1: \documentstyle[aps,prd,epsfig,preprint]{revtex}
2: \pagestyle{empty} \textheight 8.5in \textwidth 6.25in
3: \oddsidemargin 0.07in \evensidemargin 0.25in \topmargin -.25in
4: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
5: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
6: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mathop{\rm Re}}
7: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mathop{\rm Im}}
8: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
10: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
13: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
14: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt
15: \vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
16: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfill##\hfil$
17: \crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
18: \begin{document}
19: \vspace{0.5in}
20: \title{\vskip-2.5truecm
21: {\hfill \baselineskip 14pt {\hfill {{\small \hfill
22: UT-STPD-3/00}}} \\
23: {{\small \hfill FTUAM 00-09}}
24: \vskip .1truecm}
25: \vspace{1.0cm}
26: \vskip 0.1truecm
27: {\bf Cold Dark Matter and $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ in the
28: Ho\v{r}ava-Witten Theory }}
29: \vspace{1cm}
30: \author{{S. Khalil}$^{(1),(2)}$\thanks{shaaban.khalil@uam.es},
31: {G. Lazarides}$^{(3)}$\thanks{lazaride@eng.auth.gr}
32: {and C. Pallis}$^{(3)}$\thanks{kpallis@gen.auth.gr}}
33: \vspace{1.0cm}
34: \address{$^{(1)}${\it Departmento de Fisica
35: Te\'orica, C.XI, Universidad Aut\'onoma de Madrid,\\ 28049
36: Cantoblanco, Madrid, Spain.}}
37: \address{$^{(2)}${\it Ain Shams University, Faculty of
38: Science, Cairo 11566, Egypt.}}
39: \address{$^{(3)}${\it Physics Division, School of Technology,
40: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,\\ Thessaloniki GR 540 06,
41: Greece.}}
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \vspace{1cm}
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: \baselineskip 12pt
48:
49: \par
50: The minimal supersymmetric standard model with complete, partial
51: or no Yukawa unification and radiative electroweak breaking with
52: boundary conditions from the Ho\v{r}ava-Witten theory is
53: considered. The parameters are restricted by constraining the
54: lightest sparticle relic abundance by cold dark matter
55: considerations and requiring the $b$-quark mass after
56: supersymmetric corrections and the branching ratio of
57: $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ to be compatible with data. Complete
58: Yukawa unification can be excluded. Also, $t-b$ Yukawa
59: unification is strongly disfavored since it requires almost
60: degenerate lightest and next-to-lightest sparticle masses.
61: However, the $b-\tau$ or no Yukawa unification cases avoid
62: this degeneracy. The latter with $\mu<0$ is the most natural
63: case. The lightest sparticle mass, in this case, can be as low
64: as about $77~{\rm GeV}$.
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \thispagestyle{empty}
69: \newpage
70: \pagestyle{plain} \setcounter{page}{1} \baselineskip 20pt
71:
72: \par
73: Recently, it has been realized that the five existing perturbative
74: string theories (type I open strings, type IIA and IIB closed
75: strings, and the $E_8 \times E'_8$ and $SO(32)$ closed heterotic
76: strings) and the 11-dimensional supergravity correspond to
77: different vacua of a unique underlying theory, called M-theory.
78: Ho\v{r}ava and Witten have shown \cite{witten1} that the strong
79: coupling limit of the $E_8 \times E'_8$ heterotic string theory
80: is equivalent to the low energy limit of M-theory compactified on
81: $S^1/Z_2$ which is a line segment of length $\rho$. As
82: $\rho\to 0$, the weakly coupled heterotic string is recovered.
83: The observable $E_8$ gauge fields reside in one (10-dimensional)
84: end of this segment, while the hidden sector $E'_8$ gauge fields
85: reside in its other end. Gravitational fields propagate in the
86: 11-dimensional bulk.
87:
88: \par
89: The main success of the Ho\v{r}ava-Witten theory is that it solves,
90: in an elegant way, the gauge coupling unification problem, i.e., the
91: discrepancy between the supersymmetric (SUSY) grand unified theory
92: (GUT) scale $M_X\simeq 2\times 10^{16}{\rm{GeV}}$ (consistent
93: with the data on the low energy gauge coupling constants) and the
94: string unification scale
95: $M_{str}\simeq 5\times 10^{17}{\rm{GeV}}$
96: calculated in the weakly coupled string theory. Before M-theory,
97: there were several proposals (such as large threshold corrections,
98: intermediate scales, and extra particles) for explaining this
99: discrepancy but none was totally satisfactory. In the
100: strongly coupled heterotic string theory, the extra Kaluza-Klein
101: states do not affect the running of the gauge coupling constants,
102: which live on the boundary of the 11-dimensional spacetime. On
103: the contrary, they accelerate the running of the gravitational
104: coupling constant and, thus, reduce $M_{str}$ to $M_{X}$.
105: Moreover, SUSY breaking in M-theory naturally leads
106: \cite{nilles} to gaugino masses of the order of the gravitino
107: mass in contrast to the weakly coupled heterotic string case where
108: the gaugino masses were tiny.
109:
110: \par
111: Similarly to the weakly coupled heterotic string, the
112: compactification of the Ho\v{r}ava-Witten theory can lead to
113: the spontaneous breaking of $E_8$ to phenomenologically more
114: interesting groups. The simplest breaking of $E_8$ to $E_6$ is
115: achieved \cite{witten2} by the so-called standard embedding
116: (SE), where the holonomy group of the spin connection of a
117: Calabi-Yau three-fold is identified with a $SU(3)$ subgroup of
118: $E_8$. Further breaking of $E_6$ to semi-simple groups such as
119: the trinification group $SU(3)_c\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R$
120: and the flipped $SU(6)\times U(1)$ group can be performed
121: via Wilson loops. The trinification group contains $SU(2)_R$.
122: Assuming then that the Higgs doublets and the third family
123: right-handed quarks form $SU(2)_R$ doublets, one obtains
124: \cite{pana} the `asymptotic' Yukawa coupling relation $h_t=h_b$
125: and, hence, large $\tan\beta\approx m_{t}/m_{b}$. The flipped
126: $SU(6)$, for certain embeddings of the minimal supersymmetric
127: standard model (MSSM) fields, contains \cite{pana1} $SU(4)_c$.
128: Requiring that the third family lepton doublet belongs to $SU(6)$
129: 15-plets and the right-handed $b$-quark as well as the Higgs doublet
130: coupling to the down-type quarks belong to $SU(6)$ $\bar 6$-plets,
131: one gets `asymptotic' $b-\tau$ Yukawa unification ($h_b=h_\tau$).
132:
133: \par
134: In the strongly coupled case, the SE is not special
135: \cite{ovrut}. Non-standard embeddings (NSE) may
136: lead to simple gauge groups such as $SU(5)$ or $SO(10)$ which
137: could yield $b-\tau$ or complete ($h_t=h_b=h_\tau$) Yukawa
138: unification. However, in general, we do not obtain
139: Higgs superfields in the adjoint representation. Further gauge
140: symmetry breaking then requires Wilson loops and, thus, (partial)
141: Yukawa unification is lost. This may be avoided by employing
142: special constructions with higher Kac-Moody level \cite{ibanez}.
143: Complete Yukawa unification can be obtained in the Pati-Salam
144: gauge group $SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ which may
145: arise in NSE. This group contains both $SU(4)_c$ and $SU(2)_R$
146: and does not require Wilson loops for its breaking. Furthermore,
147: in string theories where the couplings have a common origin,
148: partial or complete Yukawa unification can be realized even
149: without a unified gauge group \cite{shaaban}. Thus all four
150: possibilities with complete, partial ($t-b$ or $b-\tau$) or
151: no Yukawa unification are in principle allowed.
152:
153: \par
154: The soft SUSY breaking in the SE and NSE cases has been
155: studied in Ref.\cite{km}. One obtains universal
156: boundary conditions, i.e., a common scalar mass $m_0$, a common
157: gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ and a common trilinear coupling $A_0$
158: given by (with zero vacuum energy density and no CP
159: violating phases)
160: \begin{equation}
161: m_0^2=m_{3/2}^2-\frac{3m_{3/2}^2}{(3+\epsilon)^2}\left(
162: \epsilon(6+\epsilon)\sin^2\theta+(3+2\epsilon)\cos^2\theta
163: -2\sqrt{3}\epsilon\cos\theta\sin\theta\right),
164: \label{m0}
165: \end{equation}
166: \begin{equation}
167: M_{1/2}=\frac{\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}}{1+\epsilon}(\sin\theta
168: +\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{3}}\cos\theta ),
169: \label{Mgaug}
170: \end{equation}
171: \begin{equation}
172: A_0=-\frac{\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}}{3+\epsilon}\left(
173: (3-2\epsilon)\sin\theta+\sqrt{3}\epsilon\cos\theta\right),
174: \label{A0}
175: \end{equation}
176: where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass, $\theta$
177: ($0<\theta<\pi/2$) is the goldstino angle, and the parameter
178: $\epsilon$ lies between 0 ($-1$) and 1 in the SE (NSE) case
179: \cite{km}. The range of $\epsilon$ is the only difference
180: between the two embeddings at the level of soft SUSY breaking.
181:
182: \par
183: In this paper, we will study the MSSM which results from the
184: Ho\v{r}ava-Witten theory. We will assume radiative electroweak
185: symmetry breaking with the universal boundary conditions
186: in Eqs.(\ref{m0})-(\ref{A0}) and examine all cases with
187: complete, partial ($t-b$ or $b-\tau$) or no Yukawa unification.
188: Our main aim is to restrict the parameter space by
189: simultaneously imposing a number of phenomenological and
190: cosmological constraints. In particular, the $b$-quark mass
191: after including SUSY corrections and the branching ratio of
192: $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ should be compatible with data. Also, the
193: lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is required to provide
194: the cold dark matter (CDM) in the universe. Its relic abundance
195: must then be consistent with either of the two available
196: cosmological models with zero/nonzero cosmological constant,
197: which provide the best fits to all the data (see
198: Refs.\cite{cdm,lahanas}).
199:
200: \par
201: The GUT scale $M_X$ and gauge coupling constant
202: are determined by using the 2-loop SUSY renormalization group
203: equations (RGEs) for the gauge and Yukawa coupling constants
204: between $M_X$ and a common SUSY threshold
205: $M_S\approx\sqrt{m_{\tilde t_1}m_{\tilde t_2}}$
206: ($\tilde t_{1,2}$ are the stop quark mass eigenstates),
207: which minimizes the radiative corrections to $\mu$ and $m_A$
208: (see e.g., Ref.\cite{cd2}). Between $M_S$ and $m_Z$, we
209: take the standard model (SM) 1-loop RGEs. The $t$-quark
210: and $\tau$-lepton masses are fixed to their central
211: experimental values $m_t(m_t)=166~{\rm{GeV}}$ and
212: $m_\tau(m_\tau)=1.78~{\rm{GeV}}$.
213: The asymptotic values of $h_t$, $h_\tau$ are then determined
214: for each $\tan\beta$ at $M_S$ and $h_b$ is derived from
215: $t-b$ or $b-\tau$ Yukawa unification. The resulting $m_b(m_Z)$
216: is compared to its experimental value
217: $m_b(m_Z)\simeq 2.67\pm 0.98~{\rm{GeV}}$ \cite{mb}
218: (with a $95\%$ confidence margin) after
219: 1-loop SUSY corrections. For complete Yukawa
220: unification, $\tan\beta$ at $M_S$ is fixed. For no Yukawa
221: unification, $h_b$ is adjusted so that the corrected
222: $m_b(m_Z)=2.67~{\rm{GeV}}$. $M_S$ is
223: specified consistently with the SUSY spectrum.
224:
225: \par
226: We next integrate the 1-loop RGEs for the soft SUSY
227: breaking terms assuming universal boundary conditions given by
228: Eqs.(\ref{m0})-(\ref{A0}). At $M_S$, we impose the
229: minimization conditions to the tree-level renormalization group
230: improved potential and calculate the Higgsino mass $\mu$
231: (up to its sign). The sparticle spectrum is evaluated at
232: $M_S$. The LSP, which is the lightest neutralino
233: ($\tilde\chi$), turns out to be bino-like with purity $>98\%$
234: for almost all values of the parameters. The next-to-lightest
235: supersymmetric particle (NLSP) is the lightest stau
236: ($\tilde\tau_2$). Since we consider large
237: $\tan\beta$'s too, we are obliged to include the third
238: generation sfermion mixing. The mixing of the lighter generation
239: sfermions, however, remains negligible due to the small masses
240: of the corresponding fermions. Furthermore, we take into account
241: the 2-loop radiative corrections \cite{fh} to the CP-even
242: neutral Higgs boson masses $m_h$, $m_H$, which turn out to be
243: sizeable for the lightest boson $h$.
244:
245: \par
246: Our calculation depends on the following free parameters:
247: ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $m_{3/2}$, $\epsilon$,
248: $\theta$. The relation found in Ref.\cite{copw} between the
249: CP-odd Higgs boson mass $m_A$ and the asymptotic scalar and
250: gaugino masses, takes, in our case, the form
251: \begin{equation}
252: m^2_A \simeq c_{3/2}m_{3/2}^2+c_s m_{3/2}^2\sin^2\theta
253: +c_{2s}m_{3/2}^2\sin{2\theta}-m_Z^2 ~,
254: \label{mAc}
255: \end{equation}
256: where the coefficients $c_{3/2}\sim 0.1$, $c_s, c_{2s}\sim 1$
257: depend on $\tan\beta$, $\epsilon$, and
258: $M_S$. We verified that this relation holds with an accuracy
259: better than $0.02\%$. We use it to express $m_{3/2}$ in terms
260: of $m_A$ for fixed ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $\epsilon$
261: and $\theta$ ($M_S$ is determined self-consistently from the
262: SUSY spectrum). The free parameter $m_{3/2}$ can, thus, be
263: replaced by $m_A$.
264:
265: \par
266: In practice, the number of free parameters can be reduced by one. To
267: see this, we fix ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$ and $m_A$ and
268: observe that, along the lines in the $\epsilon-\theta$ plane
269: where $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ remain constant, $A_0$ varies only by
270: a few per cent. Consequently, the whole sparticle spectrum (except
271: the gravitino mass) remains essentially unchanged along these lines
272: which we call equispectral lines. Thus, for all practical purposes,
273: $\epsilon$ and $\theta$ can be replaced by a single parameter
274: which we choose to be the relative mass splitting between the LSP
275: and the NLSP $\Delta_{NLSP}=
276: (m_{\tilde\tau_2}-m_{\tilde\chi})/m_{\tilde\chi}$.
277: Our final free parameters then are ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$,
278: $m_A$, $\Delta_{NLSP}$.
279: Note that, for fixed $\epsilon$, $\Delta_{NLSP}$ increases as
280: $\theta$ decreases. Also, for fixed $\theta>\pi/6~(<\pi/6)$,
281: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ decreases (increases) as $\epsilon$ increases.
282: Finally, we find that $\Delta_{NLSP}$ is maximized, generally,
283: at $\theta=\pi/9$ and $\epsilon\to 1$. Our calculation is
284: performed at an appropriate value of $\epsilon$ in each case so
285: that all relevant $\Delta_{NLSP}$'s can be obtained.
286:
287: \par
288: An important constraint results from the inclusive branching ratio
289: of $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ \cite{bsg}, which is calculated here
290: by using the formalism of Ref.\cite{kagan}. The dominant
291: contributions, besides the SM one, come from the charged Higgs
292: bosons ($H^\pm$) and the charginos. The former interferes
293: constructively with the SM contribution, while the latter
294: interferes constructively (destructively) with the other two
295: contributions when $\mu>0$ ($\mu<0$). The SM contribution,
296: which is factorized out in the formalism of Ref.\cite{kagan},
297: includes the next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD \cite{nlosm} and
298: the leading order (LO) QED \cite{kagan,loqed} corrections. The
299: NLO QCD corrections \cite{nlohiggs} to the charged Higgs boson
300: contribution are taken from the first paper in Ref.\cite{nlohiggs}.
301: The SUSY contribution is evaluated by including only the LO QCQ
302: corrections using the formulae in Ref.\cite{nlosusy}.
303: NLO QCD corrections to the SUSY contribution have also been
304: discussed in Ref.\cite{nlosusy}, but only under certain very
305: restrictive conditions which never hold in our case since the
306: chargino and lightest stop quark masses are comparable to the
307: masses of the other squarks and the gluinos. We, thus, do not
308: include these corrections in our calculation.
309:
310: \par
311: The branching ratio ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ is
312: first evaluated with central values of the input parameters
313: and the renormalization and matching scales. We find that,
314: for each ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$ and $\Delta_{NLSP}$,
315: there exists a value of $m_A$ above which the
316: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ enters and remains in the
317: experimentally allowed region \cite{cleo}: $2\times 10^{-4}
318: \stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}{\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)
319: \stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}4.5 \times 10^{-4}$. This lower
320: bound on $m_A$ corresponds to the upper (lower) bound on the
321: branching ratio for $\mu>0 $ ($\mu<0 $) and, for most of the
322: parameter space, is its absolute minimum. For relatively small
323: $\tan\beta$'s, however, the absolute minimum of $m_A$ comes
324: from the experimental bound
325: $m_h\stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}113.4~{\rm GeV}$. We take
326: $\tan\beta\gtrsim 2.3$ since otherwise $m_h$ is too small.
327:
328:
329: \par
330: The lower bound on $m_A$ can be considerably reduced if the
331: theoretical uncertainties entering into the calculation of
332: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ are taken into account.
333: These uncertainties originating from the experimental errors
334: in the input parameters and the ambiguities in the
335: renormalization and matching scales are known to be quite
336: significant. The SM and charged Higgs contributions generate
337: an uncertainty of about $\pm 10\%$ (see first paper in
338: Ref.\cite{nlohiggs}). The uncertainty from the SUSY
339: contribution cannot be reliably calculated at the moment
340: since the NLO QCD corrections to this contribution are not
341: known in our case. Fortunately, the SUSY contribution is
342: pretty small in all cases which are crucial for our
343: qualitative conclusions. Be that as it may, we take the
344: uncertainty from this contribution, evaluated at the LO in
345: QCD, to be about $\pm 30\%$.
346:
347: \par
348: For large or intermediate $\tan\beta$'s, a severe restriction
349: arises from the sizable SUSY corrections to the $b$-quark mass.
350: The dominant contributions are from the sbottom-gluino and
351: stop-chargino loops and are calculated by using the simplified
352: formulae of Ref.\cite{pierce}. We find here that the size of
353: these corrections practically depends only on $\tan\beta$
354: (compare with Refs.\cite{cd2,copw}). Also, their sign is
355: opposite to the one of $\mu$ in contrast to the chargino
356: contribution to the ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ which,
357: as mentioned, has the sign of $\mu$.
358:
359: \par
360: An additional restriction comes from the LSP cosmic relic abundance.
361: We calculate this abundance by closely following the formalism of
362: Ref.\cite{cdm} where $\tilde\chi-\tilde\tau_2$ coannihilations
363: \cite{ellis} have been consistently included for all values of
364: $\tan\beta$. However, coannihilations \cite{coan} of these
365: sparticles with the lighter generation right-handed sleptons
366: $\tilde e_R$, $\tilde e_R^\ast$, $\tilde\mu_R$,
367: $\tilde\mu_R^\ast$ (considered degenerate), which were ignored in
368: Ref.\cite{cdm}, are now important and must be included since our
369: calculation here extends to small ($\lesssim 15$) $\tan\beta$'s
370: too \cite{ellis}. The effective cross section entering into the
371: Boltzmann equation then becomes
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: \nonumber\sigma_{eff}&=& \sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi}
374: r_{\tilde\chi}r_{\tilde\chi} +
375: 4\sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2}
376: r_{\tilde\chi}r_{\tilde\tau_2}+
377: 2(\sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2}+
378: \sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast})
379: r_{\tilde\tau_2}r_{\tilde\tau_2}+
380: 8(\sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R}+
381: \sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R^\ast})
382: r_{\tilde\tau_2}r_{\tilde e_R}
383: \\ \label{sigmaeff} &+&
384: 8 \sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde e_R}
385: r_{\tilde\chi}r_{\tilde e_R}+
386: 4(\sigma_{\tilde e_R\tilde e_R}+
387: \sigma_{\tilde e_R\tilde e_R^\ast})r_{\tilde e_R}
388: r_{\tilde e_R} +
389: 4(\sigma_{\tilde e_R\tilde\mu_R}+
390: \sigma_{\tilde e_R \tilde\mu_R^\ast})r_{\tilde e_R}
391: r_{\tilde e_R}.
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: Here $\sigma_{ij}$ ($i,j=\tilde\chi$, $\tilde\tau_2$,
394: $\tilde\tau_2^\ast$, $\tilde e_R$, $\tilde e_R^\ast$,
395: $\tilde\mu_R$, $\tilde\mu_R^\ast$) is the total cross section
396: for particle $i$ to annihilate with particle $j$ averaged over
397: initial spin and particle-antiparticle states and the $r_i$'s can
398: be found from Ref.\cite{cdm}. The Feynman graphs for
399: $\sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi}$,
400: $\sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2}$,
401: $\sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2}$,
402: and $\sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast}$ are listed
403: in Table I of Ref.\cite{cdm}. From these diagrams, we can also
404: obtain the ones for
405: $\sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde e_R}$,
406: $\sigma_{\tilde e_R\tilde e_R}$,
407: $\sigma_{\tilde e_R\tilde e_R^\ast}$ by replacing
408: $\tilde\tau_2$ by $\tilde e_R$
409: and $\tau$ by $e$ and ignoring diagrams with $\tilde\tau_1$
410: exchange. The processes
411: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R\rightarrow\tau e$,
412: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R^\ast\rightarrow\tau\bar e$,
413: $\tilde e_R\tilde\mu_R\rightarrow e\mu$ and
414: $\tilde e_R\tilde\mu_R^\ast\rightarrow e\bar\mu$ are
415: realized via a t-channel $\tilde\chi$ exchange. The calculation
416: of the $a_{ij}$'s and $b_{ij}$'s given in Ref.\cite{cdm} is readily
417: extended to include these extra processes too.
418:
419: \par
420: The main contribution to the LSP (almost pure bino) annihilation
421: cross section generally arises from stau exchange in the t- and
422: u-channel leading to $\tau\bar\tau$ in the final state.
423: We do not include s-channel exchange diagrams. So our results
424: are not valid for values of $m_{\tilde\chi}$ very close to the
425: poles at $m_Z/2$, $m_h/2$, $m_H/2$ or $m_A/2$ where the
426: annihilation cross section is enhanced and the relic density drops
427: considerably. The expressions for $a_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi}$
428: and $b_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi}$ can be found in Ref.\cite{cdm}
429: (with the final state lepton masses neglected).
430:
431: \par
432: The most important contribution to coannihilation arises from the
433: $a_{ij}$'s. (The contribution of the $b_{ij}$'s
434: ($ij\neq\tilde\chi\tilde\chi$), although included in the
435: calculation, is in general negligible.) The contributions of the
436: various coannihilation processes to the $a_{ij}$'s and $b_{ij}$'s
437: ($ij\neq\tilde\chi\tilde\chi$) are calculated using techniques
438: and approximations similar to the ones in Ref.\cite{cdm}. In
439: particular, the contributions to the $a_{ij}$'s from the processes
440: with
441:
442: \begin{list}
443: \setlength{\rightmargin=0cm}{\leftmargin=0cm}
444:
445: \item[{\bf i.}]
446: $\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2$, $\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2$,
447: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast$ in the initial state are
448: listed in Table II of Ref.\cite{cdm}.
449:
450: \item[{\bf ii.}]
451: $\tilde\chi\tilde e_R$, $\tilde e_R\tilde e_R^\ast$ in the
452: initial state can be obtained from the formulae in Tables II and IV
453: of Ref.\cite{cdm} by the replacement
454: $\tilde\tau_2\rightarrow\tilde e_R$ and putting $\theta=0$,
455: $m_\tau=0$.
456:
457: \item[{\bf iii.}]
458: $\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R$, $\tilde\tau_2\tilde e_R^\ast$,
459: $\tilde e_R\tilde e_R$, $\tilde e_R\tilde \mu_R$,
460: $\tilde e_R\tilde\mu_R^\ast$ in the initial state are listed
461: in the following Table:
462:
463: \begin{center}
464: TABLE. Contributions to the Coefficients $a_{ij}$
465: \end{center}
466: \begin{center}
467: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\cline{1-1} \cline{2-2}
468: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Process} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Contribution
469: to the Coefficient $a_{ij}$}
470: \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-2}
471: \hline $\tilde \tau_2 \tilde e_R \rightarrow \tau e$ & $e^4 Y_R^4
472: \cos^2\theta m_{\tilde\chi}^2(m_{\tilde e_R}+m_{\tilde\tau_2})^2
473: /$
474: \\& $8 \pi c_W^4 m_{\tilde e_R} m_{\tilde\tau_2}
475: (m_{\tilde\chi}^2+m_{\tilde e_R}m_{\tilde\tau_2})$
476: \\
477: \hline $\tilde \tau_2 \tilde e_R^\ast \rightarrow \tau \bar e$ &
478: $e^4 Y_L^2Y_R^2 \sin^2\theta m_{\tilde\chi}^2(m_{\tilde
479: e_R}+m_{\tilde\tau_2})^2
480: /$
481: \\ & $8 \pi c_W^4 m_{\tilde e_R} m_{\tilde\tau_2}
482: (m_{\tilde\chi}^2+m_{\tilde e_R}m_{\tilde\tau_2})$
483: \\
484: \hline $\tilde e_R \tilde e_R \rightarrow e e$ & $e^4 Y_R^4
485: m_{\tilde\chi}^2 /\pi c_W^4 \Sigma_e^2$
486: \\
487: \hline $\tilde e_R \tilde \mu_R \rightarrow e \mu$ & $ e^4 Y_R^4
488: m_{\tilde\chi}^2/2 \pi c_W^4\Sigma_e^2$
489: \\
490: \hline $\tilde e_R \tilde \mu_R^\ast \rightarrow e \bar \mu$ & $
491: e^4 Y_R^4 m_{\tilde e_R}^2/12 \pi c_W^4 \Sigma_e^2$
492: \\
493: \hline
494: \end{tabular}
495: \end{center}
496: where $\theta$ is the stau mixing angle (not to be confused with the
497: goldstino angle), $c_W=\cos\theta_W$,
498: $Y_{L(R)}=-1/2(-1)$ is the hypercharge of the left(right)-handed
499: leptons and $\Sigma_e= m_{\tilde\chi}^2+m_{\tilde e_R}^2$ with
500: $m_{\tilde e_R}$ being the common mass of $\tilde e_R$,
501: $\tilde\mu_R$.
502: \end{list}
503:
504: \par
505: The LSP relic abundance $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$, which remains
506: practically constant on the equispectral lines, can now be
507: evaluated for any ${\rm sign}\mu$, $\tan\beta$, $m_A$
508: and $\Delta_{NLSP}$. We find that, away from the poles,
509: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ increases with $m_A$ (or
510: $m_{\tilde\chi}$). Also, for fixed
511: $m_{\tilde\chi}$, it increases with $\Delta_{NLSP}$, since
512: coannihilation becomes less efficient. The mixed or the pure
513: cold (in the presence of a nonzero cosmological constant) dark
514: matter scenarios for large scale structure formation require
515: $0.09\stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}\Omega_{LSP}~h^2
516: \stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}0.22$ \cite{cdm,lahanas}, which
517: restricts $\Delta_{NLSP}$ .
518:
519: \par
520: We will first examine the case with no Yukawa unification. As
521: already mentioned, the asymptotic value of $h_b$ is specified,
522: in this case, by requiring that $m_b(m_Z)$, after SUSY
523: corrections, coincides with its central experimental value.
524: For $\mu>0$, $m_A$ (and, thus, $m_{\tilde\chi}$) is
525: forced to be quite large in order to have the
526: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ reduced below its upper
527: experimental limit. Thus, the LSP and NLSP masses are required
528: to be relatively close to each other so that coannihilation is
529: more efficient and the bounds on $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ can be
530: satisfied. For $\mu<0$, smaller $m_A$'s are needed for
531: enhancing the $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ branching ratio so as
532: to overtake its lower bound. Thus, in some regions of the
533: parameter space, one can get cosmologically acceptable LSP
534: relic densities even without invoking coannihilation. For
535: $\mu>0$, $\tan\beta\lesssim 38$ or $\mu<0$, the Higgs
536: sector turns out to be heavier than the LSP and NLSP
537: ($m_A\gtrsim 450~\{ 400\}~{\rm GeV}$ for $\mu>0$,
538: $\tan\beta\lesssim 38$ and
539: $m_A\gtrsim 340~\{ 310\}~{\rm GeV}$
540: for $\mu<0$) implying that processes with $\tau H$, $\tau A$,
541: $hH$, $HH$, $H^+H^-$, $AA$ in the final state are, generally,
542: kinematically blocked. Here and below, the
543: limiting values obtained by including the theoretical
544: uncertainty in ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ are indicated
545: in curly brackets.
546:
547: \par
548: We start by constructing the regions in the
549: $m_{\tilde\chi}-\Delta_{NLSP}$ plane allowed by the CDM and
550: $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ considerations for each
551: ${\rm sign}\mu$ and $\tan\beta$. A typical example of such a
552: region is shown in Fig.\ref{deltap} and corresponds to $\mu>0$
553: and $\tan\beta\simeq 10$. Here, we fixed $\epsilon=0.65$ and
554: regulated $\Delta_{NLSP}$ via $\theta$. The lower bound on
555: $m_{\tilde\chi}$ (almost vertical line) comes from the upper
556: bound ($\simeq 4.5\times 10^{-4}$) on
557: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$. The lower (upper) curved
558: boundary of the allowed region corresponds to
559: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2 \simeq 0.09~(0.22)$ and the horizontal
560: boundary to $\Delta_{NLSP}=0$. The maximal $m_{\tilde\chi}$
561: ($\Delta_{NLSP}$) is obtained at the lower right (upper left)
562: corner of this region. The value of $m_{\tilde\chi}$ can
563: vary between about $169~\{ 123\}$ and $575~{\rm GeV}$. So,
564: the LSP is relatively heavy and the maximal allowed
565: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ is small ($\simeq 0.096~\{ 0.19\}$).
566: Coannihilation is important in the whole allowed region. On the
567: contrary, for $\mu<0$ and $\tan\beta\simeq 10$, we find
568: lighter LSPs. Specifically, $m_{\tilde\chi}$ varies between
569: about $85~\{ 79\}$ and $572~{\rm GeV}$. So, the maximal
570: allowed $\Delta_{NLSP}$ is much larger
571: ($\simeq 0.6~\{ 0.71\}$) now, and there is a region
572: ($85~\{ 79\}~{\rm GeV}\lesssim m_{\tilde\chi}
573: \lesssim 120~{\rm GeV}$) where coannihilation is negligible.
574: The lower bound on $m_{\tilde\chi}$, for $\mu<0$, corresponds
575: to the lower bound on ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ or
576: $m_h$.
577:
578: \par
579: For $\mu<0$, there exist $\tan\beta$'s where the
580: maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}$ is not obtained at the minimal
581: $m_{\tilde\chi}$. This is illustrated in Fig.\ref{deltac}
582: depicting the allowed region in the
583: $m_{\tilde\chi}-\Delta_{NLSP}$ plane for $\mu<0$ and
584: $\tan\beta\simeq 35.3$. Here, we fixed $\epsilon =0.99$.
585: The LSP mass can vary between about $203$ and
586: $614~{\rm GeV}$ with the lower bound corresponding to the
587: lower bound on ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$. For
588: the minimal $m_{\tilde\chi}$, the maximal
589: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ ($\simeq 0.045$) does not
590: correspond to $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2\simeq 0.22$. It is,
591: rather, the absolute maximum of $\Delta_{NLSP}$ for the
592: given values of ${\rm sign\mu}$, $\tan\beta$ and $m_A$
593: which is obtained at $\theta=\pi/9$ as indicated earlier
594: and corresponds to $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2\simeq 0.114$.
595: Increasing $m_{\tilde\chi}$, this absolute maximum of
596: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ increases (along the inclined part of the left
597: boundary) and $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ becomes $\simeq 0.22$ at
598: $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0.064$, which is the overall maximal
599: allowed $\Delta_{NLSP}$ in this case. Including the
600: theoretical uncertainty in ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$,
601: we see that the vertical part of the boundary disappears and the
602: minimal value of $m_{\tilde\chi}$ is reduced to about
603: $198~{\rm{GeV}}$ corresponding to
604: $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0.038$.
605:
606: \par
607: The maximal allowed $\Delta_{NLSP}$'s can be found for all
608: possible $\tan\beta$'s and any sign of $\mu$ by repeating
609: the above analysis. The results are displayed in
610: Fig.\ref{deltam}, which shows the allowed regions in the
611: $\tan\beta-\Delta_{NLSP}$ plane for $\mu>0$ (between the
612: solid and dashed lines) and $\mu<0$ (between the solid and
613: dot-dashed lines). Here, the bold (faint) lines are
614: obtained by ignoring (including) the theoretical errors in
615: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$, and $\epsilon$ is
616: chosen for each ${\rm sign}\mu$ and $\tan\beta$ so that
617: it lies in the domain of all relevant equispectral lines. We
618: found that $\Delta_{NLSP}=0$ can be achieved at the maximal
619: LSP mass ($\sim 600-700~{\rm GeV}$) corresponding to each
620: $\tan\beta$ between 2.3 and $43.9~\{ 44.3\}$. So, the
621: minimal allowed $\Delta_{NLSP}$ is always zero. Regarding
622: the maximal allowed $\Delta_{NLSP}$'s, we can distinguish
623: the cases:
624: \begin{list}
625: \setlength{\rightmargin=0cm}{\leftmargin=0cm}
626:
627: \item[{\bf i.}]
628: For $\mu>0$ ($<0$) and
629: $6.5~\{ 8.6\}~(9.2)\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim
630: 43.9~\{ 44.3\}~(34.5)$, the maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}$
631: corresponds to the lower bound on $m_{\tilde\chi}$ found
632: from the experimental limits on
633: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$. The allowed regions
634: are of the type in Fig.\ref{deltap} and the upper curves in
635: Fig.\ref{deltam} are obtained from the upper left corners
636: of these regions as we vary $\tan\beta$. For $\mu>0$, the
637: lower curved boundary of the allowed regions disappears at
638: high enough $\tan\beta$'s and, eventually, at
639: $\tan\beta\simeq 43.9~\{ 44.3\}$, the allowed region
640: shrinks to a point with
641: $m_{\tilde\chi}\simeq 730~\{ 740\}~{\rm GeV}$ and
642: $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0$.
643:
644: \item[{\bf ii.}]
645: For $\mu>0$ ($<0$) and $2.3\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim
646: 6.5~\{ 8.6\}~(9.2~\{ 9.8\})$, the lower bound on
647: $m_{\tilde\chi}$ is found from the experimental limit on
648: $m_h$. This mass comes out too small for small $m_A$'s. So,
649: bigger $m_A$'s (and, thus, $m_{\tilde\chi}$'s) are
650: required to raise $m_h$ above $113.4~{\rm GeV}$. The allowed
651: regions are again typically as in Fig.\ref{deltap} (with or
652: without the curved lower boundary) and the maximal
653: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ rapidly decreases with $\tan\beta$.
654:
655: \item[{\bf iii.}]
656: For $\mu<0$ and $\tan\beta$ between about $34.5~\{ 9.8\}$
657: and 41, the maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}$ does not correspond to
658: the minimal $m_{\tilde\chi}$ from the lower limit on
659: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ or $m_h$. The obtained
660: allowed regions are of the type in Fig.\ref{deltac} (with or
661: without the vertical part of the boundary). As $\tan\beta$
662: increases above $34.5~\{ 9.8\}$, the inclined part of their
663: left boundary moves to the right and the vertical part
664: eventually disappears. At even higher $\tan\beta$'s, the
665: curved lower boundary also disappears and, finally, the region
666: shrinks to a point at $\tan\beta\simeq 41$ with
667: $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0$ and
668: $m_{\tilde\chi}\simeq 640~{\rm GeV}$. For low
669: $\tan\beta$'s, the bino purity of the LSP decreases from above
670: $98\%$ to $95\%$ and our calculation, which assumes a bino-like
671: LSP, becomes less accurate.
672: \end{list}
673: In conclusion, in the case of no Yukawa unification and for
674: $\mu>0$ ($<0$), the maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}\approx 0.16
675: ~\{ 0.25\}~(0.68~\{ 0.73\})$ is achieved at
676: $\tan\beta\approx 6.5~\{ 8.6\}~(9.2~\{ 9.8\})$. Also,
677: $138~\{ 114\}~(84~\{ 77\})~{\rm GeV}\lesssim
678: m_{\tilde\chi}\lesssim 730~\{ 740\}~(640)~{\rm GeV}$.
679: The minimal $m_{\tilde\chi}$ corresponds to the maximal
680: $\Delta_{NLSP}$ except
681: $m_{\tilde\chi}\approx 77~{\rm GeV}$ which is
682: obtained at $\tan\beta\approx 20.4$.
683:
684: \par
685: We now turn to the case of $b-\tau$ Yukawa unification. To
686: keep $\tilde\tau_2$ heavier than $\tilde\chi$, we must
687: take $\tan\beta\lesssim 45$. For $\mu<0$, the values of
688: $m_b(m_Z)$, obtained from this unification assumption, turn
689: out to be larger than the experimental upper limit \cite{mb}
690: after including the SUSY corrections. This forces us to take
691: $\mu>0$. In Fig.\ref{mbnew}, we plot the tree-level (dotted
692: line) and the corrected (solid line) $m_b(m_Z)$ versus
693: $\tan\beta$ for $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0$ and the minimal
694: value of $m_A$ which corresponds to
695: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)\simeq 4.5\times 10^{-4}$
696: for $6.5\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 45$ or $m_h\approx 113.4
697: ~{\rm GeV}$ for $2.3\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 6.5$.
698: This choice is not crucial, because $m_b(m_Z)$, for fixed
699: $\tan\beta$, turns out to be almost independent from $m_A$
700: and $\Delta_{NLSP}$. The corrected $m_b(m_Z)$ increase as
701: $\tan\beta$ decreases and reaches a maximum of about
702: $3.65~{\rm GeV}$ at $\tan\beta\approx 4.7$. The SUSY
703: corrections decrease with $\tan\beta$. We find that, in the
704: entire range $2.3\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 45$, the
705: corrected $m_b(m_Z)$ is within the experimental limits.
706:
707: \par
708: Due to the relatively heavy LSP obtained with $\mu>0$,
709: coannihilation is generally important for reducing
710: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ to an acceptable level. For
711: $38\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 45$, the maximal allowed
712: $m_{LSP}$ is raised to $\approx 790~{\rm GeV}$ due to
713: the fact that the processes with $\tau H$, $\tau A$ in the
714: final state are kinematically allowed. Thus, coannihilation
715: is strengthened and larger $m_{LSP}$'s are allowed. On the
716: contrary, for $2.3\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 34$, these
717: processes are blocked and the upper bound on $m_{LSP}$
718: decreases to $\approx 580~{\rm GeV}$. $\Delta_{NLSP}$
719: ranges between 0 and $\approx 0.16~\{ 0.25\}$ with its
720: maximum achieved at $\tan\beta\approx 6.5~\{ 8.6\}$
721: corresponding to the lowest possible
722: $m_{LSP}\approx 141~\{ 115\}~{\rm GeV}$. Finally, in
723: the range $34\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 38$, $m_{LSP}$
724: can get close to $m_A/2$, $m_H/2$ for certain $m_A$'s and
725: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ can be considerably reduced. Thus, the
726: maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}$ and $m_{LSP}$ can be very large in
727: isolated regions of the parameter space. This also applies in
728: the no Yukawa unification case with $\mu>0$.
729:
730: \par
731: In the case of $t-b$ Yukawa unification the corrected
732: $m_b(m_Z)$, for $\mu<0$, again turns out to be larger than
733: the experimental upper limit, so we must still choose $\mu>0$.
734: We find that, for $34.3\lesssim\tan\beta$, the corrected
735: $m_b(m_Z)$ is compatible with the experimental limits after
736: including its theoretical uncertainties ($\approx 6\%$).
737: This provides the lower
738: bound on $\tan\beta$ if the theoretical uncertainties in
739: ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ are included. Without
740: these uncertainties, however, the lower bound on $\tan\beta$
741: is 43.7 below which the allowed region in the
742: $m_{LSP}-\Delta_{NLSP}$ plane disappears. To keep
743: $\tilde\tau_2$ heavier than $\tilde\chi$, we must take
744: $\tan\beta\lesssim 48.5$. So there is an allowed range
745: $43.7~\{ 33.5\}\lesssim\tan\beta\lesssim 48.5$ in which
746: the minimal $m_{LSP}$ is about $730~\{ 507\}~{\rm GeV}$
747: with the maximal $\Delta_{NLSP}$ being
748: $\approx 0~\{ 0.01\}$.
749:
750: \par
751: For complete Yukawa unification, the lightest stau turns out to
752: be lighter than the neutralino (by at least $11\%$). So, this
753: case is excluded.
754:
755: \par
756: Theoretical errors from the implementation of the radiative
757: electroweak breaking, the renormalization group analysis
758: and the radiative corrections to (s)particle masses, and
759: inclusion of experimental margins of various quantities can
760: only further widen the allowed parameter ranges which we
761: obtained. They will also produce a larger uncertainty in
762: Eq.(\ref{mAc}). However, all these ambiguities are not
763: expected to change our qualitative conclusions, especially
764: the exclusion of complete Yukawa unification.
765:
766: \par
767: Neutralinos could be detected via their elastic scattering with
768: nuclei. For an almost pure bino, however, the cross section
769: is expected to lie well below the reported sensitivity
770: [$(1-10)\times 10^{-6}~\rm{Pb}$] of current experiments (DAMA).
771: The reason is that the channels with Higgs and $Z$ boson (squark)
772: exchange are suppressed (by the squark mass).
773:
774: \par
775: In summary, we studied the MSSM with radiative electroweak
776: breaking and boundary conditions from the Ho\v{r}ava-Witten
777: theory. We assumed complete, partial or no Yukawa unification.
778: The parameters were restricted by assuming that the CDM
779: consists of the LSP and requiring $m_b$, after
780: SUSY corrections, and ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma$)
781: to be compatible with data. We found that complete Yukawa
782: unification is excluded. Also, $t-b$ Yukawa unification is
783: strongly disfavored since it requires the LSP and NLSP masses
784: to be almost degenerate. This can be avoided with $b-\tau$ or
785: no Yukawa unification which, for $\mu<0$, is the most natural
786: case and allows the LSP mass to be as low as
787: $\approx 77~{\rm GeV}$.
788:
789: \vspace{0.5cm}
790:
791: We thank M. G\'{o}mez and C. Mu\~{n}oz for discussions. S. K.
792: is supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura
793: and C. P. by the Greek State Scholarship Institution (I. K. Y.).
794: This work was supported by the EU under TMR contract
795: No. ERBFMRX--CT96--0090 and the Greek Government research grant
796: PENED/95 K.A.1795.
797:
798: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{ Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
799: \def\ijmpa#1#2#3{{ Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. }{\bf A#1~}(#2)~#3}
800: \def\pl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
801: \def\zp#1#2#3{{ Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
802: \def\prl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
803: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{ Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
804: \def\prep#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
805: \def\pr#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1~}(#2)~#3}
806: \def\np#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
807: \def\mpl#1#2#3{{ Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
808: \def\arnps#1#2#3{{ Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf
809: #1~}(#2)~#3}
810: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{{ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
811: \def\jetp#1#2#3{{ JETP Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
812: \def\app#1#2#3{{ Acta Phys. Polon. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
813: \def\rnc#1#2#3{{ Riv. Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
814: \def\ap#1#2#3{{ Ann. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
815: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{ Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
816: \def\plb#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf#1B~}(#2)~#3}
817: \def\apjl#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. J. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
818: \def\n#1#2#3{{ Nature }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
819: \def\apj#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. Journal }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
820: \def\anj#1#2#3{{ Astron. J. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
821: \def\mnras#1#2#3{{ MNRAS }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
822: \def\grg#1#2#3{{ Gen. Rel. Grav. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
823: \def\s#1#2#3{{ Science }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
824: \def\baas#1#2#3{{ Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
825: \def\ibid#1#2#3{{ ibid. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
826: \def\JHEP#1#2#3{{ JHEP }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
827: \def\npps#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Sup.) }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
828: \def\astp#1#2#3{{ Astropart. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
829: \def\epj#1#2#3{{ Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
830:
831: \begin{references}
832:
833: \bibitem{witten1} P. Ho\v{r}ava and E. Witten, \np{460}{1996}{506};
834: \ibid{475}{1996}{94}.
835:
836: \bibitem{nilles} H. P. Nilles, M. Olechochowski and M. Yamaguchi,
837: \pl{415}{1997}{24}.
838:
839: \bibitem{witten2} E. Witten, \np{471}{1996}{195}.
840:
841: \bibitem{pana} G. Lazarides and C. Panagiotakopoulos,
842: \pl{337}{1994}{90}.
843:
844: \bibitem{pana1} C. Panagiotakopoulos, \ijmpa{5}{1990}{2359}.
845:
846: \bibitem{ovrut} A. Lukas, B. A. Ovrut and D. Waldram,
847: \JHEP{9906}{1999}{034}.
848:
849: \bibitem{ibanez} G. Aldazabal, G. A. Font, L. E. Ib\'{a}\~{n}ez
850: and A. Uranga, \np{452}{1995}{3}; \ibid{465}{1996}{34}.
851:
852: \bibitem{shaaban} S. Khalil and T. Kobayashi,
853: \np{526}{1998}{99}.
854:
855: \bibitem{km} T. Kobayashi, J. Kubo and H. Shimabukuro,
856: \np{580}{2000}{3}; D. G. Cerde\~{n}o and C. Mu\~{n}oz,
857: \pr{61}{2000}{016001}.
858:
859: \bibitem{cdm} M. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
860: \pr{61}{2000}{123512}.
861:
862: \bibitem{lahanas} A. B. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos and
863: V. C. Spanos, \pl{464}{1999}{213}.
864:
865: \bibitem{cd2} M. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C.Pallis,
866: \pl{487}{2000}{313}.
867:
868: \bibitem{mb} S. Mart\'{\i} i Grac\'{\i}a, J. Fuster and
869: S. Cabrera, \npps{64}{1998}{376}.
870:
871: \bibitem{fh} S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein,
872: hep-ph/0002213.
873:
874: \bibitem{copw} M.Carena, M.Olechowski,
875: S.Pokorski and C.Wagner, \np{426}{1994}{269}.
876:
877: \bibitem{bsg} S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and
878: G. Ridolfi, \np{353}{1991}{591};
879: R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, \pl{309}{1993}{86}.
880:
881: \bibitem{kagan} A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert,
882: \epj{7}{1999}{5}.
883:
884: \bibitem{nlosm} A. Ali and C. Greub, \zp{49}{1991}{431};
885: \pl{259}{1991}{182}; \zp{60}{1993}{433}; K. Adel and
886: Y. P. Yao, \pr{49}{1994}{4945}; A. Ali and C. Greub,
887: \pl{361}{1995}{146}; C. Greub, T. Hurth and D. Wyler,
888: \pl{380}{1996}{385}; \pr{54}{1996}{3350}; K. Chetyrkin,
889: M. Misiak and M. M\"{u}nz, \pl{400}{1997}{206}.
890:
891: \bibitem{loqed} A. Czarnecki and W. J. Marciano,
892: \prl{81}{1998}{277}.
893:
894: \bibitem{nlohiggs} M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino
895: and G. Giudice, \np{527}{1998}{21}; P. Ciafaloni,
896: A. Romanino and A. Strumia, \np{524}{1998}{361};
897: F. Borzumati and C. Greub, \pr{58}{1998}{074004},
898: (A) \ibid{59}{1999}{057501}.
899:
900: \bibitem{nlosusy} M. Ciuchini, G. Degrassi, P. Gambino
901: and G. Giudice, \np{534}{1998}{3}.
902:
903: \bibitem{cleo} CLEO Collaboration (S. Glenn {\it{et al.}}),
904: CLEO CONF 98-17, talk presented at the XXIX ICHEP98, UBC, Vancouver,
905: B. C., Canada, July 23-29 1998;
906: ALEPH Collaboration (R. Barate {\it{et al.}}),\pl{429}{1998}{169}.
907:
908: \bibitem{pierce} D. Pierce, J. Bagger, K. Matchev and R. Zhang,
909: \np{491}{1997}{3}.
910:
911: \bibitem{ellis} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. A. Olive,
912: \pl{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis,
913: K. A. Olive and M. Schmitt, \pr{58}{1998}{095002};
914: J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki,
915: \astp{13}{2000}{181}.
916:
917: \bibitem{coan} K. Griest and D. Seckel, \pr{43}{1991}{3191};
918: M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, \pr{47}{1993}{376};
919: S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, \pl{298}{1993}{120};
920: P. Gondolo and J. Edsj\"o, \pr{56}{1997}{1879}.
921:
922: \end{references}
923:
924: \begin{figure}
925: \begin{center}
926: \epsfig{figure=deltap.eps,height=3.4in,angle=0}
927: \end{center}
928: \medskip
929: \caption{The allowed region in the $m_{LSP}-\Delta_{NLSP}$
930: plane for $\mu>0$ and $\tan\beta\simeq 10$ ($\epsilon=0.65$).
931: ${\rm{BR}}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ is evaluated with central
932: values of the input parameters and scales.
933: \label{deltap}}
934: \end{figure}
935:
936: \begin{figure}
937: \begin{center}
938: \epsfig{figure=deltac.eps,height=3.4in,angle=0}
939: \end{center}
940: \medskip
941: \caption{The allowed region in the $m_{LSP}-\Delta_{NLSP}$
942: plane for $\mu<0$, $\tan\beta\simeq 35.3$ ($\epsilon=0.99$).
943: ${\rm{BR}}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$ is evaluated with central
944: values of the input parameters and scales.
945: \label{deltac}}
946: \end{figure}
947:
948: \begin{figure}
949: \begin{center}
950: \epsfig{figure=deltam.eps,height=3.4in,angle=0}
951: \end{center}
952: \medskip
953: \caption{The allowed region in the $\tan\beta-\Delta_{NLSP}$
954: plane for $\mu>0~(<0)$ is between the solid and (dot-)dashed
955: lines. The bold (faint) lines are without (with)
956: the errors in ${\rm BR}(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$.
957: \label{deltam}}
958: \end{figure}
959:
960: \begin{figure}
961: \begin{center}
962: \epsfig{figure=mbnew.eps,height=3.4in,angle=0}
963: \end{center}
964: \medskip
965: \caption{The tree-level (dotted line) and the corrected
966: (solid line) $m_b(m_Z)$ versus $\tan\beta$ for
967: $\Delta_{NLSP}\simeq 0$ and the minimal $m_A$. The
968: experimental upper bound on $m_b(m_Z)$ is shown too.
969: \label{mbnew}}
970: \end{figure}
971:
972: \end{document}
973: