1: \documentstyle[11pt,cosmos,epsfig]{article}
2:
3: \markboth{Mario E. G\'omez}{Cosmological Constraints in
4: SUSY with Yukawa Unification}
5:
6: \setcounter{page}{1}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \begin{flushright}
11: FISIST/03-2001/CFIF
12: \end{flushright}
13: \title{Cosmological Constraints in
14: SUSY with Yukawa Unification}
15:
16: \author{Mario E. G\'omez}
17: \affil{Centro de F\'{\i}sica das
18: Interac\c{c}\~{o}es Fundamentais (CFIF),
19: Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, Instituto Superior T\'{e}cnico,
20: Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal}
21: %\author{Second Author}
22: %\affil{Some Department, University of Elsewhere, Some Street,
23: %City and city code, Country}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: The cosmological relic density of the lightest
27: supersymmetric particle of the minimal supersymmetric
28: standard model is calculated under the assumption of
29: gauge and Yukawa coupling unification. We employ radiative
30: electroweak breaking with universal boundary conditions
31: from gravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking. Further constraints are
32: imposed by the experimental bounds on the $b$--quark mass and the
33: $BR(b\rightarrow s \gamma)$. We find that coannihilation
34: of the lightest supersymmetric particle, which turns out to
35: be an almost pure bino, with the next-to-lightest
36: supersymmetric particle (the lightest stau) is crucial
37: for reducing its relic density to an acceptable level.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \keywords{Cosmology}
41:
42: \section{Introduction}
43: In recent years the consideration of exotic dark matter has become necessary
44: in order to close the Universe [\cite{Jungm}].
45: In the currently favored supersymmetric (SUSY)
46: extensions of the standard model, the most natural WIMP and candidate
47: for CDM is the LSP,
48: i.e. the lightest supersymmetric particle. In the most favored scenarios the
49: LSP is the lightest neutralino, which can be simply described as a
50: Majorana fermion, a linear
51: combination of the neutral components of the gauginos and Higgsinos
52: [\cite{Jungm,haim}]. Its stability is guaranteed
53: by imposing R-parity conservation, which implies that the LSP's
54: can disappear only by annihilating in pairs.
55: \par
56: The simplest and most restrictive version of MSSM with gauge
57: coupling unification is based on the assumption of radiative
58: electroweak symmetry breaking with universal boundary conditions
59: from gravity-mediated soft SUSY breaking. An interesting
60: question is whether this scheme is compatible with exact
61: ``asymptotic" unification of the three third family Yukawa
62: couplings. A positive answer to this question would be very
63: desirable since it would lead to a simple and highly predictive
64: theory.
65:
66: In this presentation we summarize the results of Refs.~[\cite{cdm,cdm2}],
67: aimed to answer the question of whether the simple version of the MSSM
68: with Yukawa unification at the GUT scale,
69: can be compatible with the most restrictive phenomenological constrains,
70: which are the correct predictions for $b$--quark mass and
71: $BR(b\rightarrow s \gamma)$, and satisfy
72: the requirement that the
73: relic abundance $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ of the lightest
74: supersymmetric particle (LSP) in the universe does not exceed
75: the upper limit on the cold dark matter (CDM) abundance implied
76: by cosmological considerations.
77:
78: \section{Input parameters on the MSSM with Yukawa Unification}
79:
80: We consider the MSSM embedded in some general supersymmetric
81: GUT based on a gauge group such as $SO(10)$ or $E_{6}$
82: (where all the particles of one family belong to a single
83: representation) with the additional requirement that the top,
84: bottom and tau Yukawa couplings unify [\cite{als}] at the
85: GUT scale $M_{GUT}$. Ignoring the Yukawa
86: couplings of the first and second generation, the effective
87: superpotential below $M_{GUT}$ is
88: \begin{equation}
89: W=\epsilon_{ij}(-h_t H_2^i Q_3^j t^c+ h_b H_1^i Q_3^j b^c
90: + h_\tau H_1^i L_3^j \tau^c + \mu H_1^i H_2^j)~,
91: \label{super}
92: \end{equation}
93: where $Q_3=(t,b)$ and $L_3=(\nu_{\tau},\tau)$ are
94: the quark and lepton $SU(2)_{L}$ doublet left handed
95: superfields of the third generation and $t^c$, $b^c$
96: and $\tau^c$ the corresponding $SU(2)_{L}$ singlets.
97: Also, $H_1$, $H_2$ are the electroweak higgs superfields
98: and $\epsilon_{12}=+1$. The gravity-mediated soft
99: supersymmetry breaking terms in the scalar potential are
100: given by
101: $$
102: V_{soft}= \sum_{a,b} m_{ab}^{2}\phi^{*}_a \phi_b+
103: $$
104: \begin {equation}
105: \left(\epsilon_{ij}(-A_t h_t H_2^i \tilde Q_3^j \tilde t^c
106: +A_b h_b H_1^i \tilde Q_3^j\tilde b^c
107: +A_\tau h_\tau H_1^i \tilde L_3^j \tilde\tau^c
108: + B\mu H_1^iH_2^j)+ h.c.\right)~,
109: \label{vsoft}
110: \end{equation}
111: where the $\phi_a$ 's are the (complex) scalar fields and
112: tildes denote superpartners. The gaugino mass terms in the
113: Lagrangian are
114: \begin{equation}
115: \frac{1}{2}(M_1 \tilde B\tilde B +
116: M_2 \sum_{r=1}^{3} \tilde W_r \tilde W_r +
117: M_3 \sum_{a=1}^{8}\tilde g_a\tilde g_a+h.c.)~,
118: \label{gaugino}
119: \end{equation}
120: where $\tilde B$, $\tilde W_r$ and $\tilde g_a$ are
121: the bino, winos and gluinos respectively. `Asymptotic'
122: Yukawa coupling unification implies
123: \begin{equation}
124: h_t(M_{GUT})=h_b(M_{GUT})=h_{\tau}(M_{GUT})\equiv h_0~.
125: \label{yukawa}
126: \end{equation}
127: Based on $N=1$ supergravity, we take universal soft
128: supersymmetry breaking terms at $M_{GUT}$, i.e., a
129: common mass for the scalar fields $m_0$, a common
130: trilinear scalar coupling $A_0$ and $B_0=A_0-m_0$.
131: Also, a common gaugino mass $M_{1/2}$ is assumed at
132: $M_{GUT}$.
133: \par
134: Our effective theory below $M_{GUT}$ depends on the
135: parameters ($\mu_0=\mu(M_{GUT})$)
136: \[
137: m_0,\ M_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \mu_0,\ \alpha_G,\ M_{GUT},
138: \ h_{0},\ \tan\beta~.
139: \]
140: \begin{description}
141: \item[$\alpha_G$] and $M_{GUT}$ are evaluated
142: consistently with the experimental values of $\alpha_{em},\
143: \alpha_s$ and $\sin^2\theta_W$ at $m_Z$. We integrate
144: numerically the renormalization group equations (RGEs)
145: for the MSSM at two loops in the gauge and Yukawa couplings
146: from $M_{GUT}$ down to a common supersymmetry threshold
147: $M_S=\sqrt{m_{\tilde t_1}
148: m_{\tilde t_2}}$. From this energy to $m_Z$, the
149: RGEs of the nonsupersymmetric standard model are used.
150: \item[$\tan\beta$] is estimated at the scale $M_S$
151: using the experimental input $m_\tau(m_{\tau})=1.777~\rm{GeV}$.
152: We incorporate
153: the SUSY threshold correction to $m_\tau(M_S)$ from the
154: approximate formula of Ref.[\cite{pierce}]. It is about $8\%$,
155: for $\mu>0$, leading to a value of
156: $\tan\beta=55.4-54.5$ for $m_A=100-700~{\rm{GeV}}$, while,
157: for $\mu<0$, we find a correction of about $-7\%$ and
158: $\tan\beta=47.8-46.9$ in the same range of $m_A$.
159: \item[$h_{0}$] is found by fixing the top quark mass at
160: the center of its experimental range,
161: $m_t(m_t)=166~{\rm{GeV}}$. The value obtained for $m_b(m_Z)$ after
162: including supersymmetric corrections is somewhat higher
163: than the experimental limit.
164: \item[$A_0$], for simplicity we take $A_0=0$. Our results
165: move very little for negative values of $A_0$ bigger than
166: about $-.5 M_{1/2}$, however lower negative values and positive
167: values of this parameter tend to increase the SUSY spectrum increasing
168: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$. Therefore the limits on $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$
169: imposes lower and upper bounds on $A_0$.
170: \item[$m_0,\ M_{1/2}, \mu_0,$] As we will discuss later the electroweak
171: symmetry breaking, when Yukawa unification is assumed, imposes a relation
172: on the values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$. On the other hand the role of
173: coannihilation $\tilde\chi$--$\tilde\tau$ make convenient to express
174: our results in terms of relative mass splitting $\Delta_{\tilde\tau_2}
175: =(m_{\tilde\tau_2}-m_{\tilde\chi})/m_{\tilde\chi}$
176: between the NLSP and LSP. Therefore we trade the GUT values of
177: $m_0,\ M_{1/2}$ and $\mu_0$ by the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$
178: and $\Delta_{\tilde\tau_2}$.
179: \end{description}
180: Let us describe with more detail the last item above. Assuming
181: radiative electroweak
182: symmetry breaking, we can express the values of the parameters
183: $\mu$ (up to its sign) and $B$ at $M_S$ in terms of the
184: other input parameters by means of the appropriate conditions
185: \begin{equation}
186: \mu^2=\frac{m^2_{H_1}-m^2_{H_2}\tan^2{\beta}}
187: {\tan^2{\beta}-1}- \frac{1}{2} m^2_Z \ , \ \sin 2\beta
188: =-\frac{2 B \mu}{m_{H_1}^2+m_{H_2}^2+2 \mu^2}~,
189: \label{mu}
190: \end{equation}
191: where $m_{H_1}$, $m_{H_2}$ are the soft
192: supersymmetry breaking scalar higgs masses. When unified Yukawa couplings
193: and a common value for $m_{H_2}$ and $m_{H_1}$
194: are assumed GUT , we find both $m_{H_2}^2$ and $m_{H_1}^2$ negative
195: at $M_S$. However for certain values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ is possible
196: to find values the pseudoscalar Higgs,
197: \[
198: m_A=m_{H_1}^2+m_{H_2}^2+2 \mu^2
199: \]
200: beyond a lower bound, considered to be $m_Z$ in the present work.
201: Furthermore, the authors of Ref.~[\cite{anant}] found that, for every
202: value of $m_A$ and a fixed value of $m_t(m_t)$, there
203: is a pair of minimal values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$
204: where the masses of the LSP and $\tilde\tau_2$
205: are equal. This is understood from
206: the dependence of $m_A$ on $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ given in
207: Ref.~[\cite{copw}]:
208: \begin{equation}
209: m^2_A = \alpha M^2_{1/2}-\beta m^2_0-{\rm{const.}}~,
210: \label{mAc}
211: \end{equation}
212: where all the coefficients are positive and $\alpha$ and
213: $\beta$, which depend only on $m_t(m_t)$, are $\sim 0.1$
214: (the constant turns out to be numerically close to $m_Z^2$).
215: Equating the masses of the LSP and
216: $\tilde\tau_2$ is equivalent to relating $m_0$ and
217: $M_{1/2}$. Then, for every $m_A$, a pair of values of
218: $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ is determined.
219: We had included the full one--loop radiative corrections to the
220: effective potential as given in the appendix E of Ref.~[\cite{pierce}].
221:
222: The values of
223: the LSP, $M_S$ and the corresponding values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$
224: are given in Fig.1.
225:
226: \begin{figure}
227: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=ms.eps,width=8.cm,height=6cm}}
228: \medskip
229: \caption{The values of $m_{\tilde\chi}$, $m_0$, $M_{1/2}$
230: and $M_S$ as functions of $m_A$ for $\mu>0$, $A_0=0$ and
231: $m_{\tilde\tau_2}=m_{\tilde\chi}$. These values are affected
232: very little by changing the sign of $\mu$.
233: \label{ms}}
234: \end{figure}
235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236: \section{Phenomenological constraints from $m_b$ and $b\rightarrow s \gamma$}
237: A significant problem, which may be faced in trying to reconcile
238: Yukawa unification and universal boundary conditions, is due to
239: the generation of sizeable SUSY corrections to the $b$-quark
240: mass [\cite{copw,hall}]. The sign of these corrections is
241: opposite to the sign of the MSSM parameter $\mu$ (with the
242: conventions of Ref.[\cite{cdm}]). As a consequence, for $\mu<0$,
243: the tree-level value of $m_b$, which is
244: predicted from Yukawa unification already near its experimental
245: upper bound, receives large positive corrections which drive
246: it well outside the allowed range. However, it
247: should be noted that this problem arises in the simplest
248: realization of this scheme. In complete models correctly
249: incorporating fermion masses and mixing, $m_b$ can receive
250: extra corrections which may make it compatible with experiment.
251: So, we do not consider this $b$-quark
252: mass problem absolutely fatal for the $\mu<0$ case.
253: However in the alternative scenario, with $\mu>0$, the $b$-quark mass
254: receives negative SUSY corrections and can easily be compatible
255: with data in this case. An example of the typical values we find
256: is given in table I.
257:
258: \begin{figure}
259: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mb.eps,width=6.cm,height=4cm}}
260: \medskip
261: \begin{center}
262: Table I. Values for the quark bottom mass.
263: \end{center}
264: \end{figure}
265: \par
266:
267: This scheme with $\mu>0$, is severely
268: restricted by the recent experimental results [\cite{cleo}] on
269: the inclusive decay $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ [\cite{bsg}]. It
270: is well-known that the SUSY corrections to the inclusive
271: branching ratio BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$), in the case of
272: the MSSM with universal boundary conditions, arise mainly
273: from chargino loops and have the same
274: sign with the parameter $\mu$. Consequently, these
275: corrections interfere constructively with the contribution
276: from the standard model (SM) including an extra electroweak
277: Higgs doublet. However, this contribution is already bigger than
278: the experimental upper bound on BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$)
279: for not too large values of the CP-odd Higgs boson mass $m_A$.
280: As a result, in the present context with Yukawa unification and
281: hence large $\tan\beta$, a lower bound on $m_A$ is obtained
282: for $\mu>0$. On the contrary, for
283: $\mu<0$, the SUSY corrections to BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$)
284: interfere destructively with the SM plus extra Higgs doublet
285: contribution yielding, in most cases, no restrictions on the
286: parameters. The results corresponding to the parameters
287: given in fig.1 are shown in fig.2. In the case of
288: $\mu>0$, BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$) decreases as the splitting between
289: $m_{\tilde\tau_2}$ and $m_{\tilde\chi}$ increases.
290:
291:
292: \begin{figure}
293: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=bsg.eps,width=8.cm,height=6cm}}
294: \medskip
295: \caption{The central value of the SUSY inclusive
296: BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$) as function of $m_A$ for both signs
297: of $\mu$, $A_0=0$ and $m_{\tilde\tau_2}=m_{\tilde\chi}$.
298: The contributions from the SM and the SM plus charged Higgs boson
299: (SM+Higgs) as well as the experimental bounds on
300: BR($b\rightarrow s\gamma$), $2\times 10^{-4}$ and
301: $4.5\times 10^{-4}$, are also indicated.
302: \label{bsg}}
303: \end{figure}
304:
305: \section{LSP relic abundance and bino--stau coannihilations }
306: The cosmological constraint on the parameter space
307: results from the requirement that the
308: relic abundance $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ of the lightest
309: supersymmetric particle (LSP) in the universe does not exceed
310: the upper limit on the cold dark matter (CDM) abundance implied
311: by cosmological considerations ($\Omega_{LSP}$ is the present
312: energy density of the LSPs over the critical energy density of
313: the universe and $h$ is the present value of the Hubble constant
314: in units of $100~\rm{km}~\rm{sec}^{-1}~\rm{Mpc}^{-1}$). Taking
315: both the currently available cosmological models with
316: zero/nonzero cosmological constant, which provide the best fits
317: to all the data, as equally plausible alternatives for the
318: composition of the energy density of the universe and accounting
319: for the observational uncertainties, we obtain the restriction
320: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^{2}\stackrel{_{<}}{_{\sim }}0.22$ (see
321: Refs.[\cite{cdm})]. Assuming that all the CDM in the
322: universe is composed of LSPs, we further get
323: $\Omega_{LSP}~h^{2}\stackrel{_{>}}{_{\sim }}0.09$.
