Skip to main content

Full text of "Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD"

See other formats


International Journal of Modern Physics A 
© World Scientific Publishing Company 



RUNNING MASS OF THE J5-QUARK 
IN QCD AND SUSY QCD 

A.V. BEDNYAKOV 

BLTP, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia 
bednya@theor.jinr. ru 

The running mass of the 6-quark defined in DR-scheme is one of the important parame- 
ters of SUSY QCD. To find its value, it should be related to some known experimental 
input. In this paper, the b-quark running mass defined in nonsupersymmetric QCD is 
chosen for determination of the corresponding parameter in SUSY QCD. The relation 
between these two quantities is found by considering five-flavor QCD as an effective 
theory obtained from its supersymmetric extension. A numerical analysis of the calcu- 
lated two-loop relation and its impact on the MSSM spectrum is discussed. Since for 
nonsupersymmetric models MS-scheme is more natural than DR, we also propose a new 
procedure that allows one to calculate relations between MS- and DR-parameters. Un- 
physical e-scalars that give rise to the difference between the above-mentioned schemes 
are assumed to be heavy and decoupled in the same way as physical degrees of free- 
dom. By means of this method it is possible to "catch two rabbits", i.e., decouple heavy 
particles and turn from DR to MS, at the same time. An explicit two-loop example of 
DR — > MS transition is given in the context of QCD. The advantages and disadvantages 
of the method are briefly discussed. 

Keywords: QCD; MSSM; 6-quark 

PACS numbers: 12.38.-t, 12.38.Bx, 12.60Jv, 14.65Fy 

1. Introduction 

It is commonly believed that the Standard Model (SM) is not the ultimate theory 
of particle physics. Among other deficiencies of the SM there is so-called fine tuning 
problem which arises from quadratic dependence of the Higgs mass on the new 
physics scale. 

A popular extension of the SM that cures this problem is the Minimal Super- 
symmetric Standard Model (MSSM). The construction of the CERN Large Hadron 
Collider (LHC) has led to many increasingly precise calculations of sparticle pro- 
duction and decay processes. 

An important ingredient of the model is the SUSY QCD sector. In most of the 
processes with color particles radiative corrections from the strong interactions give 
a dominant contribution. Loop corrections to tree-level processes in SUSY QCD are 
usually expressed in terms of running parameters defined in so-called DR-scheme. 
It is an analog of MS renormalization scheme based on Dimensional Reduction 
(DREDp. 



2 A.V. Bednyakov 



The running mass of the &-quark is one of the important parameters of 

SUSY QCD. The value of m]^^ at a scale /i should be obtained from some exper- 
imental input. However, for the 6-quark it is very hard to find or even define such 
an i nput . The pole mass Mi, being very wel l def ined in a finite order of perturbative 
QCe1212J suffers from renormalon ambiguitjHI^ that gives rise to Aqcd ~ 10 % 
uncertainty in its determination. There is another issue in using the pole mass 
for determination of mf^. The relation between these two quantities exhibits a 
logarithmic dependence on all mass scales of SUSY QCD. This is a typical, non- 
decoupling, property of minimal renormalization schemes. In our problem we have 
very different scales, i.e., mi, <C Msusy- Consequently, one cannot make all the 
logarithms small by some choice of the renormalization scale /i, thus leading to 
inaccurate perturbative prediction for m|p^. 

A convenient quantity to use for extraction of is the 6-quark running mass 
TO^^ defined in the five-flavor QCD renormalized in MS-scheme^. The value of the 
running mass at the scale which is equal to itself is known from PDGpl, m^^(m^^) = 
4.20 ± 0.07 GeV . 

In this paper, we calculate an explicit two-loop relation between and 
by the so-called matching procedure (see, e.g., Refs. HI and[9|). 

In Section [21 our theoretical framework is described. Renormalizable QCD is 
considered as an effective theory that can be obtained from a more fundamental 
one by decoupling of heavy particles. Decoupling of heavy degrees of freedom man- 
ifests itself in relations between parameters of fundamental and effective theories. 
Intuitively, in the energy region far below the corresponding threshold contribution 
of virtual heavy loops to the light particle effective action can be approximated by 
local renormalizable operators that respect gauge invariance and, consequently, can 
be absorbed into redefinition of Lagrangian parameters and fields. 

In Section[3l we discuss how relations between MS-parameters and their counter- 
parts in DR-scheme can be obtained on the same footing. The distinction between 
MS and DR essentially comes from the presence of so-called e-scalars. Since the 
scalars are unphysical, we may assume that they are heavy and decouple them in 
almost the same way as one decouples physical degrees of freedom. As an example 
of the formalism, in Section[4l we consider two-loop matching of DR QCD with MS 
QCD. We show how known relations between DR and MS QCD parameters (see, 
e.g., Ref. [T0|) are reproduced. 

In Section O we use the described technique to calculate a two- loop relation be- 
tween MS and DR running masses of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD part of 
the MSSM. In our approach, we decouple all heavy particles simultaneously ("com- 
mon scale approach" of Ref. 11). For the TeV-scale SUSY it seems phenomenolog- 
ically acceptable since the electroweak scale is usually used for matching. Simul- 
taneous decoupling results in a lengthy final expression. As a consequence, only 



^ In what follows we use adjectives "full", "fundamental" and "high-energy" as synonyms to 
distinguish a more fundamental theory from the effective one 



Running mass of the b- quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 3 



numerical impact of the result is presented. 

In our calculations we made use of FeynArtJI^ to generate needed Feynman 
amplitudes. Since DR — > MS transition requires explicit treatment of e-scalars, the 
interaction Lagrangian for the unphysical fields was implemented. Some details of 
the implementation can be found in a series of appendices. 

2. Decoupling of heavy particles and Large Mass Expansion 

In QCD and its supersymmctric extension it is convenient to use mass-independent 
(minimal subtractions or MS) renormalization schemes. In these schemes beta- 
functions and anomalous dimensions have a very simple structure. However, phys- 
ical quantities expressed in terms of the running parameters exhibit a nonanalytic 
logarithmic dependence on all mass scales of the theory. 

If there is a big hierarchy between mass scales, it is not satisfactory, since due 
to this nonanalytic mass dependence, a contribution of heavy degrees of freedom to 
low-energy observables is not suppressed by the inverse power of the corresponding 
heavy mass scale. It is said that in MS-schemes in contrast to momentum subtraction 
schemes (MOM), the Appelquist-Carrazone decoupling theorenil^j does not hold. 

A proper way to overcome the above-mentioned difficulties of MS-schemes is to 
use effective (low-energy) theories to describe physics at relevant energy scales E. If 
at given energies heavy particles with mass M > E can only appear in virtual states 
one may use an effective field theory with the corresponding heavy fields omitted. 

In a general case low-energy theories are not renormalizable. Moreover, to repro- 
duce physics close to the threshold E < M correctly, they should contain infinitely 
many nonrenormalizable interactions parametrized by dimensionful couplings. How- 
ever, given a more fundamental theory one can relate all the couplings in the effec- 
tive low-energy Lagrangian to fundamental parameters of the high-energy theory. 
Roughly speaking, one should calculate observables (or, more strictly. Green func- 
tions) in both theories and tune the parameters and field normalization in the 
effective Lagrangian in such a way that both results coincide in the region below 
the threshold. 

This procedure is called matching. As a result of matching one expresses effec- 
tive theory parameters as functions of fundamental ones. In practice, one cannot 
deal with an infinite number of interactions. So one usually performs asymptotic 
expansion of Green functions defined in high-energy theory in E/M and demands 
that effective theory should correctly reproduce a finite order of the expansion con- 
sidered. 

In some cases effective theories are used for energies far below the threshold so 
a contribution from nonrenormalizable operators is usually suppressed by powers 
of E/M. One may even consider renormalizable effective theory. In this case, the 
structure of low-energy Lagrangian differs from the one of the fundamental theory 
only by omission of all the heavy fields and their interactions. 

One usually says that decoupling of heavy particles is manifest if one can directly 



4 A.V. Bednyakov 



use the parameters defined in a fundamental tlieory to calculate quantities within 
the effective theory (and vice versa). In a momentum subtraction scheme decoupling 
is obvious, since all the parameters are defined through Green functions evaluated 
at certain external momenta (less than M) . Since we demand that Green functions 
in both theories coincide, all the parameters defined in such a way also coincide. 

On the contrary, MS-parameters are not related to Green functions evaluated 
at some finite momenta. Thus, one does not expect that MS-parameters have the 
same value in both the theories. In this sense decoupling in MS-schemes does not 
hold. One should manually tune the parameters defined in such a scheme. 

How does the approach based on effective theories help one to avoid the ap- 
pearance of large logarithms for E ^ M in a calculation? The trick is to separate 
\ogM/E into logM/ ^ and log£'//x, where (i is an arbitrary separation scale which 
in MS-scheme is naturally equal to the 'tHooft unit mass. Then one may absorb 
log into low-energy parameters of the effective theory by a matching procedure. 
A typical relation between the parameters is 

A{y) = Aifi) X U{A{p), B{y), M, y), (1) 

where ^ is a dimensionless parameter of the effective theorj0 , A denotes its counter- 
part in the high-energy theory, and B arc other dimensionless fundamental theory 
parameters. The function C,a is called decoupling constant for A. Generalization 
of IT]) to dimensionful parameters is straightforward. However, one should keep in 
mind that the crucial property of Ca is its independence of small energy scales. One 
calculates Ca in perturbation theory and at the tree level Ca = 1- Given fi ^ M one 
avoids large logarithms in ([1]). If one knows fundamental parameters at the scale 
/i AI, one can find the values of the effective-theory parameters at the same scale. 
Clearly, direct application of the parameters A(fj, M) in low-energy theory again 
introduces large logarithms \ogE/fi ^ log E/M. However, in the effective theory it 
is possible to sum these logarithms by the renormalization group method, i.e., going 
from A{M) to A{E) (see Fig. [J) . 

Actually, one usually reverses the reasoning. Typically, fundamental theory pa- 
rameters are unknown (especially, the value of M), but one knows the value of A{E) 
normalized at some low-energy scale E. Direct application of ([1]) again introduces 
large logarithms in the right-hand side, log M//i ^ log M/E. As in the previous 
case, one should use renormalization group equations defined in the effective the- 
ory to evaluate A{^) at /x ~ M. Consequently, relation ^ can be interpreted as a 
constraint on the fundamental theory parameters. Usually, largest variations of the 
right-hand side of ([T]) come from variations of A parameter, so one says that the 
value of A{fi) is extracted from A(/^)- It is this type of relations we are interested in. 
Let us describe the procedure that one can use to calculate decoupling (matching) 
corrections. 

''In what follows we underline effective theory parameters and fields 



Running mass of the b- quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 5 
^ = E M 



A{E),B{E),M 



RGE FT 

\ogM]fi] ' log E]fi 



A{M),B{M),M 



log M/ fi I [ ^Low-energy observable J Matching 

' \og e'Ih] 




E <s:M 



Fig. 1. The diagram shows various relations between full theory (FT) running parameters 
{A, B, M), the parameters A of the effective theory (EFT), and low-energy observables. Renor- 
malization group equations (RGE) together with matching at the scale M allows one to avoid 
the appearance of large logarithms (see dashed boxes) in calculation. Solid lines correspond to 
relations that do not introduce large logarithms explicitly. 



Consider the Lagrangian of a full theory, Cfuii- For the moment, we do not 
specify it explicitly. The crucial property of the theory is that it describes not only 
gluons and quarks (light fields denoted by 4>), but also heavy fields $ with typical 
masses A/: 

^fuU = C.QCD 

Here = {G^, g^.i?, c} are gluon, quark, and ghost fields, respectively. The strong 
gauge coupling is denoted by w corresponds to quark masses and ^ is a gauge- 
fixing parameter. It should be noted that A£ represents the Lagrangian for heavy 
fields and contains kinetic terms for $ together with various interactionsEI. The QCD 
Lagrangian Cqcd has the usual form: 

-Cqci? = --^F^^.F!^" + q{iD~ m) q, 

- ^ id,G';:f c-d'^ (d^S'^" + gst'-C^,) c^ (3) 

where 

T^a c) c) /-^a rabcr^h r^c 

^ fiv — (Jfi^u ^ O^U^ — gsj U^Lxj,, 

F>^ = 9p + igsG^, = T^GJ^, 
and for simplicity we omit summation over quark flavours. For energies below the 



"^In this paper, we only consider strong interactions between all fields of the fundamental theory 



6 A.V. Bednyakov 



threshold E < M one is interested in Green functions with hght external fields 
{Tq^{xi)...(j)ixn))^f-" = / Vc^(^<f,{xi)...cb{xn))expi I dxCfulli<P,^) (4) 



G{qi,...qn,m,M) 



/7i n 
dxi exp i 
1 A 1 



X (r0(xi) 



exp ^Y2^ QiXi 

i=l i=l 

renormalized in a minimal scheme. Let us consider the expansion of ^ in the 
inverse powers of M (Large Mass Expansion or LME). The leading order of the 
expansion can be written in the following form: 

(T<^(a;i)...0(a;„))^/""(^'*) ~ (T0(xi) ... 0(x„))^=/^ (</))+ O(M-i) (6) 

M—i-QO 

or in momentum space 
G{q, m, M) 



M- 



G{qi, . . .qn,m,M) 
Here 



G{q,m,M) + 0{M-^), 

/n n 
^Y\_dx, exp zj^y^gjXj 



X {T(t>{x,)...(f>{xn)f^ff.i7) 



^eff ^Cqcd{4>) + 5Cqcd{4>) 



^<5Cg {df^Gl - d^l) d^Gl + 6C3G {gsr'%d,Gl)G''^G[ 

2 sabe £cder~ia r^b r~ic r~id 



- -^Kag {glr'^r^'G^GlGlGl) + 5Cc {d^c-d^c'^) 
+ SCqL ((QLidqLj +SCqR (quidqnj -SCs{mqq) 

l=L,R 



(8) 



and coefficients = Ci — 1 in ([8]) are functions of M with logarithmic leading 
behaviour as M — > oo. Th e form of asymptotic expansion ([7]) represents the perfect 
factorization property ^131, since heavy (M) and light parameters (m) are fully fac- 
torized. We consider only leading term in the expansior|^, so all operators in SCqcd 
are renormalizable. Therefore, one can rescale the light fields 

= a = 1 + (9) 

and write the effective theory Lagrangian in terms of (j) 

^effi(t>, gs, TO, = Cqcoij), 9s_-,m,^, (10) 

where we also introduce new parameters which are related to the initial ones ^ by 
means of decoupling constants {I — L, R) 

gs = Cff.5s, m = Cram, ^ = ^, 



"^One may increase the accuracy of the expansion in Q by adding to SC nonrenormalizable local 
operators built of with the coefficients 0{M~°'), a > 1 



Running mass of the b- quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 7 



where 

Cra^QsC-^'^-^''. (lib) 

Due to the gauge invariance one should obtain the same result for Cg, in (|llap 
calculated from different vertices. Moreover, since dimensional regularization does 
not violate the gauge invariance, the longitudinal part of the gluon propagator is not 
renormalized. As a consequence, for the gauge-fixing parameter ^ one introduces the 
same decoupling constant as for the gluon field. According to PU]) . one can identify 
underlined parameters with those of QCD. Heavy degrees of freedom are said to be 
"decoupled" . 

We should stress that gs, m, and ^ in the previous formulae are renormalized 
parameters and all the decoupling constants are finite. Evaluation of the constants 
for gs and m requires a comparison of certain Green functions calculated with Cef / 
with the lowest order expansion of the same functions calculated with Cfuii- The 
matching is performed order by order in perturbation theory. Introducing 

oo 

C = 1 + ^<5C« (12) 

one can write the L-loop contribution to the decoupling constant C„ for each vertex 
V from ([8]): 

5Ci^\M)=V^o [Asor(^)(q,m,M) -r,(^)(g,m,Af)]. (13) 

Here ri^'' denotes the L-loop contribution to the renormalized one-particle- 
irreducible (IPI) Green function that corresponds to the vertex v. The operator 
As performs asymptotic expansioiff^l of T^^^ calculated with C fuu up to the lead- 
ing term in the inverse mass M. For calculation of F^'-^-' one uses the [L — l)-loop 
effective theory Lagrangian that differs from ^ only by omission of all the terms 
in with i > L. The appropriate projector Vy applied to the Green function 
extracts the needed coefficient in front of the considered tensor (Lorentz, color, etc) 
structures (see examples below). All nonanalytical dependence on low mass scales 
is canceled in the left-hand side of (fT3|) leading to 

,5C(^^ (M) = n o r o [f(^) (<7, m, M) - vj-'^^ {q, m, M)] , (14) 

where T performs Taylor expansion in small mass m and external momenta q. 

The procedure described above is straightforward, since it deals with the well- 
defined finite quantities but not the optimal one. Formulae ^3]) and p4|) require 
evaluation of the Green functions within both the theories. 

Let us recall that asymptotic expansion of a Feynman integral constists of the 
naive part , and the subgraph part. The naive part corresponds to Taylor expan- 
sion of the integrand in small parameters that cannot give rise to a nonanalytical 
dependence on low mass scales. Subgraphs restore missing terms in the result. The 



8 A.V. Bednyakov 



calculation of asymptotic expansion can be rearranged in such a way (see below) 
that subgraphs of various diagrams contributing to the first term of (jl3p cancel the 
M-dependent contribution to the second term in the squared brackets. Taking into 
account that diagrams with all vertices coming from the QCD part of the Lagrangian 
contribute identically to both the terms of lfT3|) . decoupling constant calculations 
can be reduced to the evaluation of the naive part of LME of the diagrams with at 
least one heavy line. 

