1: %=============================================================================
2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}
3: \textwidth6.5in
4: \textheight8.7in
5: \oddsidemargin0.0in
6: \topmargin-0.5in
7:
8: %==================== time stamp and draft macros ======================
9: % \clock returns time in hours:minutes on a AM/PM basis
10: % \fullclock returns time in hours:minutes on a 24 hour basis
11: % \let\rel@x=\relax
12: \newcount\timecount
13: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours
14:
15: \hours = \time
16: \divide\hours by 60
17: \temp = \hours
18: \multiply\temp by 60
19: \minutes = \time
20: \advance\minutes by -\temp
21: \def\hour{\the\hours}
22: \def\minute{\ifnum\minutes<10 0\the\minutes
23: \else\the\minutes\fi}
24: \def\clock{
25: \ifnum\hours=0 12:\minute\ AM
26: \else\ifnum\hours<12 \hour:\minute\ AM
27: \else\ifnum\hours=12 12:\minute\ PM
28: \else\ifnum\hours>12
29: \pmhours=\hours
30: \advance\pmhours by -12
31: \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM
32: \fi
33: \fi
34: \fi
35: \fi
36: }
37: \def\fullclock{\hour:\minute}
38: \def\monthname{\relax\ifcase\month 0/\or January\or February\or
39: March\or April\or May\or June\or July\or August\or September\or
40: October\or November\or December\else\number\month/\fi}
41: \def\today{\monthname~\number\day, \number\year}
42:
43: % this gives you a boldface character in math mode.
44: \def\bold#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%
45: \kern-.025em\copy0\kern-\wd0
46: \kern.05em\copy0\kern-\wd0
47: \kern-.025em\raise.0433em\box0 }
48:
49: \def\draft{$\bold{
50: \hbox{\tt Draft: printed \clock, \today.}
51: }$\par\noindent}
52: %============= end of time stamp and draft macros ============
53:
54: \newcommand{\mycomm}[1]{\hfill\break{ \tt===$>$ \bf #1}\hfill\break}
55: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}
56: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
57:
58: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}
59: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
60:
61:
62: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
63: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
64: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}
65: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}
66: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
67: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
68: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
69: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}
70: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}
71: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}
72: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}
73: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}
74: \def\mpar{m_{\ss\|}^2}
75: \def\mpl{M_{\rm Pl}}
76: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}
77: \def\mcha{m_{\chi^{\pm}}}
78: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\chi} h^2}
79: \def\msn{m_{\tilde\nu}}
80: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}
81: \def\mstpl{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 1}}^2}
82: \def\mstpr{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 2}}^2}
83: \def\tb{\tan\beta}
84:
85: \def\bsg{{{\mathrm B\!\to\!X_s}\gamma}}
86: \def\Bsg{{{\cal B}_{s\gamma}}}
87: \def\Bsgth{{{\cal B}^{theor}_{s\gamma}}}
88: \def\Bsgme{{{\cal B}^{meas}_{s\gamma}}}
89: \def\Bsgmo{{{\cal B}^{model}_{s\gamma}}}
90:
91: \newcommand{\Zee}{$Z^0$}
92:
93: \begin{document}
94: \begin{titlepage}
95: \pagestyle{empty}
96: \baselineskip=21pt
97: \rightline{hep-ph/0105004}
98: \rightline{CERN--TH/2001-111}
99: \rightline{UMN--TH--2002/01, TPI--MINN--01/16}
100: \vskip 0.35in
101: \begin{center}
102: {\large{\bf How Finely Tuned is Supersymmetric Dark Matter?
103: }}
104: \end{center}
105: \begin{center}
106: \vskip 0.05in
107: {{\bf John Ellis}$^1$ and
108: {\bf Keith A.~Olive}$^{1,2}$
109: \vskip 0.05in
110: {\it
111: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\
112: $^2${Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and Astronomy,\\
113: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA}\\
114: }}
115: \vskip 0.35in
116: {\bf Abstract}
117: \end{center}
118: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120:
121: We introduce a quantification of the question in the title: the
122: logarithmic sensitivity of the relic neutralino density $\ohsq$ to
123: variations in input parameters such as the supersymmetric mass scales
124: $m_0, m_{1/2}$ and $A_0$, $\tan \beta$ and the top and bottom quark
125: masses. In generic domains of the CMSSM parameter space with a relic
126: density in the preferred range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$, the sensitivities
127: to all these parameters are moderate, so an interesting amount of
128: supersymetric dark matter is a natural and robust prediction. Within these
129: domains, the accuracy in measuring the CMSSM and other input parameters at
130: the LHC may enable the relic density to be predicted quite precisely.
131: However, in the coannihilation regions, this might require more
132: information on the supersymetric spectrum than the LHC is able to provide.
133: There are also exceptional domains, such as those where direct-channel
134: pole annihilation dominates, and in the `focus-point' region, where the
135: logarithmic sensitivity to the input parameters is greatly increased, and
136: it would be more difficult to predict $\ohsq$ accurately.
137:
138: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
139: \vfill
140: \vskip 0.15in
141: \leftline{CERN--TH/2001-111}
142: \leftline{May 2001}
143: \end{titlepage}
144: \baselineskip=18pt
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146:
147: The annihilations of stable particles weighing $\lappeq 100$~TeV that were
148: once in thermal equilibrium in the early Universe are able to produce a
149: relic density comparable to the critical density. In particular,
150: weakly-interacting stable particles weighing $\sim 1$~TeV may well have a
151: cosmological density in the preferred range, if they were formerly in
152: thermal equilibrium. An example is provided by the lightest
153: supersymmetric particle, assumed to be the lightest neutralino $\chi$,
154: which is expected to be stable in models with conserved $R$
155: parity~\cite{Fayet}. For example, it is often remarked that
156: supersymmetric dark matter `naturally' has a relic density $\ohsq$ in the
157: range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$ preferred by astrophysics and
158: cosmology~\cite{EHNOS}.
159:
160: The TeV mass scale for supersymmetry is motivated independently by the
161: hierarchy problem: how to make the small electroweak scale $m_W \ll m_P
162: \sim 10^{19}$~GeV `natural', without the need to fine-tune parameters at
163: each order in perturbation theory~\cite{hierarchy}. This is possible if
164: the supersymmetric partners of the Standard Model particles weigh $\lappeq
165: 1$~TeV, but the amount of fine-tuning of supersymmetric parameters
166: required to obtain the electroweak scale increases rapidly for sparticle
167: masses $\gg 1$~TeV. In an attempt to quantify this, it was
168: proposed~\cite{EENZ,BG} to consider the logarithmic sensitivities of the
169: electroweak scale to the supersymmetric model parameters $a_i$:
170: \begin{equation}
171: \Delta_i \equiv {a_i \over m_W} {\partial m_W \over \partial a_i}.
172: \label{EENZ}
173: \end{equation}
174: In the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) with universal soft supersymmetry-breaking
175: parameters, the $a_i$ include the common scalar mass $m_0$, the common
176: gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$, the common trilinear parameter $A_0$ at the GUT
177: scale and the ratio of Higgs vev's, $\tan \beta$, with the Higgs mixing
178: parameter $\mu$ being determined (up to a sign) by the electroweak vacuum
179: conditions. The measure (\ref{EENZ}) has been used, for
180: example, to quantify the fine-tuning price imposed by the absence of
181: sparticles at LEP~\cite{CEP}. The point has also been made that
182: supersymmetric models with $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$ tend to have small
183: values of $\Delta \equiv {\rm Max}_i \Delta_i$~\cite{CEOP}, establishing a
184: link between (the absence of) hierarchical fine-tuning and good cosmology.
185:
186: In this paper, we propose analogous measures of sensitivity to quantify
187: the fine-tuning needed to obtain in the CMSSM a relic density
188: $\ohsq$ in the range preferred by cosmology:
189: \begin{equation}
190: \Delta^\Omega_i \equiv {a_i \over \Omega_\chi} {\partial \Omega_\chi \over
191: \partial a_i}.
192: \label{EO}
193: \end{equation}
194: The input parameters $a_i$ now include, along with the CMSSM parameters
195: introduced above, the top- and bottom-quark masses, Standard Model
196: parameters which are not so well known, and whose current
197: uncertainties have important impacts on calculations of $\ohsq$. We also
198: explore
199: the accuracy to which measurements of the CMSSM parameters at the LHC might
200: enable $\ohsq$ to be calculated~\cite{Drees}.
201:
202: In generic regions of the CMSSM parameter space, we find that the
203: overall sensitivity
204: \begin{equation}
205: \Delta^\Omega \equiv \sqrt{\Sigma_i (\Delta^\Omega_i)^2}
206: \label{sensitivity}
207: \end{equation}
208: is relatively small: $\Delta^\Omega \lappeq 10$, implying that
209: measurements of the input parameters at the 10 [1] \% level will enable
210: $\ohsq$ to be calculated to within a factor ${\cal O} (2)$ [${\cal O} (10
211: \%)$]. The sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ is somewhat enhanced in the $\chi -
212: {\tilde \ell}$ coannihilation region~\cite{EFOSi,glp}, and here an
213: accurate
214: calculation of the relic density might not be possible with LHC measurements
215: of the CMSSM parameters alone. There are also exceptional regions where the
216: sensitivity of $\Delta^\Omega$ is greatly enhanced, notably at large $\tan
217: \beta$ where there are `funnels' in CMSSM parameter space due to rapid $\chi
218: \chi
219: \rightarrow H, A$ annihilation~\cite{EFGOSi}, and in
220: the `focus-point' region~\cite{FM}, where $\Delta^\Omega$ may rise to several
221: hundred. In the focus-point region, there is extreme
222: sensitivity to $m_t$: even if $m_t$ is measured at the 1 \% level, $\ohsq$
223: may be uncertain by a large factor for any specific set of CMSSM
224: parameters.
225:
226: We start by outlining our procedure~\cite{EFGOSi} for calculating the
227: neutralino relic density $\ohsq$ and its sensitivity to the CMSSM
228: parameters. As already mentioned, we consider as independent parameters
229: the universal soft mass terms $m_0, m_{1/2}$, the trilinear soft
230: supersymmetry-breaking parameter $A_0$, and $\tan \beta$. We also assume
231: unification of the gauge couplings at the GUT scale as an input into the
232: renormalization-group calculations of the CMSSM parameters at the
233: electroweak scale. The top- and bottom-quark masses are potentially
234: important for the relic density calculations, particularly at large $\tan
235: \beta$, and are relatively poorly known, so we also track the sensitivity of
236: $\ohsq$ to their values. As defaults, we choose the running bottom-quark mass
237: $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}}_{SM} = 4.25$~GeV~\cite{mb} and the top-quark pole
238: mass $m_t = 175$~GeV. However, for our calculations in the `focus-point'
239: region~\cite{FM} we use $m_t = 171$~GeV. This choice of $m_t$ allows us to
240: display the focus-point region at values of $m_0$ between 1 and 2 TeV,
241: for ease of comparison with~\cite{FM}. If we had chosen $m_t = 175$ GeV,
242: our calculations would have located the focus-point region
243: between 2 and 3 TeV.
244:
245: More details of our code to evaluate $\ohsq$ are given in~\cite{EFGOSi}
246: and references therein, so here we note just a few relevant aspects.
247: Calculations at small-to-moderate $\tan \beta \lappeq 25$ have no novel
248: features, though we do recall the importance of including $\chi - {\tilde
249: \ell}$ coannihilation processes at large $m_{1/2}$. As discussed
250: in~\cite{EFGOSi}, several new coannihilation processes and diagrams become
251: relevant at larger values of $\tan \beta$, which are included here. Also
252: important at large $\tan \beta$ are direct-channel annihilation processes:
253: $\chi \chi \rightarrow H,A$, where $H,A$ are the heavier neutral Higgs
254: bosons in the CMSSM. Their treatment requires going beyond~\cite{directpoles}
255: the non-relativistic partial-wave expansion that is adequate elsewhere.
256:
257: In order to calculate the sensitivities $\Delta^\Omega_i$ (\ref{EO}), we
258: first define a grid in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for fixed $A_0, \tan
259: \beta, m_t$ and $m_b$, on which we compute the values of $\ohsq$. We then
260: compute the differences in $\ohsq$ generated by small ($\lappeq
261: 1$~\%) changes in each of
262: $m_{1/2}, m_0, A_0, \tan \beta, m_t$ and $m_b$ individually. We then use
263: these small finite differences to calculate the various sensitivities
264: $\Delta^\Omega_i$ (\ref{EO}) and hence the overall sensitivity
265: $\Delta^\Omega$ (\ref{sensitivity}). Thus, obtaining our results is quite
266: computation-intensive, with each of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes that we
267: show below requiring several times more CPU time than the calculations of
268: $\ohsq$ shown previously~\cite{EFGOSi}. For this reason, we have not
269: increased the grid resolution sufficiently to clarify all the fluctuations
270: (or small effects?) that we find in this analysis.
271:
272: Fig.~\ref{fig:overall} displays the overall sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$
273: (\ref{sensitivity}) in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for four representative
274: choices of the other CMSSM parameters. In each of these planes, the
275: regions with relic density in the preferred range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$
276: are indicated by lighter shading, and the disallowed regions where the
277: lightest supersymmetric particle is the ${\tilde \tau}_1$, rather than the
278: lightest neutralino $\chi$, are shown by darker shading. In these
279: figures, we show contours of constant values of the fine-tuning parmeter
280: $\Delta^\Omega$. Contours of $\Delta^\Omega = 3, 30$, and 300 are shown
281: by dashed (blue) curves of decreasing thickness. Contours of
282: $\Delta^\Omega = 10, 100$, and 1000 are shown by solid (black) curves also
283: of decreasing thickness. In Figure ~\ref{fig:overall}a, we show the two
284: additional contours $\Delta^\Omega = 1.5$ and 2, as dotted and dot-dashed
285: curves respectively.
286:
287: \begin{figure}
288: \vspace*{-0.75in}
289: \hspace*{-.20in}
290: \begin{minipage}{8in}
291: \epsfig{file=10f1s.eps,height=3.5in}
292: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
293: \epsfig{file=35nfs.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill
294: \end{minipage}
295: %\vspace*{-3in}
296: %\hspace*{-.70in}
297: \hspace*{-.20in}
298: \begin{minipage}{8in}
299: %\hskip -1.40in
300: %\vskip -.75in
301: \epsfig{file=50fs.eps,height=3.5in}
302: \hspace*{-0.25in}
303: \epsfig{file=10171fs.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill
304: \end{minipage}
305: %\vskip 2.5in
306: \caption{\label{fig:overall}
307: {\it Contours of the total sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ in the
308: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for (a) $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0, m_t =
309: 175$~GeV, (b) $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, (c)
310: $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, and (d) $\tan \beta =
311: 10, \mu > 0, m_t = 171$~GeV, all for $A_0 = 0$. The light (turquoise)
312: shaded areas are the cosmologically preferred regions with
313: \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq\ohsq\leq 0.3$}. In the dark (brick red) shaded
314: regions, the LSP is the charged ${\tilde \tau}_1$, so this region is
315: excluded. In panel (d), the medium shaded (mauve) region is excluded by
316: the electroweak vacuum conditions. The curves are contours of constant
317: $\Delta^\Omega$, as described in the text. }}
318: \end{figure}
319:
320: Consider first panel (a), for $\tan \beta = 10, A_0 = 0, \mu > 0, m_t =
321: 175$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}} = 4.25$~GeV. We see that, in a
322: `generic' domain of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for moderate values of
323: $m_0 / m_{1/2}$ in the approximate range 1/3 to 2, the overall
324: sensitivity is also moderate: $\Delta^\Omega < 10$. Indeed, there is a
325: substantial domain of this $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane where the sensitivity
326: parameter $\Delta^\Omega < 3$. Therefore, at least in this domain of
327: parameter space, {\it supersymmetric dark matter does not require fine
328: tuning.} We also note that the CMSSM value of $g_\mu - 2$ is in good
329: agreement~\cite{ENO} with the data~\cite{g-2} in this `generic' domain at
330: moderate $m_0 / m_{1/2}$, as is the rate for $b \rightarrow s
331: \gamma$~\cite{bsg}.
332:
333: Moreover, the small magnitude of $\Delta^\Omega$ {\it suggests that one
334: might hope, with a \% accuracy in the CMSSM parameters, to aim at a 10 \%
335: accuracy in calculating $\ohsq$.} In this connection, we note that the
336: preferred range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$ in this `generic' domain requires
337: moderate values $m_{1/2} \lappeq 400$~GeV and $m_0 \lappeq 200$~GeV, where
338: the LHC may be able to make detailed measurements of the sparticle
339: spectrum and hence the CMSSM parameters~\cite{Paige}. We return later to a
340: more careful consideration of the individual $\Delta^\Omega_i$ and the
341: uncertainties in the corresponding $a_i$.
342:
343: It is apparent in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:overall} that the overall
344: sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ increases at both large and small values of
345: $m_0 / m_{1/2}$. The increase in $\Delta^\Omega$ at large $m_0 / m_{1/2}$
346: is primarily due to the approach to the direct-channel $\chi \chi
347: \rightarrow h$ pole. The enhanced annihilation cross section reduces the
348: relic density to an acceptable level for finely tuned values of $m_{1/2}$,
349: which is the reason $\Delta^\Omega$ takes on values in excess of 100
350: there. However, a close approach to this pole is forbidden by the LEP
351: lower limits on the chargino mass $m_{\chi^\pm}$, and is also disfavoured
352: by the LEP lower limit $m_h > 113.5$~GeV~\cite{LEPHiggs}, making this
353: point somewhat moot.