324:
325: The cosmological relic
326: density of the lightest neutralino $\tilde\chi$ (almost
327: pure $\tilde B$) in MSSM with Yukawa unification increases to
328: unacceptably
329: high values as $m_{\tilde\chi}$ becomes larger.
330: Low values of $m_{\tilde\chi}$ are obtained when
331: the NLSP ($\tilde\tau_2$) is almost degenerate with
332: $\tilde\chi$. Under these circumstances,
333: coannihilation of $\tilde\chi$ with $\tilde\tau_2$ and
334: $\tilde\tau_2^\ast$ is of crucial importance
335: reducing further the $\tilde\chi$ relic density by a
336: significant amount. The important role of coannihilation of
337: the LSP with sparticles carrying masses close to its mass in
338: the calculation of the LSP relic density has been pointed
339: out by many authors (see e.g., Refs.[\cite{drees,ellis,coan})].
340: Here, we will use the method described by Griest and Seckel
341: [\cite{coan}]. Note that our analysis can be readily applied
342: to any MSSM scheme where the LSP and NLSP are the bino and
343: stau respectively.
344:
345: The relic abundance of the LSP at the present cosmic time
346: can be calculated from the equation:
347: \begin{equation}
348: \Omega_{\tilde\chi}~h^2\approx\frac{1.07 \times 10^9
349: ~{\rm GeV}^{-1}}{g_*^{1/2}M_{P}~x_F^{-1}~
350: \hat\sigma_{eff}}
351: \label{omega}
352: \end{equation}
353: with
354: \begin{equation}
355: \hat\sigma_{eff}\equiv x_F\int_{x_F}^{\infty}
356: \langle\sigma_{eff}v\rangle x^{-2}dx~.
357: \label{sigmaeff3}
358: \end{equation}
359: Here $M_P=1.22 \times 10^{19}$ GeV is the Planck scale,
360: $g_*\approx 81$ is the effective number of massless
361: degrees of freedom at freeze-out and
362: $x_F=m_{\tilde\chi}/T_{F}$, with $T_F$ being the
363: freeze-out photon temperature.
364:
365: In our case, $\sigma_{eff}$ takes the form
366: \begin{equation}
367: \sigma_{eff}=
368: \sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi}
369: r_{\tilde\chi}r_{\tilde\chi}+
370: 4\sigma_{\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2}
371: r_{\tilde\chi}r_{\tilde\tau_2}+
372: 2(\sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2}+
373: \sigma_{\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast})
374: r_{\tilde\tau_2}r_{\tilde\tau_2}~.
375: \label{sigmaeff2}
376: \end{equation}
377: For $r_i$, we use the nonrelativistic approximation
378: \begin{equation}
379: r_i(x) = \frac{g_i (1+\Delta_i)^{3/2} e^{-\Delta_i x}}
380: {g_{eff}}~,
381: \label{ri}
382: \end{equation}
383: \begin{equation}
384: g_{eff}(x)={\sum_{i}g_i (1+\Delta_i)^{3/2}
385: e^{-\Delta_i x}},
386: ~\Delta_i=(m_i-m_{\tilde\chi})/m_{\tilde\chi}~.
387: \label{geff}
388: \end{equation}
389: Here $g_i=2$, 1, 1 ($i=\tilde\chi$, $\tilde\tau_2$,
390: $\tilde\tau_2^\ast$) is the number of degrees of
391: freedom of the particle species $i$ with mass $m_i$ and
392: $x=m_{\tilde\chi}/T$ with $T$ being the photon
393: temperature.
394:
395:
396: The freeze-out temperatures which we obtain here are of the
397: order of $m_{\tilde\chi}/25$ and, thus, our nonrelativistic
398: approximation (see Eq.(\ref{ri})) is justified. Under
399: these circumstances, the quantities $\sigma_{ij}v$ are well
400: approximated by their Taylor expansion up to second order in
401: the `relative velocity',
402: \begin{equation}
403: \sigma_{ij}v=a_{ij}+b_{ij} v^2~.
404: \label{taylorv}
405: \end{equation}
406: The thermally averaged cross sections are then easily
407: calculated
408: \begin{equation}
409: \langle \sigma_{ij} v \rangle (x)=
410: \frac{x^{3/2}}{2 \sqrt{\pi}}
411: \int_{0}^{\infty} d v v^2 (\sigma_{ij} v) e^{-x v^2/4}
412: =a_{ij}+6 b_{ij}/x~.
413: \label{average}
414: \end{equation}
415:
416: The contribution of the $a_{ij}$'s to the cross section
417: is more important than the than the $b_{ij}$'s since its contribution
418: is suppressed by a factor $6/x_F\approx .2$. The annihilation
419: cross section is suppressed respect the coannihilation channels due to the
420: fact that $a_{\tilde\chi\tilde\chi }$ is suppressed due to Fermi statistics
421: [\cite{haim}]. This suppression is not present in the coannihilation channels,
422: however its contribution to $\sigma_{eff}$ is attenuated by the
423: exponential in $r_{\tilde{\tau}_2}$ in eq.~(10). Therefore
424: coannihilations have an
425: important effect in decreasing the $\Omega_{LSP}$ when the LSP and
426: the NLSP are very close in mass. In our case we find
427: this effect negligible when the mass splitting
428: $\tilde{\chi}$--$\tilde{\tau}$ is greater than approximately 20\%.
429: The complete list of Feynman diagrams and the expressions for the
430: $a_{ij}$'s appropriate for large $\tan\beta$ are given in Ref.~[\cite{cdm}].
431:
432:
433: The result of including coannihilation of $\tilde\tau_2$ and $\tilde\chi$
434: in the computation of the LSP relic abundance is clearly shown in fig.3.
435: The effect of increase the mass splitting between
436: $\tilde\tau_2$ and $\tilde\chi$ will result in larger values for
437: $\Omega_{LSP}$.
438:
439: \begin{figure}
440: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=lspp.eps,width=8.cm,height=6cm}}
441: \medskip
442: \caption{The LSP relic abundance $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$ as function of
443: $m_A$ in the limiting case $m_{\tilde\tau_2}=m_{\tilde\chi}$ and
444: for $\mu>0$, $A_0=0$. The solid line includes coannihilation of
445: $\tilde\tau_2$ and $\tilde\chi$, while the dashed line is obtained
446: by only considering the LSP annihilation processes. These results are
447: affected very little by changing the sign of $\mu$. The limiting lines
448: at $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2=0.09$ and 0.22 are also included.
449: \label{lspp}}
450: \end{figure}
451:
452: \section{Conclusions}
453:
454: We have shown that the condition of ``asymptotic" Yukawa unification on
455: the MSSM results in a significant constraint on the free parameter
456: space of the model.
457:
458: Constraints from $m_b$ and $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ can be
459: simultaneously satisfied for $\mu>0$ and relatively large values of
460: the SUSY parameters $m_A\sim 385 {\rm GeV}$,
461: $m_{\tilde{\chi}}\sim 695{\rm GeV}$, $m_0\sim 780 {\rm GeV}$ and
462: $M_{1/2}\sim 1.5 {\rm TeV}$. The constraint derived from cosmological
463: limits on LSP relic abundance, is satisfied only when
464: bino--stau coannihilations are relevant. If we superpose figs. 1, 2, 3 we can
465: observe that the previous conditions are satisfied in a narrow band of
466: parameter space.
467:
468: The hight values of $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ in the parameter space allowed
469: by the constraints described above will make difficult its direct
470: detection. However the large $\tan\beta$ scheme can provide interesting
471: predictions [\cite{det}] if one relaxes the strict
472: unification condition imposed in the present study.
473:
474:
475: \acknowledgments
476: This work was supported by the European Union under TMR contract
477: No. ERBFMRX--CT96--0090.
478: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{{ Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
479: \def\pl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
480: \def\zp#1#2#3{{ Z. Phys. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
481: \def\prl#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
482: \def\rmp#1#2#3{{ Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
483: \def\prep#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
484: \def\pr#1#2#3{{ Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1~}(#2)~#3}
485: \def\np#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
486: \def\npps#1#2#3{{ Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Sup.) }{\bf B#1~}(#2)~#3}
487: \def\mpl#1#2#3{{ Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
488: \def\arnps#1#2#3{{ Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf
489: #1~}(#2)~#3}
490: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{{ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
491: \def\jetp#1#2#3{{ JETP Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
492: \def\app#1#2#3{{ Acta Phys. Polon. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
493: \def\rnc#1#2#3{{ Riv. Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
494: \def\ap#1#2#3{{ Ann. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
495: \def\ptp#1#2#3{{ Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
496: \def\plb#1#2#3{{ Phys. Lett. }{\bf#1B~}(#2)~#3}
497: \def\apjl#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. J. Lett. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
498: \def\n#1#2#3{{ Nature }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
499: \def\apj#1#2#3{{ Astrophys. Journal }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
500: \def\anj#1#2#3{{ Astron. J. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
501: \def\mnras#1#2#3{{ MNRAS }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
502: \def\grg#1#2#3{{ Gen. Rel. Grav. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
503: \def\s#1#2#3{{ Science }{\bf #1~}(19#2)~#3}
504: \def\baas#1#2#3{{ Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
505: \def\ibid#1#2#3{{ ibid. }{\bf #1~}(19#2)~#3}
506: \def\cpc#1#2#3{{ Comput. Phys. Commun. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
507: \def\astp#1#2#3{{ Astropart. Phys. }{\bf #1~}(#2)~#3}
508: \def\epj#1#2#3{{ Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C#1~}(#2)~#3}
509:
510:
511: \thebibliography
512:
513: \bibitem{Jungm}[1]For a recent review see e.g.
514: G. Jungman {\it et al.},{\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 267}, 195 (1996).
515: \bibitem{als}[2] B. Ananthanarayan, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi,
516: \pr{44}{1991}{1613}.
517: \bibitem{cdm}[3] M. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
518: \pr{61}{2000}{123512}.
519: \bibitem{cdm2}[4] M. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
520: \plb{487}{2000}{313}.
521: \bibitem{copw}[5] M. Carena, M. Olechowski,
522: S. Pokorski and C. E. M. Wagner, \np{426}{1994}{269}.
523: \bibitem{anant}[6] B. Ananthanarayan, Q. Shafi and X. M. Wang,
524: \pr{50}{1994}{5980}.
525: \bibitem{hall}[7] L. Hall, R. Rattazzi and U. Sarid,
526: \pr{50}{1994}{7048};
527: R. Hempfling, \pr{49}{1994}{6168}.
528: \bibitem{cleo}[8] CLEO Collaboration (S. Glenn {\it{et al.}}),
529: CLEO CONF 98-17, talk presented at the XXIX ICHEP98, UBC, Vancouver,
530: B. C., Canada, July 23-29 1998;
531: ALEPH Collaboration (R. Barate {\it{et al.}}),\pl{429}{1998}{169}.
532:
533: \bibitem{bsg}[9] S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero and G. Ridolfi,
534: \np{353}{1991}{591};
535: \bibitem{haim}[10]H. Goldberg, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett} {\bf 50}, 1419 (1983);
536:
537: \bibitem{coan}[11] K. Griest and D. Seckel, \pr{43}{1991}{3191}.
538:
539: \bibitem{drees}[12] M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri,
540: \pr{47}{1993}{376};
541: S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, \pl{298}{1993}{120};
542: P. Gondolo and J. Edsj\"o, \pr{56}{1997}{1879};
543:
544: \bibitem{ellis}[13] J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki,
545: \astp{13}{2000}{181}.
546:
547: \bibitem{pierce}[14] D. Pierce, J. Bagger, K. Matchev and R. Zhang,
548: \np{491}{1997}{3}.
549:
550: \bibitem{det}[15] M.E. G\'omez and J.D. Vergados, hep-ph/0012020.
551:
552: \endthebibliography
553:
554:
555: \end{document}
556:
557:
558:
559:
560:
561:
562:
563:
564:
565:
566:
567:
568:
569:
570: