tend to their SM values in the limit of large SUSY masses and large $`M_A`$. It has been shown that all the genuine SUSY particles in the MSSM and the heavy Higgs bosons $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$ and $`H^\pm `$, decouple at one-loop order from the low-energy electroweak gauge boson physics . In particular, the contributions of the SUSY particles to low-energy processes either fall as inverse powers of the SUSY mass parameters or can be absorbed into counterterms for the tree-level couplings of the low-energy theory and, therefore, they decouple in the same spirit as established in the Appelquist-Carazzone Theorem . As a result, the radiative corrections involving SUSY particles go to zero in the asymptotic large SUSY mass limit.

Our purpose here is to determine the decoupling behaviour in the previous limiting situations of several observables, including radiative corrections at one-loop, with the hope that for some of them either the decoupling does not occur totally or, in case it occurs, it proceeds slowly such that there may remain significant signals of new physics beyond SM, even for a heavy SUSY spectra.

In this paper we focus on the partial widths of $`h^0b\overline{b}`$, $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ and $`tW^+b`$ decays, with special emphasis on the first one, whose corresponding branching ratio will be crucial for the experimental Higgs boson searches at the upcoming Tevatron Run 2 . We study the MSSM radiative corrections to these observables at the one-loop level and to leading order in $`\alpha _s`$, and we analyze in detail their behavior in the previously mentioned decoupling limits. These corrections are due to the SUSY-QCD (SQCD) sector and arise from gluinos and third generation-squark exchange. Because of the dependence on the strong coupling constant, these are expected to be the most significant one-loop MSSM contributions over much of the MSSM parameter space. We will show that in the limit of large $`M_A`$ (in this limit one also has $`M_{H^0},M_{H^\pm }M_Z`$) and large sbottom and gluino masses ($`M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i},M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}M_Z`$), the SM expression for the $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ one-loop partial width is recovered . That is, the SQCD corrections to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0b\overline{b})`$ partial width decouple in the limit of large SUSY masses and large $`M_A`$. In particular, we examine the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for which the SQCD corrections are enhanced. This enhancement can delay the onset of decoupling and give rise to a significant one-loop correction, even for moderate to large values of the SUSY masses. This decoupling, however, does not occur, if either $`M_{SUSY}`$ (characterizing a common mass scale for gluino and sbottom masses) or $`M_A`$ are kept fixed while the other is taken large. A similar non-decoupling phenomenon of the SQCD corrections to one-loop when $`M_A`$ is fixed and the sbottom, stop and gluinos masses are considered large is found in the $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ decay . The SQCD corrections to one-loop in the $`tW^+b`$ decay, however, do decouple and this decoupling proceeds fast. We present here just a summary of the main results and refer the reader to refs.  for more details.

## 2 Decoupling limit in the Higgs sector

The decoupling limit in the Higgs sector of the MSSM was first studied in ref. . In short, it is defined by considering the CP-odd Higgs mass much larger than the electroweak scale, $`M_AM_Z`$, and leads to a particular spectrum in the Higgs sector with very heavy $`H^0`$, $`H^\pm `$ and $`A^0`$ bosons, and a light $`h^0`$ boson. For a review of the MSSM Higgs sector, see ref. .

At tree level, if $`M_AM_Z`$, the Higgs masses are,

$`M_{H^o}M_{H^\pm }M_AM_Z,M_{h^o}M_Z|cos2\beta |.`$
That is, at tree-level there exists a CP-even Higgs, $`h^0`$, lighter than the $`Z`$ boson.

Concerning the neutral Higgs couplings, their tree-level values in the MSSM normalized to SM couplings and for arbitrary $`M_A`$, are given in table 1.

Notice that by expanding in inverse powers of $`M_A`$, we get:

$`\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}\beta }1+𝒪`$$`(M_Z^2/M_A^2)`$$`,`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}\beta }1+𝒪`$$`(M_Z^2/M_A^2)`$

$`\mathrm{sin}(\beta \alpha )1+𝒪`$$`(M_Z^4/M_A^4)`$.

Therefore, the $`h^0`$ tree-level couplings in the decoupling limit, $`M_AM_Z`$, tend to their SM values, as expected.

Beyond tree level, it has been shown  that, in this same decoupling limit, the Higgs masses keep a similar pattern as at tree level, that is, very heavy $`H^0`$, $`H^\pm `$ and $`A^0`$ bosons, and a light $`h^0`$ boson. The particular values of their masses depend of course on the MSSM parameters, but for $`M_AM_Z`$,

$`M_{H^o}M_{H^\pm }M_AM_Z,`$

$`M_{h^o}130135GeV.`$

In this work we will go beyond tree level and study the decoupling behaviour of heavy SUSY particles and heavy Higgses, at one-loop level, in Higgs bosons and top quark decays.

## 3 Decoupling limit in the SUSY-QCD sector

The sbottom and stop mass matrices, in the MSSM, are given respectively by:

$$\widehat{M}_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_b^2M_Z^2(\frac{1}{2}+Q_bs_W^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta & m_b(A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )\\ m_b(A_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta )& M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^2+m_b^2+M_Z^2Q_bs_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \end{array}\right)$$

and

$$\widehat{M}_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2+m_t^2+M_Z^2(\frac{1}{2}Q_ts_W^2)\mathrm{cos}2\beta & m_t(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )\\ m_t(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )& M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}^2+m_t^2+M_Z^2Q_ts_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \end{array}\right)$$

In order to get heavy squarks and heavy gluinos, we need to choose properly the soft SUSY breaking parameters and the $`\mu `$-parameter. Since here we are interested in the limiting situation where the whole SUSY spectrum is heavier than the electroweak scale, we have made the following assumptions for the soft breaking squark mass parameters, trilinear terms, $`\mu `$-parameter and gluino mass (see ref.  for more details),

$$M_{SUSY}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu A_bA_tM_Z,$$

where $`M_{SUSY}`$ represents generically a common SUSY large mass scale.

Besides, we have considered two extreme cases, maximal and minimal mixing, which, for the large mass limit we are studing, imply certain constraints on the squark mass differences. Thus, given the generic mass matrix,

$$\widehat{M}_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L^2& m_qX_q\\ m_qX_q& M_R^2\end{array}\right),$$

the two limiting cases are reached by choosing the relative size of $`M_{L,R}`$ and $`X_q`$ as follows,

A.-Close to maximal mixing: $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\pm 45^{}`$

$$|M_L^2M_R^2|m_qX_q|M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2||M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2|$$

B.-Close to minimal mixing: $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}0^{}`$

$$|M_L^2M_R^2|m_qX_q|M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2|𝒪|M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2|$$

Here we have included the corresponding implications for the squark mass differences.

## 4 SUSY-QCD corrections to $`h^o\overline{b}b`$ in the decoupling limit

In this section we study the SUSY-QCD corrections to the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^o\overline{b}b)`$ at the one-loop level and to leading order in perturbative QCD, that is $`𝒪`$($`\alpha _S`$). We will then explore the decoupling behaviour of these corrections for large SUSY masses, $`M_{SUSY}`$, and/or large $`M_A`$. Both numerical and analytical results will be presented .

For the $`h^0`$ mass range predicted by the MSSM, the decay channel $`h^o\overline{b}b`$ is by far the dominant one (except in some special regions of parameter space at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), and the precise value of its branching ratio will be crucial for the $`h^0`$ final experimental reach at the Tevatron.

Among the various contributions to this decay width, the QCD corrections are known to be the dominant ones. At the one-loop level and to order $`\alpha _S`$ these can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(h^ob\overline{b})\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(h^ob\overline{b})(1+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}),$$

where, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(h^ob\overline{b})`$ is the tree level width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}`$ is the one-loop contribution from standard QCD and, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ is the one-loop contribution from the SUSY-QCD sector of the MSSM. The QCD correction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}`$, gives a $`50\%`$ reduction in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^ob\overline{b})`$ decay rate for $`M_{h^0}`$ in its MSSM range  . This correction has the same form in the MSSM as in the SM, so that it gives no information in distinguishing the MSSM from the SM. The SQCD correction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$, was first computed in the on-shell scheme by using a diagrammatic approach in ref.  and later studied in detail in . The SQCD corrections to the $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ coupling were also computed in an effective Lagrangian approach in ref. , using the SUSY contributions to the $`b`$-quark self energy  and neglecting terms suppressed by inverse powers of SUSY masses. The size of the SQCD correction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$, and the QCD correction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}`$, are comparable for a wide window of the MSSM parameter space. In some regions of the MSSM parameter space, the SQCD corrections become so large that it is important to take into account higher-order corrections. The two-loop SQCD corrections have been studied in a diagrammatic approach in ref. . A higher-order analysis has also been carried out in refs.  by resumming the leading $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ contributions to all orders of perturbation theory and by using an effective Lagrangian approach. However, this resummation is not important in our present work because we are interested in the decoupling limit, in which the one-loop corrections to the $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ coupling are small. Thus, for the present analysis we will just keep the one-loop corrections.

To one-loop and $`𝒪`$($`\alpha _S`$) there are two type of diagrams, shown in Fig. 1, that contribute to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{loops}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{CT}}.$$

The triangle diagram, with exchange of sbottoms and gluinos, contributes to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{loops}}`$, whereas the bottom self-energy diagram contributes to the counter-terms part $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{CT}}`$. The exact results in the on-shell scheme are summarized by,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{loops}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\{[{\displaystyle \frac{2M_Z^2}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}(I_3^b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}Q_bs_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}})+2m_b+Y_b\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}]`$
$`\times \left[m_bC_{11}+M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}C_0\right](m_b^2,M_{h^o}^2,m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2)`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2M_Z^2}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}(I_3^b\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}+Q_bs_W^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}})+2m_bY_b\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\right]`$
$`\times \left[m_bC_{11}M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}C_0\right](m_b^2,M_{h^o}^2,m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}(I_3^b2Q_bs_W^2)\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}+Y_b\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\right]`$
$`\times \left[2M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}C_0(m_b^2,M_{h^o}^2,m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)\right]\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{CT}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_b}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}[B_0(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2)B_0(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)]`$
$`2m_b^2\left[B_1^{}(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2)+B_1^{}(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)\right]`$
$`2m_bM_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}[B_0^{}(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2)B_0^{}(m_b^2;M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)]\},`$
where we have used the standard notation for masses, couplings and mixing angles, and we have followed the definitions and conventions for the one-loop integrals $`B_0`$, $`B_0^{}`$, $`B_1^{}`$, $`C_0`$ and $`C_{11}`$ of ref. . Notice that

$$Y_bA_b+\mu \mathrm{cot}\alpha $$

appears in $`h^o\stackrel{~}{b}_R\stackrel{~}{b}_L`$ coupling and, therefore, will be responsible for sizeable contributions in the large $`A_b`$ and/or $`\mu `$ limit. Our results agree with those of refs. .

In order to compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ in the decoupling limit of very heavy sbottoms and gluinos, we have considered the following simple assumption for the MSSM parameters,

$$M_{SUSY}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu A_bM_Z$$

where the symbol ’$``$’ means ’of the order of’ but not necessarily equal. We have performed a systematic expansion of the one-loop integrals and the mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}`$ in inverse powers of the large SUSY mass parameters. The resulting formulas of these expansions can be found in ref. . Thus, by defining

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2\frac{1}{2}(M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2),R\frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S},X_bA_b\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta $$

and including terms up to $`𝒪(M_{Z,h^o}^2/\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2)`$ in the expansion, we get the following result for the maximal mixing case, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}\pm 45^{}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\alpha )f_1(R){\displaystyle \frac{Y_bM_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_h^2}{12\stackrel{~}{M}_S^4}}f_4(R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}I_3^b(f_5(R)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}X_b}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}f_2(R))+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\right)\}`$
where the functions $`f_i(R)`$ are defined in ref.  and have been normalized as $`f_i(1)=1`$.

Notice that the first term is the dominant one in the limit of large $`M_{SUSY}`$ mass parameters and does not vanish in the asymptotic limit of infinitely large $`\stackrel{~}{M}_S`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`\mu `$. The second and third terms are respectively of $`𝒪(M_{h^o}^2/M_{SUSY}^2)`$ and $`𝒪(M_Z^2/M_{SUSY}^2)`$ and vanish in the previous asymptotic limit. Therefore the first term gives a non-decoupling SUSY contribution to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^ob\overline{b})`$ partial width which can be of phenomenological interest. Moreover, since this term is enhanced at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ it can provide important corrections to the branching ratio $`BR(h^ob\overline{b})`$, even for a very heavy SUSY spectrum. The sign of these corrections are fixed by the sign of $`\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. The previous result when expressed in terms of the $`h^0`$ effective coupling to $`b\overline{b}`$ agrees with the result in ref.  based on the zero external momentum approximation or, equivalently, the effective Lagrangian approach.

From our previous result, we conclude that there is no decoupling of sbottoms and gluinos in the limit of large SUSY mass parameters for fixed $`M_A`$. Notice that this result is at first sight surprising, since most numerical studies done so far on this subject indicate decoupling of heavy SUSY particles from SM physics111It should also be noticed that, strictly speaking, the decoupling theorem  is not applicable to the MSSM case, since it is a theory that incorporates the SM chiral fermions and the SM electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking. For a more detailed discussion on this, see ref. . How do we then recover decoupling of the heavy MSSM spectra from the SM low energy physics? The answer to this question relies in the fact that in order to converge to SM predictions we need to consider not just a heavy SUSY spectra but also a heavy Higgs sector. That is, besides large $`M_{SUSY}`$, the condition of large $`M_A`$ is also needed. Thus, if $`M_AM_Z`$ the light Higgs $`h^0`$ behaves as the SM Higgs boson, and the extra heavy Higgses $`A`$, $`H^\pm `$ and $`H^0`$ decouple. The decoupling of SUSY particles and the extra Higgs bosons in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ is seen explicitely once the large $`M_A`$ limit of the mixing angle $`\alpha `$ is considered,

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha =\mathrm{tan}\beta 2\frac{M_Z^2}{M_A^2}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta +𝒪\left(\frac{M_Z^4}{M_A^4}\right).$$

By substituting this into our previous result we see that the non-decoupling terms cancel out and we get finally,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}f_1(R)\mathrm{tan}\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{M_A^2}}X_b{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{h^o}^2}{12\stackrel{~}{M}_S^4}}f_4(R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\mathrm{cos}2\beta I_3^b(f_5(R)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}X_b}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}f_2(R))+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\right)\}`$
which clearly vanishes in the asymptotic limit of $`M_{SUSY}`$ and $`M_A\mathrm{}`$.

In conclusion, we get decoupling of the SQCD sector in $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ decays, if and only if, both $`M_{SUSY}`$ and $`M_A`$ are large. In this limit, the dominant terms go as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}C_1\frac{M_Z^2}{M_A^2}+C_2\frac{M_{Z,h^0}^2}{M_{SUSY}^2},$$

and, since both $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we expect this decoupling to be delayed for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. Last but not least, we see that the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ is given by the sign of $`\mu `$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$. All these results are similar for the near zero mixing case, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}0^{}`$; for brevity we do not show these here (see ref. ).

Finally, in order to show this decoupling numerically, we have studied a simple example where there is just one relevant MSSM scale, $`M_S`$. More specifically, we have chosen,

$$M_S=M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=\mu =A_b=M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_A,$$

which, in the limit $`M_SM_Z`$, gives maximal mixing, $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}45^{}`$. In Fig. 2 we show the numerical results for the exact one-loop SQCD corrections, as a function of this common MSSM mass scale $`M_S`$, and for several values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We can see in this figure clearly the decoupling of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ with $`M_S`$. This decoupling goes as $`1/M_S^2`$, in agreement with our analytical result, and is delayed for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. The typical size of this correction is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}10\%`$ for $`M_S250GeV`$. Notice that the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ here is negative because of our choice of positive $`\mu `$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$.

## 5 Comparing the decoupling behaviour of the various MSSM sectors in $`h^ob\overline{b}`$ decay

In this section we study and compare the decoupling behaviour of the different MSSM sectors that are relevant in the one-loop SQCD corrections to $`h^ob\overline{b}`$ decay. As we have discussed in the previous section, these are: the extra Higgs bosons, $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$, $`H^\pm `$, gluinos $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and sbottoms $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{1,2}`$. As regard to the Higgs sector, we have seen that there is no independent decoupling of these heavy $`H^0`$, $`A^0`$, $`H^\pm `$ Higgs bosons in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$, unless the SQCD sector is also considered heavy. To illustrate this, we have ploted in Fig. 3 the numerical results of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ as a function of $`M_A`$ for several fixed values of the common SUSY scale $`M_S=M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=\mu =A_b=M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =8`$.

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ does not tend to zero for large $`M_A`$ but to a non-vanishing constant is a clear indication of a non-decoupling behaviour with $`M_A`$ for fixed $`M_S`$. Similarly, we have shown that there is no independent decoupling of the SQCD particles. That is, if we consider large values of the common SQCD scale $`M_S`$, while keeping $`M_A`$ fixed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ approaches to a non-vanishing constant. This is illustrated clearly in Fig. 4.

In these Figs. 3 and 4 we also show a comparison of the exact formula with our asymptotic expansion, valid for large $`M_S`$. We have seen that the large $`M_S`$ expansion provides a very good approximation to the exact result for most of the ($`M_S,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) parameter space, except for sufficiently low $`M_S`$ and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values.

Next, we consider the independent decoupling of gluinos. By performing a second expansion in inverse powers of the gluino mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, which is relevant in the heavy gluino limit $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{M}_S\mu A_bM_Z`$, we get:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\alpha )(1\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\right))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_b}{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}I_3^b{\displaystyle \frac{Y_b}{3M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}}\right)\}.`$
This yields a very slow decoupling with $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, due to the logarithmic dependence, and agrees with the previous exact numerical results of ref. . For illustration we show in Fig. 5 our exact numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ as a function of $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, for fixed $`M_A=M_S`$ value and for several $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values.

This very slow decoupling with $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ may have important phenomenological consequences, in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime, because the SQCD correction can reach sizeable values, even for large gluino masses. For instance, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=1TeV`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}=12\%`$, which is not a small effect.

Finally, we have studied the independent decoupling of sbottoms. By performing an expansion in inverse powers of the average sbottom mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_S`$, which is relevant in the heavy sbottoms limit, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_SM_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu A_bM_Z`$ we find the following result:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }}I_3^b+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\right)\right\}`$
It shows a fast decoupling behaviour as $`\stackrel{~}{M}_S`$ is taken large. This same behaviour is also manifest in our exact numerical results shown in Fig. 6

## 6 SUSY-QCD corrections to $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ in the decoupling limit

In this section we study the SUSY-QCD corrections to the partial decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+t\overline{b})`$ at the one-loop level and to $`𝒪`$$`(\alpha _S)`$. We will then analyze these corrections in the decoupling limit of large SUSY masses. We will present here just a short summary of the main numerical and analytical results, and refer the reader to ref.  for a more detailed study.

If all SUSY particles are heavy enough, $`H^+`$ decays dominantly into $`t\overline{b}`$ above the $`t\overline{b}`$ threshold. As in the case of $`h^0b\overline{b}`$, the dominant radiative corrections to $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ decay are the QCD corrections. At the one-loop level and to $`𝒪`$$`(\alpha _S)`$ the corresponding partial width can be written as,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(H^+t\overline{b})\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(H^+t\overline{b})(1+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(H^+t\overline{b})`$ is the tree-level width, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{QCD}`$ is the correction from standard QCD, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ is the correction from SUSY-QCD. The standard QCD corrections were computed in ref.  and can be large ($`+10\%`$ to $`50\%`$). The SUSY-QCD corrections were computed by using a diagrammatic approach in refs.  and can be comparable or even larger than the standard QCD corrections in a large region of the SUSY parameter space.

At the one-loop level and to $`𝒪(\alpha _S)`$ there are two type of diagrams that contribute to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{loops}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{CT}},$$

as shown in Fig. 7.

The triangle diagram, with exchange of sbottoms, stops and gluinos, contributes to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{loops}}`$, whereas the bottom and top self-energy diagrams contribute to the counter-terms part $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{\mathrm{CT}}`$. The exact results in the on-shell scheme are summarized by,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{loops}={\displaystyle \frac{U_t}{D}}H_t+{\displaystyle \frac{U_b}{D}}H_b,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}^{CT}={\displaystyle \frac{U_t}{D}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_t}{m_t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_L^b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_R^t\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{U_b}{D}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_L^t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_R^b\right),`$
where,

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{H^+}^2m_t^2m_b^2)(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )4m_t^2m_b^2,`$
$`U_t`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{H^+}^2m_t^2m_b^2)m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta 2m_t^2m_b^2,`$
$`U_b`$ $`=`$ $`(M_{H^+}^2m_t^2m_b^2)m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 2m_t^2m_b^2,`$
$`H_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{ab}^{}}{m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta }}[m_tR_{1b}^{(t)}R_{1a}^{(b)}(C_{11}C_{12})+m_bR_{2b}^{(t)}R_{2a}^{(b)}C_{12}`$
$`+M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}R_{2b}^{(t)}R_{1a}^{(b)}C_0](m_t^2,m_{H^+}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_b}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_a}^2),`$
$`H_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{ab}^{}}{m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta }}[m_tR_{2b}^{(t)}R_{2a}^{(b)}(C_{11}C_{12})+m_bR_{1b}^{(t)}R_{1a}^{(b)}C_{12}`$
$`+M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}R_{1b}^{(t)}R_{2a}^{(b)}C_0](m_t^2,m_{H^+}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_b}^2,M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_a}^2),`$
and the counter-terms are given in the on-shell scheme by,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{(t,b)}}{m_{(t,b)}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_L^{(b,t)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta Z_R^{(t,b)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_S^{(t,b)}(m_{(t,b)}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^{(t,b)}(m_{(t,b)}^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^{(b,t)}(m_{(b,t)}^2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^t^{}(m_t^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^t^{}(m_t^2)+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_S^t^{}(m_t^2)\right]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{2}}\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^b^{}(m_b^2)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^b^{}(m_b^2)+2\mathrm{\Sigma }_S^b^{}(m_b^2)\right]`$
where,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L^q(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}|R_{1a}^{(q)}|^2B_1(p^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_a}^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R^q(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}|R_{2a}^{(q)}|^2B_1(p^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_a}^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_S^q(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{m_q}}\mathrm{Re}(R_{1a}^{(q)}R_{2a}^{(q)})B_0(p^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_a}^2).`$
The $`G_{ab}`$ parametrize the $`H^+\stackrel{~}{b}_a\stackrel{~}{t}_b`$ couplings, and the $`R^{(q)}`$ are the rotation matrices that relate the interaction-eigenstate squarks to the mass-eigenstates. Their values in the MSSM can be found, for instance, in ref. . The above result agrees with the original computation of refs. .

In order to compute $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ in the decoupling limit of large SUSY masses, we have considered all the soft-SUSY-breaking mass parameters and the $`\mu `$ parameter to be of the same order (collectively denoted by $`M_{SUSY}`$) and much heavier than the electroweak scale,

$$M_{SUSY}M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mu A_tA_bM_{EW},$$

and we have performed a systematic expansion in inverse powers of the large SUSY mass parameters. Notice that in this case it does not make sense to consider the alternative limit of large $`M_A`$, since this parameter provides the charged Higgs mass value and, therefore, it must be fixed. We have obtained analytical expansions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ that include up to $`𝒪(M_{EW}^2/M_{SUSY}^2)`$ corrections, for all the interesting limiting cases of maximal and minimal mixing, in both the stop and the sbottom sectors. For brevity, we do not present here the complete results, which can be found in ref. , and we just show the most relevant result, that is, the dominant term in this expansion for the particular choice of maximal mixing. Thus, for $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b},\stackrel{~}{t}}45^o`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2\frac{1}{2}(M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2)\frac{1}{2}(M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)`$ we get:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\left(\mathrm{tan}\beta +\mathrm{cot}\beta \right)f_1(R)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{EW}^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}_S^2}}\right)\right\}`$
This leading term does not vanish in the heavy SUSY particle limit and, therefore, there is no decoupling of stops, sbottoms and gluinos in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+t\overline{b})`$ decay width to one-loop level. This can be seen clearly, for instance, for the simplest case of equal mass scales, $`\mu =M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\stackrel{~}{M}_S`$, where $`f_1(R)=1`$. This leading term, when expressed in terms of an effective coupling of $`H^+`$ to $`b\overline{t}`$ is in agreement with the previous results of refs.  that were obtained in the zero external momentum approximation by using an effective Lagrangian approach. We see in this result the enhancement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, so that this non-decoupling effect can be numerically important for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values. As in the case of $`h^0`$, the sign of the SQCD correction is determined by the sign of $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ and $`\mu `$. We have obtained similar results for the case of minimal mixing, as can be seen in .

Finally, in order to illustrate this non-decoupling behaviour numerically, we present in Fig. 8 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ correction as a function of a common SUSY mass scale $`M_S=M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=A_b=A_t=\mu `$. The Higgs mass has been fixed to $`m_{H^+}=250GeV`$, and several values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ have been considered. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ tends to a non-vanishing value for very large $`M_S`$ shows precisely this non-decoupling effect. The correction is quite sizeable, even for a very heavy SUSY spectrum. This is particularly noticeable for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In addition, we have proved the independent decoupling of the gluinos and squarks whenever they are considered separately very heavy as compared to the electroweak scale. Futhermore, the decoupling of gluinos is much slower than the decoupling of squarks due again to the logarithmic dependence on the gluino mass. In Fig. 9 we show the exact numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ as a function of the gluino mass and for $`M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=A_b=A_t=\mu =1TeV`$ and $`m_{H^+}=250GeV`$. We see clearly the very slow decoupling of the correction with the gluino mass and notice the large size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$, specially for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For instance, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2`$ TeV we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}=40\%`$. Notice that the size can be so large that the validity of the perturbative expansion can be questionable. We refer the reader to refs.  where this subject is studied and some techniques of resummation for a better convergence of the series are proposed.

## 7 SUSY-QCD corrections to $`tW^+b`$ in the decoupling limit

In this section we briefly comment on the SUSY-QCD corrections to $`tW^+b`$ at the one-loop level and to $`𝒪(\alpha _S)`$, and we study them in the decoupling limit. These radiative corrections were studied in the context of the MSSM in ref.  and are known to be important for some regions of the MSSM parameter space. The standard QCD corrections are also known to be important and give a $`10\%`$ reduction in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tW^+b)`$ . The Feynman diagrams that contribute to the SQCD corrections are shown in Fig. 10.

The size of the SQCD corrections has been estimated to range between $`5\%`$ and $`10\%`$ and are quite insensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . In contrast, the SUSY-Electroweak corrections that range between $`1\%`$ and $`10\%`$ are known to grow with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ .

In order to analyze the decoupling limit in this observable we have chosen the simplest case with just one SUSY scale, $`M_S`$, which is considered very large as compared to the electroweak scale, $`M_{EW}`$,

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{U}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=A_t=A_b=\mu =M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_SM_{EW}.$$

After performing an expansion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ (we use here an analogous notation as in previous sections) in inverse powers of $`M_S`$ we have obtained the following result for the dominant contribution,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SQCD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{M_S^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(1\mathrm{cot}\beta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(1\mathrm{cot}\beta )\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_tm_W,m_W^2,\mathrm{}}{M_S^2}}\right)`$
From this result, we conclude that there is decoupling as $`M_S`$ becomes large in the SQCD corrections to the dominant top decay, $`tW^+b`$, and this decoupling which behaves as $`(m_t^2/M_S^2)`$ is not delayed. Indeed, we see in the previous equation that these corrections are not enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Thus, we do not expect relevant indirect signals from a heavy SUSY-QCD sector in this decay channel.

## 8 Conclusions

In this work we have studied the one-loop SQCD corrections to the partial widths of $`h^0b\overline{b}`$, $`H^+t\overline{b}`$ and $`tW^+b`$ decays, in the limit of large SUSY masses. In order to understand analytically the behavior of the SQCD corrections in this limit, we have performed expansions of the one-loop partial widths that are valid for large values of the SUSY mass parameters compared to the electroweak scale. We have shown that for the SUSY mass parameters and $`M_A`$ large and all of the same order, the SQCD corrections in $`h^0b\overline{b}`$ decay decouple like the inverse square of these mass parameters, and the one-loop partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0b\overline{b})`$ tends to its SM value. In this case the effective low energy theory that one obtains after integrating out all the heavy non-standard modes of the MSSM is precisely the SM. However, if the mass parameters are not all of the same size, then this behavior can be modified. If $`M_A`$ is light, then the SQCD corrections to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(h^0b\overline{b})`$ decay width do not decouple in the limit of large SUSY mass parameters. We have also presented and discussed here a similar non-decoupling SQCD correction to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+t\overline{b})`$ decay width. Given the closely related structure of the various Higgs bosons couplings to the SM fermions, one expects that similar SUSY non-decoupling effects will appear as well in other decay channels such as $`H^0b\overline{b}`$, $`A^0b\overline{b}`$ and $`tH^+b`$. In the limit of large SUSY mass parameters and light $`M_A`$ the effective low-energy theory, valid at the electroweak scale, should contain two full Higgs doublets with Higgs-fermion couplings of the general type-III model  that have no restrictions (other than those imposed by the SM symmetries), since supersymmetry is not anymore a symmetry of this low-energy theory. The particular values of the couplings in this low-energy effective Lagrangian are generated by integrating out all the heavy SUSY particles from the original MSSM Lagrangian, and they can be computed . These non-decoupling SQCD corrections can be of phenomenological interest at present and future colliders. In particular they can provide some clues in the indirect search of a heavy SUSY spectrum at the LHC .

We have also examined, in Higgs decays, some special cases in which there is a hierarchy among the SUSY mass parameters. In the case of maximal squark mixing with $`M_S`$ large and the other SUSY mass parameters and $`M_A`$ of order a common mass scale $`M`$ (chosen such that $`M_{EW}MM_S`$), the SQCD corrections decouple like $`M^2/M_S^2`$. Second, we examined the case of a large gluino mass with the other SUSY mass parameters of order a common mass scale $`M`$ (chosen such that $`M_{EW}MM_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$). In this case we found that the SQCD corrections decouple more slowly, like $`(M/M_{\stackrel{~}{g}})\mathrm{log}(M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2/M_S^2)`$.

Finally we have studied the dominant decay of the top quark, in the decoupling limit of large SUSY mass parameters, and we have found that the SQCD corrections decouple as $`𝒪(\frac{m_t^2}{M_S^2})`$. It will be, therefore, very difficult to look for indirect heavy SUSY signals in this channel.

Acknowledgments

M.J.H. wish to thank Howard E. Haber and the Organizing Committee for the kind invitation to give a talk at this Symposium and for the enjoyable atmosphere at this interesting conference. S.P. acknowledges H.E. Haber for the invitation to attend this Symposium. This work has been supported in part by the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura under project CICYT AEN97-1678. S.P. has been partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG03-92ER40689 and by Ramon Areces Foundation. S.R. has been partially supported by the European Union through contract ERBFMBICT972474. H.E.H. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-FG03-92ER40689. Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract no. DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the U.S. Department of Energy.


format: text

text:
# On M-9-branes and their dimensional reductions

## 1 Introduction

M-theory is a candidate for a unified theory of particle interactions and is conjectured to be the 11-dimensional (11D) theory which gives 5 perturbative 10-dimensional (10D) string theories in different kinds of limits. In discussing properties of these theories, (p+1)-dimensional objects, called p-branes, play many crucial roles, so, it is important to clarify what kinds of branes exist in each of the theories. Brane scan via superalgebra is one of the methods to discuss them, by which BPS branes possible to exist in the theories are predicted (see also ). For the case $`p7`$, all the p-branes predicted to exist in M-, IIA and IIB string theories, have corresponding solutions in each of their supergravity theories. As for the p-branes with $`p8`$, however, there is a problem, as we will explain later. In this work we will discuss these branes, since p-branes with $`p8`$ are very important in that M- and string theories with 16 supercharges are expected to be constructed by using these branes (see ref. and references therein).

To be concrete, one kind of 9-brane is suggested to exist in M-theory, one kinds of 8-brane and 9-brane are predicted in IIA, and two kinds of 9-branes are in IIB. The first one is called ”M-9-brane”, and the others are called or identified with D-8-brane, NS-9A-brane, D-9-brane and NS-9B-brane, respectively, based on the consideration of their kind of charges. Taking into account the dimensions and the duality relations of the theories, the relation of the p-branes for $`p8`$, suggested based on superalgebra, is represented as Figure 1.

However, there is the following problem with the M-9-brane, or 11D origins of the D-8-brane solution and massive IIA supergravity (SUGRA). The BPS D-8-brane arising in the IIA string, actually, has a corresponding solution not in the usual IIA but in the massive IIA SUGRA with nonvanishing cosmological term. This is because a BPS D-8-brane in 10 dimensions is a domain wall with some electric charge of a RR 9-form gauge field, giving rise to a constant field strength, whose dual we denote as a mass parameter $`m`$. This field strength contributes to the action as a cosmological constant $`m^2/2`$. In other words, such domain wall solutions cannot be constructed without cosmological term. In 11 dimensions (11D), however, no deformation to include a cosmological term is allowed if Riemannian geometry and covariant action are assumed. Thus, there is no naive M-9-brane solution in 11D, and the origin of the D-8-brane and massive IIA SUGRA are still unclear.

There are several approaches to solve this problem and one of them is ”massive 11D theory”. This is a trial theory, constructed on the basis of the idea that the problem may imply the need to modify the framework of 11D SUGRA. Suppose a Killing isometry is assumed in the 11D background. Then, the no-go theorem is avoided and the massive 11D theory, which is written in terms of an 11-dimensional theory at least formally, can be defined; it gives the 10D massive IIA SUGRA on dimensional reduction along the isometry direction (which is parametrized by the coordinate $`z`$), and gives usual 11D SUGRA in the massless limit $`m0`$ if the dependence of the fields on $`z`$ is restored. Moreover, the M-9-brane solution, i.e. the solution which gives a D-8-brane solution on the dimensional reduction along $`z`$, is obtained in this theory. We note that only the bosonic sectors have been discussed in this massive 11D theory, though its bulk theory is called “super”gravity. We also note that the isometry direction is interpreted as a compactified direction like $`S^1`$, and the M-9-brane is considered to be wrapped around it. We follow the above idea and study the relation of branes within this framework.

To be concrete, we will discuss the relation from the viewpoint of worldvolume effective action (WVEA). In fact, almost all of the WVEA’s of the branes have been already obtained. However, only the Wess-Zumino (WZ) term of the M-9-brane $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ has not yet been obtained. So, as for the WZ terms, consistency of the relation in Figure 1 has not been established. In other words, even within this framework, the consistency of the relation of the branes has not been established yet. The purpose of this work is to construct $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ and to examine the consistency of the relation of the p-branes with $`p8`$ from the viewpoint of worldvolume effective action.

The concrete procedures are as follows: First, we introduce a 10-form gauge potential into the theory consistently because the M-9-brane is expected to couple to it. Then, we construct the M-9-brane WZ action using the 10-form and examine the consistency of the action in certain two ways. Finally, we investigate two kinds of dimensional reductions of the action.

This talk is based on work .

## 2 The M-9-brane WZ action and its dimensional reductions

First, we briefly review the massive 11D SUGRA. The bosonic field content is the same as that of the usual (massless) 11D SUGRA: the metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and a 3-form gauge potential $`\widehat{C}_{\mu \nu \rho }`$. In this theory these fields are required to have a Killing isometry, i.e., $`_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}_{\mu \nu \rho }=0`$ where $`_{\widehat{k}}`$ indicates a Lie derivative with respect to a Killing vector field $`\widehat{k}^\mu `$. (We fix the coordinates so that $`\widehat{k}^\mu =\delta ^{\mu z}`$.) The infinitesimal gauge transformations of the fields are defined as

$`\delta \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=m[\widehat{\lambda }_\mu (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{g})_\nu +\widehat{\lambda }_\nu (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{g})_\mu ],`$
$`\delta \widehat{C}_{\mu \nu \rho }=3_{[\mu }\widehat{\chi }_{\nu \rho ]}3m\widehat{\lambda }_{[\mu }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\nu \rho ]}`$ (1)
where $`(i_{\widehat{k}}T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{r1}}^{(r)})\widehat{k}^\mu T_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{r1}\mu }^{(r)}`$ for a field $`T^{(r)}`$. $`\widehat{\chi }`$ is the infinitesimal 2-form gauge parameter, $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ is defined as $`\widehat{\lambda }_\mu (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{\chi })_\mu `$, and $`m`$ is a constant mass parameter. Then, a connection for the massive gauge transformations should be introduced. The new total connection takes the form $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_a^{bc}=\widehat{\omega }_a^{bc}+\widehat{K}_a^{bc}`$111 We use $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ for local Lorentz indices. where $`\widehat{\omega }_a^{bc}`$ is a usual spin connection and $`\widehat{K}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{K}_a^{bc}=\frac{m}{2}[\widehat{k}_a(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^{bc}+\widehat{k}_b(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^{ac}\widehat{k}_c(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^{ab}].$$
(2)
The 4-form field strength $`\widehat{G}^{(4)}`$ of $`\widehat{C}`$ is defined as

$`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(4)}=4D_{[\mu }\widehat{C}_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$ $``$ $`4_{[\mu }\widehat{C}_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`3m(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{[\mu \nu }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\rho \sigma ]}`$
where $`D_\mu `$ denotes the covariant derivative. Then, $`\widehat{G}^{(4)}`$ transforms covariantly as $`\delta \widehat{G}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{(4)}=4m\widehat{\lambda }_{[\mu }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(4)})_{\nu \rho \sigma ]},`$ which implies that $`\delta (\widehat{G}^{(4)})^2=0`$.

The action of the massive 11D SUGRA is

$`\widehat{S}_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle }d^{11}x[\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\{\widehat{R}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24!}}(\widehat{G}^{(4)})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2|\widehat{k}|^4\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}}{(144)^2}}\{2^4\widehat{C}\widehat{C}\widehat{C}`$
$`+18m\widehat{C}\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3^3}{5}}m^2\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^4\}_{\mu _1..\mu _{11}}]`$ (4)
where $`\kappa =16\pi G_N^{(11)}`$ and $`|\widehat{k}|=\sqrt{\widehat{k}^\mu \widehat{k}^\nu \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }}`$. This action is invariant (up to total derivative) under (1), and its dimensional reduction along $`z`$ gives the bosonic part of 10D massive IIA SUGRA action.

Now, let us introduce a 10-form gauge potential $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$. Following the case of the 9-form potential in 10D IIA theory, we promote the mass parameter $`m`$ to a scalar field $`\widehat{M}(x)`$, and add the term

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle d^{11}x\frac{11}{11!}\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}\widehat{M}(x)_{[\mu _1}\widehat{A}_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{11}]}^{(10)}}.`$ (5)
to the action $`\widehat{S}_0`$ to introduce $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$ as a Lagrange multiplier for $`\widehat{M}(x)=m`$. We note that $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$ also satisfies $`_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)}=0`$, which means that $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$ with no $`z`$ index does not appear in this theory. Then, the action is invariant under (1) if the massive gauge transformation of $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$ is defined as

$`\delta (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}=\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\widehat{ϵ}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9z}`$
$`[\widehat{g}^{\mu \mu ^{}}\widehat{g}^{\nu \nu ^{}}(2_{[\mu ^{}}\widehat{k}_{\nu ^{}]}\widehat{M}|\widehat{k}|^2(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}})\widehat{\lambda }_\nu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{G}^{(4)\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\nu \rho }\widehat{\lambda }_\sigma ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{48}}[\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2\widehat{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{M}}{4}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^4\widehat{\lambda }]_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}.`$ (6)
Now, we discuss the construction of $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ using $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$. However, the gauge invariant WZ action cannot be constructed straightforwardly. The reason is as follows: Since a M-9-brane couples to $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$, $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ contains the term

$`S_{M9}^{WZ}|_{9\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}}={\displaystyle \frac{T_{M9}}{9!}}{\displaystyle d^9\xi ϵ^{i_1..i_9}}`$
$`\times _{i_1}X^{\widehat{\mu }_1}.._{i_9}X^{\mu _9}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu _1..\mu _9}`$ (7)
where $`\xi ^i`$ ($`i=0,..,8`$) are worldvolume coordinates of the brane and $`\widehat{X}^\mu (\mu =0,..,9)`$ are embedding coordinates. Suppose we consider the massive gauge transformation of (7). Then, we can see that the contribution of the first bracket of the r.h.s. of (6) to the variation of (7) cannot be cancelled even if any other terms are added to (7). This is because the contribution of the bracket cannot be represented by any products of forms due to the extra $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ but that all the terms of $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ should be represented by some products of forms.

Our idea to resolve this problem is as follows: Since the main obstruction is the existence of the extra $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ in (6), let us suppose one rewrite the first bracket of (6) by using the “dual fields” of $`\widehat{k}_{\widehat{\mu }}`$ and $`\widehat{C}`$ through duality relations. Then, the extra $`\widehat{ϵ}`$ is cancelled and the first bracket can be expressed as a sum of exterior products of forms. Thus, it is expected that one can construct a gauge invariant WZ action. This idea is successful, which we show in the following.

The dual field of the 3-form $`\widehat{C}`$ is the 6-form $`\widehat{C}^{(6)}`$ whose massive gauge transformation, field strength and the duality relation are222We concentrate our discussions on the gauge transformations with respect to $`\widehat{\chi }`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }`$.

$`\delta \widehat{C}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _6}^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`30_{[\mu _1}\widehat{\chi }_{\mu _2\mu _3}\widehat{C}_{\mu _4\mu _5\mu _6]}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`6\widehat{M}\widehat{\lambda }_{[\mu _1}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _6]}`$
$`\widehat{G}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`7[\widehat{C}^{(6)}3\widehat{M}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`10\widehat{C}\widehat{C}+5\widehat{M}C(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{M}}{7}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})]_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _7}`$
$`\widehat{G}^{(4)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}}{7!\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}}}\widehat{G}_{\mu _5\mathrm{}\mu _{11}}^{(7)}.`$ (10)
$`\widehat{N}^{(8)}`$ is the dual field of the Killing vector also introduced in ref., whose gauge transformation is suggested such as

$`\delta \widehat{N}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _8}^{(8)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{8!}{34!}}\widehat{\chi }\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})`$ (11)
$`+8\widehat{M}\widehat{\lambda }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})\}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _8}.`$
In this paper we regard $`\widehat{k}_\mu (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{g})_\mu `$ as a “vector gauge field”, and consider the “field strength” of it, as one does for $`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})`$. Then, if we define $`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$ as

$`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}2_{[\mu }\widehat{k}_{\nu ]}\widehat{M}|\widehat{k}|^2(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
$`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$ is shown to transform covariantly under (1). So, $`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$, in fact arising in the first term of (6), can be interpreted as the field strength of $`\widehat{k}_\mu `$. On the other hand, the field strength $`\widehat{G}^{(9)}`$ of the full 8-form $`\widehat{N}^{(8)}`$ is difficult to construct. However, in order to rewrite the first term through the duality relation between $`\widehat{G}^{(9)}`$ and $`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$, it is sufficient to know the field strength of $`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})`$. This is because $`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$ in the first term of (6) vanishes if any of the indices of $`\widehat{G}^{(2)}`$ takes $`z`$, implying that one of the indices of $`\widehat{G}^{(9)}`$ certainly takes $`z`$. Thus, only the field strength of $`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})`$ is needed, and it can be defined as

$`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(9)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _8}8\{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})`$
$`+21(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})+35C(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})`$
$`+35C(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{105}{8}}\widehat{M}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^4\}_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _8]}.`$ (13)
We note that $`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(9)})`$ is invariant under (1), which means that this definition is consistent. Then, we assume the duality relation:

$`\widehat{G}^{(2)\mu _1\mu _2}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{10}z}}{9!\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(9)})_{\mu _3\mathrm{}\mu _{10}}.`$ (14)
It gives one of the 10D IIA duality relations in ref. on dimensional reduction in $`z`$, which means that (14) is consistent.

Since all the preparations have been done, let us substitute the relation (10) and (14) for (6) to have the rewritten expression of the massive gauge transformation of $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$:

$`\delta (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}`$ $`=`$ $`9![{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})\widehat{\lambda }`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{25!}}\{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})\}\widehat{\lambda }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64!}}\{\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2\}\widehat{\lambda }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{M}}{2^44!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^4\widehat{\lambda }]_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9]}.`$
By using this expression, the gauge invariant WZ action of the M-9-brane can be constructed indeed. Before constructing it, we give the rewritten field equation of $`\widehat{M}(x)`$:

$`\widehat{M}|\widehat{k}|^4={\displaystyle \frac{10\widehat{ϵ}^{\mu _1..\mu _{10}z}}{10!\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}}}\{_{\mu _1}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu _2..\mu _{10}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{86!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(7)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{28!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{G}^{(9)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{288}}\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^3+{\displaystyle \frac{99!}{5760}}\widehat{M}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^5\}_{\mu _1..\mu _{10}}.`$ (16)
Since the r.h.s. of (16) is shown to be gauge invariant, it can be interpreted as the gauge invariant field strength of the 10-form (multiplied by 1/10!). Thus, we can conclude that the 10-form $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}`$ is introduced consistently. Moreover, we define a new 10-form $`\widehat{C}^{(10)}`$ which agrees with 10D IIA 9-form $`C^{(9)}`$ on dimensional reduction along z:

$`(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(10)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{A}^{(10)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{27!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}){\displaystyle \frac{9!}{2^35!}}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9!}{2^4(3!)^2}}\widehat{C}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^3]_{[\mu _1..\mu _9]}`$ (17)
Then, the gauge transformation of $`\widehat{C}^{(10)}`$ takes the simple form:

$`\delta (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(10)})_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9}`$ $`=`$ $`945\{4\widehat{\chi }(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^3`$ (18)
$`+\widehat{M}(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})^4\widehat{\lambda }\}_{[\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _9]}.`$
For convenience, we use $`\widehat{C}^{(10)}`$ to construct $`S_{\mathrm{M9}}^{WZ}`$.

Now, we construct the M-9-brane WZ action as that of the gauged $`\sigma `$-model, in which the translation along $`\widehat{k}`$ is gauged. In this approach the M-9-brane wrapped around the compact isometry direction is described. So, denoting its worldvolume coordinates by $`\xi ^i(i=0,1,..,8)`$ and their embeddings by $`X^\mu (\xi )(\mu =0,1,..,9,z)`$, the worldvolume gauge transformation is given by $`\delta _\eta X^\mu =\eta (\xi )\widehat{k}^\mu `$ where $`\eta (\xi )`$ is a scalar gauge parameter. In order to make the brane action invariant under the transformation, the derivative of $`X^\mu `$ with respect to $`\xi ^i`$ is replaced by the covariant derivative $`D_iX^\mu =_iX^\mu \widehat{A}_i\widehat{k}^\mu `$ with the gauge field $`\widehat{A}_i=|\widehat{k}|^2_i\widehat{X}^{\widehat{\nu }}\widehat{k}_{\widehat{\nu }}`$. Then, we obtain the M-9-brane WZ action only on the basis of the gauge invariance, as

$`S_{M9}^{WZ}=T_{\mathrm{M9}}{\displaystyle }d^9\xi ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_9}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9!}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(10)})}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_9}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27!}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{N}^{(8)})}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_7}\widehat{𝒦}_{i_8i_9}^{(2)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^35!}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C}^{(6)})}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_5}(\widehat{𝒦}^{(2)})_{i_6\mathrm{}i_9}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(3!)^2}}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{C}}_{i_1i_2i_3}\{(\widehat{b})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})}\widehat{b}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})}^2\}_{i_4\mathrm{}i_7}\widehat{𝒦}^{(2)}_{i_8i_9}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24!}}\widehat{A}_{i_1}\{(\widehat{b})^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{b})^2\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{b})\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\stackrel{~}{(i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})}^3\}_{i_2\mathrm{}i_7}(\widehat{𝒦}^{(2)})_{i_8i_9}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{5!}}\widehat{b}_{i_1}(\widehat{b})_{i_2\mathrm{}i_9}^4]`$ (19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{S}}_{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}\widehat{S}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}D_{i_1}X^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}D_{i_r}X^{\mu _r}`$ for a target-space field $`\widehat{S}_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}`$. $`\widehat{b}_i`$ describes the flux of an M-2-brane wrapped around the isometry direction, whose massive gauge transformation is determined by the requirement of the invariance of its modified field strength $`\widehat{𝒦}_{ij}^{(2)}=2_{[i}\widehat{b}_{j]}_iX^\mu _jX^\nu (i_{\widehat{k}}\widehat{C})_{\mu \nu }`$ (i.e. $`\delta \widehat{b}_i=\widehat{\lambda }_i`$).

Then, we check the consistency of the M-9-brane action in two ways; (the kinetic term of the M-9-brane has been given in ref..) first, we can improve the M-9-brane solution in ref. so that $`\widehat{A}^{(10)}0`$. Then, the M-9-brane worldvolume action must be the source of the solution. We can show that this is true. Second, when there are two M-9-branes parallel to each other with a certain orientation, no force exists between them, so, the potential energy of a test M-9-brane parallel to a background M-9-brane must vanish. Using the obtained M-9-brane action and the improved M-9-brane solution, we can show that this is also true. Thus, we can say that the obtained M-9-brane action is consistent.

Finally, we present the result of dimensional reductions of $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ briefly. First, if we consider the dimensional reduction along the isometry direction, it is shown to give the D-8-brane WZ action. Second, if we consider the dimensional reduction along the only transverse direction, $`S_{M9}^{WZ}`$ is shown to give the NS-9A-brane WZ action. (In fact, in this case, we need to know “undiscussed” truncation conditions caused by modding out the system by an certain $`Z_2`$ symmetry, but we can infer them by using the duality relations (10) and (14).) Thus, the relation of p-branes with $`p8`$, based on the superalgebra, is consistent from the viewpoint of their WVEAs.

## 3 Summary and discussion

The results of this work is summarized as follows: The M-9-brane Wess-Zumino action, the only unconstructed (bosonic part of) brane action, has been obtained, based only on the gauge invariance. The essential point in constructing it is our appropriate choice of fields representing the same degrees of freedom. Its consistency has been confirmed in two ways. In addition, upon two kinds of dimensional reductions, the Wess-Zumino action of the M-9-brane has been shown to give those of the D-8-brane and the NS-9A brane, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that within the framework of massive 11D theory, the relation of p-branes with $`p8`$, suggested on the basis of superalgebra, is consistent from the viewpoint of their worldvolume effective actions.

In this theory, however, the implication of the existence of the isometry direction is still unclear, so some other modification of the framework might be needed.

Finally, we would like to note that there is third possibility of dimensional reduction of the M-9-brane; the dimensional reduction along the worldvolume direction but not the isometry one. There are some arguments on how to interpret this possibility, and ours is that the obtained 8-brane is essentially the same as the usual D-8-brane except that it arises in another massive extension of the 10-dimensional IIA theory with an isometry direction. Since we do not have enough space to discuss it here, in detail, please see ref. and references therein.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Taro Tani, Tunehide Kuroki and Shinya Tamura for fruitful discussions and encouragement in completing the work in refs.. I am grateful to Professor Eric Bergshoeff for useful comments and Yolanda Lozano for useful comments on the work via e-mail. I am especially grateful to Professor Dmitri Sorokin, Professor Alexei Nurmagambetov and all the other staffs and students supporting the conference, for inviting me to the conference and taking much care of me and my wife very kindly before and during the conference. I am also grateful to Yoshida Foundation for Science and Technology for partial financial support.