Abstract
We study the rare decay process of Z boson into photon, accompanied by a CP-even or CP-odd scalar. We present the analytical delineation of the processes through the model-independent parametrizations of the new physics couplings and, finally, consider the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model to mark out the parameter space where the branching fraction can have the maximum value. As a part of the necessary phenomenological and experimental cross-checks, we aim to fit the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and W boson mass anomaly through the supersymmetric contributions. We also find that the decays \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma , A_1 \gamma \) can serve as an excellent complementary test to \(BR(h_{\textrm{SM}}\rightarrow Z\gamma ).\) In fact, to facilitate future searches, we unveil a few benchmark points that additionally satisfy the deviation of \(BR(h_{\textrm{SM}}\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) from the SM value based on the recent measurements of ATLAS and CMS. Future proposals such as ILC, CEPC, and FCC-ee are anticipated to operate for multiple years, focusing on center-of-mass energy near the Z pole. Consequently, these projects will be capable of conducting experiments at the Giga-Z \((10^{9}\) of Z bosons) and Tera-Z \((10^{12}\) of Z bosons) phases, which may probe the aforesaid rare decay processes, thus the model as well. These unconventional yet complementary searches offer different routes to explore the supersymmetric models with extended Higgs sectors like NMSSM.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
After the discovery of the Higgs boson at LHC in 2012 [1, 2], many precise measurements of its quantum numbers and couplings showed remarkable consistency with that of the Standard Model (SM) predictions [3], which include the loop-induced three-point vertices, e.g., \(h\gamma \gamma \) or \( h Z \gamma .\) The latter may be of importance to test the imprints of new physics through the rare decays of the Z boson in the extended Higgs scenarios where an additional CP-even \((H_1)\) or CP-odd \((A_1)\) Higgs scalar (would be collectively referred to as \(\phi )\), lighter than the Z boson can be present. In this regime, the other exotic Z boson decays are \(Z \rightarrow {\bar{f}} f \phi \) (f refers to an SM fermion), and \(Z\rightarrow 3 A_1.\) None of the decays is possible in the SM. However, with a lighter Higgs, the rates can be significantly enhanced [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. For instance, the decays of Z boson into light Higgs bosons were studied, through \(Z \rightarrow {\bar{f}} f \phi \) \((f=b, \tau )\) in [5, 8, 11]. The decay \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma \) was studied in the extensions of the SM including Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [6,7,8,9, 11]. Similarly, the decay of Z boson into light pseudoscalars was studied in a model-independent way [12], in 2HDM or supersymmetric (SUSY) models [10, 11, 13,14,15,16].
Here we investigate the decay process \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) in the context of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM). The new scalars \(H_1\) and \(A_1\) may become lighter than \(M_Z\) in some parts of the NMSSM. In fact, there exist limits like PQ-symmetry-limit \((\kappa \rightarrow 0)\) or R-symmetry-limit \((A_\kappa , A_\lambda \rightarrow 0)\), where a light CP-odd Higgs bosons would follow naturally [17]. A light scalar helps to accomplish different goals: (i) to satisfy the dark matter abundance of the Universe through resonance annihilations of light Singlino-like or Bino-like DM pairs, (ii) to initiate a strong first-order electroweak phase transition, which also yields the promising conditions for electroweak baryogenesis [18,19,20,21,22,23], (iii) to boost the BSM contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [24,25,26,27] or the W boson mass at one-loop [28,29,30] or even at the two-loop [29]. Thus, the quest of probing light scalars is of interest, especially since this is one of the salient features of the NMSSM.
Apart from fermions and gauge bosons in the SM, the charged Higgs scalars and charginos in the NMSSM will contribute through the virtual corrections in the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\). Among the SM particles, the loops mediated by W boson and t quark will have the largest contributions for a CP-even Higgs scalar. But for the CP-odd scalar, only t quark loop dominates. For a singlet-like \(H_1(A_1),\) Higgsino-like chargino loop through the Yukawa term \(\lambda H_1 \tilde{H_u}^+ \tilde{H_d}^- (\lambda A_1 \tilde{H_u}^+ \tilde{H_d}^-),\) can contribute significantly if \( \lambda \sim {\mathcal {O}}(1).\) Besides the loop induced decays, \(Z \rightarrow {\bar{f}} f \phi \) \((f=b, \tau )\) or \(Z\rightarrow A_1 A_1 A_1\) can be generated at the tree-level [11].Footnote 1 The Higgs-mediated loops were also considered for the latter process. The partial decay widths of the processes strongly depend on the doublet component in \(H_1\) or \(A_1.\) Following the LHC results, the doublet parts are already constrained considerably. Assuming it will be curbed further at the future runs of LHC, the rare decays become less attractive. On the contrary, the dominant NMSSM contributions for the one-loop amplitude \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma \) do not receive any suppression due to the composition in \(\phi .\) Thus we find it appropriate to study the upper limit of the branching ratio (BR) of \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma \) in the NMSSM parameter space. With a large branching fraction, we may even probe a dominantly singlet-like scalar directly at the LHC. Otherwise, the leading order (LO) production cross-section, mediated by gluon-fusion, goes with the square of the tiny doublet component, thus highly suppressed. Even the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) corrections to the cross-section cannot provide much boost for the NMSSM [33].
After having calculated the \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) amplitude, we highlight the parametric dependence of its branching fraction in terms of the model parameters obeying the necessary theoretical and experimental bounds. Moreover, we delineate the regions accompanying \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) that can simultaneously explain (i) the anomaly in the magnetic moment of the muon \((\delta a_\mu )\), (ii) the anomaly in the measurements of W boson mass \((\delta M_W)\), (iii) dark matter (DM) in the form of the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) or lightest neutralino,Footnote 2 and (iv) the recent measurements of the loop-induced decay of an SM-like Higgs scalar into Z boson and \(\gamma .\) The hadronic contributions are often referred to raise doubts about the beyond-SM (BSM) contributions to fit the first two precision measurements independently, i.e., \(5.1\sigma \) deviation of the long-standing muon \(g-2\) anomaly and the recent CDF measurement of the W mass, which corresponds to a 6\(\sigma \) deviation. Importantly, two anomalies pull the hadronic contributions in opposite directions [34]. Thus, a BSM interpretation is worth needed for simultaneous explanations of both. In the NMSSM, the new world average of \(M_W\) with the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the DM relic density constraints have been studied recently [28, 35]. In this analysis, we would go one step further by connecting the low energy precision observables with the rare decays of Z boson. This, in turn, will help to probe the NMSSM parameter space, compatible with \(\delta a_\mu \) and \(\delta M_W\) at the future Z-factories, based on the proposed high-energy \(e^+e^-\) accelerators CEPC [36, 37], FCC-ee [38], or ILC [39,40,41], which will operate in Giga-Z \((10^9\) of Zs) and Tera-Z \((10^{12}\) of Zs) phases. Additionally, here we consider the lighter electroweakinos and sleptons to explain the above anomalies and to have the maximum branching ratios for \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma .\) Consequently, a few benchmark points (BMPs) have been proposed for illustration.
The rest of the work is organized as follows. We detail the \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) process in Sect. 2. Then we outline the relevant aspects of the NMSSM in Sect. 3. Here we mainly consider the electroweak (EW) particles, e.g., charginos, sleptons, and charged Higgs in the loops. Note that squarks or sleptons contribute only for \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma \) [7]. Section 4 covers the choice of the parameters and constraints from theory and experiments relevant to the present purpose. We detail all the precision observables in this regard. We present the relevance of all the considered loops numerically in Sect. 5. Numerical results are also elaborated in this section. Finally, we conclude in Sect. 6.
2 Feynman diagrams and the amplitude of \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \)
The amplitude for the decay \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) can, in general, be expressed as
where \(\epsilon _1^{\mu }\) and \(\epsilon _2^{\nu *}\) are the polarization vectors for the Z boson and the photon \(\gamma ,\) respectively. Here \(p_1,\) \(p_2,\) and \(p_3\) are the external momenta satisfying the condition \(p_1=p_2+p_3\) and the on-shell conditions \(p_1^2=M_Z^2,\) \(p_2^2=0,\) and \(p_3^2= M_{\phi }^2.\) The amplitude \({\mathcal {M}}_{\mu \nu }\) is generally written in the following form:
where \({\mathcal {F}}_{00},\) \({\mathcal {F}}_{ij}\) \((i,j=1,2)\) and \(\tilde{{\mathcal {F}}}\) are the scalar form factors which can be computed from the loop diagrams and \(\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\) is the totally antisymmetric tensor with \(\epsilon _{0123}=-1\) and \(\epsilon ^{0123}=+1.\) Since the on-shell photon satisfies the condition \(\epsilon _2^{\nu *}p_{2\nu }=0,\) one finds that \({\mathcal {F}}_{12}\) and \({\mathcal {F}}_{22}\) do not contribute to the amplitude in Eq. (1). Also, the Ward identity implies that \(p_2^{\nu }{\mathcal {M}}_{\mu \nu }=0,\) which results \({\mathcal {F}}_{11}=0\) and
Therefore, the amplitude can be cast as
where we have written \({\mathcal {F}}_{21}={\mathcal {F}}.\) Thus it suffices to collect the coefficient of \(p_{2\mu }p_{1\nu }\) to find the form factor \({\mathcal {F}}.\) Note that, \({\mathcal {F}}\) is relevant for \(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma \) while \(\tilde{\mathcal {F}}\) contributes to \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma \) process only.
For a specific realization, we consider the scale-invariant NMSSM. Considering Feynman’s gauge for this analysis, the relevant Feynman diagrams have been shown in Fig. 1. However, the fermion and W boson loops are separately gauge invariant if all the external particles are on-shell [7]. We use Package-X [42, 43] to express the Feynman amplitudes in terms of the Passarino–Veltman integrals. In Eqs. (5)–(11), the scalar parts of all the BSM couplings to the SM and BSM particles are noted as free parameters so as to have the amplitudes in a model-independent general form. One may readily read them from the NMSSM vertices presented in the Appendix (Sect. 7.1).
Figure 1a, c: The amplitudes, mediated via the spin 1/2 particles, are calculated and expressed as
and for the pseudoscalar, the form factors are given by
In the above, \(K_{LR}^{(\pm )} = {\mathcal {O}}^{L}_{m\ell }\pm {\mathcal {O}}^{R}_{m\ell }\), with \({\mathcal {O}}^{L,R}_{m\ell }\) are defined in the Appendix. Similarly, \(L_{LR}^{\pm }=C_L\pm C_R\) with \(C_L=2-\dfrac{8}{3}s_W^2\) and \(C_R=-\dfrac{8}{3}s_W^2.\)
Figure 1b, d–f: The amplitudes with integral spin particles within the loops can be cast as
The PV-functions are \({\textbf{C}}_{ij}= {\textbf{C}}_{ij}(M_Z^2,0,M_{\phi }^2; M_a,M_b,M_c)\) and \({\textbf{C}}_{i}= {\textbf{C}}_{i}(M_Z^2,0,M_{\phi }^2; M_a,M_b,M_c),\) where a, b, c refer to particles within the loop. Similarly, \(g_{ZW^\pm W^\mp }\) \(=g_2 c_W\) etc. and d is the dimensionality of space-time. Following the same way, one can easily obtain the amplitude for the decay process \(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma ,\) where \(H_2\) is the SM-like Higgs in the NMSSM with \(M_{H_2}\approx 125\) GeV.
