format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently a lot of theoretical and experimental efforts have been spent to find some new physics beyond that described by the Standard Model (SM). One of the most popular ways to extend SM is to make our world supersymmetric at some higher scale than those currently tested by experimental facilities over the world. A way of doing it minimally and at the same time to have renormalizable local quantum filed theory is to consider the $`N=1`$ SUSY field theory. It is obtained from SM by replacing SM fields with groups of fields, forming representations of the $`N=1`$ SUSY algebra, and introducing an additional Higgs doublet required by supersymmetry. This way we obtain the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) .

Huge theoretical research in this direction was made in the last few years as well as parameter space of this model was heavily constrained by experimentalists. Today people consider radiative SUSY corrections to SM precision observables and try to observe SUSY particles directly in an experiment. The precision with which masses of heavy quarks are known at present, requires that higher order corrections, in addition to the leading one-loop SUSY corrections, be taken into account.

It is the aim of the present article to calculate the “leading” $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ MSSM corrections to the pole masses of heavy quarks and to see how they affect the SUSY particle spectra obtained from the renormalization group analysis with universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale. In fact we will be interested in the relation between the pole mass of a heavy quark and the running heavy quark $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ mass. The latter is defined as a quantity computed in dimensional reduction and renormalized minimally. 111The $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ scheme , which is similar to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme, is usually used for calculation in supersymmetric models, because contrary to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme it manifestly preserves supersymmetry, at least for not very high loop orders . The details about the renormalization scheme used will be given below. By ”leading” corrections we mean those, which are mediated by strong interactions and formally they should be dominant. However, as it is known from one-loop calculations, in the case of $`b`$-quark there exists a large contribution from a stop-chargino loop enhanced by the $`t`$-quark Yukawa coupling, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or by the supersymmetric Higgs mass parameter $`\mu `$. So, in this sense, our results for the $`b`$-quark are not complete. But, they can be used to see the typical size of these corrections and already make some conclusions on whether they should be accounted for in an accurate analysis or not.

To compute needed diagrams we use the large mass expansion procedure and for the moment we restrict ourselves only to terms up to the $`𝒪(m_b^2/M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2)`$ order in the case of $`b`$-quark and up to the $`𝒪(m_t^2/M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}^2)`$ order in the case of $`t`$-quark. It is a good approximation for the $`b`$-quark. However, as our numerical analysis shows, such approximation does not work well in the case of $`t`$-quark and higher terms in large mass expansion should be taken into account. We suppose to calculate missing corrections from stop-chargino loops to the $`b`$-quark pole mass and to provide more terms in the expansion in a relation between the top pole and $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ masses elsewhere.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we define quantities we want to compute and make comments on the choice of our renormalization scheme. In section 3, we describe our model — the supersymmetric QCD (a subset of MSSM, relevant to the calculation of $`\alpha _s^n`$ corrections) and present in detail the renormalization procedure. Section 4 contains our results and numerical analysis of the effect produced by our correction on supersymmetric particle spectra. The latter were computed with the help of the SoftSUSY program  under universal boundary conditions at GUT scale. Finally, section 5 contains our conclusion.

## 2 Pole mass and choice of renormalization scheme

First, we would like to note that there are several quark mass definitions. This is mainly due to the fact that quarks were not ever observed as free particles. Therefore, the definition of their masses rely heavily on theoretical constructions. Different definitions exist referring to different renormalization schemes used in quantum field theories. We will mention only a few most popular ones — $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}`$, pole mass $`M`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ mass $`m`$. In the nonsupersymmetric QCD the relations between these three masses are known (to two-loops between $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ and pole masses  and to two  and to three  loops between $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and pole masses) and in the supersymmetric QCD case there exists only one-loop relation between $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ and pole masses of heavy quarks . In this work, we will establish the two-loop relation between $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ and pole masses in supersymmetric QCD.

In $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ scheme, particle masses and couplings depend explicitly on the renormalization scale $`\overline{\mu }`$ which is taken in applications equal to the characteristic scale of a studied process. The renormalization scale dependence of these quantities could be conveniently described by renormalization group equations. They are known very well for MSSM and supersymmetric QCD. It should be noted that $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ mass is a short distance quantity. That is, it is sensitive only to short distance effects. To describe processes with the characteristic scale of the order of quark mass itself, a different on-shell mass definition is used and here pole mass of a particle comes into play.

The particle pole mass is defined by the singularity of the corresponding two-point function. As explicit perturbative calculations showed, the pole mass of a quark is an infrared finite and gauge invariant quantity. For this reason it is considered as a physically meaningful quantity . We will restrict ourselves to perturbation theory only and will not analyze the exact nature of the two-point function singularity which may involve some nonperturbative dynamics. In the present paper, we employ the definition of the pole quark mass, where it equals the value of $`p`$, at which the inverse quark propagator turns to zero.

The pole mass $`M`$ of a quark is defined as a formal solution for $`\widehat{p}`$ (in the Minkowski metric) at which the reciprocal of the connected full propagator equals zero

$$\widehat{p}m\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{p},m)=0,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\widehat{p},m)=m\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(p^2,m)+(\widehat{p}m)\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(p^2,m)`$ is the one-particle-irreducible two-point function, $`m`$ may stand for the bare or renormalized mass, $`m_{\mathrm{bare}}`$ or $`m_{\mathrm{ren}}`$, depending on the prescription used in evaluating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The solution to eq. (1) is sought order by order in perturbation theory. To two loops we have

$$M=m+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(m,m)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}(m,m)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(m,m)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)^{}}(m,m)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(3)}),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(L)}`$ is the $`L`$-loop contribution to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the first argument. In what follows, we will be interested in the relation between the pole quark mass $`M`$ and the running $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ mass $`m`$ computed in MSSM up to the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ order. Technically, to solve this problem, we need to evaluate $`200`$ two-loop propagator type diagrams involving many different mass scales (see Fig. 1). In general, it is quite a complex problem to be solved exactly. However, in our case all mass scales can be divided into two groups denoted by $`m_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{hard}}`$, such that scales from $`m_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ are much less than each of the scales from the $`m_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ group

|  | $`m_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ | $`m_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| case of $`b`$-quark: | $`m_b`$ | $`m_t`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ |
| case of $`t`$-quark: | $`m_t`$ | $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ |

Here $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ is the gluino mass, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ stands for different squark masses. We also explicitly denoted which mass scales belong to soft or hard groups in the cases of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks.

Given this mass hierarchy, one can employ the large mass expansion procedure to reduce evaluation of multi scale two-loop integrals to the calculation of single scale on-shell two-loop integrals, two-loop tadpole integrals with two scales and products of one-loop on-shell integrals and one-loop tadpole diagrams. To compute two-loop single scale on-shell integrals, we made use of the ONSHELL2 package . For evaluation of two-loop tadpole diagrams with two scales, the recurrence relations of  were used. Calculation of one-loop self-energies, including their derivatives with respect to momentum, is an easy task and we will not make further comments on it.

Now let us make some comments on the choice of a renormalization scheme. Here we use the same renormalization prescription, as in . To be more specific, we use regularization by dimensional reduction, a modification of the conventional dimensional regularization, originally proposed in . In this procedure, the vector and spinor algebras in the numerator of Feynman diagrams are four-dimensional, which is the requirement imposed by supersymmetry. However, to make sense from divergent momentum integrals we need to regularize them by noninteger space-time dimension $`d=42\epsilon `$. For quantum corrections not to break gauge invariance, we need a cancellation of squared momenta in both the numerator and the denominator of Feynman integrals. Thus, the momenta should form $`d`$-dimensional subspace in four dimensions. As the momenta become $`d`$-dimensional, four-vectors naturally split into true $`d`$-vectors and so-called $`\epsilon `$-scalars, obtained in the process of dimensional reduction of the original four-dimensional Lagrangian. The $`\epsilon `$-scalars are nothing, but matter fields. Their appearance is the only difference from the conventional dimensional regularization.

We would like to note that, in general, renormalization of $`\epsilon `$-scalars and their interactions is not identical to that of vectors, so the original four-covariance may be spoiled by quantum corrections. Moreover, quantum corrections may also generate a mass for $`\epsilon `$-scalars. There is arbitrariness in choosing the renormalization scheme for this mass . A consistent way is to choose the finite $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass counterterm, so that the pole (and renormalized) mass of the $`\epsilon `$-scalars equals zero. The $`\epsilon `$-scalar field renormalization is left minimal. Other renormalizations are done minimally, that is by subtracting only poles in $`\epsilon `$.

## 3 Definition of the model and renormalization procedure

For our purposes here we do not need the complete MSSM, but only its part — supersymmetric extension of QCD (SUSY QCD). In the superfield formulation SUSY QCD Lagrangian consists of two parts: the rigid supersymmetric part and the part containing soft supersymmetry breaking terms.

$`_{\mathrm{rigid}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha }+{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}+{\displaystyle d^2\theta 𝒲}+{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\overline{𝒲}}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left[\overline{Q}e^{2g_3T^aV^a}Q+\overline{U}e^{2g_3(T^a)^{}V^a}U+\overline{D}e^{2g_3(T^a)^{}V^a}D\right]},`$
where $`Q=Q_L`$, $`U=U_R`$, $`D=D_R`$, $`T^a=\lambda ^a/2`$ ($`a`$=1,…,8) with $`\lambda ^a`$ being the Gell-Mann matrices 222Note that U and D are colour antitriplets and the anticolour generator is $`(T^a)^{}`$ and the gauge field strength tensors are

$$W_\alpha =\frac{1}{8g_3}\overline{D}^2e^{2g_3T^aV^a}D_\alpha e^{2g_3T^aV^a},\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{8g_3}D^2e^{2g_3T^aV^a}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}e^{2g_3T^aV^a}$$

The superpotential of the ordinary SUSY QCD contains only quadratic mass terms for chiral (antichiral) superfields. Considering SUSY QCD as a part of MSSM, where all masses of particles are generated through the Higgs mechanism, the superpotential takes the following form

$$𝒲=ϵ^{ij}\left[y_dDH_1^iQ^j+y_uUH_2^jQ^i+\mu H_1^jH_2^i\right],$$
(4)
where the $`y_d`$ and $`y_u`$ are the Yukawa coupling constants carrying the generation indices which have been suppressed (as well as group indices). In this work we will need the Higgs fields only to generate masses of our particles and will not be interested in the detailed structure of the MSSM Higgs sector.

To perform the supersymmetry breaking that satisfies the requirement of ”softness”, we introduce a gluino mass term, soft masses of scalar superpartners of quarks and soft trilinear couplings with Higgs fields, which may be written in terms of $`N=1`$ superfields, provided one introduces external spurion superfields

$`_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\theta \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}M_3\theta ^2\mathrm{Tr}W^\alpha W_\alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\overline{M}_3\overline{\theta }^2\mathrm{Tr}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}}`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left[M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2\overline{Q}e^{2g_3T^aV^a}Q+M_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^2\overline{U}e^{2g_3(T^a)^{}V^a}U+M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2\overline{D}e^{2g_3(T^a)^{}V^a}D\right]\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle d^2\theta ϵ^{ij}\left[y_dA_dDH_1^iQ^j+y_uA_uUH_2^jQ^i\right]\theta ^2}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
The chiral superfields have the following component fields representations

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{q}_Li\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }^\mu _\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L+\sqrt{2}\theta q_L{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu q_L+\theta \theta F_q,`$ (6)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_Ri\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }_\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }^\mu _\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R+\sqrt{2}\theta u_R{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu u_R+\theta \theta F_u,`$ (7)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_Ri\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }_\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }^\mu _\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R+\sqrt{2}\theta d_R{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\sigma }^\mu _\mu d_R+\theta \theta F_d`$ (8)
and for the vector superfields in the Wess-Zumino gauge we have

$`V^a`$ $`=`$ $`\theta \sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }G_\mu ^a+\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a+\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }D^a.`$ (9)
Then, rewriting everything in the component fields, the Lagrangian of SUSY QCD takes the form ($`q_R=(u_R,d_R)`$)

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu }+i\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a+i\overline{q}_R\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu q_R+i\overline{q}_L\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu q_L`$
$`+`$ $`\left(D^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_R\right)^{}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_R+\left(D^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L\right)^{}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_Lg_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_RT^aD^a\stackrel{~}{q}_R+g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_LT^aD^a\stackrel{~}{q}_L`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3q_RT^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_R\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{q}_LT^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_L+\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_RT^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\overline{q}_R\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_LT^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^aq_L`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D^aD^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D^iD^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D^{}D^{}+g_2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^i}{2}}D^i\stackrel{~}{q}_L+g_2\overline{h}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^i}{2}}D^ih_j+g_1\overline{h}_j^0{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{h_j}}{2}}D^{}h_j^0`$
$`+`$ $`g_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}}{2}}D^{}\stackrel{~}{q}_Lg_1\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_R{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}}{2}}D^{}\stackrel{~}{q}_R+\overline{F}_{h_1^0}F_{h_1^0}+\overline{F}_{h_2^0}F_{h_2^0}+\overline{F}_{q_L}F_{q_L}+\overline{F}_{q_R}F_{q_R}`$
$``$ $`[\mu h_1^0F_{h_2^0}+\mu F_{h_1^0}h_2^0y_d\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_RF_{h_1^0}\stackrel{~}{d}_Ly_u\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_RF_{h_2^0}\stackrel{~}{u}_L`$
$``$ $`y_d(F_{d_R}h_1^0\stackrel{~}{d}_L+\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_Rh_1^0F_{d_L})y_u(F_{u_R}h_2^0\stackrel{~}{u}_L+\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_Rh_2^0F_{u_L})`$
$`+`$ $`y_dd_Rh_1^0d_L+y_uu_Rh_2^0u_L+y_dA_d\stackrel{~}{d}_Rh_1^0\stackrel{~}{d}_L+y_uA_u\stackrel{~}{u}_Rh_2^0\stackrel{~}{u}_L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^aM_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_LM_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_RM_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_R,`$
where the gauge covariant derivative and field strength are defined as

$`D_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu +ig_3T^aG_\mu ^a,`$
$`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu G_\nu ^a_\nu G_\mu ^ag_3f^{abc}G_\mu ^bG_\nu ^c.`$
Here we also added auxiliary $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ fields $`D^i`$ and $`D^{}`$, which are necessary to describe correctly the mass generation mechanism. $`\sigma ^i`$ denote Pauli matrices and $`Y_q`$ is a hypercharge of a particle $`q`$. Eliminating auxiliary fields $`F_q`$, $`\overline{F}_q`$, $`D^a`$, $`D^i`$, and $`D^{}`$, and introducing four-component spinor notation similar to , one gets

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a+i\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu D_\mu q+\left(D^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_R\right)^{}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_R+\left(D^\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L\right)^{}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_L`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{q}P_LT^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_R\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{q}P_RT^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_L+\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_RT^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^aP_Rq\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_LT^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^aP_Lq`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2}{2}}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_LT^a\stackrel{~}{q}_L\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_RT^a\stackrel{~}{q}_R)(\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_LT^a\stackrel{~}{q}_L\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_RT^a\stackrel{~}{q}_R){\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{2}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a+_M,`$
$`_M`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_LM_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_RM_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_Ry_dh_1^0\overline{d}dy_uh_2^0\overline{u}u`$ (11)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{2}}I_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_L{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{4}}Y_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_L+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{4}}Y_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_R\stackrel{~}{q}_R\right)\left(\overline{h}_1^0h_1^0\overline{h}_2^0h_2^0\right)`$
$``$ $`y_d^2\left(h_1^0\stackrel{~}{d}_L\right)^{}h_1^0\stackrel{~}{d}_Ly_d^2\overline{h}_1^0h_1^0\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_Ry_u^2\left(h_2^0\stackrel{~}{u}_L\right)^{}h_2^0\stackrel{~}{u}_Ly_u^2\overline{h}_2^0h_2^0\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_R`$
$``$ $`\left[y_dh_1^0A_d\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_L+y_uh_2^0A_u\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_Ly_d\mu h_2^0\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_Ly_u\mu h_1^0\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}\right]`$
where $`P_L=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`P_R=(1+\gamma _5)/2`$ are the chiral and antichiral projectors.

After Higgsing and taking into account that

$`m_d=y_dv_1,m_u=y_uv_2,\mathrm{tan}\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{v_2}{v_1}},\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W={\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{g_1^2+g_2^2}},`$
$`m_Z^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(g_1^2+g_2^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}(v_1^2+v_2^2),`$
$`\mathrm{cos}2\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{v_1^2v_2^2}{v_1^2+v_2^2}},e_q={\displaystyle \frac{Y_q}{2}}+I_q^3,`$
it is convenient to rewrite $`_M`$ from eq. (11) in the following form

$$_M=m_q\overline{q}qm_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_Lm_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{u}}_R\stackrel{~}{u}_Rm_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{d}}_R\stackrel{~}{d}_Ra_qm_q\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_L\stackrel{~}{q}_Ra_qm_q\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_R\stackrel{~}{q}_L$$
(12)
with

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2=M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2+m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta (I_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^3e_q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)+m_q^2,`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_R}^2=M_{\stackrel{~}{u}}^2+e_um_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+m_u^2,a_u=A_u\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta `$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_R}^2=M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}^2+e_dm_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+m_d^2,a_d=A_d\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta `$
where $`e_q`$ and $`I_q^3`$ are the electric charge and the third component of the weak isospin of a particle $`q`$, $`m_q`$ is the mass of the partner quark and $`\mu `$ is a Higgs mass parameter. The $`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$, $`M_{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$, and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$ are soft SUSY breaking masses, $`A_u`$ and $`A_d`$ are trilinear couplings as in eq. (5). The family indices have been suppressed.

Now we must diagonalize the mass matrix $`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ of squarks to determine the physical mass eigenstates

$$_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2& a_qm_q\\ a_qm_q& m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2\end{array}\right)=(^{\stackrel{~}{q}})^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2& 0\\ 0& m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2\end{array}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{q}}.$$
(13)
According to eq. (13) $`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2`$ is diagonalized by a unitary matrix $`^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$. Assuming that CP violating phases occur only in the CKM matrix, we choose $`^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ to be real. The weak eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ are thus related to their mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_2`$ by

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}\right)=^{\stackrel{~}{q}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}\right),^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\\ \hfill \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& \hfill \mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
with $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ being the squark mixing angle. The mass eigenvalues are given by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2)^2+4a_q^2m_q^2}\right).$$
(15)
By convention, we choose $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ to be the lightest mass eigenstate. Notice that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{L,R}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}`$.

For the mixing angle $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ we require $`0\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}<\pi `$. Then one can write

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\frac{a_qm_q}{\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2)^2+a_q^2m_q^2}},\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}{\sqrt{(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2)^2+a_q^2m_q^2}}.$$
(16)
Moreover, $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}|>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}<m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}`$ and $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}|<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ if $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}<m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}`$.

Making transition in eq. (10) from $`\stackrel{~}{q}_R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_L`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_2`$ with the help of the matrix from eq. (14) we get for quark-gluino-squark trilinear and four-squark vertices complicated expressions due to squark mixing which we do not present here. To produce input amplitudes of the diagrams needed in our calculations we made use of the Mathematica package FeynArts , which has SUSY QCD as part of MSSM model . The Feynman diagrams contributing to quarks self-energies in the one and two loop order are shown in Fig. 1.

Note again that doing these calculations we work in the minimal subtraction scheme $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ adopted to supersymmetry — dimensional reduction with minimal subtraction $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ . To obtain a relation between pole and $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ quark masses, we need to know $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ renormalization constants for quark, gluino, squark, $`\epsilon `$-scalar masses, gauge and Yukawa charges333By Yukawa charge we mean the Yukawa coupling of $`\epsilon `$-scalar to fermions as well as renormalization of squark mixing angle. We will describe evaluation of each of these quantities in the next subsections.

### 3.1 Renormalization of QCD sector

First we have to renormalize the charge and the masses of quarks and fields. The relations between bare and renormalized parameters are given by

$`\alpha _{s,0}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mu }^{2\epsilon }Z_{\alpha _s}\alpha _s,`$ (17)
$`m_{q,0}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{m_q}m_q,`$ (18)
$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_G^{1/2}G,`$ (19)
$`q_0`$ $`=`$ $`Z_q^{1/2}q,`$ (20)
where $`\overline{\mu }`$ is a renormalization scale.

The charge renormalization constant can be obtained from the renormalization constants of the fields and vertex with the use of the following relation:

$`Z_{\alpha _s}=Z_{qGq}^2Z_q^2Z_G^1,`$ (21)
where $`Z_q`$ and $`Z_G`$ correspond to renormalization of quark and gluon fields and $`Z_{qGq}`$ renormalizes the quark-gluon interaction vertex.

One can also renormalize the gauge parameter444 Gauge parameter $`\xi `$ is defined in such a way that $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =1`$ correspond to the Landau and Feynman gauge, respectively.  with the help of the above-introduced constant $`Z_G`$

$$\xi _0=Z_G\xi .$$
(22)
However, in the gauge invariant quantities (like, e.g., the pole mass) the gauge parameter drops out already from the bare expression and renormalization (22) is not needed.

Our results for renormalization constants in the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ scheme read

$`Z_{m_q}`$ $`=`$ $`1C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2\left(\left(63C_A2C_F\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon ^2}}+\left(6+3C_A2C_F\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}\right),`$ (23)
$`Z_q`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_F\left(\xi +1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (24)
$`Z_G`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(6{\displaystyle \frac{3\xi }{2}}C_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (25)
$`Z_{qGq}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left((1+\xi )C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{3+\xi }{4}}C_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (26)
$`Z_{\alpha _s}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(3C_A6\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}.`$ (27)
For $`SU(N_c)`$ we have $`C_F=(N_c^21)/(2N_c)`$ and $`C_A=N_c`$. Here we explicitly put the number of quark flavors to six.

There are several possibilities to check the correctness of our results. The coupling renormalization constant (27) can be compared with that obtained from the one-loop MSSM beta function for $`SU(3)`$ group. We have also checked that in the case of ordinary QCD we recover renormalization constants given in . The 2-loop $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ quark mass renormalization constant (23) has been obtained from eq. (2) and contains poles in $`\epsilon `$ remaining after all other renormalizations were done. Here we mean that one should perform one-loop renormalizations of strong coupling constant and particle masses. A subtle point is the renormalization of the Yukawa interaction of $`\epsilon `$-scalars and quarks. In SUSY QCD discussed here, one does not need to introduce a separate coupling constant $`Y`$ for this interaction, as supersymmetry insures that it is renormalized in the same way as a strong coupling constant555See the section about the $`\epsilon `$-scalar sector renormalization for details. However, to make our renormalization procedure as general as possible ( and also applicable in the case of nonsupersymmetric QCD for checks), we introduce an additional independent constant $`Y`$ and renormalize it separately. So, here we follow the renormalization procedure described in . Renormalizing a physical quantity like a pole mass, we ignore field renormalization constants which is a justified procedure, provided we are evaluating the contribution of counterterms for the whole sum of diagrams. The $`1/\epsilon ^2`$ poles in $`Z_{m_q}`$ can be checked with the use of the renormalization group technique. Indeed, let us write

$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{(1,1)}}{\epsilon }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{(2,1)}}{\epsilon }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z^{(2,2)}}{\epsilon ^2}}\right)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`m\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z^{(1)}}{\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^{(2)}}{\epsilon ^2}}+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where $`z^{(n)}=_{l=1}^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _s/4\pi )^lZ^{(l,n)}`$. Now using the renormalization group equation666In fact $`m_0`$ is not a renormalization group invariant in our renormalization scheme. However, to check the leading poles in $`\epsilon `$ we can treat it as an RG invariant, as different prescriptions used to renormalize the $`\epsilon `$-scalar sector give different results only in the subleading order in $`\epsilon `$. This point will be discussed in detail in the section concerning the $`\epsilon `$-scalar sector renormalization.

$`0=\overline{\mu }^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\overline{\mu }^2}}m_0,`$
we obtain

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g{\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}z^{(1)},`$
$`\left(\gamma +\beta _g{\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\gamma _im_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_i}}\right)z^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g{\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}z^{(n+1)},`$ (29)
($`g`$ is related to $`\alpha _s`$ via $`g^2/4\pi =\alpha _s`$). The formulae presented are general and are also applicable in a theory with spontaneously broken symmetry . In the case of SUSY QCD, from the previous formula it follows that

$`2Z^{(2,2)}=\left(Z^{(1,1)}\right)^2+2\beta _g^{(1)}Z^{(1,1)}.`$ (30)
Substituting into this relation the expressions for $`Z^{(1,1)}=2C_F`$ and $`\beta _g^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}(3C_A6)`$, we get the same result for the $`1/\epsilon ^2`$ poles as in eq. (23).

### 3.2 Gluino mass renormalization

The renormalization of the gluino mass is performed in a way similar to quark mass renormalization. The relevant diagrams with gluino-gluon and quark-squark loops are shown in Fig.2. Explicit calculations give the following results for the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}},0}=Z_{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}}m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$, gluino wave function renormalization constants $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ and for gluino-gluon-gluino vertex renormalization constant $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}G\stackrel{~}{q}}`$

$`Z_{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(63C_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (31)
$`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\xi C_A+6\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (32)
$`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(6+{\displaystyle \frac{3+5\xi }{4}}C_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},.`$ (33)
From eqs. (25), (32) and (33) one can extract the gauge coupling renormalization constant

$$Z_{\alpha _s}=Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}G\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2Z_G^1,$$
(34)
which, of course, coincides with eq. (27). This serves as an additional check. The result for the gluino mass renormalization constant can also be verified with help of the known gluino mass beta-function.

### 3.3 Squark sector renormalization

To discuss the renormalization of the squark sector let us start with the Lagrangian written in terms of physical states. The bare Lagrangian in terms of bare parameters and bare fields is given by 777We do not include the bare Lagrangian for a four-squark interaction, because the counterterms associated with the four-squark vertices will give contribution of the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ order.

$`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_im_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_i+_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}^{\mathrm{bare}},`$ (35)
$`_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{q}\left(P_R\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}P_L\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)T^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{q}\left(P_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+P_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)T^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}^a\stackrel{~}{q}_2`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_1T^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\left(P_L\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}P_R\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)q`$
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{2}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_2T^a\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^a\left(P_L\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+P_R\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)q`$
We can rewrite this Lagrangian in terms of renormalized physical quantities and counterterms

$`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^{\mathrm{bare}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}+\delta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (37)
$`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}(_\mu \overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i_\mu \stackrel{~}{q}_im_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_i)\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_i\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_2\stackrel{~}{q}_1+\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}_1\stackrel{~}{q}_2)+\delta Z_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (38)
where $`_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ and $`_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ have the same form as (35) and (36). It should be noticed that this set of counterterms is sufficient to cancel all rising divergencies. The $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^2`$ counterterm is used to render nondiagonal squark self-energies $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i\stackrel{~}{q}_j}(ij)`$ finite. In practical calculations, it is convenient to trade $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^2`$ for the counterterm for the squark mixing angle. Indeed, we can diagonalize the Lagrangian (37) with the following field redefinitions:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{q}_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\\ \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{q}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{q}_2\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
where we have taken into account that $`\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}𝒪(\alpha _s)`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)=1+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\left(\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)=\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+𝒪(\alpha _s^3)`$ Demanding that the new mass matrix of squarks

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\\ \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2+\delta Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2+\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2& \delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^2\\ \delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^2& m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2+\delta Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2+\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\\ \delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
must be diagonal and expanding eq. (40) in the gauge coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$, one gets

$$\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{12}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^{(1)})_{\mathrm{div}}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2},$$
(41)
where the subscript “div” stands for the $`1/\epsilon `$ part of the expression. Rewriting eq. (37) in terms of the new fields $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, we come to the following renormalization prescription for the squark sector:

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q},0}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2+\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2=Z_{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2}m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}^2,`$ (42)
$`\stackrel{~}{q}_{i,0}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}})\stackrel{~}{q}_i=Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ (43)
$`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q},0}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}=Z_{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (44)
Explicit calculation of squark self-energies gives (see diagrams in Fig. 3) the following expression for the renormalization of the squark mixing angle

$$\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}=C_F\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(4\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)}{2}+\frac{4m_qm_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}\right)}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}\right)\frac{1}{\epsilon }.$$
(45)
Note that renormalization (45) of the mixing angle is minimal. It is the correct choice, if one wants to have the final result expressed in terms of the running $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ sparticle masses.

Summarizing the result of calculation, the renormalization constants for the squark sector read

$`Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`1C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\xi 1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (46)
$`Z_{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+4\left(m_qm_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}m_q^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (47)
$`Z_{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{C_F}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}4\left(m_qm_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}+m_q^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (48)
$`Z_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(\xi C_F+{\displaystyle \frac{3+\xi }{2}}C_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }},`$ (49)
$`Z_{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}{\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}}.`$ (50)
Using eqs. (24), (32), (46) and (49), one can also get the gauge coupling renormalization constant $`Z_{\alpha _s}`$ from quark-gluino-squark vertex

$$Z_{\alpha _s}=Z_{q\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{~}{q}}^2Z_q^1Z_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^1Z_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^1$$
(51)
which, due to supersymmetry, of course coincides with the results of eqs. (21) and (34).

### 3.4 The $`\epsilon `$-scalar sector renormalization

The renormalization of the $`\epsilon `$-scalar sector in SUSY QCD goes along the same lines as for the ordinary QCD in dimensional reduction. Here we will remind the tricks used to obtain the corresponding renormalization constants and write down their values in SUSY QCD. The part of the SUSY QCD Lagrangian containing $`\epsilon `$-scalar fields could be obtained through the dimensional reduction of the Lagrangian from eq.(10). As a result we have

$`_\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(D^\mu G_\sigma \right)^{}D_\mu G_\sigma g_3\overline{q}\gamma _\sigma T^aG_\sigma ^aq{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_3^2f^{abc}f^{ade}G_\sigma ^bG_\sigma ^{}^cG_\sigma ^dG_\sigma ^{}^e`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_3\overline{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}\gamma _\sigma T^aG_\sigma ^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}+g_3^2\overline{\stackrel{~}{q}}T^aT^bG_\sigma ^aG_\sigma ^b\stackrel{~}{q}.`$
Here $`G_{\sigma (\sigma ^{})}`$ denote $`\epsilon `$-scalar fields, and indices $`\sigma `$, $`\sigma ^{}`$ belong to $`2\epsilon `$ subspace.

A standard way is to use the Feynman rules derived from this Lagrangian to account for the contribution of $`\epsilon `$-scalars. However, it turns out that for some problems one can use far simpler arguments to get a desired solution. For example, we are interested in both full and separate contributions of vectors and $`\epsilon `$-scalars to the quantity, like a Green function or amplitude, without external vector indices. So, vector and $`\epsilon `$-scalar fields are located on internal lines only. Then to solve this problem one should

1. perform $`d`$-dimensional vector and spinor algebras
2. for full contribution - replace $`d`$ in the numerator of scalarized expression with 4;
for $`\epsilon `$-scalar contribution - replace $`d^n`$ with $`4^n(42\epsilon )^n`$.

When we deal with a Green function containing external vector indices and want to extract a contribution of either external vector or $`\epsilon `$-scalar fields, the corresponding projector onto $`42\epsilon `$ or $`2\epsilon `$ subspaces should be constructed. Internal $`\epsilon `$-scalars and vectors are treated in the same way, as described above. At this point one should keep in mind that particle momenta are always orthogonal to $`2\epsilon `$ subspace. For example, in the case of the $`\epsilon `$-scalar propagator (see Fig.4) we use $`\frac{1}{2\epsilon }g^{\mu \nu }`$ (the $`\epsilon `$-scalar propagator is always diagonal, see the notice above) as a projector and after contraction of external indices replace $`d^n`$ with $`4^n(42\epsilon )^n`$. At the same moment, evaluating corrections to the interaction between the $`\epsilon `$-scalar and quarks (see Fig.5), required for the determination of the Yukawa charge renormalization, one should follow the same steps, as in the case of $`\epsilon `$-scalar propagator with the only difference that now the projector is given by

$`\mathrm{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8C_FC_A\epsilon }}T^a\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right),`$ (53)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ is an interaction vertex of the gluon field with quarks computed in SUSY QCD without separating $`ϵ`$-scalar contributions, but using the 4-dimensional vector and spinor algebras.

In the one-loop order the $`\epsilon `$-scalar field renormalization constant is given by

$`Z_s=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(6C_A(2\xi )\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}.`$ (54)
For the one-loop Yukawa charge renormalization constant, describing the interaction of the $`ϵ`$-scalar with fermions in SUSY QCD, we have

$`Z_Y=Z_{qsq}^2Z_q^2Z_s^1=1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left(3C_A6\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}.`$ (55)
Note that in SUSY QCD, contrary to the case of nonsupersymmetric QCD, it coincides with the gauge charge renormalization constant. It is due to supersymmetry, which now protects a tree-level coincidence of the $`\epsilon `$-scalar and vector coupling constants.

The one-loop nonminimal mass counterterm for $`\epsilon `$-scalars reads

$`\delta m_s^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n_f}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)^\epsilon m_f^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\epsilon }}+2\right]{\displaystyle \underset{n_{\stackrel{~}{f}}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)^\epsilon m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+1\right]+C_A\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)^\epsilon m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\epsilon }}+2\right]\right).`$ (56)
It is necessary to insure that the pole mass of the $`\epsilon `$-scalar is zero. Here $`n_f`$ denotes the sum over different quark flavours and $`n_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ is used to denote the sum over different squarks. It is just this counterterm that cancels $`m_{\mathrm{hard}}^2`$ terms occurring in the two-loop diagrams and ensures decoupling of large scale physics for a physical quantity like a quark pole mass. A way of renormalizing the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass nonminimally was first proposed in  and was shown to be a consistent renormalization procedure. In fact, there are two theoretically admissible prescriptions to deal with the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass renormalization. One is to renormalize the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass minimally  and the other is the total subtraction of loop corrections to the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass . In the first approach, the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass becomes a running quantity and physical quantities, like pole mass in our case, will in general depend on it together with other physical renormalized parameters. However, the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass is not a physical quantity and it is more correct to treat it as an artifact of our regularization and renormalization schemes. From this point of view the second approach is more natural, if we are going to follow as close as possible the original idea of dimensional reduction suggesting the zero tree-level mass for both $`\epsilon `$-scalars and gauge bosons. Of course, all renormalization schemes are equivalent and could be related via a final recalculation of parameters. Introduction of nonminimal subtraction for the $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass leads to the fact that the bare quark mass is not anymore a renormalization group invariant. The point is that the physical quark mass depends on two mutually correlated bare masses: quark mass itself and $`\epsilon `$-scalar mass. Both these quantities are $`\overline{\mu }`$ dependent and only the physical pole mass is RG invariant. For precisely this reason the RG equations for the bare quark mass should be written with great care.

## 4 Results of calculation

Here we present the results of our calculation. Corrections to the pole masses are parameterized as follows:

$$\frac{M_{\mathrm{pole}}}{m}=1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}\right),$$
(57)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ starts from the one-loop order.

Through calculations we reproduced all known results about radiative corrections to the pole masses of the bottom and top quarks: one-loop MSSM  and two loop QCD  (in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ ) and  (in $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ ) corrections. As an additional check, the renormalization group analysis can be applied to confirm independently the $`1/\epsilon `$ and $`1/\epsilon ^2`$ terms. We get complete agreement between our pole terms and those from RG for the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ quark mass renormalization constant. And the last but not least: calculations were performed in the linear gauge with a free QCD gauge parameter. The correction to the pole mass (57) however appears to be gauge independent.

### 4.1 One-loop result

The corrections to the bottom and top quark pole masses in the one-loop order have been well known for a long time for QCD as well as for MSSM. Here we reproduce them only up to terms of the order $`𝒪(m_{\mathrm{soft}}^2/m_{\mathrm{hard}}^2)`$ in a large mass expansion procedure. For pure QCD we have

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}{m_b}\right)^{\mathrm{QCD}}=C_F\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left[53\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}\right)\right]$$
(58)
and the squark-gluino MSSM contribution is given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}{m_b}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{b}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi }}[3+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}+2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}}{m_b}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}(2{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}+2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{\stackrel{~}{b}}){\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}}{m_b}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_2}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}^2}}\right)]`$
which coincide with the results of . To obtain similar expressions for the case of the top one should perform an obvious substitution $`bt`$. The results for squark-chargino and higgs-quarks loops also known, but we are interested only in $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ and $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ corrections in this paper.

### 4.2 Two-loop result

The two-loop QCD results in the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$-scheme for the $`b`$-quark (with four light quarks)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_b}{m_b}}\right)^{\mathrm{QCD}}=C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{623}{18}}8\zeta _2+\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{13}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{m_t^2}}\right)`$
$`+C_F\left[{\displaystyle \frac{59}{8}}+30\zeta _248\mathrm{ln}(2)\zeta _2+12\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+C_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1093}{24}}8\zeta _2+24\mathrm{ln}(2)\zeta _26\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{179}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+26\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)6\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\}`$ (60)
and for the $`t`$-quark (with five light quarks)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_t}{m_t}}\right)^{\mathrm{QCD}}=C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2\{4312\zeta _2+26\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)6\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)`$
$`+C_F\left[{\displaystyle \frac{59}{8}}+30\zeta _248\mathrm{ln}(2)\zeta _2+12\zeta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+C_A[{\displaystyle \frac{1093}{24}}8\zeta _2+24\mathrm{ln}(2)\zeta _26\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{179}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)]\}`$ (61)
coincide with the first terms of the expansion in $`m_b/m_t`$ from

We find very a simple answer to one particular limit. Namely, in the case, when $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_L}=m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_R}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{u}_{1,2}}=m_{\stackrel{~}{d}_{1,2}}=m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=M`$, the expression looks like (see eq. (12) for the definition of $`a_q`$)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_q}{m_q}}\right)^{\mathrm{MSSM}}=C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\right)^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{47}{3}}+20\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+6\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{m_q^2}}\right)`$
$`+C_F\left[{\displaystyle \frac{23}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{13}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)3\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+C_A\left[{\displaystyle \frac{175}{72}}+{\displaystyle \frac{41}{6}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_q}{M}}\left[48\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]+C_F{\displaystyle \frac{a_q}{M}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)+3\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)\right]`$
$`+C_A{\displaystyle \frac{a_q}{M}}[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}+4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{\overline{\mu }^2}}\right)]\}`$ (62)
Note, that we put equal to each other the left and right squark masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_R}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_L}^2`$ but not its physical mass eigenstates $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2`$. The latest is true only when $`a_q=0`$ because a minimal mixing takes place when $`\theta _q=\pi /4`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}^2=M^2\pm a_qm_q`$ (for $`a_q<0`$).

Since the complete formulae888They could be found in the source archive file for this paper submitted to the HEP database  are too large to be presented here, we present only the influence of our results on the masses of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks and the spectra of supersymmetric particles obtained as solutions of RG equations.

We incorporated our formulae into the SoftSUSY code  and analyzed the difference in the predictions for particle masses obtained with and without our corrections to the $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quark pole masses. To measure quantitatively influence on the spectra let us introduce for each species of particle the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_p=\frac{m_p^{\mathrm{CODE}}m_p^{\mathrm{CODE}+\mathrm{Corrections}}}{m_p^{\mathrm{CODE}}},$$
(63)
where $`p`$ stands for quarks or different supersymmetric particles. Below we put in our analysis the renormalization scale $`\overline{\mu }`$ to be equal to $`m_Z`$.

In Fig.6, we present the variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ from the above formula as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for $`m_0=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`m_{1/2}=400\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`A_0=0`$ and $`M_{GUT}=1.9\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$. We plotted $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ for five different cases:

$``$ Bottom 1L — difference between the results obtained with code including and excluding MSSM one-loop corrections to the pole mass of the $`b`$-quark

$``$ Top 1L — the same as above for the $`t`$-quark

$``$ Bottom — difference between the results obtained with the code containing two-loop SUSY QCD correction to the $`b`$-quark together with MSSM one-loop corrections to the pole masses of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks and results obtained with the code containing MSSM one-loop corrections to the pole masses of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks

$``$ Top — the same as above for the $`t`$-quark

$``$ All — difference between the results obtained with the code containing two-loop SUSY QCD correction together with MSSM one-loop corrections to the pole masses of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks and the results obtained with the code without any MSSM (one-loop and two-loop) corrections to the pole masses of $`b`$\- and $`t`$-quarks.

From this figure one can see that two-loop correction to the relation between the $`b`$-quark pole and $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ masses gives a sizeable contribution only to the solution obtained with the SoftSUSY program for the $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ $`b`$-quark mass at $`m_Z`$ and almost does not influence spectra of SUSY particles. However, if one considers large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ it becomes important for other particle spectra and thus should be taken into account in an accurate RG analysis. Note that our two-loop SUSY QCD correction for a wide range of parameter space is always less than a similar one-loop contribution. The two-loop MSSM correction to the $`t`$-quark pole mass, on the other hand, contributes to almost all SUSY particle masses obtained as a solution of renormalization group equations with universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale. This 2-loop correction is smaller than 1-loop MSSM contribution, however its effect on particle spectra is greater then corresponding 1-loop and 2-loop MSSM contributions to the $`b`$-quark pole mass almost everywhere in MSSM parameter space. This could be attributed to potentially large corrections coming from higher terms in the $`m_t/M_{SUSY}`$ expansion.

To see the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ on $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`A_0`$, we use so called a set of benchmark points and parameter lines in MSSM parameter space from  which corresponds to different scenarios in the search for Supersymmetry at present and future colliders. While a detailed scan over the more-than-hundred-dimensional parameter space of MSSM is clearly not practicable, even a sampling of the three- (four-)dimensional parameter space of $`m_0`$, $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`A_0`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) is beyond the present capabilities of phenomenological studies, especially when one tries to simulate experimental signatures of supersymmetric particles within detectors. For this reason, one often resorts to specific benchmark scenarios, i.e., one studies only specific parameter points or at best samples the one-dimensional parameter space (the latter is sometimes called a model line ), which exhibit specific characteristics of MSSM parameter space.

Some recent proposals for SUSY benchmark scenarios may be found in . We refer to the “Snowmass Points and Slopes” (SPS)  which consists of model lines (“slopes”), i.e., continuous sets of parameters depending on the one dimensionful parameter and specific benchmark points, where each model line goes through one of the benchmark points.

In Fig.7, we present the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ as functions defined along Model Line A

$$m_0=A_0=0.4m_{1/2},m_{1/2}\text{ varies},\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

where the benchmark point is

$$m_0=100\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=250\mathrm{GeV},A_0=100\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,\mu >0.$$

Here and below $`\mu `$ is the supersymmetric Higgs mass parameter

As one can easily see from Fig.7, varying $`m_{1/2}`$ at fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ 2-loop SUSY QCD correction to the $`b`$-quark pole mass almost does not contribute to heavy supersymmetric particle spectra. On the other hand, our correction to the $`t`$-quark pole mass is comparable to the corresponding 1-loop contribution.

In Fig.8, we present the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ defined as functions along Model Line C

$$m_0=m_{1/2},m_{1/2}\text{ varies},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =35,\mu >0.$$

where the benchmark point is

$$m_0=300\mathrm{GeV},m_{1/2}=300\mathrm{GeV},A_0=0\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{tan}\beta =35,\mu >0.$$

Situation with Fig.8 is analogous to that of Fig.7, even if we increase $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from 10 up to 35. Importance of our corrections increases only at very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (50 and more), as one can see from Fig.6 .

For such a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we just used some particular values $`m_0`$ and $`m_{1/2}`$ from the allowed region from . We use the following parameterization:

$$m_0=m_{1/2},m_{1/2}\text{ varies},A_0=0,\mathrm{tan}\beta =55,\mu >0.$$

The results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ are shown in Fig.9 and we can see that in this case our 2-loop correction to the $`b`$-quark pole mass gives a sizeable contribution to the masses of gluino and sbottoms.

Now let us discuss our limiting formula eq.(62). We have studied the difference between our full result and this approximate expression in different regions of MSSM parameter space using the same strategy as above. As a result we find (see Fig. 10) that for the $`b`$-quark this difference does not exceed 12% for the parameters region considered above, both for the dependence on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_{1/2}`$. For the $`t`$-quark this is even better.

## 5 Conclusion

We presented the results for two-loop MSSM corrections to the relation between pole and running masses of heavy quarks up to the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ order. We provided a detail analysis of the value of these corrections in different regions of parameter space and discussed their impact on SUSY particle spectra. We would like to note that our results presented here may also be included in the codes of programs like Isajet , SuSpect  and used for predictive phenomenological analysis like , , , . In one of our next papers we suppose to calculate missing corrections from stop-chargino loops to the $`b`$-quark pole mass and to provide more terms in the expansion in the relation between the top pole and $`\overline{\mathrm{DR}}`$ masses.

The authors would like to thank K.Chetyrkin, M.Kalmykov, D.Kazakov and V.Smirnov for fruitful discussions and multiple comments. This work of A.O. and O.V. was supported by DFG-Forschergruppe ”Quantenfeldtheorie, Computeralgebra and Monte-Carlo-Simulation” (contract FOR 264/2-1) and by BMBF under grant No 05HT9VKB0. Financial support for A.B. and V.V. from RFBR grants # 02-02-16889 and # 00-15-96691 is kindly acknowledged.