There is another issue that has to be pointed out. Taylor expansion of the 
integrand may produce spurious IR divergences which can be a voided by a proper 
redefinition of dangerous terms in the sense of distributional^. In a dimensionally 
regularized form of the expansion the spurious divergences are canceled by the UV- 
divergent terms coming from the subgraphs. The rearrangement mentioned above 
is nothing else but addition of a necessary counter-term to the naive expansion and 
subtraction of the same expression from the subgraphJI^I 

A nice trick (see, e.g., Ref. fl6]) can be used to maintain the rearrangement 
automatically. One introduces decoupling constants for bare parameters 

A^^CAfiAo (15) 

and carries out matching at the bare level. In this case, naive Taylor expansion in 
small parameters is used to calculate the L-loop contribution to the bare decoupling 
constant 

'^C (^'^) ^^voTo ri^o^ (g, m, M) . (16) 

Then by the same formulae pT|) one obtains relations p3)) between bare parameters 
of the low- and high-energy theories. Definitely, this calculation introduces spurious 
IR divergences. However, they are completely canceled when one renormalizes the 
left- and right-hand sides of (fT5|) in MS-scheme 

Ao = Za {A) A, Ao = Za [A, B) A, (17) 







Za{A,B) Za{A) CaAZaA,ZbB, ZmM). (18) 



Here we emphasized that renormalization constants Za and Za are defined in dif- 
ferent theories and depend on the parameters of the full {A, B, M) and effective 
theories (A), respectively. Since A enters into the right-hand side of (HH]), this is an 
equation that should be solved in perturbation theory. 

Finally, we want to mak e a remark that a decoupling relation between MS- 
parameters can also be founcff^ by considering momentum space (" physical" ) sub- 
tractions as an intermediate step. Indeed, the parameter Amom{Q) defined in MOM- 
scheme at some scale Q ^ M can be expressed either in terms of A (effective theory) 
or in terms of A, B and AI (full theory) 

Amom{Q) = nAQ) = f{A,B,M,Q). (19) 

As it should be, it turns out that the relation between A and the parameters of the 
full theory do not depend on Q. 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 9 



3. Transition from DR to MS by decoupling of e-scalars 

In dimensional regularization (DREG), the number of space-time dimensions is 
altered from four to c? = 4 — 2e which renders the loop integrations finite. It is clear, 
however, that if DREG is applied to a four-dimensional supersymmetric theory, 
the number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom in supermultiplets is no 
longer equal, such that supersymmetry is explicitly broken. In order to avoid this 
problem, Dimensional Reduction has been suggested as an alternative regularization 
method-. Space-time is compactified to d — A — 2e dimensions in DRED, such 
that the number of vector field components remains equal to four. Momentum 
integrations are d-dimensional, however, and divergences are parametrized in terms 
of 1/e poles, just like in DREG. Since it is assumed that e > 0, the four-dimensional 
vector fields can be decomposed in terms of d-dimensional ones plus the so-called 
e-scalars. The occurrence of these e-scalars is, therefore, the only difference between 
DREG and DRED, so that all the calculational techniques developed for DREG are 
applicable also in DREeSSI, 

Dimensional reduction of the four-dimensional Cqc d leads to the following reg- 
ularized form of QCD Lagrangian (see [Appendix A[ ) 

^QCD -> ^qJd + SCqcd 

- ^glr^T^^W^W^w}wf - g,:q'y^W^T''q, (20) 

where W"" corresponds to e-scalar fields and the indices i, j belong to the (space-like) 
2e-subspace of the four-dimensional world. In nonsupersymmetric models there are 
several issues related to this Lagrangian. First of all, the last two terms in (|20|) are 
gauge-invariant separateljH^, and there is no symmetry that guarantees the same 
renormalization of the couplings that parametrize these vertices (see [Appendix A I . 
This leads to complications in the renormalization group analysis, since the running 
of the couplings (pO)) is different. Secondly, since Wi are scalars, all massive parti- 
cles that couple to them contribute to the unphysical e-scalar mass m^. In order 
to solve the first mentioned problem, one must introduce so-called evanescenlll^ 
couplings for each vertex. To the second problem there are two approaches. One 
may either introduce e-scalar mass explicitly in the Lagrangian (|20p and renormal- 
ize it minimally (DR-scheme) or use nonminimal counte r-te rm to subtract radiative 
corrections to at each order of perturbation theorjff^. It turns out that these 
prescriptions give rise to the same final answer for the Q CD ob servables. We have 
checked this explicitly by considering two-loop pole masJ^^^^ of the quark in the 
DR QCD. 

In the context of SUSY QCD part of the MSSM the situation is different. All 
the dimensionless evanescent couplings are related to the gluon couplings by SUSY 
and, therefore, are not independent. This circumvents the first problem. However, 
two mentioned renormalization conditions for produce different answers. For 



10 A.V. Bednyakov 



example, in DR the pole mass of a scalar quark superpartner (squark) exhibits a 
quadratic dependence on m^. The authors of Ref. 21 proposed to redefine running 
squark masses m| to absorb the unphysical contribution (DR -scheme) . At the one- 
loop leveEl one has 

After such a redefinition one obtains the result which is independent of m^. The 
new scheme is equivalent to the prescription with a nonminimal counter-terirP^. 
This statement was also checked explicitly by considering heavy quark pole masJ^Sl 
in SUSY QCD as an observable. 

Formula ((2T|) and the reasoning that was used to obtain it allows one to interpret 
pT|) as a first step towards decoupling of e-scalars in the sense described in the pre- 
vious section. Leading (but unphysical) (m^ — + oo) corrections to the pole mass of 
the squark are absorbed into redefinition of the corresponding mass parameter. One 
may go further and decouple e-scalars completely. It seems useless in the context of 
SUSY QCD, since without e-scalars one loses the advantages of DRED. However, it 
makes sense in the problem described in the paper. For nonsupersymmetric models 
MS-scheme is natural in the sense that contrary to DR it does not require intro- 
duction of evanescent couplings. Given the procedure (see Sec. [5]), not only physical 
degrees of freedom can be decoupled but also unphysical e-scalars. This leads to a 
direct relation between MS-parameters of the effective theory and DR-parameters 
of the full theory. 

Using these simple arguments we calculate the relation between the 6-quark 
running mass defined in the MS QCD and its counter-part in DR SUSY QCD. 
Before going to the final result, in the next section we want to demonstrate how 
known relations between DR and MS QCD parameters are reproduced. 



4. Toy example: matching MS QCD with DR QCD 

Let us consider a model with {nf — 1) massless quarks and only one massive quark 
with mass denoted by m. Thus, the task is to find two-loop relations of the following 
type: 



MS DR /- /„DR, DRa ™MS DR ^ f DR DRa /r,o^ 

9s ^ 9s xCgAo^s ,oiy ), m ^ m x Cm[a, ,ay ) (22) 



where 



_9l _9l 

In (|22p superscript tells us what kind of renormalization scheme is used and gy is 
the evanescent coupling for e-scalar interaction with quarks (see IjA.lSP ). Usually, 



"Two-loop result can be found in Ref. 1221 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 11 



((22)) are solved in perturbation theory to obtain mP^ and as functions of MS- 
parameters and evanescent ones. However, we use the form p2|) . since it is directly 
related to matching. 

In this section, we consider "high-energy" theory with a Lagrangian AC ([2]) 



1 ^ 

- - ^ A.ijf "'^W^^W^/W^/'PF/ - g^gf W.'T'^q (23) 

r=l 



that describes "heavy" degrees of freedom. In ([23]) the mass of the unphysical scalars 
is explicitly introduced together with evanescent couplings gy and A^. Tensors 
jjabcd ]-^£^yg certain symmetric properties (see [Appendix A[ ) and define a color struc- 
ture of the four- vertex. 

First of all, to calculate bare decoupling constants that correspond to ([8]) we con- 
sider bare IPI Green functions and their Taylor expansion in small masses and exter- 
nal momenta (|16p . In the DR QCD left- and right-handed quarks are renormalized in 
the same way, so let us introduce 5C,q = KqL = Kqn and 5C,qGq = KqLGqL = KqRGqR- 
For calculation of 5Cg,o and 5C,s.o quark self-energy Tq is used 



5Cq 
SCs 



1 



1 

i 

Ancin 



X TrpFg 
X TrF 



-S]„(0,0,m2 



p,m— 



Ss(0,0,m: 



(24) 
(25) 



p,m— 



where the trace is taken both over spinor and color indices and Aric appears in 
the denominator because of chosen normalization (Tr 1 = 4 for Dirac algebra and 
Tr 1 = nc for color algebra) . 

Due to the gauge invariance not all the parameters from ([8]) are needed to find 
^Cgs,o- The simplest choice is to use the ghost-gluon vertex TcGc 



gs KcGc = 



' 1 

jahc 



in 

fc2 



X X r 



abc, /J. 
cGc 



(26) 



p,m— 



where a, b, c are gluon indices, /"''^ corresponds to SU (3) structure constants, Ug — 8 
is the number of gluons, p denotes all external momenta and A;^ is the momentum of 
incoming antighost (cf. ([5])). One also needs to consider gluon and ghost self-energies 



■T^Uf. ah / 2 2\ 

iV^ (p,m ,TOj 

■T^ab/ 2 2 2\ 



= -S^' {g^y-p'^p") nG{p\m\ml), 



(27) 
(28) 



12 A.V. Bednyakov 



SCc^ 



gab 




+i 

Ug 




gab 

~i 


X ^ X rf ) 


ng 



p2 J p2 G 



= -Se(0,0,m2), 

p,7n— 



= -nG(0,0,m2),(29) 

p.m— 

(30) 



where d — A — 2e, since we use d-dimensional metric tensor in 
final result for SQ^^q, we also use the gluon-quark vertex TqCq 



To check the 



gsKqOq 



1 



AucCf 



(31) 



where Cp = 4/3 is a casimir of S't/(3) and again the trace is taken over both spinor 
and color indices. 

Direct evaluation of the diagrams that contribute to the one-loop decoupling 
constants gives 



K 



ayCp 1 + e 



L 



ayCp {l + e{--L 



i UsCa (1 - eL) 
2ayCF{l + e{l-L)), 

) 

qOq 



1 



(1) 



l+e{--L 



6 



^sC'a (1 - sL) . 



(32) 

(33) 

(34) 
(35) 
(36) 

(37) 



Here all the coupling constants are considered to be defined in DR, Ca = 3 is 
another casimir of 51/(3), L = logmH and ^CcGc = '^Cc^^ = ^^otice that at the 
one-loop level bare decoupling constants for the mass and the gauge coupling are 
finite as e — » and exhibit a dependence on L only when e 7^ 0. As usual, since we 
want to consider two-loop matching we keep terms that are linear in e. 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 13 



Two-loop decoupling corrections look like 

3as Cf - ay {2Cf -Ca + rifTp) 
+ ayCp [iXz + 2OA2 - AiCa + as {^Ca + Cp^ 



"^qGq 









^ayCp 





^2 ^2 



11 



- jaiCA [ -^Ca + Cf]- T,a'y Cf {Cf + nfTp) 



sc 4 * ^ V 2£ 24 



(38) 
(39) 



2L 



ayCF 



3a, Cf - ay {2Cf -Ca + UfTp) 
3 



+ ayCF [1X3 + 2OA2 - AiCa + as ^-Ca + Cf 

- ^alCF {Cf + UfTF) - ^o^CfCa 



(40) 



j-2L]Cf{ 2ay Cf 



SagCp — ay {2Cf — Ca + nfTp) + GagayCp 



+ + '^y'^P (^^^3 + 4OA2 - 2AiCa + IAusCf) 

+ alCF (3(7a - &Cf - 2nfTF) - la^CpCA 





(54') = alCl (^1 + I - i L ) + a^ay { ^UfTpCA - 2nfTFCF 
7, „ 20, „ 1 



+ gAsagCA + —X2asCA - -AittgC^ 



(41) 



(42) 



and 



= {--2L]Cf{ ayCF 



SusCf - ay {2Cf -Ca+ UfTp) 



+ ^<Ca 



+ ayCp 7A3 + 2OA2 - XiCa + as ISCp - -Ca 



13 



+ apF 3Ca - —Cf - ^nfTp - —ajCFCA, 



11 



12 



(43) 

2^ 



(1) 



as 



:XiCa 



10 



X2CA - ayUfTF -Ca - Cf 



\asC\\{\^) 



14 A.V. Bednyakov 



In and we use perturbative expansion of (fTT|) . Clearly, contains di- 
vergence and, therefore, the dependence on L arises at 0(6°). Also there is a de- 
pendence on various A;. As it was noticed in Sec. [2] bare decoupling relations need 
to be properly renormalized (jl8|) . Let us demonstrate how this can be done at the 
two-loop level. 

Recall again that A = {gs,m} corresponds to high-energy theory parameters 
that have their counter-parts in the low-energy theory, B — {gy, Xi} denotes dimen- 
sionless parameters and M = represents large masses. Let us consider pertur- 
bative expansion of the bare decoupling and renormalization constants that enter 
into (fT8l): 



5z'^}\a,B) 



Za = 1 + 5Z/'\A)+5Z/^HA), 
a,o - 1 + <5Ca o(^o, Bo, Mo) + <5Cao(^o, Sq, Mq). 



(45) 
(46) 

(47) 



Substituting these quantities into (jlSp one obtains the following expression for renor- 
malized decoupling constant 6(^a' 



6(^2'' - SZ^AiA B) ~ 5Z^^\A) + <5C^],(A, S, M), 
6Cf=5zf{A,B)-5Z/^\A)-5C^^^ [a^ 6Z^^{A) 

+ (6Z^^\A)f - SZ^]^\a,B)5Z^'HA) 
+ 5Q%{A, B, M) (5Z^^\a, B) - 5Z/'\A)) 

+ 5Cf,oA B, M) + f ^^^'^ {^Tt) ^^aIA B, M) 



^A,B,M 



(48) 



(49) 



Consequently, to find the matching relations (|22p we need to co nsider renormaliza- 
tion constants of the low-energy theory, i.e., QCD in MS-schemflSEl, 



7MS 



1 -3Cf 

1 /97 
~e V12 
a. 1 



as 1 
An e 

Ca^ 



at 



(47r)2 



47re V3 



-Tpuf 



11 



17 



-Ca 



(47r) 



1 /121 

^2 



Gi- 



ll 



-CATpUf 



-CaTfuj + CpTpUf 



(50) 



(51) 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 15 



together with renormahzation constants of the full theory, i.e., DR QCe!^, 



Z. 



DR. 



1 -3Cf 



+Cf 



as 1 
47r e 



in 



(47r)2 
91 



1 /II 



-3Cj 



9 



as 1 
47r e 



12 



■DR 
•DR 



l-3C.fii 
47r e 

l-3C^^i 
47r e 



Ca + TT^F ~ 2nfTp 



An e 



20X2 -XiCa)-, 

£ 



(52) 

(53) 
(54) 



where we have omitted DR-renormalization constant for the gauge coupling since 
it has the same form as ()5ip . Notice that for our purpose we only need one-loop 
renormahzation for the evanescent coupling ay and for the mass m^. 

Given the knowledge of bare decoupling and renormahzation constants in the 
effective and full theories, one can calculate renormalized decoupling corrections. 
Since one-loop renormahzation for the gauge coupling and the quark mass coincides 
in DR and MS, the first two lines in ([^5]) can be represented as 



Z^^s,_ay) 



Z^y.s.a_y) 
Z^HafS) 



— I ~ C'fCa 



1 



(47r)2 2e 



CfCa 



(An) 



■L 



^ 1 



An 

Ca al 
3 [Any 



?,Cf 



as 1 
An e 



-L 



^i(2C, 

An e 



-TpTL 



Ca 



FUf 



11 



Ca 



The renormahzation of the one-loop bare decoupling constants give rise to the fol- 
lowing: 



2541) 



d 

' da. 



sz 



(1) 



d 



^2Cf'^ 
An 



-iCp-. h -T' {2Cf ~ C js 

An An 



"'5m, 



-TpUf) 



e 



-Cf^ 
An 



^ {3Ca - 9Cf) 
An 



^ (GCf ~ 3Ca 
An 



UfTp) 



7X3 - 2OA2 + XiCa 



(55) 



2(^41) 



a. 



da. 



(1) 

Sa,0 



's^^Ja^ 



-Tpn 



11 



FUf 



-Ca 



-1:Ca^ (-SCa^ + 2nfTF^ + 7X3 + 2OA2 - X^Ca 
6 47r V An -'An 



(56) 



16 A.V. Bednyakov 

In the end of the day, one gets 



(57) 

^CpaliCF+nfTF), (58) 



(59) 
(60) 

Obviously, the resuh is finite and coincides with the one that is known from liter- 
ature (see, e.g., Ref. f25| . All the dependence on L ~ log m^//i^ and on evanescent 
couplings A; is canceled. Thus, by the explicit two-loop calculation we proved that 
the decoupling procedure well established in the context of perturbative QCD can 
be used not only for decoupling of heavy particles but also for DR MS transition. 



5. The running mass of the b-quark: Matching QCD and SUSY 
QCD 

In this section, we consider the SUSY QCD part of the MSSM as a full theory. 
The Lagrangian of SUSY QCD can be found, e.g., in Ref. [531 After dimensional 
reduction in addition to (|20p there arise interactions of e-scalars with squarks and 
gluinos (see [Appendix Bj ) . The task again is to find a relation 

mp(^) = mf^ifi) X C™, {af^, M™, /i) , (61) 

where corresponds to the DR-renormalized masses of heavy particles. In the 

considered case 

M ^ {mt,mg,mq,}, g = {w, d, c, s, t, 5}, i = 1, 2, (62) 

where uig denotes the gluino mass and rriq. corresponds to squark masses. 

Let us begin with the one-loop result for the mass and the gauge coupling (see. 



self = -^CpCAal + Cpa.ay I^^Cf + \ca 

MS _ DR ( , Kg'} Kf} \ 
- (47r) + (4^)2 ) ' 

Kf} = -\c\al +nfTpCFasay. 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 17 



e.g., RefUni): 




Ca 
6 



(63) 



(64) 



Here 9i, is the bottom squark mixing angle. Unphysical e-scalars contribute — 
to the gauge decouphng constant and to the quark mass decouphng constant. 

It should be noted that ((64|) is nothing else but the one-loop contribution to the 
pole mass of the quark from superparticles. 

One may notice the dangerous dependence on rrib in (|64p . As it was stated in 
Sec. El decoupling constants should not depend on low mass scales. This contradic- 
tion is due to the fact that in the MSSM quarks acquire their masses after spon- 
taneous breakdown of the electroweak symmetry (SSB) . In spite of the fact that 
we neglect interactions parametrized by Yukawa couplings they obviously mani- 
fest themselves in quark masses. Due to the supersymmetry squark interactions 
with Higgs bosons are also parametrized by the same Yukawa couplings. After SSB 
squark quadratic Lagrangian receives a contribution proportional to the mass of a 
quark rUq 

6Cqq = -m^ {qlQL + q*RqR) ~ m,a^ {qlQR + q*RQL) , a? = - /i{cot/3, tan/3} , 



where Ql.r correspond to squark fields, and Aq, p,, tan /3 are the MSSM parameterqj. 
In the definition of aq for up-squarks one has to choose cot /3 and for down-squarks 
— tan/3. Usually one considers ([65]) as an additional contribution to the squark 
mass matrix and after diagonalization introduces mass eigenstates to|^ , and a 
mixing angle 9q that implicitly depend on niq. If one takes into account that 



it is possible to cancel dangerous powers of mf, in (j64p . However, it is not the end 
of the story, since the mass eigenvalues also depend on niq. 

There are two equivalent ways to obtain decoupling corrections that are formally 
independent of low mass scales. The first one is to reexpand (I64|) and ([63]) in mi,/M. 




We use fi to denote supersymmetric Higgs mixing parameter in order to distinguish it from the 
renormaUzation scale fi 



18 A.V. Bednyakov 



The second one is to consider (|65p as a part of the interaction Lagrangian from the 
very beginning. Clearly, insertion of the vertices from (j65p in a Feynman diagram 
gives rise to a contribution that is proportional to some power of mi,. In the context 
of the asymptotic expansion only a finite number of these insertions has to be taken 
into account. For example, if one considers quark self-energy and the leading terms 
in the asymptotic expansion, it is sufficient to take into account only one insertion 
that mixes "left-handed" and "right-handed" squarks (see Fig. [2|). This approach 




Fig. 2. Feynman diagram with one insertion of mjaj, that contributes to the self-energy of the 
quark at the leading order in mi,/M 



allows one to keep all the dependence on rrif, explicit and obtain decoupling constants 
that are independent of rrib and exhibit perfect factorization property. Nevertheless, 
the dependence on mi, of and is analytic as mi, and formally these 
expressions differ from the perfectly factorized ones only by the terms 0{m^/M'^) 
that are negligible even for M ~ 0.1 TeV. In our work we decided to keep the answer 
in the form that can be obtained from by substitution of This trick also 
works at the two-loop level. 

The evaluation of the two-loop decoupling constant for the 6-quark mass goes 
along the same lines as in the previous section. The important thing that has to be 
mentioned is that in SUSY QCD 5C,q^ ^ ^Cqn- this casc[l. 



iTq{p,m) = '>lL{p^,m^)pPL + T.R{p'^,m^)pPR + T.s{p^,m^)m, Pl,r^ 1^75 



^ 2ncP 



2 ' 

Si(0,0), l = L,R (67) 



p,m— 



^we suppress the dependence of the self-energy on large mass scales 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 19 



and 



1 



1 r 

4 



<1R 



(68) 



(69) 



Since only quarks with the same chirality enter in the quark-gluon vertex, the 
expression for the gauge coupling decoupling constant (see (|44p ) is modified in a 
straightforward manner. 

The calculation is performed in the DR-scheme with an explicit mass term for 
the e-scalars. Almost all needed renormalization constants for SUSY QCD can be 
found in Ref. i23, The only exception is the counter-term that looks like 



Zm? =1 + 1 

47r E 



mi 



2Tf mj 



AT 



f 2^^ 



(70) 

where is used to denote the sum over different squarks and nf corresponds to 
the summation over quark flavours. Notice that when SUSY is not broken by soft 
terms, m~ — and = m?. , so the renormalization constant ([70]) and, thus, beta- 
function is homogeneous with respect to and one can safely put — from 
the very beginning. 

As it was mentioned in Sec. [21 it is possible to obtain the same expression by 
considering some observable that can be defined in both the effective and high- 
energy theories. For example, one can use the pole mass Mb as an intermediate 
quantity to find the relation between and mf^. Since the two-loop SUSY 



QCD expression for M{, has been found earlieii^, it is easy to calculate 5(ml given 
the knowledge of the one-loop decouphng constants ([63 ]) -(fM ]) . Let us briefly describe 
this approach, since we use it to cross-check our result. 

Consider the two-loop relation between Mh and calculated within the 



M, 



MS 



nib I + <J^-^\mb,as) + (j'^-^\mb,as) , rub 



,MS 



, a, 



(71) 



One can rewrite ((7T|) in terms of SUSY QCD DR-parameters by means of decoupling 
constants (to;, 



,9i 



- 5?« ) 



= TOfc 



1 -I- TOb 



d 



r(2) 



(72) 



where ct^^'^-* are the same functions of their arguments as in (|7f p . i.e., they 
correspond to the diagrams with quarks and gluons only. As it was stated in 
Sec. [21 expression (|72p allows one to approximate the result of the full theory. 



20 A.V. Bednyakov 



If M^^ = M^^{mf^,M^^, ...) is thej)ole mass_ calculated within SUSY QCD, 
at the leading order of LME we have M^^ = M^P^ and 

Direct application of (j73p gives rise to analytic expression for the mi, decoupling 
constant that is free from log mf, / /i but differs from the one obtained by the pro- 
cedure described earlier. Careful investigation of the difference shows us that the 
discrepancy is due to the fact that both the results lack the perfect factorization 
property. The difference appears to be proportional to some power of sin20f, and 
formally can be rewritten in such a way that it will be ©(m^/M^). Indeed, numer- 
ical analysis shows that additional terms in the considered regions of the MSSM 
parameter space amount to 10~^ % shift in the result. 

The calculation of the corrections is carried out by means of a computer program 
written in FORlVpZl. Two-loop bubble integrals that appear in LME are recursively 
reduced to a master-integraPSl by integration by the parts methocPS. The numer- 
ical evaluation of the master integral is carried out with the help of C-l — h library 
bubblesli^^. 

6. Results 

Since we decouple all the heavy particles at the same time, this results in the huge 
expressions for the decoupling constants that depend on all the heavy mass scales of 
the model. Consequently, we will not present the answer in great detail as in Sec. |4] 
but just give a numerical impact of the result. 

Evaluation of the corrections requires the knowledge of running MSSM parame- 
ters. However, the precise values are unknown, so one usually uses some hypothesis 
to reduce the parameter space of the model. The main uncertainty comes from the 
unknown soft terms. To reduce the number of free parameters, the so-called univer- 
sality hypothesis is usually adopted, i.e., one assumes the universality or equality 
of various soft parameters at high energy scales. With the uii iversality hypothesis 
one is left with the following set of free (m 

SUGRAEII32I33I3l^ 

parameters: 

™0i '711/2, ^0 and tan/3 — — . 

Vi 

Here mo, mi/2 are universal scalar and fermion masses. They define mass split- 
ting between the SM particles and their superpartners. Soft cubic interactions are 
parametrized by and tan (3 is the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the Higgs 
fields. Also the sign of jl is not fixed. In what follows we assume that p, > 0. 

Usually, some computer codc'^'-' '^^ "^"^ is used to take an advantage of renor- 
malization group method and calculate spectra and other observables. The universal 
boundary conditions are applied at some high energy scale AfcuT- However, it is 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 21 



inconvenient to calculate low-energy observables in terms of parameters defined 
at Mgut- One has to use the renormalization group to obtain the values of the 
corresponding parameters at the electroweak scale AIz which is of our interest. 
There arises another complication, since for running one needs to know the values 
of dimensionless couplings at Mgut- In contrast to soft terms gauge and Yukawa 
couplings are severely constrained by known electroweak physics, so natural bound- 
ary conditions for them are defined at Mz- For most of the SM parameters these 
conditions are nothing else but relations of the type discussed in this work ([1]) , so 
they are functions of (almost) all the parameters of the MSSM. To break this vicious 
circle, one usually makes a (reasonable) initial guess for unknown parameters either 
at Mgut or at Mz and after some iterations a stable solution for the equations is 
obtained. 

In order to demonstrate our result, we present the values of two-loo p co rrec- 
tions evaluated with running parameters given by the SOFTSUSY codP^I. The 
decoupling constant for mt explicitly depends on the scale ^. In order to reduce 
the uncertainty associated with large logarithms, one has to choose /i M. In- 
deed, Fig. [3] shows the dependence of two-loop corrections on the scale fj, for the 
specific point preferred by combined EGRET&WMAP constraintJ^. One sees that 
for /i ~ 1 TeV the calculated correction is about 1.5 %. 




10^ 10''' 10" 

fi, GeV 

(2) 

Fig. 3. The dependence of two-loop decoupling corrections Sc^f^i, on the scale fj,. Lines marked by 
Q!g(tan /3) correspond to the contribution that is proportional to tan f}. Lines labeled by «^(tan 
correspond to terms that lack such dependence on tan/3. Terms with tan" /3, n > 1 turn out to be 
suppressed 

Figure [3] also addresses another issue related to contributions that can be po- 
tentially enhanced by large tan f3. Since in our approach tan /3 appears only through 



22 A.V. Bednyakov 



mixing (|66p . it is easy to trace this dependence. Clearly, only first power of tan/3 
should be taken into account at the leading order of mf,/M expansion. From Fig. [3] 
one sees that even for large tan/3 ~ 51 corrections oc tan/3 do not give a dominant 
contribution, so one should keep other terms in a careful analysis. 

In the above-mentioned computer codes the relation between ■m^^{fi) and 
m^^(/i) is usually used at /i = Mz- In what follows we also employ this choice 
for matching. However, one should keep in mind the it is not the optimal scale for 
SCml evaluation. 

The final aim of the calculation is to insert calculated correction to the mi, 
decoupling constant into the ab ove- mentioned iterative process. We stress again 
that cont rary to the t-quark casJ^Ol the SUSY QCD contribution to the 6-quark 
pole masa^ should not be directly applied to the calculation of mf^. In Ref. HQI 
the two-loop SUSY QCD result for Mb was implicitly used as an estimate of the 
decoupling correction. At the one-loop level this is reasonable but it is not true at 
higher loops. Figure [4] shows a typical dependence of the corrections to (JCmt on 
for certain values of other parameters of the model. For comparison we also 
plot pole mass corrections Szm^ = {Mi, — mf^)/m^^. It is clear that in the analysis 
of Ref. [531 Szmt overestimates (5Cm(, . Nevertheless, it was demonstrated^^ that for 





1 


1 1 












mo = 1000 GcV, 






Ao = 0, 






tan, 3 = 35. 


1 1 1 1 



500 600 700 800 900 1000 
mi/2, GeV 



35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 



5^(2) 



mo 
Ao = 0, 
tan f3 = 50. 



1000 GcV, 



5 

500 600 700 800 900 1000 
mi/2. GcV 



Fig. 4. Different SUSY QCD corrections to the b -qu ark pole mass Mj, and t he d eco uplin g c onst ant 



Cm^ as functions of m,i/2- Here Szmt, = (Mi, 



^)/m°^ and <5C„ 



the leading order of Large Mass Expansion and at the one-loop level S(^, 
12) (2) 

two-loop corrections ^ Szin' . 



(1) - A,(l) 



At 



. However, for 



a wide region of parameter space even overestimated SUSY QCD corrections do 
not influence superparticle spectrum significantly. They only become important for 
large values of tan/?, since in this case &-quark Yukawa coupling obtained from 
the running mas s is also large. Indeed, Fig. [5] shows superparticle spectra for the 
EGRET&WMAf13SI point obtained by SOFTSUSY together with the shifts for the 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 23 



masses after inclusion of our result in the code. One sees that for large tan (3 two-loop 
corrections mostly influences a heavy Higgs spectrunl^. 



1500 

[m], GeV 
1400 

1300 

1200 

1100 

1000 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 





Tl 



523 

■516 Hq,A^ 



585 
578 



mi/2 = 180 GeV 
mo = 1400 GeV 
=0 
tan P =51 



1110 




xlxt 

~lf~ 



IT 



Fig. 5. Superparticle spectrum for the so-called EGRET&WMAP point of the MSSM parameter 
space. The shifts in mass values due to two-loop 6-quark decoupling corrections are also presented 
(shifts less than one per cent are not shown). 



7. Conclusions 

The mass parameter of the 6-quark plays an important role in phenomenological 
analysis of the MSSM. Strong interactions usually give rise to large radiative cor- 
rections to the quark mass and, thus, have to be calculated and taken into account. 
In this work we have proposed a method that allows one to find the value of the 
SUSY QCD DR-running 6-quark mass m^^ directly from the corresponding value 
of MS-mass defined in the QCD. We consider the QCD as the low-energy ef- 
fective theory of the more fundamental SUSY QCD and obtain the relation between 
TO^^ and by decoupling of heavy particles. 



24 A.V. Bednyakov 



The transition from DR to MS scheme can be achieved almost automaticaUy by 
decoupUng of unphysical e-scalars together with physical squarks and gluinos. To 
justify the latter statement, decoupling of e-scalars is considered in the context of 
DR QCD and known relations between DR- and MS-parameters are obtained. 

Applying a general matching procedure to the SUSY QCD case we calculate a 
two-loop contribution to the decoupling constant (^mt for the 6-quark running mass. 
This in turn allows one to determine more precisely from known SM input and 
implement three-loop running of the MSSM parameters (see Ref. |42|) consistently. 
The numerical analysis of the correction and its impact on the spectrum is carried 
out. One, however, should keep in mind, that for the 5-quark Yuka wa in teractions 
neglected in SUSY QCD give a sizable contribution to the pole masJ^SI. Having in 
mind ([75)1 , one may try to calculate corrections to from the decoupling of Higgs 
bosons and their superpartners. We will study this issue elsewhere. 

Finally, let us stress again the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed 
method. The main advantage seems obvious. One need not to consider evanes- 
cent couplings and their renormalization in nonsupersymmetric theories as, e.g., in 
Refs. I44I45I However, one has to pay some price for this simplification, since sepa- 
rate treatment of massive e-scalars is required. For our problem we implemented the 
corresponding Feynman rules in FeynArts package and generated needed diagrams 
by computer. 

Another obvious issue is a simultaneous decoupling of all heavy particles. This is 
reasonable only if the corresponding masses are of the same order, which may be not 
true for some SUSY scenarios, e.g. for Split SUSY^"'. In the latter case, a step-by- 
step decoupling is needed. Nevertheless, a DR MS transition is required at some 
stage and we think that this step can be carried out by decoupling of e-scalars. It is 
reasonable to do this as soon as possible, since in this case no evanescent couplings 
appear in the effective nonsupersymmetric theory. 

8. Acknowledgements 

The author would like to thank D.I. Kazakov, A. Sheplyakov, and T. Hahn for fruit- 
ful discussions. Financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research 
(grant # 05-02-17603) is kindly acknowledged. 

Appendix A. The e-scalars in the QCD 

First of all, consider pure gauge QCD Lagrangian in four dimensions 

Tpa o Q fabc^b f-ic 

^ — Cyi'^v ~ Cli^^ti ~ 9sJ ^fi^u 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 25 



Performing Dimensional Reduction from space-time dimension four to d = 4 — 2e 
we should split four- vector into rf-vector and so-called £-scalars 

d = 4:^d = A-2s 
fj, {ji, A) 

o4 ^ / 4-2e 2£\ 

"Coordinates" that correspond to 2e sub-space arc assumed to be space-like, so 
5?^ = — 1 (no summation). In what follows we use Latin letters to denote 2e scalar 
indices and Greek letters for the Lorentz ones, i.e., 

afp^gij, gt^^'^g^.., G^^w^, G^, g^nv^ = -w^ . (a.i) 

Since all the fields after dimensional reduction do not depend on 2s coordinates, 
the corresponding derivatives (momenta) are zero. Consequently, 

pa jpvv pa pnv , pa p/iO , pa p[iv , pa pfiO 
a a ' /i/^ a ' p,v^ a ^ ftv a 

jpa o /^a „ fabc/-ib r^c 771a 

^ — —^v^^ — 9sJ ^iX^v — ~^viX 

pa pfi0 I pa pjlv _ npa pnv 
fiO a ~ jXi/ a fiO a 

—2F;,Ft = -i-d^Wtd^W^ - ^glr'T^G^WrGt^W^ 

gij 



2 

and the Lagrangian of pure gauge QCD after dimensional reduction looks like 
4cD = -\K^Fr - ^-^d^Wtd^^W^ + g^^g^r'^d^W^GtW^ 



2 

1 

4 

-^-^g\r^T^'^W\WlW]Wf 



(A.2) 

where we introduced a covariant derivative 

{D^\^=d^5ii+igsTtjG';,. 

Here T^j - generator of a gauge group in some representation. For the £-scalars we 
have 

D;^ = d^S'''' + ig,{-if''')Gl (A.3) 



26 A.V. Bednyakov 



Consider gauge transformations of the fields with infinitesimal parameter 

6GI = d^cj- - gsF'^GlLo^ (A.4) 
5W^ = -.g,r^'=H/^w'= (A.5) 

All three terms in (|A.2[) are invariant under these transformations separately. As 
a consequence, couplings of gluon-gluon-e-scalar and gluon-gluon-e-scalar-e-scalar 
vertices are fixed by gauge invariance to be equal to Qs- On the contrary, gauge 
transformations do not mix e-scalar four-vertex with something else. 

The e-scalar part of the action in momentum representation looks like 



^w.npi)wti-pi) 



- ig^'^r'^ J d'p^d'^p^ (pt^ - wt{pi)w^{p2)Gl,{-pi - P2) 

- g''^r'''r'''' J d''p^d''p2d''psWt{pi)W;{p2)Gl{p3)G^,{-pi^p2 - Pa) 

- g^lg'^^^r'^-f-de J d''p,d''p2d''p,W^ {p,)W^{p2)Wf {p,)Wf {^p, -p2 -pa)- 

The corresponding Feynman rules can be derived from the action by taking a func- 
tional derivative with respect to the fields 



gsr''^g''[K-K), (A.6) 

_^g2 ^jacejebd ^ jade jebc^ ^ ^y^^.^ (^.7) 
-igl [r'^r"- + Jdbejeac^ ^ ^jk ^ (^.8) 

where an overall momentum conservation delta-function is implied. 

In^j^general case, one may consider the following form of the e-scalar four- 
vertex 



' SW^-{h)SW!^ik2)SG-^{h) 
S^S 

^WfSWfSGjjGi 

s^s 



Ceeee = "4 H XrHf^-^W^W^W^Wf (A.9) 



Clearly, tensors H are symmetric under permutations a — b, c~ d and (a, b) — (c, d). 
For the gauge group SU{N) the dimensionality R of the basis of rank-four tensors 
jjabcd lY^g^i g^j.g symmetric with respect to (a, b) and (c, d) exchange is given by i? = 2 
for S'C/(2), i? = 3 for 5[/(3) and i? = 4 for SU{N),N > 4. 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 27 



The Feynman rule for the vertex (jA.Op with external e-scalars reads 

h ^ = ^i2YK (g'^g'^^Hf^'^ + g'^g^^H^^^'^ + g'^g^'^Hf''^) 

(A.IO) 

One can choose H^^'^^ to be 

jjabcd _ 2. i^J^^^ jbde _j_ jade jbce'^ Ha) 
jjabcd ^ gabgcd ^ ^gacgbd _^ gadgbc-^ (A. 1 lb) 

jjabcd ^ 1 (^acjhd S'"^S'"') - S'^'^S"'^ (A. lie) 

If the QCD is embedded in a model with (softly broken) supersymnietry, e-scalar 
four- vertex is related by (double) supersymmetry transformation to the correspond- 
ing gluon vertex. Consequently, if the symmetry is not explicitly broken by regu- 
larization and renormalization, couplings for gluon and e-scalar four-vertices are 
renormalized in the same way, i.e., Xi = g^, Xi = 0,i > 1. 

We proceed with the fermion sector of the QCD. The interaction Lagrangian in 
four dimensions looks like 

SC = ^gsqrGlT-q, (A. 12) 

where T° is a generator of SU (3) in fundamental representation. After dimensional 
reduction (IA.12P induces interaction of the e-scalars with quarks, i.e., 

5C, = -g^q^W^T'^q (A.13) 

It should be noticed that gamma matrices with index i from 2e-subspace, anti- 
commute with "ordinary" gamma-matrices that represent a vector with respect to 
d-dimensional Lorentz group. Another property is that the product of two identi- 
cal gamma matrices "ft is equal to —1. All these properties clearly come from the 
relations 

{7^,7.} = 2.9^.^ (A. 14) 

{7^,7.1 = (A. 15) 

{7„7,} = 25,, (A. 16) 

Again the term (|A.13ll alone is invariant under gauge transformations, so the 
renormalization of the corresponding coupling may not coincide with that of g^. 
Consequently, we rewrite (jA.13P in the following way: 

S£, = -gyqj'W,-T-q, (A. 17) 

where gy denotes evanescent Yukawa coupling - . It can be set to be equal to gs at 
any scale. However, one should be careful trying to make a prediction at a different 



28 A.V. Bednyakov 



scale due to different running of evanescent and real couplings. A Feynman rule for 
(|A.17|) reads 

i 1 1 = -igyTk.ko X 7a,a,: (A.18) 

where 5l(r) denotes left (right) functional derivative, (fci, k2) are color indices and 
(ai,Q;2) correspond to Dirac spinor indices. In general, one should distinguish 7,4 
from 7* = 5*"'7i = — 7i. However, in almost all practical calculations one "scalarize" 
the expression for a Feynman amplitude by contraction of its free indices with an 
appropriate projector. In a scalarized expression the relevant property is g^^ gij = 2e. 

Finally, there are gauge fixing and ghost terms in the Lagrangian of four- 
dimensional QCD 

-5/: = - ^ {d^G^af - c^df^ {d^S'^" + gr'^Gl) cK (A.19) 

Clearly, after dimensional reduction these terms do not contribute to the interaction 
Lagrangian for the £-scalars. 



Appendix B. The £-scalars in SUSY QCD 

In SUSY QCD e-scalars interact not only with quarks and gluons but also with 
squarks and gluinos. Actually, it is e-scalars that balance the number of fermionic 
and bosonic degrees of freedom in the d-dimensional world. 

As in the previous section, consider the four-dimensional form of the relevant 
part of the SUSY QCD Lagrangian 

6c = '-rofrg' + E (^"^n) • (B.l) 

n=l,2 

Here D'^^'' is a covariant derivative for gluinos g (see (jA.3| ) and denotes a co- 
variant derivative for squarks g„ that belong to fundamental representation of the 
color group. Notice that in (jB.ip we do not write explicitly summation over quark 
flavours. 

After dimensional reduction some of gluon fields that enter into covariant deriva- 
tives in (jB.l[) become e-scalars. Therefore, ghiino interaction with e-scalars reads 

<5/:e = *f r'TT^W^^ (B.2) 



and the Feynman rule is 



SL~9?.\SR~gilSWl' 



-ff.r^"^"-^ X7L,.,. (B.3) 



In (|B.3p the factor 1/2 from (|B.2p is canceled due to a majorana nature of gluino. For 
the squark-e-scalar interactions we have only four-vertices. Three-vertices inevitably 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 29 



involve derivatives with respect to the coordinates that belong to 2s subspace and, 
therefore, vanish. Accordingly, 

SC, = g^^gl ^ -qlT'^T'^-q^WtW] (B.4) 



and the Feynman rule is 



igl iT^-T'^^ + T'^^T'^^Xi^ <5„,„, x . (B.5) 



Here again {li^h) are color indices and (ni 712) numerate different squarks from 
(|B.ip . Generalization to the multi-flavour case is straightforward. Since strong in- 
teractions are flavour-blind, the "generalization" amounts to additional "flavour" 
Kronecker delta. 

All needed Feynman rules are summarized in Table [TJ 



Appendix C. FeynArts implementation of the e-scalar Lagrangian 

The FeynArts package allows one to generate needed diagrams and Feynman am- 
plitudes automatically. The MSSM has already been implemented in FeynArts (see 
Ref. .47.) ■ The model information is contained in two special files: The generic model 
file defines representation of the kinematical quantities. The classes model file sets 
up the particle content and specifies the actual couplings. 

One of the crucial properties of e-scalars is that they carry 2£-dimensional indices 
(one may say that we have 2e scalars) . This property fixes "kinematical" structure 
of £-scalar vertices, i.e., possible products of g^^ and other Lorentz objects which 
can appear in a vertex. Moreover, it does not depend on the group to which the 
£-scalars belong. Consequently, the property can be realized at the generic level. 
For this purpose we write an addendum LorentzEps . gen for the generic model file 
Lorentz . gen. 

The kinematical structure of vertices with e-scalars is more like than of gauge 
bosons that of ordinary scalars. Instead of using a pre-defined generic scalar field S, 
it is convenient to introduce a new generic field W (SE in FeynArts). The field W 
represents generic e-scalars and carries new kinematic index i = Index [Esc alar]. 
For the field Wi we assume that there is no external wave function and a propagator 
has the form: 

{W.{-k)\W,{k)) = ^^^^^^. (C.l) 

The mass for the scalars is introduced due to the fact that there is no symmetry 
that keeps e-scalars massless at each order of perturbation theory. 

Let us summarize the generic kinematical structure of the couplings. We use the 



30 A.V. Bednyakov 



same notation as in Ref. |48] 

CiW,,Wj,Wk, Wi) = Gwwww ■ I g'^g'' I (C.2) 

C{W^, Wj, y^, K) = Gwwvv ■ {g''g^'')+ (C.3) 
C(W,(fci),M^,(fc2),l^M(fc3)) = • (5^^(A;2^ - k'^))_ (C.4) 

C(M^„ 5, 5) = Gwwss ■ {g'')+ (C.5) 

= • (^^-I^IJ^) (C.6) 

C{W.{ki),W,{k2)) = Gww ■ (^^^'^^l,'''^^ ■ (C.7) 

Here antisymmetric couplings are labeled by a subscript — and symmetric ones by a 
subscript +. The fields V^,Wi, F, S correspond to generic vector, e-scalar, fermion 
and ordinary scalar fields. Actual coupling vectors G should be defined for each 
particular model. 

Note that for the metric tensor g^^ and for the Dirac matrices 7* no new symbols 
were defined. We use the following notation: 

7* = DiracGamma [index [Escalar, i]], 

gV — MetricTensor[lndex[Escalar, i], Index[Escalar, j]]. 

To implement gluon e-scalars in the context of (SUSY) QCD a new classes model 
file is written ESCALAR. mod. Actually, the file only extends particle content and adds 
new couplings to the MSSM model MSSMQCD .mod. The generic (nonsuperymmetric) 
structure of vertices described in [Appendix A| is implemented. This allows one to 
use the same model file for the QCD and SUSY QCD. Actual coupling vectors for 
these models can be easily inferred from the expressions given abov^. 



References 

1. W. Siegel, "Supersymmetric dimensional regularization via dimensional reduction," 
Phys. Lett. B84 (1979) 193. 

2. R. Tarrach, "The pole mass in perturbative qcd," Nucl. Phys. B183 (1981) 384. 

3. A. S. Kronfeld, "The perturbative pole mass in QCD," Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 
051501, hep-ph/9805215 

4. I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein, "The pole mass of 
the heavy quark, perturbation theory and beyond," Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 
2234-2246, hep-ph/9402360 

5. M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, "Heavy quark effective theory beyond perturbation 
theory: Renormalons, the pole mass and the residual mass term," Nucl. Phys. B426 
(1994) 301-343, hep-ph/9402364. 



^ See fhttp : //theor . jinr .ru/~bednya/pmwiki/pmwiki .plip?n=Main.Escalars 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 31 



6. H. Baer, J. Ferrandis, K. Melnikov, and X. Tata, "Relating bottom quark mass in 
dr-bar and ms-bar regularization schemes," Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 074007, 
[hep-ph/0207126 

7. Particle Data Group Collaboration, W. M. Yao et ai, "Review of particle 
physics," J. Phys. G33 (2006) 1-1232. 

8. I. Z. Rothstein, "Tasi lectures on effective field theories," hep-ph/0308266 

9. H. Georgi, "Effective field theory," Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43 (1993) 209-252. 

10. R. V. Harlander, D. R. T. Jones, P. Kant, L. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser, 
"Four-loop beta function and mass anomalous dimension in dimensional reduction," 
JHEP 12 (2006) 024, hep-ph/0610206 

11. H. Baer, J. Ferrandis, S. Kraml, and W. Porod, "On the treatment of threshold 
effects in susy spectrum computations," Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 015010, 
[hep-ph705 11123 

12. T. Hahn, "Generating feynman diagrams and amplitudes with feynarts 3," Comput. 
Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418-431, hep-ph/0012260 

13. T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, "Infrared singularities and massive fields," Phys. 
Rev. Dll (1975) 2856. 

14. F. V. Tkachov, "Euclidean asymptotic expansions of green functions of quantum 
fields. 1. expansions of products of singular functions," Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8 (1993) 
2047-2117, hep-ph/9612284 

15. F. V. Tkachov, "Theory of asymptotic operation, a summary of basic principles," 
Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 25 (1994) 649, hep-ph/9701272 

16. K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Steinhauser, "Decoupling relations to 0{a'l) 
and their connection to low-energy theorems," Nucl. Phys. B510 (1998) 61-87, 
lhep-ph/9708255 

17. W. Bernreuther and W. Wetzel, "Decoupling of heavy quarks in the minimal 
subtraction scheme," Nucl. Phys. B197 (1982) 228. 

18. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, and K. L. Roberts, "Dimensional reduction in 
nonsupersymmetric theories," Z. Phys. C62 (1994) 161-166, hepT)h/9310301J 

19. L. V. Avdeev and M. Y. Kalmykov, "Pole masses of quarks in dimensional 
reduction," Nucl. Phys. B502 (1997) 419-435, hep-ph/9701308 

20. P. Marquard, L. Mihaila, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, "Relation between the 
pole and the minimally subtracted mass in dimensional regularization and 
dimensional reduction to three-loop order," hep-ph/0702185 

21. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn, and Y. Yamada, "Decoupling of 
the epsilon scalar mass in softly broken supersymmetry," Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 
5481-5483, hep-ph/9407291 

22. S. P. Martin, "Two-loop effective potential for a general renormalizable theory and 
softly broken supersymmetry," Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 116003, hep-ph/0111209 

23. A. Bednyakov, A. Onishchenko, V. Velizhanin, and O. Veretin, "Two-loop 0{ai) 
mssm corrections to the pole masses of heavy quarks," Eur. Phys. J. C29 (2003) 
87-101, hep-ph/0210258 

24. J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, O. V. Tarasov, and O. L. Veretin, "Two-loop QCD 
corrections of the massive fermion propagator," Nucl. Phys. B539 (1999) 671-690, 
hep-ph/9803493 

25. R. Harlander, P. Kant, L. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser, "Dimensional reduction 
applied to qcd at three loops," JHEP 09 (2006) 053, hep-ph/0607240 

26. D. M. Pierce, J. A. Bagger, K. T. Matchev, and R.-j. Zhang, "Precision corrections 
in the minimal supersymmetric standard model," Nucl. Phys. B491 (1997) 3-67, 
|hep-ph/9606211, 



32 A.V. Bednyakov 



27. J. A. M. Vermaseren, "New features of form," 'math-ph/0010025' 

28. A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk, "Two loop selfenergy diagrams with different 
masses and the momentum expansion," Nucl. Phys. B397 (f993) 123-142. 

29. K. G. Chetyrkin and F. V. Tkachov, "Integration by parts: The algorithm to 
calculate beta functions in 4 loops," Nucl. Phys. B192 (1981) 159-204. 

30. A. Sheplyakov, "bubblesii, a C++ library for analytical and numerical evaluation of 
2-loop vacuum integrals." The source code can be obtained form 

|http: //theor . j inr . ru/~varg/dist 

31. A. H. Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, "Locally supersymmetric grand 
unification," Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 970. 

32. R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy, "Gauge models with spontaneously broken 
local supersymmetry," Phys. Lett. B119 (1982) 343. 

33. L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken, and S. Weinberg, "Supergravity as the messenger of 
supersymmetry breaking," Phys. Rev. D27 (1983) 2359-2378. 

34. P. Nath, R. Arnowitt, and A. H. Chamseddine, "Gauge hierarchy in supergravity 
guts," Nucl. Phys. B227 (1983) 121. 

35. B. C. Allanach, "Softsusy: A C++ program for calculating supersymmetric spectra," 
Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305-331, hep-ph/0104145 

36. W. Porod, "Spheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, susy particle 
decays and susy particle production at e+ e- colliders," Comput. Phys. Commun. 
153 (2003) 275-315, hep-ph/0301101 

37. A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur, and G. Moultaka, "Suspect: A fortran code for the 
supersymmetric and higgs particle spectrum in the mssm," Comput. Phys. Commun. 
176 (2007) 426-455, hep-ph/02 11331 

38. F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu, H. Baer, and X. Tata, "Isajet 7.69: A monte carlo 
event generator for p p, anti-p p, and e+ e- reactions," hep-ph/0312045 

39. W. de Boer, C. Sander, V. Zhukov, A. V. Gladyshev, and D. I. Kazakov, "The 
supersymmetric interpretation of the egret excess of diffuse galactic gamma rays," 
Phys. Lett. B636 (2006) 13-19, "hep-ph/0511154: 

40. A. Bednyakov, D. I. Kazakov, and A. Sheplyakov, "On the two-loop 0(0^) 
corrections to the pole mass of the t-quark in the mssm," Phys. Atom. Nucl. 70 
(2007) 198-203, hep-ph/ 0507139 

41. B. C. Allanach, S. Kraml, and W. Porod, "Theoretical uncertainties in sparticle 
mass predictions from computational tools," JHEP 03 (2003) 016, hep-ph/0 302102[ 

42. I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, and A. F. Kord, "Snowmass benchmark points and 
three-loop running," Ann. Phys. 316 (2005) 213-233, hep-ph/0408128 

43. A. Bednyakov and A. Sheplyakov, "Two-loop 0{asy'^) and ©(j/^) mssm corrections 
to the pole mass of the b-quark," Phys. Lett. B604 (2004) 91-97, hep-ph/0410128| 

44. R. Harlander, L. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser, "Two-loop matching coefficients for 
the strong coupling in the mssm," Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 095009, hep-ph/0509048^, 

45. R. V. Harlander, L. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser, "Running of Qs and m.), in the 
mssm," .arXiv: 0706 .2953 [hep-ph] 

46. G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, "Split supersymmetry," Nucl. Phys. B699 (2004) 
65-89, hep-ph/0406088 

47. T. Hahn and C. Schappacher, "The implementation of the minimal supersymmetric 
standard model in feynarts and formcalc," Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 
54-68, hep-ph/0105349 

48. T. Hahn, FeynArts 3.2. User's guide. 



Running mass of the b-quark in QCD and SUSY QCD 33 



Table 1. Feynman rules for gluon e-scalars. All momenta are incoming. Metric tensor g'-' 
corresponds to 2e-dimensional space, g" = —1 (no summation). Gamma matrices 7' carry 
2£-dimensional indices. Generators and structure constants of SU (3) are denoted by T" and 
j^abc^ respectively. For the definition of H^^'^'^ see IIA.lll l. 



w;" < . w 



-ig^^ (5"'' (fc2 - ml) 



k2 



W'' 
] 



w? 



W," 




Gd 



j^g2 ^jace jebd _|_ jade jebc'^ gfiu gij 



] 



\ / 

X 

/ \ 



i2 Y: Ar {g'^^ g''^ Hf"'^ + g^'' g^^ H?"'"^ + 

r = l 




W," 



-igyT'^ X 7* 



^6 

9 




-gsf"-'"' X 7' 



gl {T^T^ + T^T^) Si^ x g^^