GUTPA/01/05/01

Light Higgs Boson in the Spontaneously CP

Violating NMSSM
arXiv:hep-ph/0105266v1 25 May 2001

A.T. Davies, C.D. Froggatt and A. Usai

Department of Physics and Astronomy
Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland

Abstract
We consider spontaneous CP violation in the Next to Minimal Supersymmet-
ric Standard Model, without the usual Z3 discrete symmetry. CP violation
can occur at tree level, raising a potential conflict with the experimental
bounds on the electric dipole moments of the electron and neutron. One
escape from this is to demand that the CP violating angles are small, but
we find that this entails a light neutral Higgs particle. This is almost pseu-
doscalar, can have a high singlet content, and will be hard to detect experi-
mentally.
1 Introduction
Although the observed lack of CP symmetry is readily accommodated in the
Standard Model as a generic feature of the 3x3 CKM matrix, there are other
ways in which CP non-conservation can be introduced. Additional sources of
CP violation are required to make electroweak baryogenesis viable, and this
could be provided by the Higgs sector.
CP can be violated in the Higgs sector either explicitly, through complex
coupling constants in the Lagrangian, or spontaneously, when, although the
couplings are real, fields acquire complex vacuum expectation values (vevs).
It should be acknowledged that spontaneous breaking of CP gives rise to
domain walls which cause a cosmological problem, particularly if they are
formed relatively late at the electroweak scale. Some suggestions for circum-
venting this problem have been made [1].
At tree level neither type of CP violation occurs in the Standard Model
or the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). In the MSSM
two or more complex phases can be explicitly introduced in the soft Susy-
breaking potential, and at one loop these may give rise to embarrassingly
large electric dipole moments for the neutron and electron. It has been
shown that cancellations between contributing diagrams can reduce these
dipole moments to within experimental bounds in a significant region of the
parameter space [2, 3]. However, a recent analysis [4] incorporating new data
on mercury atoms suggests that small phases are still required. CP can also
be violated spontaneously due to radiative corrections, but because CP is
conserved at tree level the CP phases on the Higgs fields are small, and a
light almost pseudoscalar particle is predicted [5, 6], in accordance with the
Georgi-Pais theorem [7]. This boson is ruled out by LEP experiments [8].
In Susy models the next simplest case is the Next to Minimal Standard
Model (NMSSM), in which a gauge singlet scalar field is present in addition
to the standard two doublets. In the most commonly discussed version of
the NMSSM, which has a discrete Z3 symmetry, Spontaneous CP Violation
(SCPV) does not occur at tree level [9]. Breaking can occur by radiative
corrections but tends to predict a light scalar as in the MSSM [10].
In a previous paper we considered [11] a more general NMSSM, with no
discrete Z3 symmetry, and found that this allows spontaneous CP violation at
tree level, without concomitant light neutral bosons. With such a spectrum
the CP violating phases are large, and generate large contributions to electric

1
dipole moments. Cancellations can be arranged so as to be consistent with
experiment, but require fine tuning of some soft Susy-breaking terms in the
potential.
A more interesting possibility is that CP is spontaneously broken only
weakly, in the sense that the phases on the vevs are small. For phases ∼< 0.01
radians the predicted electric dipole moments are suppressed sufficiently even
without cancellation [4]. In this case we predicted a light almost purely
pseudoscalar boson [12], a result recently confirmed in [13]. Its existence
does not follow from the Georgi-Pais theorem but may be understood by
a similar argument. We sample the space of unknown coupling parameters
and consider the detectability of such a particle. In most cases this particle
contains a high proportion of singlet field, which does not couple to gauge
bosons or quarks, so it may well escape experimental detection.
After introducing our model we give a qualitative argument for the exis-
tence of a light pseudoscalar in the case of weak SCPV. Imposing small CP
phases but otherwise relatively little theoretical bias, we randomly sample
the large space of unknown parameters and find typical masses and couplings
of the Higgs scalars. We then consider the experimental constraints.

2 NMSSM
Our model is based on the superpotential
k
W = λNH1 H2 − N 3 − rN + µH1 H2 + WF ermion (1)
3
where H1 and H2 are the doublets of the MSSM and N is a singlet. A possible
quadratic N 2 term has been removed by a field shift [14]. Traditionally the
NMSSM has been studied as a possible solution to the µ-problem of the
MSSM. If the N field acquires a vev x of the same scale as those of H1 and
H2 , then λx in the term λNH1 H2 provides a µ of the electroweak scale
rather than the GUT scale. We adopt a different viewpoint and regard the
NMSSM as just a phenomenological generalisation of the MSSM. We do not
impose the usual discrete Z3 symmetry in which (H1 , H2 , N) are rephased by
exp(i2π/3), which would require µ = r = 0.
At the electroweak scale the effective potential is [15]
1 1
V0 = λ1 (H1† H1 )2 + λ2 (H2† H2 )2
2 2

2
  2
+(λ3 + λ4 )(H1† H1 )(H2† H2 ) − λ4 H1† H2 
+(λ5 H1† H1 + λ6 H2† H2 )N ⋆ N + λ7 (H1 H2 N ⋆2 + h.c.)
+λ8 (N ⋆ N)2 + λµ(N + h.c.)(H1† H1 + H2† H2 )
+m21 H1† H1 + m22 H2† H2 + m23 N ⋆ N − m4 (H1 H2 N + h.c.)
1
− m5 (N 3 + h.c.) + m26 (H1 H2 + h.c.) + m27 (N 2 + h.c.) (2)
3
where the quartic couplings λi , i = 1 . . . 8 at the electroweak scale are related
via renormalization group equations to the gauge couplings and the λ, k of
the superpotential at the supersymmetry breaking scale MS , taken to be 1
TeV. The boundary values at MS of the quartic couplings are given by
1 1 1
λ1 = λ2 = (g22 + g12 ), λ3 = (g22 − g12 ), λ4 = λ2 − g22,
4 4 2

λ5 = λ6 = λ2 , λ7 = −λk, λ8 = k 2 .
The soft Susy-breaking terms mi , i = 1 . . . 7, are taken as phenomenolog-
ical parameters, without assuming they evolve perturbatively from a more
or less universal high energy form. The m26 and m27 terms are absent in the
theory with Z3 symmetry.
The two Higgs doublets and the singlet are expressed in terms of real
fields φi , (i = 1,2,. . . ,10), through

H2+
! !
H10
H1 = , H2 = (3)
H1− H20

! !
1 φ1 + iφ4 1 φ8 + iφ10 1
H1 = √ , H2 = √ , N = √ (φ3 + iφ6 ) . (4)
2 φ7 − iφ9 2 φ2 + iφ5 2
Taking real coupling constants, so that the tree level potential is CP
conserving, but allowing complex vevs for the neutral fields,

hHi0 i = vi eiθi (i = 1, 2), hNi = v3 eiθ3 , (5)

gives
1
V0 = (λ1 v14 + λ2 v24 ) + (λ3 + λ4 )v12 v22 + (λ5 v12 + λ6 v22 )v32
2

3
 +2λ7 v1 v2 v32 cos(θ1 + θ2 − 2θ3 ) + λ8 v34 + 2λµ(v12 + v22 )v3 cos(θ3 )
+m21 v12 + m22 v22 + m23 v32 − 2m4 v1 v2 v3 cos(θ1 + θ2 + θ3 )
2
− m5 v33 cos(3θ3 ) + 2m26 v1 v2 cos(θ1 + θ2 ) + 2m27 v32 cos(2θ3 ) (6)
3
where, without loss of generality, θ2 = 0. As the mi are unknown we choose
five, mi (i=1,2,3,4,7) to ensure that V0 has a stationary value at prescribed
magnitudes and phases v1 , v2 , v3 , θ1 , θ3 using the conditions
∂V0
= 0 , i = 1, 2, 3 (7)
∂vi
∂V0
= 0 , i = 1, 3. (8)
∂θi
A sixth mass, m6 , can be exchanged for the tree level mass of the charged
Higgs, MH + , which, using eq. (8) is

2(λ7 v32 sin(3θ3 ) + m26 sin θ3 )

MH2 + = −λ4 v02 − . (9)
sin(2β) sin(θ1 + θ2 + θ3 )

This shows how the parameter m26 , not necessarily positive, and absent in the
Z3 symmetric case, introduces extra freedom to raise the charged Higgs mass.
This q leaves one parameter m5 , with no particular interpretation. Fixing
v0 = v12 + v22 = 174 GeV, we take as parameters tan β ≡ v2 /v1 , R ≡ v3 /v0 ,
θ1 , θ3 , MH + and m5 . There are also λ, k and µ in the superpotential.
Sets of parameters are chosen which satisfy eqns.(7, 8), and the mass
matrix is calculated. Cases with positive mass squared are accepted, as these
correspond to a local minimum. The scalar mass-squared matrix is given by
∂V0 
Mij2 = φ=hφi , (i, j = 1, 10). (10)
∂φi ∂φj

The 6x6 neutral block describes 1 zero mass would-be Goldstone boson and
5 massive physical particles, of which 3 are CP even and 2 CP odd when CP
is conserved.

4
3 Higgs Spectrum
It has been shown that at tree level the NMSSM with Z3 symmetry and with
arbitrary soft terms does not allow SCPV [9]. However, the inclusion of radia-
tive corrections does allow SCPV together with a light boson. Various treat-
ments of the radiative corrections and Susy-breaking potential [10, 16, 17]
produce different Higgs spectra, some of which can now be excluded by ex-
periment, but less readily than in the MSSM, due to dilution of couplings by
the singlet field. As noticed by Pomarol [18] inclusion of general Z3 symmetry
breaking terms does allow SCPV. We have investigated the mass spectrum
for the potential of eq.(2) including such terms and found that it is quite
possible to produce an experimental spectrum with no light particles [11],
but all these solutions had large CP violating phases. Such phases in the
NMSSM, as in the MSSM, give rise to large contributions to electric dipole
moments. They can be suppressed if the squark masses are several TeV, or if
contributions from different diagrams cancel. We have calculated the neutron
and electron EDMs choosing the unknown soft parameters at random, and
found that very few sets produced the necessary cancellations. We therefore
explored further the possibility that the phases are small. In analyses where
SCPV is induced by radiative corrections small phases arise naturally and
are accompanied by a light scalar, as expected by the Georgi-Pais theorem.
In our case SCPV occurs at tree level, so this theorem does not apply. Nev-
ertheless, when we require the phases to be small, and use these as input to
fix some parameters in the potential, we find that that there is always a light
Higgs particle h1 . Figure 1 shows the upper bound on the lightest neutral
Higgs mass Mh1 . Each graph is for a set of values of θ3 increasing from 0
to 2θ1 where θ1 is fixed at 1, 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 radians. For each θ1 , θ3 we
randomly selected 100,000 sets of the other parameters with values in the
following ranges: 2 ≤ tan β ≤ 3, 10 ≤ v3 ≤ 510 GeV, −500 ≤ m5 ≤ 500
GeV, −500 ≤ µ ≤ 500 GeV, 55 ≤ MH ± ≤ 800 GeV and λ = k = 0.5.
These figures and those below correspond to local minima, but experience
suggests that, given enough computer time, global minima could be found
giving masses not far below these bounds. Such graphs show that the upper
bound when θ1 and θ3 are small (∼ < 0.1 radians) is roughly Mh1 ≃ min(θ1 ,θ3 ) 5
0.01
GeV.

5
Figure 1: Upper bound on the lightest neutral Higgs mass Mh1 as a function
of θ3 , for θ1 equal to 1, 0.1, 0.01 and 0.001 radians respectively and with Susy
breaking scale MS = 1 TeV.

4 Light Higgs
The result that weak spontaneous CP breaking implies a light Higgs particle
is quite general, and may be understood by a variant on the argument of
Georgi and Pais [7].
The central step in the proof of the Georgi-Pais theorem is the equation
X ∂ 2 Vo
((Uδλ)k − δλk ) = 0, (11)
k ∂φj ∂φk
where Vo (φ) is the field dependent scalar potential, φj are spinless boson

6
fields, the vector λ is the value of φ at which the minimum of the scalar
potential occurs, U is the CP symmetry operator and δλ is the change due to
radiative corrections. If there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking, Uλ = λ
and from eq.(11) it is clear that, if the mass matrix ∂j ∂k V0 is not singular,
the relation Uδλ = δλ holds and no SCPV occurs. On the other hand if
a massless particle is present in the unbroken theory then the mass matrix
is singular and SCPV may be induced by the radiative corrections. The
massless mode will gain a small mass as a result of the radiative corrections.
It is this mechanism which produces the light particle when SCPV is induced
in the MSSM or the NMSSM with the Z3 discrete symmetry.
The key assumption is that the breaking is perturbative. We make a cor-
responding assumption, in the general NMSSM model without Z3 symmetry,
that there is a SCPV minimum with small phases and that the effective
potential can be expanded as a Taylor series about this point. For small
CP violating phases the potential of eq.(2) has CP conjugate minima at the
points

ǫ1 = (v1 , v2 , v3 , v1 θ1 , v2 θ2 , v3 θ3 ), (12)
ǫ2 = (v1 , v2 , v3 , −v1 θ1 , −v2 θ2 , −v3 θ3 ) (13)
in a basis of (ReH10 , ReH20 , ReN, ImH10 , ImH20 , ImN). Performing a Taylor
∂V
expansion of ∂φi
about φ = ǫ1

∂ 2 V  ∂V  ∂V 
(ǫ2 − ǫ1 )j  ≈  −  = 0 − 0, (14)
∂φj ∂φi ǫ1 ∂φi ǫ2 ∂φi ǫ1
we see that to leading order the mass squared matrix must be singular. To
this order there is a zero mass particle, with eigenvector along the direction
ǫ2 − ǫ1 in the 6-dimensional neutral Higgs space joining the two CP violating
minima. If θi 6= 0, the neutral matrix does not decouple into sectors with CP
= +1 and -1, but it does so approximately, as the off diagonal blocks of the
matrix are proportional to the small angles θi . To this approximation, the
light particle is always in the matrix block corresponding to imaginary parts
of the fields and so is almost purely CP odd. Depending on the parameters in
the potential, this particle can be a varying admixture of singlet and doublet
fields.
This is most easily examined by changing to the unitary gauge. In the
limit of zero phases, the matrix reduces to a 3x3 block of the real parts of

7
the fields and a 2x2 block of the imaginary parts of fields of the form
A v0
B
 
sin β cos β v3
(15)
 
 
v0
v3
B C

where A is the (5,4) element of the whole 6x6 mass matrix, B is equal to vv23
times the (6,4) element, and C is equal to the (6,6) element. In the matrix
of eq.(15) the (1,1) element is doublet and the (2,2) element is singlet.
The condition for a massless pseudoscalar is obviously
AC v0
= ( B)2 . (16)
sin β cos β v3
When the phases are not zero but small, this particle becomes light and
almost-pseudoscalar. We can readily see how the nature of the light particle
depends on θ. For example, if θ1 << θ3 the eigenvector ǫ2 − ǫ1 is in the
singlet direction, and the massless particle is pure singlet. In this case eq.(8)
just gives B = A = 0 , and so eq.(16) is satisfied with C 6= 0. Likewise for
θ3 << θ1 eq.(8) gives B = C = 0 and the light particle is pure doublet. In
general the N field percentage in the light pseudoscalar eigenvector is
100 v32 θ32
N% ≃ (17)
v02 sin2 β cos2 β θ12 + v32 θ32
which is small if v3 θ3 << v0 θ1 . For high values of v3 such that v0 can be
neglected, the N field fraction will be independent of θ3 and v3 and equal
to 1. It is significant for the experimental detectability that the fraction of
singlet is naturally high, even for quite moderate values of the parameters.
For example, tanβ = 1, v3 = v0 , θ1 = θ3 , gives N% = 80%, and tanβ=2,
v3 = 2 v0 , θ1 = θ3 gives a light pseudoscalar which is 96% singlet.
The result that small phases imply a light particle is not specific to the
NMSSM. It is more transparent in a general 2 doublet model with no explicit
CP violation, with doublets Φ1 and Φ2 , where we need keep only one SCPV
phase θ and analytical formulae can be given for all tree level masses. In such
a model with a discrete Z2 symmetry Φ1 → −Φ1 , Φ2 → Φ2 , the equation for
a stationary value of the effective potential is

sin θ(2λ5 v1 v2 cos θ − m212 ) = 0, (18)

8
where m212 Φ†1 Φ2 and λ5 (Φ†1 Φ2 )2 are terms in the potential. So as well as the
CP conserving solution
sin θ = 0 , (19)
there is the SCPV one at ±θ, where
m212
cos θ = . (20)
2λ5 v1 v2
The mass of the pseudoscalar A when θ = 0 is
m212
MA2 = v02 ( − λ5 ), (21)
2v1 v2
and is a continuous function of θ in the SCPV case. So we see from eq.(20)
that small θ implies a low mass MA . On the other hand, the CP conserving
eq.(19) does not imply a zero mass particle. In the MSSM λ5 = 0 at tree
level and m212 is a free parameter, which can be large. Radiative corrections
generate a small λ5 [5], and SCPV becomes possible, but, as shown by eq.(20),
m2
only if 2v112v2 is also small.
Here the equations are identical to the classical dynamics problem of a
bead free to slide on a vertical circular wire, radius a, constrained to rotate
about its vertical diameter at constant angular velocity ω. For smallqω the
stable equilibrium position is θ = 0 but if ω exceeds a critical value ag the
stable equilibrium is at θ 6= 0. The angular frequency of oscillation about
this position is p = ω sin θ, which tendsqto zero for small θ. Oscillations
about the stable θ = 0 position have p = ( ag − ω 2 ), which tends to zero at
the critical ω but can be large near ω = 0.
These examples clarify how in the NMSSM case small θ implies a light
particle, but θ = 0 need not. They also bring out the point implicit in our
approximate argument that there are no large parameters in the problem. In
the dynamics case there would be no low frequency mode if ω were O(θ−1 ).
In the NMSSM the argument breaks down if the vev ratio v3 /v0 is very large.

5 N field and second lightest neutral Higgs

boson for small phases
In the results presented below and in Fig.1, we have diagonalized the full 6x6
neutral mass squared matrix numerically. We have then made an orthogonal

9
transformation to isolate the Goldstone mode, in order to look at the eigen-
vectors of the 5 physical particles hi , to determine their field content and to
obtain the ZZhi and Zhi hj couplings.
The first important result is that described in Section 4: the existence of a
light particle h1 when the phases are small enough to naturally generate elec-
tron and neutron dipole moments consistent with experiment. Its eigenvector
is almost entirely composed of the imaginary parts of the doublet H1 , H2 and
singlet N fields. The percentage of singlet in the eigenvector of h1 is high in
general, as can be seen in Fig. 2. The exact N field percentage depends on
the value of v3 /v0 . This is correlated with the value of MH + . Although these
parameters are independently specified, it is found that the condition that all
masses are real forces MH + and v3 to increase together. This favours a high
singlet content, which is crucial as far as possible experimental detection of
the pseudoscalar h1 is concerned.

Figure 2: N field percent- Figure 3: The sum of the

age in the eigenvector of the masses of the two lightest neu-
lightest neutral Higgs boson tral Higgs bosons Mh1 +Mh2
for MH ± =200-800 GeV (upper as a function of θ3 , with
line) and MH ± =55-200 GeV θ1 =0.01 radians, MH ± =55-200
(lower line) for θ1 =0.001, θ3 = GeV and MS =1 TeV.
0 − 2θ1 .

The second lightest neutral Higgs boson h2 is always nearly pure scalar
and is mainly doublet in the region of the parameter space where v3 and

10
MH ± are large compared to v0 : it could therefore be visible in future ex-
periments. Furthermore, the sum of the masses of the lightest and second
lightest neutral Higgs bosons has an upper bound of about 120 GeV as shown
in Fig.3. In these graphs radiative corrections have been incorporated using
the Standard Model renormalisation group equations between MS = 1 TeV
and the electroweak scale v0 = 174 GeV, for tan β between 2 and 3. These
radiative corrections correspond to having degenerate stops with a mass of
MS = 1 TeV and are significant for the nearly pure scalar mass Mh2 .

6 Experimental Signature
One might think that a light boson such as we predict has been ruled out
by experiment, but this is not so. Our light particle is difficult to detect
for two reasons. In the first place it is almost purely CP odd, and there is
no ZZA coupling, where A denotes a CP=-1 particle; S will be used for one
with CP=+1. A ZA state can not be produced at LEP, for real or virtual
Z, but associated production of SA is possible if kinematically allowed. This
was not seen at LEP, possibly because the ZSA coupling was small. In the
MSSM the ZZS coupling is complementary to the ZSA coupling so that non
production of ZS allows LEP2 to exclude MA ≤ 80 GeV, MS ≤ 80 GeV
[8]. Within the MSSM, therefore, experiment excludes a light pseudoscalar.
This complementarity argument does not apply to a general 2 doublet model
or to the NMSSM. The second obstacle to detection is that the light near-
pseudoscalar can be mainly singlet, and a singlet does not couple to gauge
fields, quarks or leptons at tree level, only to the other Higgs particles. The
singlet component will not contribute to Υ decays by the Wilczek process,
and thus with N% ∼ > 90% and tanβ < 3 the lower limits [19] on the mass
∼
of a pseudoscalar can be evaded. To get a more quantitative idea of the
experimental detectability, we have calculated the production cross section
of all the Higgs bosons at LEP2 energies. Each set of parameters gives defi-
nite tree level masses and couplings for all the Higgs particles. We have not
attempted a Monte Carlo analysis, in view of the uncertainties and complex-
ities of decay modes and detector efficiencies. Following the spirit of one of
the few analyses based on the NMSSM [20], we arbitrarily assume that if the
cross section in any production channel Zhi or hi hj was as large as 0.3 pb,
corresponding to 20 events at LEP2 luminosity of 175×4 pb−1 at 200 GeV,

11
a signal would have been detected. Although for θ1 and θ3 < 0.1 all our pa-
rameter sets gave a neutral Higgs boson of mass <50 GeV, we could always
find regions of the (MH ± , v3 , m5 , µ, tan β) space in which this particle and
its partners are undetectable at LEP, except for θ3 << θ1 where the particle
is mainly doublet.

7 Conclusions
Spontaneous CP violation is possible in the NMSSM at tree level. It can
give an acceptable Higgs spectrum. If the phases on the vevs are small, there
is a light particle, predominantly pseudoscalar, and predominantly singlet in
much of the parameter space, and thus hard to detect. Phases θ1,3 = O(0.01),
such as may be required to suppress electric dipole moments, give a mass
Mh1 ∼ < min(θ1 ,θ3 ) 5 GeV. This model is not yet ruled out but will be open to
0.01
more stringent tests at higher energy colliders such as the LHC, where all 5
neutral Higgs bosons should be kinematically accessible and their couplings
cannot all be predominantly singlet.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank D.G. Sutherland for discussions. This work was
supported in part by PPARC and the EU TMR Network contract FMRX-
CT97-0122.

References
[1] L.M. Krauss and S.J. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, (1992), 1308

[2] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 57, (1998), 478.

[3] M. Brhlik, G J. Good and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D 58, (1999), 115004.
[4] S. Abel, S.Khalil, and O. Lebedev, hep-ph/0103320.

[5] N. Maekawa, Phys. Lett. B 282, (1992), 392.

[6] A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B 287, (1992), 331.

12
 [7] H. Georgi and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. D 10, (1974), 1246.

[8] P. Gay, Proc. of Int. Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics,

Tampere, 1999, Eds. K. Huito, H. Kurki-Suonio, J. Maalampi, IoP.

[9] J.C. Romão, Phys. Lett. B 173, (1986), 309.

[10] K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 49, (1994), R2156.

[11] A.T. Davies, C.D. Froggatt and A. Usai, Proc. of the International Eu-
rophysics Conference on High Energy Physics, Jerusalem (1997), Eds. D.
Lellouch, G. Mikenberg and E. Rabinovici , Springer-Verlag (1998),p891.

[12] A.T.Davies, C.D. Froggatt and A. Usai, Proc. of Conference on Strong

and Electroweak Matter, Copenhagen (1998), Eds. J. Ambjorn, P.H.
Damgaard, K. Kainulainen, K. Rummukainen, World Scientific (1999),
p227.

[13] G.C. Branco, F. Krũger, J.C. Romão, A. Teixeira, hep-ph/0012318.

[14] J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, Nucl. Phys. B 272, (1986), 1.

[15] J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G. Kane, S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s
Guide, (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1990).

[16] N. Haba, M. Matsuda and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D 54, (1996), 6928.

[17] H.M. Asatrian, G.K. Eguian, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10, (1995), 2943.

[18] A. Pomarol, Phys. Rev. D 47, (1993), 273.

[19] M. Krawczyk, hep-ph/0103223.

[20] S. F. King and P. L. White, Phys. Rev. D 53, (1996), 4049.

13