The numerical values of the form factors are verified to the respective amplitudes, calculated using Feynman parameters in the Appendix (Sect. 7.2). Finally, the partial decay width for \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) can be calculated as follows,
This rate is normalized to the total decay width \(\Gamma _Z \simeq 2.5\) GeV.
3 Contributions of \({\mathcal {F}}\) and \(\tilde{\mathcal {F}}\) in the NMSSM
In the popular version of the NMSSM, the Higgs mass term \(\mu {{\widehat{H}}}_u {{\widehat{H}}}_d\) in the MSSM superpotential \(W_{\text {MSSM}}\) has been replaced by the coupling \(\lambda \) of \({{\widehat{S}}}\) to \({{\widehat{H}}}_u\) and \({{\widehat{H}}}_d,\) and a self-coupling \(\kappa {{\widehat{S}}}^3\) [17, 44]. In this realization the superpotential \(W_{\text {NMSSM}}\) becomes scale-invariant, and given by:
where the dots denote the Yukawa couplings of the MSSM. The NMSSM-specific soft SUSY breaking terms consist of a mass term for the scalar components of \({{\widehat{S}}},\) and the trilinear interactions associated with the terms in \(W_{\text {NMSSM}}\):
Subsequently, the weak eigenstates \(H_{d,u}\) and S can be expanded around the vacuum expectation values (vevs) as defining \(v^2 = 2M_Z^2/(g_1^2 + g_2^2) \sim (174 {\textrm{GeV}})^2),\) \(\left<H_u\right>=v_u,\,\left<H_d\right>=v_d,\ {\textrm{and}}\ \left<S\right>=s.\) In terms of s, the first term in \(W_{\text {NMSSM}}\) generates an effective \(\mu \)-term with
The general expressions for these mass matrices, including the dominant radiative corrections, are given in Ref. [17]. Using the minimization equations of the potential to eliminate the soft SUSY breaking Higgs mass terms, the Higgs sector of the NMSSM can be characterized by six parameters at the tree-level.
The neutral CP-even Higgs sector contains three states \(H_i\,(i=1,2,3),\) which are the mixtures of the CP-even components of the superfields \({{\widehat{H}}}_u,\) \({{\widehat{H}}}_d,\) and \({{\widehat{S}}}.\) Their masses are described by a \(3 \times 3\) mass matrix \(\mathcal{M}^2_{H\,ij},\) where the dominant contribution to the singlet-like component \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}^2_{H\,33}\) reads [17, 44] \((s \gg v_u, v_d)\)
The neutral CP-odd Higgs sector contains two physical states \(A_i\,(i=1,2),\) whose masses are described by a \(2 \times 2\) mass matrix \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}^2_{A\,ij}\) where \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}^2_{A\,11}\) corresponds to the MSSM-like CP-odd Higgs mass squared. The dominant contribution to the singlet-like component \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}^2_{A\,22}\) is given by [17, 44],
Following Eq. 17 or Eq. 18, we may say that \(\kappa \rightarrow 0\) can indeed be helpful to produce a light \(H_1\) or \(A_1.\) In the neutralino sector, we have five neutral states \({{{\tilde{\chi }}}}^0_i\,(i=1,2,\ldots ,5),\) which are the mixtures of Bino \((\tilde{B})\), neutral Wino \((\tilde{W}^3)\), neutral Higgsinos \((\tilde{H}_d^0\) and \(\tilde{H}_u^0)\) from the superfields \(\widehat{H}_d^0\) and \({{\widehat{H}}}_u^0,\) and Singlino \((\tilde{S})\) from the superfield \({{\widehat{S}}}.\) Their masses are described by a symmetric \(5 \times 5\) mass matrix \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}_{{\tilde{\chi }}^0_{ij}}\) given by,
where \(M_1\) and \(M_2\) are the soft SUSY breaking mass terms for the Bino and Wino, respectively. In an R-parity conserving NMSSM, the lightest eigenstate \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) is a valid DM candidate for most parts of the parameter space. With an orthogonal real matrix \(N_{ij}\) that diagonalizes \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}_{{{\tilde{\chi }}}^0_{ij}},\) the composition of \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) reads as
Our requirement to boost the process \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma \) via NMSSM-specific Higgsino-like chargino leads to a scenario where \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm \simeq {\tilde{\chi }}_2^0\) is dominantly Higgsino-like. We will see that other EW observables like \(a_\mu \) or W boson mass anomaly also favor a light chargino. The latter observables may receive boosts from other SUSY particles, e.g., through lighter \({{\tilde{\mu }}},\) or lighter neutralinos. However, \({{\tilde{\mu }}}\) does not have any significance to \(BR(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) while \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_i^0\) is not involved in the Z boson rare decay. But connecting all of them on the same thread as done in this work, we will also be able to probe the parameter space with lighter EW spectra in general. Additionally, compliance with the observed relic abundance data and spin-independent (SI) DM-nucleon direct detection (DD) cross-section critically restrict \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0\) to become Higgsino-like in the NMSSM parameter space (see Sect. 4). Here a dominantly Singlino-like DM is favoured.
We now qualitatively discuss the relative contributions of different loops of Fig. 1. The numerical verification will follow in Table 2 for a few representative values of the input parameters. Among the different loops, the W boson loop still carries the dominant contribution for a singlet-like \(\phi \) (W boson loop would be absent for \(A_1)\) followed by the fermion loops through lighter charginos. The latter, induced by \(\lambda {{\widehat{S}}} {{\widehat{H}}}_u\cdot {{\widehat{H}}}_d\) in the superpotential (13), can be seen to be suppressed up to one order of magnitude. Third-generation t quark loop comes next in the relative contributions though it interferes destructively with the W boson loop. The contributions from the light fermions are suppressed via their masses. For sleptons, in particular, even for small \({{\tilde{\mu }}}\) masses \((M_{{\tilde{\mu }}}\le 200\) GeV), the respective form factors \({\mathcal {F}}^{(e)}_{{\tilde{\mu }}},\) \({\mathcal {F}}^{(e)}_{{\tilde{\tau }}}\) (superscripts refer to subfigures in Fig. 1) are much suppressed for any consideration. The same is true for the other loops. We note in passing that since \(Z \rightarrow A_1\gamma \) amplitude is fully controlled by the chargino loops, we can measure the coupling \(\lambda \) with its observance.
4 Choice of parameters and constraints
We use \( {\mathtt {NMSSMTools-6.0.0}}\) [45,46,47] to compute the masses and couplings for SUSY particles, Higgs bosons, and the branching ratios (BRs) of the Z boson decays. For the latter observables, we modify the \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}\) suitably. In the present analysis, we set squarks and gluino masses at \(\ge 2.5\) TeV and \(\ge 3\) TeV to cope with the LHC constraints [48, 49]. We consider small masses \(\sim \) [100–400] GeV for the sleptons. This is because the lighter smuons are needed to satisfy the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon or \((g-2)_\mu .\) In the case of \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma ,\) the squarks and sleptons contributions will not be there due to CP-invariance [7]. Similarly, a lighter stau may help to reduce the branching fraction of \({{\tilde{\chi }}}^\pm _1\) in the classical electroweakino search channel. It may also produce friendly contributions to \(\delta M_W\) [28]. Here, we summarize different avenues of precision and collider phenomenology, which can be marked along with the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) in different parts of the NMSSM parameter space.
Lightest Neutralino as DM: Since \(\tilde{H}_u^+\) and \(\tilde{H}_d^-\) of \({\tilde{\chi }}_i^\pm \) go with the Yukawa coupling \(\lambda H_1 \tilde{H}_u^+ \tilde{H}_d^-\) and \(\lambda A_1 \tilde{H}_u^+ \tilde{H}_d^-\) of the singlet-like Higgs states, we require a large \(\lambda \) and light Higgsino-like chargino states for favorable results. However, with a small mass, Higgsino fails to become a good DM candidate as larger Higgsino components of \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) imply a too-small relic density or an underabundance of DM. The acceptable value of the relic abundance data reads as [50, 51]
Since Bino or Singlino can lead to an overabundance of DM, a reasonable choice is to consider either \({\tilde{B}}-{\tilde{H}}\) or \({\tilde{S}}-{\tilde{H}}\) type DM. But in the former case, DD experiments [52,53,54,55], in particular, the recent XENONnT [56] and LZ [55] can lead to stringent constraints on the \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\)-nucleon parameter space, which is particularly severe for the lighter Higgs spectra. A dominantly Bino-like LSP can satisfy the DM constraints but at the cost of larger values of the Higgsino mass parameter, which is not favoured in the present analysis. Otherwise, the non-Standard-Model-like Yukawa coupling [57] for an SM-like Higgs scalar with the first two generations of fermions may relax this tension.
On the contrary, for the \({\tilde{S}}-{\tilde{H}}\) DM with a dominantly Singlino component, one can match the observed relic abundance and the DD bounds from \({{{\tilde{\chi }}}}^0_1\)-nucleon cross-sections. This region usually refers to a lower value of \(\lambda \) and \(\kappa .\) Without any surprise, the chargino contributions to \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) will be subdued, which will affect the \(BR(Z \rightarrow A_1 \gamma )\) more compared to the \(BR(Z \rightarrow H_1 \gamma ).\) For the latter, W boson has significant parts in the partial amplitude, independent of the choice of \(\lambda \) and \(\kappa .\)
A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs boson: In the Higgs sector, the physical Higgs spectra yield three Higgs states: mostly “singlet-like” \((H_1)\), SM-like \((H_2)\), and mostly “MSSM-like” \((H_3)\). The lightest CP-even Higgs state is \(H_1,\) while the same in the CP-odd sector is \(A_1.\) A large value for \(\lambda ,\) desired to maximize the chargino contributions in \(Z \rightarrow \phi \gamma \) amplitude, also helps to accommodate an SM-like Higgs boson \(H_2\) with a mass of 125 GeV more easily. We also keep an eye on the SM-like Higgs boson couplings using the combined limits of ATLAS and CMS [58,59,60,61] in the conventional \(\kappa \)-frameworks. Specifically, with \(\kappa _{H_iVV}\) (ratio of Higgs couplings to the vector bosons relative to the corresponding couplings of the SM-like Higgs boson) holds \( \sum _{i=1}^{3} \kappa ^2_{H_iVV}=1,\) there can only be a small allowance for a singlet-like or any of the BSM Higgs couplings to the vector bosons. Indeed considering \(\kappa _{H_{125}VV} \sim 0.96\) at central value, \(\kappa _{H_{{\textrm{BSM}}}VV}\) can accommodate an allowance of \(\sim 0.3\) (where \(H_{\textrm{BSM}}\) refers to any BSM Higgs scalars \(H_1\) or \(H_3)\) [61]. We may primarily consider \(M_{H_1}\,(M_{A_1})\gtrsim \) 60 GeV for the lightest scalar (pseudoscalar) so that the decay of an SM-like Higgs boson into a pair of lightest scalars (pseudoscalars) is kinematically forbidden. Otherwise, their couplings to the SM-like Higgs boson must be small enough, which can be possible when \(\lambda \) and \(\kappa \) assume smaller values. A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs boson can still be accommodated for the latter choice. Apart from the radiative corrections induced by the large values of \(M_{\tilde{t}_1},\) the mixing between \(H_1\) and \(H_2\) or, more precisely, among the weak eigenstates leads to an increase in \(H_2\) mass. A mass shift up to \(\sim 8\) GeV can be achieved for larger \(\tan \beta \) and smaller \(\lambda \) values.
We always check the absence of unphysical global minima of the Higgs potential as done in \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) We cross-checked the validity of our BMPs with \({\mathtt {HiggsBounds-}}{\mathtt {5.10.2}}\) [62, 63]. Similarly, the compatibility of \(H_2\) with the LHC rate measurements for the SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV has also been checked. This is done using HiggsSignals-2.6.2 [64, 65]. The signal strength predictions for \(H_2\) for the BMPs in Table 1 are within the \(\sim 1\sigma \) of each measurement. For estimation, we have defined \(\chi ^2_{red} = \frac{\chi ^2}{n_{obs}}\) [66, 67], where \(\chi ^2\) for a BMP obtained from HiggsSignals is divided by the number of experimental observations considered \((n_{obs}=111)\). For our BMPs, we have obtained \(\chi ^2_{red} \simeq 1.\)
\({\textbf{H}}_{\textbf{2}}\rightarrow {\textbf{Z}}{\varvec{\gamma }}\) in the NMSSM: The inverse decay, but for the SM-like Higgs scalar, \(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma \) has a small branching fraction of about \(1.5\times 10^{-3}\) in the SM [68]. Since this decay appears through loop diagrams, it opens the door to several BSM scenarios that may modify this branching fraction differently from the SM value.
The branching ratio for the decay \(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma \) is recently measured, with a significance of \(3.4\sigma \) [69]. A combination of ATLAS [70] and CMS [71] search reports that the branching fraction for this decay channel is \((3.4\pm 1.1)\times 10^{-3}\) which is \((2.2 \pm 0.7)\) times the SM prediction. Their analyses are based on Run-2 data sets collected by ATLAS and CMS experiments, corresponding to the \(\int {\mathcal {L}} = 139~{\textrm{fb}}^{-1}\) and 138 \({\textrm{fb}}^{-1}\) at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV. At present, it is quite early to state anything conclusively about its variation compared to the SM. However, if it gets settled in the future, then \(BR({H_2}\rightarrow {Z\gamma })\) may become an interesting probe and complementary to \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1,A_1 \gamma )\) to test some parts of the NMSSM parameter space.
Precision observables in the NMSSM: We impose the constraints from B-physics and recent results on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [72, 73], \(\delta M_W\) [28, 31] as done in \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}\) [27, 74]. However, we find it essential to discuss some of them in some detail.
Anomalous magnetic moment \((a_{\mu })\): The recent \(a_\mu \) measurement by FNAL [72, 73] has confirmed the earlier result by the E821 experiment at Brookhaven, yielding the experimental average \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{EXP}}= (116592061\pm 41)\times 10^{-11}\) which leads to a 4.2\(\sigma \) discrepancy [72] compared to the SM value \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{SM}} = (116591810 \pm 43)\times 10^{-11}\) [75].
Very recently, the E989 experiment at Fermilab released an update regarding the measurement of \(a_\mu \) from Run-2 and Run-3. The new combined value yields a deviation ofFootnote 3
which leads to a \(5.1\sigma \) discrepancy.
It may be noted here that the lowest-order hadronic vacuum polarization contributions in \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{HVP}}\) (hadronic loop contributions) is regarded as the main source of the present SM uncertainty of \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{SM}}.\) The HVP contribution is estimated in Ref. [75] as \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{HVP}} \big |_{e^+e^-}=(6931\pm 40)\times 10^{-11}\) using \(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \) hadrons data. This differs significantly from the lattice-QCD (average) results available at that time, \(a_{\mu }^{\textrm{HVP}}\big |_{{\textrm{lattice}}}=(7116\pm 184)\times 10^{-11},\) but is consistent with the uncertainties. BMWc later published a lattice-QCD result of \(a_{\mu }^{\textrm{HVP}}\big |_{\textrm{BMWc}}= (7075\pm 55)\times 10^{-11}\) [77], reducing the discrepancy with \(a_\mu ^{\textrm{exp}}\) to 1.6\(\sigma ,\) but showing a 2.1\(\sigma \) tension with the \(e^+e^-\) determination. Other lattice groups [78,79,80] somewhat agree with the BMW result. Overall, a significant disagreement among these observations concerning the HVP contributions may be easily noted. Furthermore, the difference between the two approaches used to determine the HVP contribution implies unresolved issues within each approach.
The use of Euclidean time windows to address discrepancies between lattice-QCD and \(e^+e^-\rightarrow \) hadrons cross-section data for the HVP contribution to \((g-2)_\mu \) is discussed in [81]. Reference [82] also highlighted the tension between the lattice QCD approach and the traditional data-driven approach, while for the latter, the recent CMD-3 result was not used. Recently, \((g-2)_\mu \) has been calculated using the data-driven approach, measuring the \(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \pi ^{+}\pi ^{-}\) cross-section below 1 GeV with the CMD-3 detector, resulting in \(\delta a_{\mu }= (49\pm 55)\times 10^{-11}\) [83]. However, the recent data seem to be incompatible with previous determinations in [84,85,86,87,88]. Overall, we see significant differences between the HVP results among these different studies, suggesting further studies to resolve the discrepancy [89].
Interestingly, \(\delta a_\mu \) can be attributed to the SUSY contributions, which in turn helps us to constrain the parameter space of the SUSY model. In the NMSSM, the one-loop contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon or \(a_\mu \) are mainly mediated by \({\tilde{\chi }}^{-}-{\tilde{\nu }}_\mu \) and \({\tilde{\mu }}-{\tilde{\chi }}^{0}\) same as in the MSSM.
The one-loop superpartner contributions to \(a_\mu \) can be written as [27, 90],
where the summations label the neutralino and smuon and the chargino mass eigenstates, respectively, and
with \(h_\mu = \dfrac{M_\mu }{v_d}\) is the muon Yukawa coupling. The loop functions are given by
where the definition of the variables \(x_{\ell m}= M^2_{{\tilde{\chi }}_\ell ^0}/M^2_{{\tilde{\mu }}_m}\) and \(x_{k}= M^2_{{\tilde{\chi }}_k^\pm }/M^2_{{\tilde{\nu }}_\mu }\) have been used. The other diagrams, e.g., mediated by Higgs scalars at one-loop are not always numerically significant, though considered in the numerical evaluations using \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) Similarly, all the dominant two-loop contributions (Barr-Zee type diagrams) [24, 91,92,93,94,95] are included in the \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) For instance, the two-loop Higgs diagrams involving a closed SM fermion loop can be important particularly for a light CP-odd Higgs boson [27]. In the recent past, the anomalous magnetic moment the muon has been studied in the NMSSM [35, 96, 97].
Anomaly in W boson mass \((\delta M_W)\): The CDF collaboration at the Tevatron [98] obtained an updated measurement of the W boson mass, yielding \(M_W = 80.4335 \pm 0.0094\) GeV, with a significant improvement in precision compared to the previous measurements and the averages. The recent CDF result, when combined with the former measurements at LEP, the Tevatron, and the LHC, establishes a fresh global average value [99]
On the contrary, the electroweak precision data within the SM yields [100]
corresponding to a \( 6\sigma \)Footnote 4 tension and suggests the possibility of new physics beyond the SM. We may note here that the value of \(M_W\) has not been settled yet due to incompatibility between the different experimental measurements [34].Footnote 5
The W boson mass predictions in the MSSM [103,104,105,106,107,108,109] and its extensions have been detailed in [29, 31, 110]. The W boson mass, in the presence of the BSM contributions, can be read as,
where \(G_{\mu }\) and \(\alpha \) are the Fermi and fine structure constant in the Thomson limit, respectively. \(\Delta r\) refers to all the non-QED radiative contributions to the muon decay, which depends on \(M_W.\) At one-loop \(\Delta r\) consists of the W boson self-energy, vertex, box diagrams, and the related counter terms. In the SM, \(\Delta r\) can be calculated up to the leading four-loop order, while in the NMSSM, the additional one-loop contributions coming from the Higgs bosons and SUSY particles are evaluated (for analytical expressions, see [30, 106]). Similarly, two-loop diagrams involving Higgs bosons may also be important [29]. In the numerical analysis, for satisfying the discrepancy \(\delta M_W\) between \(M_W^{\textrm{Exp}}\) and \(M_W^{\textrm{SM}}\) within the NMSSM, we use \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) The details of the implementations have been elaborated in Ref. [28]. As noted there and also in Ref. [35], with heavier squarks, \(\delta M_W\) can receive contributions from comparatively light electroweak sectors, i.e., charginos, neutralinos, left-handed sleptons, and staus.
LHC and LEP bounds on electroweakinos and sleptons: Light electroweakinos must satisfy the lower bounds from LEP [111,112,113]. In the parameter space where \({\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1 \rightarrow W^{(*)}+{\tilde{\chi }}_1^0\) is dominant, constraints from LEP imply \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm } > 103.5\) GeV. The limit holds for the mass splitting of \(\Delta M ({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\pm , {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0) \ge 3 ~{\textrm{GeV}}\) while \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm } > 92.4\) GeV for smaller mass differences. In the recent past, the searches for charginos and sleptons have been performed at 13 TeV LHC by ATLAS [114,115,116,117,118,119,120] and CMS [121,122,123,124,125] collaborations.
Usually, in the Higgsino-like LSP models, there are a few combinations of the electroweak states which are of importance in the LHC searches: \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1{\tilde{\chi }}^0_2, {\tilde{\chi }}^0_1{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1,{\tilde{\chi }}^0_2{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1,{\tilde{\chi }}^+_1{\tilde{\chi }}^-_1.\) Following the Refs. [117, 126], Higgsino-like neutralinos or charginos above the LEP limit can be constrained. For instance, a lower limit can be set at 193 GeV for a mass splitting \(\Delta M ({{\tilde{\chi }}}_2^0, {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0)\) of 9.3 GeV while a similar limit \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1}\simeq 150~{\textrm{GeV}}\) for a mass difference of \(\sim 3\) GeV [125] can also be placed from the CMS results. The constraints rely on the soft leptons or jets arising in the decays of charginos and neutralinos via off-shell EW gauge bosons \({\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1 \rightarrow W^{(*)}+{\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) and \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_{2,3,4} \rightarrow Z^{(*)}/H_{\textrm{SM}} + {\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) \((H_{\textrm{SM}}\) refers to an SM-like Higgs scalar in any BSM model). In the NMSSM, there can be \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1 \equiv {\tilde{B}}\) or \({\tilde{S}}\) dominated, whereas relatively heavier neutralinos \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_2,{\tilde{\chi }}^0_3\) may become Higgsino-like with the Higgsino-like lighter chargino. Even a better-compressed scenario can be conceived when both \({\tilde{B}}\) and \({\tilde{S}}\) are lighter than the Higgsino-like neutralinos \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_3,{\tilde{\chi }}^0_4.\) Now in the presence of a light sleptons/sneutrinos/\(H_1\) and the small couplings of the \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1,\)Footnote 6 the branching fractions for \({\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1 \rightarrow W^{(*)}+{\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) and/or \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_{2,3,4} \rightarrow Z^{(*)}/H_{\textrm{SM}} + {\tilde{\chi }}^0_1\) can be smaller. Similarly, lengthy cascade decays into lepton/tau-rich final states may be difficult to detect, which can lower \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1}\) in compliance with the LHC results. Since this study is devoted to studying the dependence of the rare Z decay processes on the NMSSM parameter space, we assume, for the parameter space scan, a lighter chargino above \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm _1} > 103.5\) GeV, which is not yet completely ruled out. However, the LHC constraints on SUSY searches are verified using \({\mathtt {SModelS-2.3.0}}\)Footnote 7 [132,133,134,135].
We summarise the potentially important final states comprised of \(\ell ^+\ell ^-\) \((\ell \in e,\mu ,\tau )\) pair, jets, and missing transverse momentum through pair production of charginos, neutralinos, and sleptons, searched at the ATLAS and CMS collaborations. The most recent ones refer to an integrated luminosity of 139 \(\text {fb}^{-1}\) at 13 TeV center-of-mass energy. The recent results, particularly important in the present context, can broadly be classified belowFootnote 8:
-
\(PP\rightarrow {\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm {\tilde{\chi }}_2^0 \rightarrow Z {\tilde{\chi }}_1^0 W^\pm {\tilde{\chi }}_1^0\) (W and Z bosons can be off-shell) [115, 117, 119, 120, 122, 137]. For on-shell vector bosons, Z and W decay to leptonic and leptonic (hadronic) final states, respectively. An ISR jet provides the required handle to detect the soft leptons above the SM background [115, 117]. The lower limits for equal-mass \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\pm {{\tilde{\chi }}}_2^0\) are \(\sim \) 640-660 GeV for a massless \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0\) while it becomes 300 GeV for \(\Delta M ({{\tilde{\chi }}}_2^0,{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0) \simeq M_Z.\) For mass-splitting less than \(M_Z,\) as mentioned already, \(\tilde{\chi }_1^\pm {{\tilde{\chi }}}_2^0\) decays through off-shell W, Z bosons, the lower limits can go down to 300(100) GeV for \(\Delta M (\tilde{\chi }_2^0,{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0) \sim 35(2)\) GeV [120]. The second lightest neutralino may decay to an SM-like Higgs scalar and LSP with 100% BR [118, 120, 122]. For the \(WH_{\textrm{SM}}\) final state, and \(\Delta M (\tilde{\chi }_2^0,{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0) \ge M_{H_{\textrm{SM}}},\) one can set a minimum mass, \({M({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\pm , {{\tilde{\chi }}}_2^0)} \sim \) 190 GeV [120].
-
In the parameter space of our concern, all the electroweakinos may well be within the TeV scale. Thus the pair production of heavier electroweakinos may be of importance, for instance, when each of them decays into an LSP and an on-shell W, Z, and SM-like Higgs boson. A mass splitting greater than 400 GeV is considered with scalar and vector bosons further decay hadronically [138]. Typically, with pair production of dominantly Wino-like states followed by its direct decays into a Bino-like or Higgsino-like LSP, Wino states having masses \( \in (400-1060)\) GeV are excluded when the LSP mass is below 400 GeV, while the mass splitting is \(\ge 400\) GeV. On the other hand, in the context of pair production of Higgsino-like states followed by direct decays into a Bino-like or Wino-like LSP, Higgsino-like states with masses \(\in (450{-}900)\) GeV are excluded when the LSP mass is below 240 GeV, and the mass splitting is \(\ge 450\) GeV.
-
The pair production of lighter charginos \(PP\rightarrow {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\pm {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\mp \rightarrow W^\pm {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 W^\mp {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 \) have also been considered at the LHC [116, 136]. Further \(\chi _1^\mp \) may follow W boson-mediated or slepton-mediated \({{\tilde{\ell }}} \nu (\ell \tilde{\nu }) {{\tilde{\ell }}} \nu (\ell {{\tilde{\nu }}}) \rightarrow \ell \nu {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 \ell \nu {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0\) decays. For W boson-mediated decays, a comparatively stringent lower bound can be placed that depends on \(\Delta M ({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^\pm ,{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0)\) [114, 116].
-
Direct pair-production of sleptons \(({{\tilde{\ell }}}\) refers mainly \({\tilde{e}},{{\tilde{\mu }}})\) with each decaying into a charged lepton and \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0,\) \(PP\rightarrow {{\tilde{\ell }}} {{\tilde{\ell }}} \rightarrow \ell \tilde{\chi }_1^0 \ell {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0\) have been searched at [114, 116, 117, 123, 136]. A conservative limit on the light-flavored sleptons can be placed using the searches at LEP: \(M_{{{\tilde{\mu }}}_R}\) is 94.6 GeV for mass splittings down to \(M_{{{\tilde{\mu }}}_R}-M_{{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0} \ge 2 ~{\textrm{GeV}}\) while for \(M_{{\tilde{e}}_R}\) a universal lower bound \(M_{{\tilde{e}}_R} \ge 73 ~{\textrm{GeV}}\) can be placed independent of the mass splitting \(\Delta M ({{\tilde{e}}_R},{{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0}).\) Typically, for a lighter \({\tilde{e}}\) and \({{\tilde{\mu }}}\) with masses \(\le 150\) GeV, the mass splitting \(\Delta M ({{{\tilde{\ell }}}}, {\tilde{\chi }_1^0}) \le 50\) GeV is desired for having an acceptable parameter space point. Otherwise, with both \({\tilde{S}}\) and/or \({\tilde{B}}\) lighter compared to Higgsino-like \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_{3,4}^0\) may reduce the branching fractions in the classical search channels \( {{\tilde{\ell }}} \rightarrow \ell {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 .\) With a relatively heavier \({{\tilde{\ell }}},\) one finds \({{\tilde{\ell }}} \rightarrow \ell {{\tilde{\chi }}}_i^0\) where \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_i^0\) subsequently decays to LSP through the long cascades. In the case of stau \(({\tilde{\tau }})\) masses, we require \(M_{{\tilde{\tau }}_1} > 93.2\) GeV following LEP through LHC potentially constraints stau masses from 120 to 390 GeV depending on \(\Delta M ({{{\tilde{\tau }}}},{{{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0})\) [141].
Similarly, the invisible Z decay \(\Gamma (Z\rightarrow {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0) < 5 \times 10^{-4} ~{\textrm{GeV}},\) the LEP2 bounds on neutralino production \(\sigma _Z(e^+e^-\rightarrow {{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0 {{\tilde{\chi }}}_i^0) < 10^{-2}~{\textrm{pb}}~ (i>1)\) and \(\sigma _Z(e^+e^-\rightarrow {{\tilde{\chi }}}_i^0 {{\tilde{\chi }}}_j^0) < 10^{-1}~{\textrm{pb}}~ (i,j>1)\) are always used [142, 143]. This may lead to a lower bound on \(|\mu _{{\textrm{eff}}}|\ge 120\) GeV [144].
5 Numerical results
Here we present the numerical results for the process \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma .\) We perform a scan over the following ranges of the relevant parameters:
\({0.01\le \lambda \le 0.7},\) \({0.001\le \kappa \le 0.2},\) \({6 \le \tan \beta \le 20},\) \({0.1\le }\) \({A_\lambda \le 2},\) \({-0.2\le A_{\kappa } \le 0},\) \({0.1\le \mu _{{\textrm{eff}}} \le 0.3}.\)
In the above, all the mass parameters are in TeV. For better illustration, we further split the coupling \(\lambda \) into two regimes: (1) the low \(\lambda \) region: \(0.01 \le \lambda \le 0.1\) (Reg: 1), and (2) the moderate or high \(\lambda \) region: \(0.1 < \lambda \le 0.7\) (Reg: 2). With relatively lower values of \(\lambda \) (and \(\kappa )\), Reg: 1 can accommodate a valid Singlino-like DM, while the Reg: 2 can have a dominantly Higgsino-like or even a mixed LSP. As discussed, to satisfy direct detection constraints, additional requirements must be fulfilled for a valid DM candidate for the latter parameters.
We will now try to explore the NMSSM parameter space where a more significant value of the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) can be observed consistent with the experimental and theoretical constraints implemented within the \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) The DM constraints for \({{\tilde{\chi }}}_1^0\) are not endorsed as a necessary criterion for a valid parameter space point. The flavor physics constraints and fitting the anomalies to \(a_\mu ,\) \(M_W,\) through NMSSM contributions are always respected. Additionally, the Reg: 2 includes a critical checking of the validity of each parameter space point under SUSY searches with \({\mathtt {SModelS-2.3.0}}.\) For Reg: 1, fine-tuning among the SUSY parameters will be required to satisfy both DM constraints and limits from SUSY searches. We find it convenient to perform a \({\texttt{MCMC}}\) scan within a very small interval in the NMSSM-specific parameters around some fixed values of them. The resultant spectra around a particular input satisfying both DM constraints and SUSY searches are shown in the inset of Figs. 2a, c and 3a, c.
In Fig. 2, we present the branching ratio \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma )\) with the mass of the lightest CP-even scalar \((M_{H_1})\) (top) and the mass of the lightest chargino \((M_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm })\) (bottom). For instance, in Fig. 2a, we show the variation of the \(BR (Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma )\) for relatively lower values of \(\lambda \) while the same for higher values of \(\lambda \) in Fig. 2b. In Reg: 2, for \(M_{H_1}<60\) GeV, \(H_2 \rightarrow 2 H_1\) may become potentially large and restrictive. But in the low \(\lambda \) region (Reg: 1), in Fig. 2a, the \(BR(H_2\rightarrow 2H_1)\) can be much smaller. Therefore, in this case \(M_{H_1}<\frac{M_{H_2}}{2}\) is considered for presentation. In both cases, \( BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma )<10^{-9}\) (i.e., below the Tera-Z line) for \(M_{H_1}\ge 85\) GeV can be noted, where the phase space suppression coming from Eq. (12) is significant. Similarly, a pre-factor boost will help raise the branching fraction when \(M_{H_1}\) takes smaller values in Reg: 1. Usually, a smaller value of \(\lambda \) reduces the contributions from the charginos in the loop. Similarly, the lightest scalar \(H_1\) may become more singlet-like, which can even lower the W boson contributions in the branching ratio. But a light \(\phi ,\) with a phase space boost, can supersede the suppressions driven by the NMSSM couplings; thus, we may achieve \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ) \le 10^{-7}\) for smaller values of \(M_{H_1} \in (10{-}40)\) GeV. However, when imposing the DM constraints and SUSY search limits through \(\mathtt {SModelS-2.3.0},\) we find a maximum value of the \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ) \le 10^{-8}.\) The region is shown in the inset of Fig. 2a. The Reg: 2 also predicts \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma )\le 10^{-8}.\)
In Fig. 2 (bottom), we plot the branching fraction dependence on the mass of the lightest chargino. Compared to Reg: 1, Reg: 2 posses relatively heavier \(H_1.\) One finds that most of the parameter space points fall below the Tera-Z line.
The results for the decay \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma \) have been depicted in Fig. 3 for the same ranges of the parameters as above. Figure 3a and b show the variations of the \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\) with the mass of the lightest pseudoscalar \(M_{A_1}\) in Reg: 1 and Reg: 2 respectively. Similarly, Fig. 3c and d show the variations of the \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\) with the mass of the lightest chargino \(M_{{\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm }.\) Like the previous case, in Fig. 3a, \(M_{A_1}<60\) GeV is allowed. Since the dominant W boson loop is absent, the branching fraction is smaller than that of \(BR(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ).\) Moreover, the partial width is dominantly controlled by the chargino loops since the SM t quark form factors are usually smaller than the chargino contributions (e.g., see the reference points in Table 2).
So an overall drop in the \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma \) branching fraction can be easily observed. The suppression is more in Reg: 1 where small values of \(\lambda \) lower the chargino contributions compared to that of Reg: 2. This can not be compensated even going to a smaller value for \(M_{A_1}\) in Fig. 3a, where one can avail a significant boost from the kinematic pre-factors. Additionally, if one applies the DM constraints and SUSY searches, the \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\) seems to reduce further (see the inset of Fig. 3a). Overall, one can achieve a \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\sim 10^{-10}\) or \(\sim 10^{-8},\) for Reg: 1 and Reg: 2 respectively.
Similarly, one can observe from Fig. 3c and d that the \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\) decreases gradually with the chargino mass. Reg: 2 i.e., Fig. 3d offers better visibility due to a relatively higher \(\lambda \) value. This was not clearly observed for the case of \(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma \) due to the dominance of the W boson loop. Since the chargino loops almost solely govern the process \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma ,\) one can directly measure the NMSSM coupling \(\lambda \) by observing the branching fraction.
We now present the parameter space where the recently observed excess on the branching fraction \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) measurements can be co-related with the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) (see Fig. 4). We note here that both the observables are dominated by the same loops i.e., W boson and chargino loops. Again we choose Reg: 1 and Reg: 2 to present the variations. The observable \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) is calculated using \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) Following the discussion in Sect. 4 and admitting a 2\(\sigma \) variation, the allowance in \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z \gamma )\) reads \((1.2-5.6)\times 10^{-3}.\) Figure 4 shows that a significant part of the parameter space, in compliance with \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) allowance, is within the reach of the proposed \(e^-e^+\) colliders in the Tera-Z mode. Recall that, \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma )\) in low \(\lambda \) regions does not offer much hope even in future Z factories. However, the region can be seen to be compatible with \(H_2\) decays to Z and \(\gamma ,\) thus, can be probed in the future precision searches of the SM-like Higgs boson. Thus the \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) can offer as an excellent complementary test to the Z boson rare decays.
Having established the necessary parametric dependence of \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) on the NMSSM-specific parameters, we will now have a closer look at the allowed parameter space through a few BMPs. Again we follow all the theoretical and experimental checks performed by the \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}.\) The SUSY searches are validated by \({\mathtt {SModelS-2.3.0}}\) while the relevant search channels have already been detailed in Sect. 4. Guided by the previous lesson, a set of four representative points for studying the prospects of \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma , A_1 \gamma \) in the NMSSM parameter space for Reg: 1 (first and third) and Reg: 2 (second and fourth) are shown in Table 1. The SUSY input parameters, relevant masses, and mixings for the scalars and fermions are noted therein. The Low-energy observables \(\delta a_\mu \) and \(M_W\) are also presented. Lighter electroweakinos and sleptons are helpful to attune the radiative corrections for having a consistent solution for both of the anomalies. Moreover, the sample points can easily fit the recent measurements of the \(BR(H_2\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) for an SM-like Higgs decay. Compared to high \(\lambda \) scenarios, in the low \(\lambda \) regime, a relatively high value of \(\tan \beta ,\) associated with lighter charginos, can fit the \(\delta a_\mu \) anomaly.
A relatively high value of \(\tan \beta \) boosts the neutralino \(\delta a_\mu ^{{\tilde{\chi }}^0}\) and chargino parts \(\delta a_\mu ^{{\tilde{\chi }}^\pm }\) in \(\delta a_\mu \) calculations. The \(\tan \beta \) dependence appears through the muon Yukawa couplings. As discussed, the LSP in the low \(\lambda \) regions is dominantly Singlino-like with \(N_{15}\ge 99\%,\) thus satisfying the direct detection limits on the DM. Similarly, we observe a dominantly Higgsino-Singlino-like LSP in Reg: 2. Further, if one lowers \(M_2,\) the LSP also includes a significant Wino part. We have also cross-checked the validity of our BMPs with \({\mathtt {HiggsBounds-5.10.2}}.\)
As has been stated, we now numerically manifest the contributions from the different loops of Fig. 1 in Table 2. The W boson loop with form factor \({\mathcal {F}}^{(d)}\) provides the leading contributions followed by lighter \({\tilde{\chi }}_i^\pm \) having form factor \({\mathcal {F}}^{(a)}.\) SM t quark loop \(({\mathcal {F}}^{(c)})\) comes next in the relative contributions though it interferes destructively with the W boson loop. For CP-odd scalar, \({\tilde{\chi }}_i^\pm \) completely controls the \(Z \rightarrow A_1 \gamma \) amplitude through the form factor \(\tilde{\mathcal {F}}^{(a)}.\) The corresponding branching fraction for \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma \) or \(Z\rightarrow A_1 \gamma \) can be noted from Table 2. As expected, a relative suppression in \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) branching fraction is observed in the low \(\lambda \) scenarios. In general, to accommodate a dominantly Singlino-like LSP to satisfy the DM limits, a dominantly singlet-like \(\phi \) \((>99\%\) singlet component) is preferred. Although the overall \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) will be diminished, the suppression is more for the \(BR(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma ).\) We find that the future Z-factories can potentially probe our BMPs except the BMP-3.
We outline here the spectra of electroweakinos and sleptons and their dominant branching fractions into lighter particles (Table 3). This will, in turn, identify the characteristics of the spectra for satisfying the important LHC constraints. For instance, the first sample point corresponds to a dominantly singlino-like LSP where \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm \) decays via off-shell W boson \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^\pm \rightarrow {\tilde{\chi }}_1^0 + W^*\) with \(W^*\) decaying to hadronic or leptonic final states. The second lightest \({\tilde{\chi }}_2^0\) decays to \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0,H_1\) with \(\sim 90\%\) BR. The relatively heavier Higgsino-like and Wino-like mixed neutralinos with masses \(\sim (220-250)\) GeV decay into sneutrinos and sleptons (including \({{\tilde{\tau }}}_1)\). The EW scalars decay through Higgsino-like \({\tilde{\chi }}_2^0\) with \({\tilde{\chi }}_2^0\) finally decays to \({\tilde{\chi }}_1^0\) LSP. The third benchmark point, with a low \(\lambda ,\) shows a similar decay pattern. However, there are a few subtle changes, e.g., \({\tilde{\chi }}_2^0\) involves three body decays, sleptons decay to EW charginos and heavier neutralinos (mass \(\sim 160{-}280\) GeV) before finally decay to Singlino-like LSP. Potentially rich \(\tau \) final states may be observed, which can make the LHC searches even more challenging. In the high \(\lambda \) scenario, the first sample point refers to the decay pattern of EW particles associated with \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma \) amplitude. It looks similar to the first sample point, while the heavier chargino and neutralinos appear as the intermediate on-shell states of the sleptons. The last BMP produces \(\tau \) rich final states, which may originate through staus in particular. However, with \(M_{\tilde{\tau }_{1,2}} \sim 105{-}120\) GeV, the sample point is yet to be excluded for our chosen LSP (Table 3).
Indeed, the SUSY spectra, with not-so-well separated electroweak particles, the considered Z decay mode can be instrumental in probing the low mass regions of the NMSSM parameter space. Certainly, the proposed high-energy \(e^+e^-\) accelerators CEPC, FCC-ee, or ILC are the best bet to search these rare decays of the Z boson. In the next-generation experiments, Z events with several orders of magnitude higher than that of the LEP are likely to be observed.Footnote 9 For instance, we may consider the international \(e^+e^-\) Linear Collider (ILC) [39,40,41]. In addition to its scheduled running at 250 GeV center of mass energy, it can perform at around \(\sqrt{s} = M_Z,\) the so-called Giga-Z mode of the ILC. An order of \(10^{9}\) or greater Z bosons are expected to be produced, which would improve the expected sensitivity of the rare decays of the Z boson significantly, one of which is \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma .\) Future proposals include circular \(e^+e^-\) colliders, CEPC [36, 37] and FCC-ee [38], plans to run for several years at center-of-mass energy around the Z pole, thus will be operational at the Giga-Z and Tera-Z phases. For the latter, an order of \(10^{12}\) of Zs will be produced. With recent updates, even more Z boson events are expected to be observed. The branching fraction can be improved from \(10^{-6}\) at the LEP to \(10^{-8}-10^{-9}\) [40, 145], which are already shown in the Figs. 2, 3 or in Fig. 4. As evident, a significant part of the parameter space will be covered in the future Z factories. Considering \(\phi \) to further decay into \(\gamma \gamma ,\) \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma ) \sim 3 \times 10^{-9}\) can be probed for \(M_{\phi } \le 100\) GeV [145]. A similar limit can be derived if \(\phi \) decays to leptonic final states [146]. If \(\phi \) is a pseudo-scalar and decays to a pair of b-jets, see Ref. [147]. For our choices of \(M_\phi ,\) the signal-background differentiation may become difficult. For the HL-LHC probes on exotic Z decays, see [145].
The rare Z decay processes open up another pathway to produce a singlet-like scalar or pseudoscalar at the 14 TeV LHC because of the huge production cross-section for the Z boson at the leading order, \(\sigma _Z\simeq 55.6\) nb. Therefore, one can roughly have a production cross-section for the singlet-like scalar or pseudoscalar, \(\sigma _{\phi }=\sigma _{Z}\times BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\simeq 10^{-8}\times 55.6\) nb \(\simeq 0.556\) fb for \(M_\phi \le M_Z.\) Further with \(\phi \) decays to \(b{\bar{b}}\) (90% BR, as in BMP-2 and BMP-4), one finds \(\Big [\sigma (PP\rightarrow \phi )\times {\textrm{BR}}\Big ]_{\textrm{NMSSM}}\simeq 0.5\) fb. Certainly, this can be interesting to directly produce \(\phi \) at the high-luminosity LHC \((\sqrt{s}=14\) TeV, \({\mathcal {L}}=3~{\textrm{ab}}^{-1})\).
6 Conclusions
We have studied the rare decay processes \(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ,\) \(A_1\gamma \) in the context of the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Starting with a detailed analytical depiction of the processes through a model-independent parametrization of the new physics couplings, we examine the NMSSM parameter space where the branching fraction \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) is important. Analytical expressions from the loop diagrams are implemented in \({\texttt{NMSSMTools}}\) to facilitate our analysis. Then we have considered two regimes corresponding to low and high values of \(\lambda ,\) referred to as Reg: 1 and Reg: 2 respectively. The lower values of \(\lambda \) (and \(\kappa )\) offer a dominantly Singlino-like dark matter with a dominantly singlet-like \(\phi \) (singlet part is more than 99%) to satisfy the DD bounds. The chargino loops become much suppressed due to the smallness of \(\lambda .\) Similarly, the SM-loop contributions appeared to be small. So the \(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma \) amplitude resides on the lower side compared to the high \(\lambda \) scenarios in Reg: 2 where the DM constraints are relaxed on the available parameter space. For the latter case, we may observe a larger branching ratio for the rare Z decays which we are interested in. Apart from satisfying the theoretical and experimental constraints, including SUSY searches, we aim to fit \((g-2)_\mu ,\) W boson mass anomaly. The spectra are endowed with the recent measurements of the \(BR(h_{\textrm{SM}}\rightarrow Z\gamma ),\) which is \(\sim 2.2\) times larger than the SM prediction, based on the recent measurement of ATLAS and CMS. Future proposals such as ILC, CEPC, and FCC-ee are anticipated to operate for multiple years, focusing on center-of-mass energy near the Z pole. Consequently, these projects will be capable of conducting experiments at the Giga-Z \((10^{9}\) of Z bosons) and Tera-Z \((10^{12}\) of Z bosons) phases, which can probe a significant part of the NMSSM parameter space. In the BMPs, we find that except for BMP-3, all other representative points can be probed in the Tera-Z run. However, BMP-3, a Singlino-like LSP scenario accompanied by compressed electroweak spectra, the \(Z\rightarrow A_1\gamma \) observable, supplemented by \(BR(H_2 \rightarrow Z \gamma )\) can also be tested in the near future. Overall, \(BR(h_{\textrm{SM}}\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) may act as an important standby test to \(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ,\) \(A_1\gamma \) in the NMSSM parameter space, if it gets settled to any deviation compared to that of the SM in the future runs of the LHC. Finally, we want to emphasize here that a large branching fraction for \(Z\rightarrow H_1\gamma ,\) \(A_1\gamma \) along with the SUSY contributions to \((g-2)_\mu ,\) W boson mass anomaly can be boosted in the presence of the lighter charginos. Additionally, lighter Higgs bosons are needed, particularly for the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma ).\) So, in the parameter space with low \(\mu _{\textrm{eff}}\) and with relatively smaller values of the NMSSM-specific trilinear coupling parameters, observance of the \(BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma )\) can serve as a nice complementary test to probe the NMSSM-specific signatures compatible with the EW precision measurements.
Additionally, considering the huge production cross-section for the Z boson at the LHC, this rare decay process can be used for the production of singlet-like scalars or pseudoscalars at the hadron colliders.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on reasonable request. [Author’s comment: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.]
Code Availability Statement
Code/software will be made available on reasonable request. [Author’s comment: The code/software generated during and/or analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.]
Notes
The DM constraint is partially respected in this study.
The value of \((g-2)_\mu \) from Run-2 and Run-3 is \(a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Run-2,3}} = (116592055 \pm 24)\times 10^{-11}.\) Therefore, the new experimental average becomes \(a_\mu ^{\mathrm{Exp(New)}} = (116592059 \pm 22)\times 10^{-11}\) [76].
Note that the central value of the recent measurement by the CDF [101] is \(\sim 7\sigma \) above the SM prediction.
It may be noted here that the compatibility of W boson mass measurements, performed by the ATLAS, LHCb, CDF, and D0 experiments is further studied considering the theory uncertainty correlations in Ref. [102]. The largest theoretical uncertainty in the evaluation of \(M_W\) can be observed from the parton distribution functions. For instance, when combination of all \(M_W\) measurements with the CT18 set is considered, one finds \(M_W = 80.3946\pm 0.0115\) GeV. Similarly, excluding the CDF measurements, one obtains \(M_W = 80.3692 \pm 0.0133\) GeV.
In one of our scenarios \({\tilde{\chi }}^0_1 \equiv {\tilde{S}}\) is dominantly singlet-like, thus having a tiny coupling with the SM states.
The LEP limit for \( BR(Z\rightarrow \phi \gamma ) \sim 10^{-6}.\)
References
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 1–29 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020. arXiv:1207.7214
CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 30–61 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021. arXiv:1207.7235
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb\(^{-1}\) of proton–proton collision data at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment. Phys. Rev. D 101, 012002 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.012002. arXiv:1909.02845
R.N. Cahn, M.S. Chanowitz, N. Fleishon, Higgs particle production by Z \(\rightarrow \) H Gamma. Phys. Lett. B 82, 113–116 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(79)90438-6
J. Kalinowski, S. Pokorski, Higgs particle production at LEP in multi-doublet scenarios with hierarchy of the vacuum expectation values. Phys. Lett. B 219, 116–120 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(89)90850-2
T.J. Weiler, T.-C. Yuan, Looking for SUSY virtually through loop induced Higgs processes. Nucl. Phys. B 318, 337–374 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(89)90610-X
A. Djouadi, V. Driesen, W. Hollik, A. Kraft, The Higgs photon-Z boson coupling revisited. Eur. Phys. J. C 1, 163–175 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01245806. arXiv:hep-ph/9701342
M. Krawczyk, P. Mattig, J. Zochowski, The light Higgs window in the 2 HDM at GigaZ. Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 463–469 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520100585. arXiv:hep-ph/0009201
M. Krawczyk, J. Zochowski, P. Mattig, Process \(Z \rightarrow \) h(A) + \(\gamma \) in the two Higgs doublet model and the experimental constraints from LEP. Eur. Phys. J. C 8, 495–505 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050483. arXiv:hep-ph/9811256
A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. Muhlleitner, P.M. Zerwas, Testing Higgs self-couplings at e+ e\(-\) linear colliders. Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 27–43 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100529900082. arXiv:hep-ph/9903229
J. Cao, Z. Heng, J.M. Yang, Rare Z-decay into light CP-odd Higgs bosons: a comparative study in different new physics models. JHEP 11, 110 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2010)110. arXiv:1007.1918
D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung, Triple pseudoscalar decay mode of Z boson. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3732–3735 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3732. arXiv:hep-ph/9607320
E. Keith, E. Ma, Decay of Z into three pseudoscalar bosons. Phys. Rev. D 57, 2017–2019 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.2017. arXiv:hep-ph/9708286
M.A. Perez, G. Tavares-Velasco, J.J. Toscano, New physics effects in rare Z decays. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 159–178 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X04017100. arXiv:hep-ph/0305227
F. Larios, G. Tavares-Velasco, C.P. Yuan, A very light CP odd scalar in the two Higgs doublet model. Phys. Rev. D 64, 055004 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.055004. arXiv:hep-ph/0103292
F. Larios, G. Tavares-Velasco, C.P. Yuan, Update on a very light CP odd scalar in the two Higgs doublet model. Phys. Rev. D 66, 075006 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.075006. arXiv:hep-ph/0205204
U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, A.M. Teixeira, The next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model. Phys. Rep. 496, 1–77 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2010.07.001. arXiv:0910.1785
S. Profumo, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, G. Shaughnessy, Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition. JHEP 08, 010 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/08/010. arXiv:0705.2425
M. Carena, N.R. Shah, C.E.M. Wagner, Light dark matter and the electroweak phase transition in the NMSSM. Phys. Rev. D 85, 036003 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.036003. arXiv:1110.4378
S. Baum, M. Carena, N.R. Shah, C.E.M. Wagner, Y. Wang, Nucleation is more than critical: a case study of the electroweak phase transition in the NMSSM. JHEP 03, 055 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021)055. arXiv:2009.10743
M. Carena, J. Kozaczuk, Z. Liu, T. Ou, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, J. Shelton et al., Probing the electroweak phase transition with exotic Higgs decays. LHEP 2023, 432 (2023). https://doi.org/10.31526/lhep.2023.432. arXiv:2203.08206
A. Chatterjee, A. Datta, S. Roy, Electroweak phase transition in the Z\(_{3}\)-invariant NMSSM: implications of LHC and Dark matter searches and prospects of detecting the gravitational waves. JHEP 06, 108 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2022)108. arXiv:2202.12476
P. Borah, P. Ghosh, S. Roy, A.K. Saha, Electroweak phase transition in a right-handed neutrino superfield extended NMSSM. JHEP 08, 029 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2023)029. arXiv:2301.05061
D. Chang, W.-F. Chang, C.-H. Chou, W.-Y. Keung, Large two loop contributions to g-2 from a generic pseudoscalar boson. Phys. Rev. D 63, 091301 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.63.091301. arXiv:hep-ph/0009292
T.-F. Feng, L. Sun, X.-Y. Yang, Electroweak and supersymmetric two-loop corrections to lepton anomalous magnetic and electric dipole moments. Nucl. Phys. B 800, 221–252 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.03.019. arXiv:0805.1122
S. Heinemeyer, D. Stockinger, G. Weiglein, Electroweak and supersymmetric two-loop corrections to (g-2)(mu). Nucl. Phys. B 699, 103–123 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.08.014. arXiv:hep-ph/0405255
F. Domingo, U. Ellwanger, Constraints from the muon g-2 on the parameter space of the NMSSM. JHEP 07, 079 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/079. arXiv:0806.0733
F. Domingo, U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, \(M_W\), dark matter and \(a_\mu \) in the NMSSM. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1074 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11059-5. arXiv:2209.03863
O. Stål, G. Weiglein, L. Zeune, Improved prediction for the mass of the W boson in the NMSSM. JHEP 09, 158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2015)158. arXiv:1506.07465
J. Cao, J.M. Yang, Anomaly of Zb anti-b coupling revisited in MSSM and NMSSM. JHEP 12, 006 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/006. arXiv:0810.0751
F. Domingo, T. Lenz, W mass and leptonic Z-decays in the NMSSM. JHEP 07, 101 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2011)101. arXiv:1101.4758
G. Belanger, V. Bizouard, G. Chalons, Boosting Higgs boson decays into gamma and a Z in the NMSSM. Phys. Rev. D 89, 095023 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.095023. arXiv:1402.3522
S. Bisal, D. Das, S. Majhi, S. Mitra, Production of singlet dominated scalar(s) at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 839, 137806 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137806. arXiv:2207.01358
P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Wu, Y. Wu, B. Zhu, Hadronic uncertainties versus new physics for the W boson mass and Muon g \(-\) 2 anomalies. Nat. Commun. 14, 659 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36366-7. arXiv:2204.03996
T.-P. Tang, M. Abdughani, L. Feng, Y.-L.S. Tsai, J. Wu, Y.-Z. Fan, NMSSM neutralino dark matter for CDF II W-boson mass and muon g \(-\) 2 and the promising prospect of direct detection. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 239512 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-022-2046-y. arXiv:2204.04356
CEPC Study Group Collaboration, CEPC conceptual design report: volume 1—accelerator. arXiv:1809.00285
CEPC Study Group Collaboration, M. Dong et al., CEPC conceptual design report: volume 2—physics and detector. arXiv:1811.10545
FCC Collaboration, A. Abada et al., FCC-ee: the lepton collider: future circular collider conceptual design report volume 2. Eur. Phys. J. ST 228, 261–623 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4
P. Bambade et al., The international linear collider: a global project. arXiv:1903.01629
J. Erler, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, P.M. Zerwas, Physics impact of GigaZ. Phys. Lett. B 486, 125–133 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00749-8. arXiv:hep-ph/0005024
The international linear collider technical design report—volume 2: physics. arXiv:1306.6352
H.H. Patel, Package-X 2.0: a Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals. Comput. Phys. Commun. 218, 66–70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.04.015. arXiv:1612.00009
H.H. Patel, Package-X: a Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals. Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 276–290 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.017. arXiv:1503.01469
M. Maniatis, The next-to-minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model reviewed. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25, 3505–3602 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X10049827. arXiv:0906.0777
U. Ellwanger, J.F. Gunion, C. Hugonie, NMHDECAY: a Fortran code for the Higgs masses, couplings and decay widths in the NMSSM. JHEP 02, 066 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2005/02/066. arXiv:hep-ph/0406215
U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, NMHDECAY 20: an updated program for sparticle masses, Higgs masses, couplings and decay widths in the NMSSM. Comput. Phys. Commun. 175, 290–303 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2006.04.004. arXiv: hep-ph/0508022
D. Das, U. Ellwanger, A.M. Teixeira, NMSDECAY: a Fortran code for supersymmetric particle decays in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model. Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 774–779 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2011.11.021. arXiv:1106.5633
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 139 fb\(^{-1}\) of \(\sqrt{s} =13\) TeV \(pp\) collision data with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 02, 143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2021)143. arXiv:2010.14293
CMS Collaboration, T.C. Collaboration et al., Search for supersymmetry in proton–proton collisions at 13 TeV in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum. JHEP 10, 244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)244. arXiv:1908.04722
WMAP Collaboration, G. Hinshaw et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19. arXiv:1212.5226
Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910. arXiv:1807.06209. [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]
XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302. arXiv:1805.12562
LUX Collaboration, D.S. Akerib et al., Limits on spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross section obtained from the complete LUX exposure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 251302 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.251302. arXiv:1705.03380
PandaX-II Collaboration, X. Cui et al., Dark matter results from 54-ton-day exposure of PandaX-II experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181302 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181302. arXiv:1708.06917
LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., First dark matter search results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041002. arXiv:2207.03764
XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Projected WIMP sensitivity of the XENONnT dark matter experiment. JCAP 11, 031 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/11/031. arXiv:2007.08796
D. Das, B. De, S. Mitra, Cancellation in dark matter-nucleon interactions: the role of non-standard-model-like Yukawa couplings. Phys. Lett. B 815, 136159 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136159. arXiv:2011.13225
ATLAS, CMS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at \( \sqrt{s}=7 \) and 8 TeV. JHEP 08, 045 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045. arXiv:1606.02266
CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan et al., Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\,\text{TeV}\). Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 421 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6909-y. arXiv:1809.10733
ATLAS Collaboration, A combination of measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 139 fb\(^{-1}\) of proton–proton collision data at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment
ATLAS Collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 139 fb\(^{-1}\) of proton–proton collision data at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment. Technical report, CERN, Geneva (2021)
P. Bechtle, D. Dercks, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein et al., HiggsBounds-5: testing Higgs sectors in the LHC 13 TeV era. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1211 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08557-9. arXiv:2006.06007
P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, K.E. Williams, HiggsBounds: confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with exclusion bounds from LEP and the Tevatron. Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 138–167 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.003. arXiv:0811.4169
P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, \(HiggsSignals\): confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2711 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2711-4. arXiv:1305.1933
P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, T. Klingl, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, J. Wittbrodt, HiggsSignals-2: probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 145 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08942-y. arXiv:2012.09197
T. Biekötter, M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, A 96 GeV Higgs boson in the N2HDM. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7561-2. arXiv:1903.11661
S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, F. Lika, G. Moortgat-Pick, S. Paasch, Phenomenology of a 96 GeV Higgs boson in the 2HDM with an additional singlet. Phys. Rev. D 106, 075003 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.075003. arXiv:2112.11958
A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Spira, HDECAY: a program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension. Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56–74 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(97)00123-9. arXiv:hep-ph/9704448
ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for the Higgs boson decay to a \(Z\) boson and a photon at the LHC. Technical report, CERN, Geneva (2023)
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., A search for the \(Z\gamma \) decay mode of the Higgs boson in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 809, 135754 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135754. arXiv:2005.05382
C. Collaboration, Search for Higgs boson decays to a z boson and a photon in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV (2022)
Muon g-2 Collaboration, B. Abi et al., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801. arXiv:2104.03281
Muon g-2 Collaboration, T. Albahri et al., Measurement of the anomalous precession frequency of the muon in the Fermilab Muon g-2 experiment. Phys. Rev. D 103, 072002 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.072002. arXiv:2104.03247
F. Domingo, U. Ellwanger, Updated constraints from \(B\) physics on the MSSM and the NMSSM. JHEP 12, 090 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/090. arXiv:0710.3714
T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model. Phys. Rep. 887, 1–166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006. arXiv:2006.04822
Muon g-2 Collaboration, D.P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161802 (2023). arXiv:2308.06230
S. Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD. Nature 593, 51–55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1. arXiv:2002.12347
M. Cè et al., Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D 106, 114502 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114502. arXiv:2206.06582
Extended Twisted Mass Collaboration, C. Alexandrou et al., Lattice calculation of the short and intermediate time-distance hadronic vacuum polarization contributions to the muon magnetic moment using twisted-mass fermions. Phys. Rev. D 107, 074506 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.074506. arXiv:2206.15084
Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC Collaboration, A. Bazavov et al., Light-quark connected intermediate-window contributions to the muon g-2 hadronic vacuum polarization from lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D 107, 114514 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114514. arXiv:2301.08274
G. Colangelo, A.X. El-Khadra, M. Hoferichter, A. Keshavarzi, C. Lehner, P. Stoffer et al., Data-driven evaluations of Euclidean windows to scrutinize hadronic vacuum polarization. Phys. Lett. B 833, 137313 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137313. arXiv:2205.12963
H. Wittig, Progress on \((g-2)_\mu \) from Lattice QCD, in 57th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories (2023). arXiv:2306.04165
CMD-3 Collaboration, F.V. Ignatov et al., Measurement of the pion formfactor with CMD-3 detector and its implication to the hadronic contribution to muon (g-2). Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 231903 (2024). arXiv:2309.12910
CMD-3 Collaboration, F.V. Ignatov et al., Measurement of the \(e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^-\) cross section from threshold to 1.2 GeV with the CMD-3 detector. Phys. Rev. D 109, 112002 (2024). arXiv:2302.08834
CMD-2 Collaboration, R.R. Akhmetshin et al., Reanalysis of hadronic cross-section measurements at CMD-2. Phys. Lett. B 578, 285–289 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.108. arXiv:hep-ex/0308008
KLOE-2 Collaboration, A. Anastasi et al., Combination of KLOE \(\sigma \big (e^+e^-\rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^-\gamma (\gamma )\big )\) measurements and determination of \(a_{\mu }^{\pi ^+\pi ^-}\) in the energy range \(0.10 < s < 0.95\) GeV\(^2\). JHEP 03, 173 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2018)173. arXiv:1711.03085
BESIII Collaboration, M. Ablikim et al., Measurement of the \(e^+ e^- \rightarrow \pi ^+ \pi ^-\) cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation. Phys. Lett. B 753, 629–638 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.043. arXiv:1507.08188. [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 812, 135982 (2021)]
BaBar Collaboration, J.P. Lees et al., Precise measurement of the \(e^+ e^- \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^- (\gamma )\) cross section with the initial-state radiation method at BABAR. Phys. Rev. D 86, 032013 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.032013. arXiv:1205.2228
G. Colangelo et al., Prospects for precise predictions of \(a_\mu \) in the Standard Model. arXiv:2203.15810
S.P. Martin, J.D. Wells, Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in supersymmetric theories. Phys. Rev. D 64, 035003 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.035003. arXiv:hep-ph/0103067
G. Degrassi, G.F. Giudice, QED logarithms in the electroweak corrections to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. D 58, 053007 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.053007. arXiv:hep-ph/9803384
K.-M. Cheung, C.-H. Chou, O.C.W. Kong, Muon anomalous magnetic moment, two Higgs doublet model, and supersymmetry. Phys. Rev. D 64, 111301 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.111301. arXiv:hep-ph/0103183
C.-H. Chen, C.Q. Geng, The Muon anomalous magnetic moment from a generic charged Higgs with SUSY. Phys. Lett. B 511, 77–84 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00651-7. arXiv:hep-ph/0104151
A. Arhrib, S. Baek, Two loop Barr-Zee type contributions to (g-2)(muon) in the MSSM. Phys. Rev. D 65, 075002 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.075002. arXiv:hep-ph/0104225
S. Heinemeyer, D. Stockinger, G. Weiglein, Two loop SUSY corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Nucl. Phys. B 690, 62–80 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.04.017. arXiv:hep-ph/0312264
J. Cao, J. Lian, Y. Pan, D. Zhang, P. Zhu, Improved \((g-2)_\mu \) measurement and singlino dark matter in \(\mu \)-term extended \(Z_3\) NMSSM. JHEP 09, 175 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2021)175. arXiv:2104.03284
J. Cao, F. Li, J. Lian, Y. Pan, D. Zhang, Impact of LHC probes of SUSY and recent measurement of \((g-2)_\mu \) on \(Z_3\) NMSSM. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 291012 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-022-1927-9. arXiv:2204.04710
CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., High-precision measurement of the \(W\) boson mass with the CDF II detector. Science 376, 170–176 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1781
J. de Blas, M. Pierini, L. Reina, L. Silvestrini, Impact of the recent measurements of the top-quark and W-boson masses on electroweak precision fits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 271801 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.271801. arXiv:2204.04204
J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, A. Goncalves, S. Mishima, M. Pierini et al., Global analysis of electroweak data in the Standard Model. Phys. Rev. D 106, 033003 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.033003. arXiv:2112.07274
M. Algueró, J. Matias, A. Crivellin, C.A. Manzari, Unified explanation of the anomalies in semileptonic B decays and the W mass. Phys. Rev. D 106, 033005 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.033005. arXiv:2201.08170
S. Amoroso et al., Compatibility and combination of world W-boson mass measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 451 (2024). arXiv:2308.09417
S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, Leading electroweak two loop corrections to precision observables in the MSSM. JHEP 10, 072 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2002/10/072. arXiv:hep-ph/0209305
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, Electroweak precision observables in the minimal supersymmetric standard model. Phys. Rep. 425, 265–368 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.12.002. arXiv:hep-ph/0412214
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, D. Stockinger, A.M. Weber, G. Weiglein, Precise prediction for M(W) in the MSSM. JHEP 08, 052 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/08/052. arXiv:hep-ph/0604147
D.M. Pierce, J.A. Bagger, K.T. Matchev, R.-J. Zhang, Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model. Nucl. Phys. B 491, 3–67 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00683-9. arXiv:hep-ph/9606211
E. Bagnaschi, M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, I. Saha, G. Weiglein, Interdependence of the new “MUON G-2’’ result and the W-boson mass. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 474 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10402-0. arXiv:2203.15710
J.M. Yang, Y. Zhang, Low energy SUSY confronted with new measurements of W-boson mass and muon g-2. Sci. Bull. 67, 1430–1436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2022.06.007. arXiv:2204.04202
S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, L. Zeune, Implications of LHC search results on the W boson mass prediction in the MSSM. JHEP 12, 084 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2013)084. arXiv:1311.1663
P. Athron, M. Bach, D.H.J. Jacob, W. Kotlarski, D. Stöckinger, A. Voigt, Precise calculation of the W boson pole mass beyond the standard model with FlexibleSUSY. Phys. Rev. D 106, 095023 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.095023. arXiv:2204.05285
OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for nearly mass degenerate charginos and neutralinos at LEP. Eur. Phys. J. C 29, 479–489 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2003-01237-x. arXiv:hep-ex/0210043
L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., Search for charginos with a small mass difference with the lightest supersymmetric particle at \(\sqrt{S} = 189\)-GeV. Phys. Lett. B 482, 31–42 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00488-3. arXiv:hep-ex/0002043
ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., Search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino in e+ e\(-\) collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209-GeV. Phys. Lett. B 533, 223–236 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01584-8. arXiv:hep-ex/0203020
ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with two or three leptons at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 995 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6423-7. arXiv:1803.02762
ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for chargino-neutralino production using recursive jigsaw reconstruction in final states with two or three charged leptons in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 98, 092012 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.092012. arXiv:1806.02293
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV \(pp\) collisions using the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7594-6. arXiv:1908.08215
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in \(\sqrt{s}= 13 \) TeV \(pp\) collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 101, 052005 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.052005. arXiv:1911.12606
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for direct production of electroweakinos in final states with one lepton, missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into two \(b\)-jets in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 691 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8050-3. arXiv:1909.09226
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for chargino-neutralino production with mass splittings near the electroweak scale in three-lepton final states in \(\sqrt{s}=13 \) TeV \(pp\) collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 101, 072001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.072001. arXiv:1912.08479
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09749-7. arXiv:2106.01676
CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan et al., Search for new physics in events with two soft oppositely charged leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 782, 440–467 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.062. arXiv:1801.01846
CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan et al., Combined search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 03, 160 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2018)160. arXiv:1801.03957
CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan et al., Search for supersymmetric partners of electrons and muons in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 790, 140–166 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.005. arXiv:1806.05264
CMS Collaboration, A.M. Sirunyan et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with two oppositely charged same-flavor leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 04, 123 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2021)123. arXiv:2012.08600
CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton–proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 04, 091 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2022)091. arXiv:2111.06296
ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric states in scenarios with compressed mass spectra at \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 97, 052010 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.052010. arXiv:1712.08119
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2. arXiv:1111.6097
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Dispelling the \(N^{3}\) myth for the \(k_t\) jet-finder. Phys. Lett. B 641, 57–61 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037. arXiv:hep-ph/0512210
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti-\(k_t\) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP 04, 063 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063. arXiv:0802.1189
D. Dercks, N. Desai, J.S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, T. Weber, CheckMATE 2: from the model to the limit. Comput. Phys. Commun. 221, 383–418 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.08.021. arXiv:1611.09856
A.L. Read, Presentation of search results: the \(CL_s\) technique. J. Phys. G 28, 2693–2704 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler et al., SModelS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2868 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2868-5. arXiv:1312.4175
J. Dutta, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, W. Waltenberger, SModelS extension with the CMS supersymmetry search results from Run 2. LHEP 1, 5–12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.31526/LHEP.1.2018.02. arXiv:1803.02204
C.K. Khosa, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, P. Neuhuber, W. Waltenberger, SModelS database update v1.2.3. LHEP 2020, 158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.31526/lhep.2020.158. arXiv:2005.00555
G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C.K. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, A. Lessa et al., Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2. JHEP 08, 068 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2022)068. arXiv:2112.00769
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the W-boson mass in \( \sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 06, 031 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2023)031. arXiv:2209.13935
ATLAS Collaboration, Searches for new phenomena in events with two leptons, jets, and missing transverse momentum in \(139~\text{ fb}^{-1}\) of \(\sqrt{s}=13\) TeV \(pp\) collisions with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 515 (2023). arXiv:2204.13072
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for charginos and neutralinos in final states with two boosted hadronically decaying bosons and missing transverse momentum in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 104, 112010 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.112010. arXiv:2108.07586
CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for higgsinos decaying to two Higgs bosons and missing transverse momentum in proton–proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 05, 014 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2022)014. arXiv:2201.04206
CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos at s = 13 TeV in final states containing hadronic decays of WW, WZ, or WH and missing transverse momentum. Phys. Lett. B 842, 137460 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137460. arXiv:2205.09597
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for direct stau production in events with two hadronic \(\tau \)-leptons in \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV \(pp\) collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 101, 032009 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.032009. arXiv:1911.06660
DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., Searches for supersymmetric particles in e+ e\(-\) collisions up to 208-GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM. Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 421–479 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2003-01355-5. arXiv:hep-ex/0311019
OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for chargino and neutralino production at s**(1/2) = 192-GeV to 209 GeV at LEP. Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 1–20 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-01758-8. arXiv:hep-ex/0401026
D. Das, U. Ellwanger, Light dark matter in the NMSSM: upper bounds on direct detection cross sections. JHEP 09, 085 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2010)085. arXiv:1007.1151
J. Liu, L.-T. Wang, X.-P. Wang, W. Xue, Exposing the dark sector with future Z factories. Phys. Rev. D 97, 095044 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.095044. arXiv:1712.07237
CEPC Physics Study Group Collaboration, H. Cheng et al., The physics potential of the CEPC. Prepared for the US snowmass community planning exercise (Snowmass 2021), in Snowmass 2021 (2022). arXiv:2205.08553
G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, A.M. Iyer, K. Sridhar, Tera-\(Z\) stage at future colliders and light composite axionlike particles. Phys. Rev. D 105, 015020 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.015020. arXiv:2104.11064
Acknowledgements
Our computations were supported in part by SAMKHYA: the High-Performance Computing Facility provided by the Institute of Physics (IoP), Bhubaneswar, India. We acknowledge Anirban Kundu, Amit Chakraborty, and Pradipta Ghosh for their valuable discussions.
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 SM and NMSSM vertices
SM vertices:
NMSSM vertices:
1.2 Loop amplitudes using Feynman parameters
Figure 1a can be calculated in terms of the Feynman parameters as
where \(N_{{\tilde{\chi }}^{\pm }}(x,y) = 4\Big [M_\ell -\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_m+2M_\ell +M_n\big )+\big (M_m-M_\ell \big )\big (1-x\big )+2\big (1-x\big )\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_\ell +M_n\big )\Big ],\) \(\tilde{N}_{{\tilde{\chi }}^{\pm }}(x,y) = 4\Big [-M_\ell + \big (M_m-M_n\big )\big (1-x-y\big )+\big (M_\ell -M_m\big )\big (1-x\big )\Big ],\) and \(\Delta _{{\tilde{\chi }}^{\pm }}(x,y) = x\big (x-1\big )M_Z^2 + xM_\ell ^2 +yM_m^2+\big (1-x-y\big )M_n^2 + x\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_Z^2-M_\phi ^2\big ).\)
For the t quark loop, we can write
where \(N_{t}(x,y) = 4\Big [1-4x(1-x-y)\Big ],\) \(\tilde{N}_{t}(x,y) = 1,\) and \(\Delta _{t}(x,y) = x(x-1)M_Z^2+M_t^2+ x\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_Z^2-M_\phi ^2\big ).\) Similarly, Fig. 1d can be expressed in terms of Feynman parameters as
where \(N_{W^{\pm }}(x,y) = 2\Big [10x\big (x+y-1\big )-y+5\Big ]\) and \(\Delta _{W^\pm } = x\big (x-1\big )M_Z^2+M_W^2 + x\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_Z^2-M_\phi ^2\big ).\)
The generic result for the diagrams mediated by the scalars is given by
where \(N_{S}(x,y) = 8x(1-x-y)\) and \(\Delta _{S}(x,y) = x(x-1)M_Z^2 + x M_{S_1}^2+y M_{S_2}^2 + (1-x-y)M_{S_3}^2+ x\big (1-x-y\big )\big (M_Z^2-M_\phi ^2\big ).\)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3.
About this article
Cite this article
Bisal, S., Das, D. Testing Z boson rare decays \(Z\rightarrow H_1 \gamma , A_1 \gamma \) with \((g-2)_\mu ,\) \( M_W,\) and \(BR(h_{\textrm{SM}}\rightarrow Z\gamma )\) in the NMSSM. Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 630 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12984-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12984-3