354:
355: The increase in $\Delta^\Omega$ close to a ray in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$
356: plane at small $m_0 / m_{1/2}$ is due to the importance of
357: coannihilation~\cite{EFOSi}, whose significance varies with $m_{\tilde
358: \ell} - m_\chi$ and hence the CMSSM parameters. However, we still find
359: that $\Delta^\Omega < 20$ in this coannihilation region, so the relic
360: density does not require excessive fine-tuning in order to fall within the
361: preferred range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$. On the other hand, the LHC may
362: not be able to provide very detailed measurements of the sparticle
363: spectrum in this region~\cite{CMS}, so it may not facilitate a very
364: accurate calculation of $\ohsq$. On the bright side, we note that this
365: region does not agree well~\cite{ENO} with the value of $g_\mu - 2$
366: reported recently~\cite{g-2}.
367:
368: We do not show $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for other low-to-moderate values of
369: $\tan \beta \lappeq 25$, but simply remark that they are qualitatively
370: similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(a) for both signs of $\mu$. In
371: particular, there are qualitatively similar zones where $\Delta^\Omega
372: \lappeq 10$, or even $\lappeq 3$. These regions are also generally
373: compatible with $g_\mu - 2$~\cite{g-2}. However, it should be remembered
374: that the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ constraint~\cite{bsg} (not shown here)
375: excludes domains of small $m_{1/2}$ which increase as $\tan \beta$
376: increases, and are larger for $\mu < 0$.
377:
378: Panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:overall} displays the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane
379: for $\mu <0$ and $\tan \beta = 35$, near the upper limit for which we find
380: extensive regions of acceptable electroweak vacua for this sign of $\mu$
381: and our default choices of $m_t$ and $m_b$~\cite{EFGOSi}. We note that the
382: sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ is generally higher than in panel (a) for
383: $\tan \beta = 10$, foreshadowing the breakdown of the electroweak vacuum
384: conditions. We also see a `funnel' at $m_0 \sim m_{1/2}$, where the relic
385: density varies rapidly, reflecting the importance of direct-channel $\chi
386: \chi \rightarrow H,A$ pole annihilations, so that $\Delta^\Omega$ is
387: large. Indeed, $\Delta^\Omega \sim 100$ in the cosmological funnel, and
388: even exceeds 1000 deep in the pole region where the relic density is very
389: small. The sensitivity measure $\Delta^\Omega$ is significantly larger
390: than for $\tan \beta = 10$ also at larger values of $m_0 / m_{1/2} \sim
391: 2$, reflecting the fact that the preferred range of $m_0$ increases
392: relatively rapidly as $\tan \beta$ increases and the rapid-annihilation
393: `funnel' moves to higher $m_0 \sim m_{1/2}$. The behaviour of
394: $\Delta^\Omega$ in the coannihilation region of Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(b)
395: is qualitatively similar to that in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(a), whilst
396: being somewhat more elevated. In the good cosmological region with low
397: $m_{1/2}$, $\Delta^\Omega \ga 20$.
398:
399: Panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:overall} displays the case $\mu > 0$ and
400: $\tan\beta = 50$, which is again close to the upper limit for which we
401: find extensive regions of acceptable electroweak vacua for this sign of
402: $\mu$ and our default choices of $m_t$ and $m_b$~\cite{EFGOSi}. Panel (c)
403: has many qualitative features in common with panel (b), notably the very
404: elevated values of $\Delta^\Omega$ around a rapid-annihilation `funnel',
405: and the somewhat elevated values of $\Delta^\Omega$ in the regions at
406: higher and lower values of $m_0 / m_{1/2}$.
407:
408: Finally, panel (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:overall} displays another case with
409: $\mu > 0$ and $\tan\beta = 10$, this time for $m_t = 171$~GeV. Its
410: features are rather similar to those of panel (a) for $m_0 \lappeq
411: 800$~GeV, but now we also see the `focus-point' region of acceptable
412: $\ohsq$ for $m_0 \gappeq 1000$~GeV~\footnote{At higher values of $m_t$, we
413: find the focus-point region at higher values of $m_0$.}. The
414: `focus-point' region adjoins the (mauve) shaded region where we do not
415: find a consistent electroweak vacuum. The fact that the `focus-point'
416: region moves rapidly with a small change in $m_t$ largely explains the
417: high values of the sensitivity parameter $\Delta^\Omega \sim 500$ in this
418: region: analogous high sensitivity to $m_t$ can be seen in Fig.~9 of the
419: second paper in~\cite{FM}~\footnote{We thank K.~Matchev for
420: discussions on this point.}.
421:
422: As an aid to better understanding of the origins of the variations in the
423: overall sensitivity measure $\Delta^\Omega$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}, we
424: display in Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} the values of all the individual
425: $\Delta^\Omega_i$ along various illustrative slices through the CMSSM
426: parameter space at constant $m_0$ or $m_{1/2}$. The vertical (pink) shaded
427: strips in the panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} show the regions where the
428: relic density falls within the preferred range $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$.
429:
430: \begin{figure}
431: \vspace*{-0.75in}
432: \hspace*{-.10in}
433: \begin{minipage}{8in}
434: \epsfig{file=fig2as.eps,height=2.5in}
435: %\hspace*{-0.17in}
436: \epsfig{file=fig2cs.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill
437: \end{minipage}
438: %\vspace*{-3in}
439: %\hspace*{-.70in}
440: \begin{minipage}{8in}
441: %\hskip -1.40in
442: %\vskip -.75in
443: \epsfig{file=fig2ds.eps,height=2.5in}
444: %\hspace*{-0.2in}
445: \epsfig{file=fig2bs.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill
446: \end{minipage}
447: %\vskip 2.5in
448: \caption{\label{fig:slices}
449: {\it Fine-tuning sensitivities along
450: illustrative slices through the CMSSM parameter space: for (a) $m_0 =
451: 100$~GeV when $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, (b) $m_0
452: = 400$~GeV when $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV, (c)
453: $m_0 = 1000$~GeV when $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0, m_t = 175$~GeV,
454: and (d) for $m_{1/2} = 250$~GeV when $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0,
455: m_t = 171$~GeV, all for $A_0 = 0$. The sensitivities $\Delta^\Omega_i$ to
456: different input
457: parameters are plotted using different line styles, as indicated. The
458: sensitivity to $A_0$ is always negligible, and is not shown. The vertical
459: (pink) shaded bands have $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$.
460: }}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: Panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} is for $m_0 = 100$~GeV when $\tan \beta
464: = 10, \mu > 0, A_0 = 0, m_t = 175$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}} =
465: 4.25$~GeV, corresponding to a slice of Fig. \ref{fig:overall}(a). Looking
466: first at the `generic' region where $150$~GeV $\lappeq m_{1/2} \lappeq
467: 400$~GeV, we see that the dominant sensitivities $\Delta^\Omega_i$ are
468: those to $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$, both of which are close to unity. Next in
469: importance is the sensitivity to $m_t$, which is ${\cal O}(1/2)$. Finally,
470: the sensitivities to $\tan \beta, m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}}$ and
471: particularly $A_0$ are rather negligible in this domain. Clearly visible
472: is a sharp increase in some of the $\Delta^\Omega_i$ for $m_{1/2} \lappeq
473: 150$~GeV, dominated by jumps in the sensitivity to $m_{1/2}$ and $m_t$ as
474: $m_\chi$ traverses the value $m_h/2$, and the rate of $\chi \chi
475: \rightarrow h$ annihilation changes rapidly. However, as already
476: mentioned, this pole region is not relevant to the dark matter issue,
477: because it is excluded by the LEP constraint on $m_{\chi^\pm}$ and would,
478: in any case, give a very suppressed relic density $\ohsq \ll 0.1$ in all
479: but a very narrow strip in $m_{1/2}$. Also visible for $m_{1/2} \gappeq
480: 400$~GeV are more gradual rises in some of the $\Delta^\Omega_i$ as
481: $m_\chi - m_{\tilde \tau_1} \rightarrow 0^-$ in the coannihilation
482: region~\cite{EFOSi}, followed by falls in the disallowed domain where
483: $m_\chi > m_{\tilde \tau_1}$. The sensitivities to $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ are
484: the largest, and are very similar, as is to be expected because they are
485: the key parameters controlling $m_\chi - m_{\tilde \tau_1}$. This behavior
486: is easily understood when one takes into account the exponential
487: sensitivity of coannihilation to $m_\chi - m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ and
488: recongizes the strong dependence of $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ on both $m_{1/2}$
489: and $m_0$ and $m_\chi$ on $m_{1/2}$. The sensitivity to
490: $m_t$ arises from the renormalization-group equations used to determine
491: the low-energy parameters in terms of the GUT-scale input parameters, and
492: $\tan \beta$ also enters in the determination of the $m_\chi - m_{\tilde
493: \tau_1} = 0$ contour. We see that, even in this region, none of the individual
494: $\Delta^\Omega_i$ exceeds 15, and recall that, as seen in
495: Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(a), the combined $\Delta^\Omega \lappeq 20$ in the
496: region of preferred relic density $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$ for $\tan \beta
497: = 10$.
498:
499: Panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} shows a slice at fixed $m_0 = 400$~GeV
500: through Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(c), for $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0,
501: A_0 = 0, m_t = 175$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}} = 4.25$~GeV. In
502: the generic region where $m_{1/2} \lappeq 600$~GeV, which includes the
503: range where $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$, we see that the dominant sensitivity
504: (between 20 and 30) is that to $m_t$, which is associated with the
505: `squeezing' of this region as the `funnel' moves towards the vertical
506: axis. Next in importance for $m_{1/2} \lappeq 600$~GeV are the
507: sensitivities ($\lappeq 10$) to $\tan \beta$ and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline
508: {MS}} = 4.25$~GeV, which also originate from their effects on the
509: `funnel'. The sensitivities to $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ are much smaller, even
510: comparable to those in panel (a), and the sensitivity to $A_0$ is
511: negligible, as always for $A_0 = 0$. The region of high sensitivity when
512: $m_{1/2} \lappeq 150$~GeV is actually excluded by the $b \rightarrow s
513: \gamma$ constraint, which imposes $m_{1/2} \gappeq 300$~GeV for this value
514: of $m_0$ and the other parameters.
515:
516: Panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} shows a slice at fixed $m_0 =
517: 1000$~GeV, again through Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(c), for $\tan \beta = 50,
518: \mu > 0, A_0 = 0, m_t = 175$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}} =
519: 4.25$~GeV. As also seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(c), there are much
520: narrower ranges of $m_{1/2}$ where $0.1 \le \ohsq \le 0.3$: one on the
521: left side of the rapid annihilation `funnel', a much narrower region on
522: the right side when $m_{1/2} \sim 1600$~GeV, that is not shown in
523: Fig.~\ref{fig:slices}(c), and another narrow region in the coannihilation
524: region when $m_{1/2} \sim 1800$~GeV. The dominant sensitivity to the left
525: of the `funnel' is that to $m_t$, followed by those to $\tan \beta$ and
526: $m_b$. These all increase as the `funnel' is approached, reflecting its
527: sensitivities to these parameters. In the coannihilation region of
528: Fig.~\ref{fig:slices}(c), the sensitivities to $\tan \beta, m_0$ and
529: $m_{1/2}$ dominate as $m_{\tilde \tau_1} - m_\chi \rightarrow 0^+$, and
530: are all more important than for $\tan \beta = 10$, as shown in
531: Fig.~\ref{fig:slices}(a).
532:
533: Finally, panel (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:slices} shows a slice at fixed
534: $m_{1/2} = 250$~GeV through Fig.~\ref{fig:overall}(d), for $\tan \beta =
535: 10, \mu > 0, A_0 = 0, m_t = 171$~GeV and $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}} =
536: 4.25$~GeV. This cuts through both the `focus-point' region and the
537: `generic' domain, for which a different slice was shown in panel (a). The
538: most noticeable feature is a strong growth in the sensitivity to $m_t$ as
539: the `focus-point' region is approached, with a maximum value
540: $\Delta^\Omega_{m_t} \simeq 1000$: see also Fig.~9 of the second paper
541: in~\cite{FM}. We also note increased sensitivities to $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$
542: in this region: $\Delta^\Omega_{m_{1/2}, m_0} \simeq 200$, reflecting the
543: narrowness of the `focus-point' strip in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane. The
544: sensitivities in the `generic' domain at smaller $m_{1/2}$ are invisible
545: in this plot, but are very similar to those shown in
546: Fig.~\ref{fig:slices}(a), namely $\Delta^\Omega_i \lappeq {\cal O}(1)$.
547:
548: Finally, we consider what light this analysis casts on the accuracy with
549: which LHC measurements might eventually enable $\ohsq$ to be
550: calculated~\cite{Drees}. We assume that $\delta m_t / m_t = 1 \%$ in the
551: LHC era, and that $\delta m_b / m_b = 5 \%$~\cite{mb} in all cases.
552: Detailed studies of the precision with which a combination of LHC
553: measurements could constrain CMSSM parameters have been made for a limited
554: number of benchmark points~\cite{Paige,PPRS,fit2,fit3}. Unfortunately,
555: these LHC benchmark points are now outdated, e.g., because the relic
556: density is too high or because $m_h$ is too low, and they are often bad
557: also for $g_\mu - 2$ and/or $b \rightarrow s \gamma$. However, we select
558: for our analysis two LHC points that yield $\ohsq < 0.3$, and attempt to
559: extract from them useful indicators for points that yield $\ohsq$ in the
560: preferred range.
561:
562: {\bf LHC Point 5}: This is the LHC point for which the most detailed
563: studies are available~\cite{Paige,PPRS,fit2}. It has $\mu > 0$ and the
564: following values
565: of the CMSSM parameters~\footnote{The values of $A_0$ for this and the
566: other LHC points are essentially irrelevant, because
567: $\Delta^\Omega_{A_0} \ll 1$, and we set $A_0 = 0$ in the following.}:
568: \begin{equation}
569: m_0 = 100~{\rm GeV}, \; m_{1/2} = 300~{\rm GeV}, \; \tan \beta = 2
570: \label{LHC5}
571: \end{equation}
572: corresponding, according to our calculations, to $\ohsq = 0.22$ (within
573: the preferred range) and $m_h \simeq 91$~GeV~\cite{FH} (which is
574: excluded by LEP). Moreover, though its value of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$
575: is satisfactory, its value of $g_\mu - 2$ is too small. However, it may
576: serve as a useful indicator. At this point, a number of spectroscopic
577: measurements would have been possible at the LHC~\cite{Paige,PPRS,fit2},
578: and
579: the errors in the LHC determinations of the numerical parameters were
580: estimated to be:
581: \begin{equation}
582: \delta m_0 = 3.6~{\rm GeV}, \; \delta m_{1/2} = 5.0~{\rm GeV}, \; \delta
583: \tan \beta = 0.18.
584: \label{errors5}
585: \end{equation}
586: Extending our analysis of the $\Delta^\Omega_i$ to
587: this specific extra case, we find the following sensitivities to
588: parameters:
589: \begin{equation}
590: \Delta^\Omega_{m_0} = 0.80, \; \Delta^\Omega_{m_{1/2}} = 0.92, \;
591: \Delta^\Omega_{\tan \beta} = 0.07, \; \Delta^\Omega_{m_t} \simeq
592: \Delta^\Omega_{m_b} \simeq 0.
593: \label{sensitivity5}
594: \end{equation}
595: Combining in quadrature the errors in (\ref{errors5}) with the
596: sensitivities (\ref{sensitivity5}) in the calculation of
597: $\ohsq$, we estimate
598: \begin{equation}
599: {\delta \ohsq \over \ohsq} \; \gappeq \; {1 \over 30};
600: \label{result5}
601: \end{equation}
602: where the inequality sign recalls that there are certainly other errors in
603: the calculation of $\ohsq$, that may not be negligible. However, we infer
604: from (\ref{result5}) that an accurate calculation of $\ohsq$ may be
605: possible in `generic' domains of the allowed CMSSM parameter space for
606: moderate $\tan \beta$.
607:
608: {\bf LHC Point 6}: This~\cite{fit3} is the only LHC point with large
609: $\tan \beta$. It has $\mu > 0$ and the following
610: values of the CMSSM parameters:
611: \begin{equation}
612: m_0 = 200~{\rm GeV}, \; m_{1/2} = 200~{\rm GeV}, \; \tan \beta = 45
613: \label{LHC6}
614: \end{equation}
615: corresponding, according to our calculations, to $\ohsq = 0.045$ (below
616: our preferred range, but not excluded) and $m_h
617: = 112$~GeV (which may be allowed by LEP when one allows for theoretical
618: uncertainties). However, neither $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ nor $g_\mu
619: -2$ are satisfactory for this point. The errors in the LHC
620: determinations of the CMSSM parameters were estimated to be:
621: \begin{equation}
622: \delta m_0 = 29~{\rm GeV}, \; \delta m_{1/2} = 9~{\rm GeV}, \; \delta \tan
623: \beta = 5.
624: \label{errors6}
625: \end{equation}
626: In this case, we find that the parameter sensitivities are somehwat more
627: elevated:
628: \begin{equation}
629: \Delta^\Omega_{m_0} = 2.45, \; \Delta^\Omega_{m_{1/2}} = 1.65, \;
630: \Delta^\Omega_{\tan \beta} = - 5.18, \; \Delta^\Omega_{m_t} = 9.0, \;
631: \Delta^\Omega_{m_b} = - 3.51,
632: \label{sensitivity6}
633: \end{equation}
634: in view of which we conclude that
635: \begin{equation}
636: {\delta \ohsq \over \ohsq} \; = \; {\cal O}(1)
637: \label{result6}
638: \end{equation}
639: in this case.
640:
641: We note, moreover, that, for this value of $\tan \beta$, $\ohsq$ is large
642: enough to be in the range preferred by cosmology only if larger values of
643: $m_0$ and/or $m_{1/2} \gappeq 400$~GeV are chosen. We recall that LHC
644: Points 1 and 2 had $m_0 = m_{1/2} = 400$~GeV~\cite{Paige}, and that in
645: these cases the limited LHC measurements did not provide any accuracy in
646: the determination of $m_0$. (These points also had $\ohsq \gappeq 1.6$,
647: acceptable $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ and unacceptable $g_\mu - 2$.) We
648: conclude from this discussion and (\ref{result6}) that an accurate
649: calculation of $\ohsq$ may not be possible at large $\tan \beta$ using LHC
650: data alone.
651:
652: For the record, we recall that LHC Point 3~\cite{Paige} had $m_0 =
653: 200~{\rm GeV}, m_{1/2} = 100~{\rm GeV}$, $\tan \beta = 2$ and $\mu < 0$,
654: leading to $m_h \sim 67$~GeV~\cite{FH}, which is far too small. This
655: points also had $\ohsq \simeq 0.38$ (rather too high) and unacceptable
656: $g_\mu - 2$, though $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ was satisfactory. We do not
657: discuss this point in detail, but note that, like at Point 5, $\ohsq$
658: could in principle be calculated quite accurately using LHC data. Finally,
659: LHC Point 4 has $m_0 = 800~{\rm GeV}, m_{1/2} = 200~{\rm GeV}, \tan \beta
660: = 10$, leading to $\ohsq = 5.6$, rendering it uninteresting for this
661: analysis. For completeness, we note that this point had $m_h
662: \simeq 111$~GeV, acceptable $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ and unacceptable
663: $g_\mu - 2$. We also note that, although some sparticle measurements are
664: possible in the coannihilation region~\cite{CMS}, it seems unlikely that
665: LHC measurements alone will constrain the CMSSM parameters sufficiently to
666: enable $\ohsq$ to be calculated accurately.
667:
668: To conclude: We have demonstrated in this paper that there are `generic'
669: domains of CMSSM parameter space at moderate $\tan \beta$ where the
670: sensitivity $\Delta^\Omega$ of the relic density $\ohsq$ is rather small.
671: Thus, obtaining $\ohsq$ in the range preferred by astrophysics and
672: cosmology does not require `fine-tuning' of the values of the CMSSM
673: parameters. The sensitivity of $\ohsq$ to the CMSSM parameters is somewhat
674: increased in the coannihilation region~\cite{EFOSi}, but not to an
675: alarming extent. It is also increased at large $\tan \beta$, particularly
676: in the `funnel' regions where rapid $\chi \chi \rightarrow H, A$
677: annihilations are important~\cite{EFGOSi}. We also found large values of
678: $\Delta^\Omega$ in the `focus-point' region~\cite{FM}, where the CMSSM
679: parameters and particularly $m_t$ must be adjusted for a given set of
680: supersymmetric input parameters, if $\ohsq$ is to fall within the
681: preferred range. The tracking of the individual sensitivities,
682: $\Delta^\Omega_i$ clarifies which parameters must be measured and treated
683: carefully in order to calculate $\Omega h^2$ reliably.
684:
685: In the generic regions with low $\Delta^\Omega$, LHC
686: measurements~\cite{Paige} may enable $\ohsq$ to be calculated accurately.
687: It would be interesting to study how accurately the CMSSM parameters could
688: be measured at a new set of benchmark points that respect the constraints
689: imposed by LEP and other recent experiments~\cite{new}, both at the LHC
690: and with a
691: possible linear $e^+ e^-$ collider. As already mentioned, there are
692: clearly cases where the LHC alone cannot determine the CMSSM parameters
693: with sufficient precision to enable $\ohsq$ to be calculated accurately,
694: and it would be interesting to see how a linear $e^+ e^-$ collider could
695: contribute. A successful, accurate calculation of $\ohsq$ on the basis of
696: accelerator data would surely be the culmination of supersymmetric dark
697: matter studies, making this a worthwhile objective to pursue.
698:
699: \vskip 0.5in
700: \vbox{
701: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\
702: \noindent
703: The work of K.A.O. was partially supported by DOE grant
704: DE--FG02--94ER--40823.}
705:
706: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
707:
708: \bibitem{Fayet}
709: P. Fayet, {\it Unification of the Fundamental Particle Interactions}, eds.
710: S.~Ferrara, J.~Ellis and P.~van~Nieuwenhuizen (Plenum, New York, 1980),
711: p.587.
712:
713: \bibitem{EHNOS}
714: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive
715: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 453; see also
716: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.
717:
718: \bibitem{hierarchy}
719: L.~Maiani, {\it Proceedings of the 1979 Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School On
720: Particle
721: Physics}, 1;
722: G.~'t Hooft, in {\it Recent Developments in Gauge Theories, Proceedings
723: of the Nato Advanced Study
724: Institute, Cargese, 1979}, eds. G.~'t Hooft {\it et al.}, (Plenum Press,
725: NY, 1980); E.~Witten,
726: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B105} (1981) 267.
727: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B105,267;%%
728:
729: \bibitem{EENZ}
730: J.~Ellis, K.~Enqvist, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and F.~Zwirner,
731: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A1} (1986) 57.
732: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A1,57;%%
733:
734: \bibitem{BG}
735: R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice,
736: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B306} (1988) 63.
737: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B306,63;%%
738:
739: \bibitem{CEP}
740: P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Ellis and S.~Pokorski,
741: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B423} (1998) 327;
742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712234;%%
743: P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Ellis, M.~Olechowski and S.~Pokorski,
744: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B544} (1999) 39.
745: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808275;%%
746:
747: \bibitem{CEOP}
748: P.~H.~Chankowski, J.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and S.~Pokorski,
749: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B452} (1999) 28.
750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811284;%%
751:
752: \bibitem{Drees}
753: M.~Drees, Y.~G.~Kim, M.~M.~Nojiri, D.~Toya, K.~Hasuko and T.~Kobayashi,
754: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 035008.
755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007202;%%
756:
757: \bibitem{EFOSi}
758: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf
759: B444}, 367 (1998); J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
760: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 13} (2000) 181.
761:
762: \bibitem{glp}
763: M.~E.~G\'omez,
764: G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,
765: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61}, 123512 (2000)
766: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%
767: and
768: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B487}, 313 (2000);
769: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004028;%%
770: %\cite{Arnowitt:2001yh}
771: %\bibitem{Arnowitt:2001yh}
772: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,
773: %``Coannihilation effects in supergravity and D-brane models,''
774: hep-ph/0102181.
775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%
776:
777:
778: \bibitem{EFGOSi}
779: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
780: hep-ph/0102098.
781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%
782:
783: \bibitem{FM}
784: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,
785: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84} (2000) 2322 and
786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%
787: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 075005;
788: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%
789: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,
790: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B482} (2000) 388 and
791: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004043;%%
792: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 045024.
793: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008115;%%
794:
795: \bibitem{mb}
796: Compare D.E. Groom {\it et al.}, Euro.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C15} (2000) 1,
797: {\tt http://pdg.lbl.gov/}.
798:
799: \bibitem{directpoles}
800: K.~Griest and D.~Seckel,
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D43} (1991) 3191;
802: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,3191;%%
803: P.~Gondolo and G.~Gelmini,
804: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B360} (1991) 145.
805: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,145;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{ENO}
808: J.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,
809: hep-ph/0102331;
810: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%
811: for other recent papers on the CMSSM interpretation of $g_\mu - 2$, see
812: L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,
813: hep-ph/0102145;
814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%
815: J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,
816: hep-ph/0102146;
817: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%
818: E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,
819: hep-ph/0102147;
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%
821: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
822: hep-ph/0102157;
823: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%
824: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
825: hep-ph/0102204;
826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%
827: J. Hisano and K. Tobe, hep-ph/0102315.
828: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102315;%%
829: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,
830: hep-ph/0102344;
831: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%
832: K.~Choi, K.~Hwang, S.~K.~Kang, K.~Y.~Lee and W.~Y.~Song,
833: hep-ph/0103048;
834: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103048;%%
835: S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells,
836: hep-ph/0103067;
837: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%
838: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,
839: hep-ph/0103182;
840: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103182;%%
841: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
842: hep-ph/0103280.
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%
844:
845: \bibitem{g-2}
846: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}, Muon $g-2$ Collaboration,
847: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 2227.
848: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
849:
850: \bibitem{bsg}
851: CLEO Collaboration,
852: M.S. Alam {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 2885 as
853: updated in
854: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.}, {CLEO CONF 99-10};
855: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
856: hep-ex/0103042;
857: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
858: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,
859: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009; see also
860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%
861: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,
862: hep-ph/0010003.
863: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%
864:
865: \bibitem{Paige}
866: I.~Hinchliffe, F.~E.~Paige, M.~D.~Shapiro, J.~Soderqvist and W.~Yao,
867: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55} (1997) 5520;
868: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610544;%%
869: ATLAS Collaboration, Detector and Physics Performance
870: Technical Design Report,
871: {\tt http://atlasinfo.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/TDR/access.html}.
872:
873: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}
874: ALEPH collaboration, R.~Barate {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}
875: (2000) 1;\\
876: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011045;%%
877: L3 collaboration, M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}
878: (2000) 18;\\
879: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011043;%%
880: DELPHI collaboration, P. Abreu {\it et al.},
881: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 23;\\
882: OPAL collaboration, G. Abbiendi {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B499}
883: (2001) 38.\\
884: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102036;%%
885: For a preliminary compilation of the LEP data presented on Nov. 3rd, 2000,
886: see:\\
887: P. Igo-Kemenes, for the LEP Higgs working group,\\
888: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/talks/index.html}.
889:
890: \bibitem{CMS}
891: S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles,
892: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B547} (1999) 60.
893: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811402;%%
894:
895: \bibitem{PPRS}
896: G. Polesello, L. Poggioli, E. Richter-W\c{a}s and J. S\"oderqvist,
897: ATLAS Internal Note PHYS-No-111 (1997).
898:
899: \bibitem{fit2}
900: H.~Bachacou, I.~Hinchliffe and F.~E.~Paige,
901: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf B62} (2000) 015009.
902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907518;%%
903:
904: \bibitem{fit3}
905: I.~Hinchliffe and F.~E.~Paige,
906: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61} (2000) 095011.
907: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907519;%%
908:
909: \bibitem{FH}
910: For our numerical analysis, here we use the results of
911: M.~Carena, H.~E.~Haber, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, C.~E.~Wagner and
912: G.~Weiglein,
913: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B580} (2000) 29.
914: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001002;%%
915: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=HEP-PH/0001002}{SPIRES}
916:
917: \bibitem{new}
918: A proposal for new post-LEP benchmarks is now being prepared by
919: M.~Battaglia, A.~de~Roeck, F.~Gianotti, K.~Matchev, L.~Pape, G.~Wilson and
920: the present authors.
921:
922: \end{thebibliography}
923:
924: \end{document}
925:
926:
927:
928:
929:
930: