1: \documentstyle[12pt,preprint,aps,floats,epsfig]{revtex}

2: \tighten

3: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

4: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

5: \def\ga{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

6: \def\la{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

7: \newcommand{\scb}{\scriptstyle}

8: \newcommand{\scs}{\scriptscriptstyle}

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

11: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

12: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

15: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}

16: \newcommand{\me}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

17: \begin{document}

18: 

19: \preprint{

20: \noindent

21: \begin{minipage}[t]{3in}

22: \begin{flushleft}

23: July 2001 \\

24: \end{flushleft}

25: \end{minipage}

26: \hfill

27: \begin{minipage}[t]{3in}

28: \begin{flushright}

29: TPI--MINN--01/35\\

30: UMN--TH--2019/01\\

31: hep-ph/0107329\\

32: \vspace*{.7in}

33: \end{flushright}

34: \end{minipage}

35: }

36: 

37: \title{$B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ in Supersymmetry with

38: Explicit CP Violation}

39: 

40: \author{D. A. Demir and K. A. Olive

41: \vspace*{.2in}}

42: \address{Theoretical Physics Institute, School of Physics and

43: Astronomy, \\

44: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA}

45: 

46: \maketitle

47: 

48: \begin{abstract}

49: We discuss $B\to X_s \gamma$ decay in both constrained and unconstrained

50: supersymmetric models with explicit CP violation within the minimal flavor

51: violation scheme by including $\tan\beta$--enhanced large contributions beyond

52: the leading order. In this analysis, we take into account the relevant

53: cosmological and collider bounds, as well as electric dipole

54: moment constraints.  In the unconstrained model, there are portions

55: of the parameter space yielding a large CP asymmetry at leading

56: order (LO). In these regions, we find that  the CP phases satisfy certain

57: sum rules, e.g., the sum of the phases of the $\mu$ parameter and the stop

58: trilinear  coupling centralize around $\pi$ with a width determined by the

59: experimental bounds. In addition, at large values of $\tan\beta$, the sign of

60: the CP asymmetry  tracks the sign of the gluino mass, and the CP

61: asymmetry is significantly larger than the LO prediction. In the constrained

62: minimal supersymmetric standard model based on minimal supergravity, we find

63: that the decay rate is sensitive to the phase of the universal trilinear

64: coupling.  This sensitivity decreases at large values of the universal gauino

65: mass. We also show that for a given set of the mass parameters, there exists a

66: threshold value of the phase of the universal trilinear coupling which grows

67: with $\tan\beta$ and beyond which  the experimental bounds are satisfied. In

68: both supersymmetric scenarios, the allowed ranges of the CP phases are wide

69: enough to have phenomenological consequences. 

70: 

71: 

72: 

73: \vspace*{-.4in}

74: \end{abstract}

75: 

76: \pacs{PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 11.30.Er, 12.60.Jv, 11.30.Pb}

77: 

78: \section{Introduction}

79: 

80: One of the best motivated extensions of the standard model (SM) is softly broken

81: supersymmetry (SUSY) which provides novel sources for flavor and CP violation

82: \cite{susy} beyond the Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa (CKM) picture. While flavor

83: violation may come from the intergenerational entries of the soft sfermion masses

84: and tri-linear scalar couplings, their phase content as well as the phases of the

85: $\mu$ parameter and gaugino masses  provide sources for CP violation. 

86: Flavor-changing neutral current data puts stringent bounds on flavor

87: mixings \cite{masiero2}; therefore, such entries must be suppressed as would be the

88: case if the same unitary rotation which diagonalizes the quark mass matrices also

89: diagonalizes the squark mass matrices in flavor space. In this minimal flavor

90: violation (MFV) scheme, which is naturally realized in gravity mediated supersymmetry

91: breaking and no scale models, flavor violation is minimal as it is generated only by

92: the CKM matrix. In contrast, the CP  violation is not minimal as it can

93: spring from both the CKM matrix which leads to flavor--changing processes

94: ($e. g.$ the CP asymmetry in $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ decay) and from the

95: flavor--blind  CP phases of the  soft SUSY--breaking masses with flavor--conserving

96: processes ($e.g.$ electric dipole  moments (EDMs)) \cite{susy}.  

97: 

98: The effects of the SUSY CP--violation can be manifest in several 

99: observables such as: the mixing of the Higgs bosons \cite{higgs},

100: EDMs \cite{edm-ucmssm,oneloop,edm-cmssm,barger,shaaban},

101: lepton polarization asymmetries in semileptonic decays

102: \cite{lpol}, the formation of P--wave charmonium and bottomonium

103: resonances \cite{pmeson}, and CP violation in $B$ meson decays

104: \cite{ali,ali2,kagan2}  and mixings \cite{indirect}.

105: Among these observables, the most constraining are the

106: EDMs \cite{edmexpn,edmexpe,edmexpm} which bound the 

107: argument of the $\mu$ parameter to be $\simlt \pi/(5 \tan\beta)$, 

108: leaving the other SUSY phases mostly unconstrained, in both

109: constrained \cite{edm-cmssm,barger,shaaban} and unconstrained

110: \cite{edm-ucmssm,oneloop,barger,shaaban} supersymmetry. The constraint on

111: the phase of the $\mu$ parameter is lifted if the sfermions of the first

112: two generations weigh $\gg  {\rm TeV}$ as in the effective SUSY scenario

113: \cite{effsusy} though the EDMs are regenerated at the two--loop level, and can

114: still  compete with the experimental bounds

115: \cite{twoloop} in certain portions of the parameter space.

116: 

117: 

118: The rare radiative inclusive $B$ meson decay, $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ provides a

119: powerful test of the standard model (SM) and  ``new

120: physics" such as supersymmetry. The drive to

121: reduce theoretical uncertainties has led to the computation of next--to--leading order

122: (NLO) terms in the SM \cite{misiak} and two--doublet models \cite{2hdm}, and

123: a partial computation to the same order in supersymmetry (SUSY)  \cite{partial,partial1}. The

124: measurements of the branching ratio at CLEO

125: \cite{CLEO}, ALEPH \cite{ALEPH} and BELLE

126: \cite{BELLE} give the combined result\footnote{The combined result is based in part

127: on an updated value from CLEO of $3.03 \times 10^{-4}$.  We thank G. Ganis and E.

128: Thorndike for bringing this value to our attention.}

129: \begin{eqnarray}

130: \label{exp}

131: \mbox{BR}\left(B\rightarrow X_s \gamma\right)= \left(3.11 \pm 0.42 \pm

132: 0.21 \right)\times 10^{-4}

133: \end{eqnarray}

134: whose agreement with the next--to--leading order (NLO) standard model (SM) prediction \cite{misiak}

135: \begin{eqnarray}

136: \label{sm}

137: \mbox{BR}\left(B\rightarrow X_s \gamma\right)_{\small \mbox{SM}} = \left(3.29 \pm 0.33\right)\times 10^{-4}\:

138: \end{eqnarray}

139: is manifest though the inclusion of the nonperturbative effects can modify the result

140: slightly \cite{kagan1}. That the experimental result (\ref{exp}) and the

141: SM prediction (\ref{sm}) are in good  agreement shows that the ``new

142: physics" should lie well above the electroweak scale unless 

143: certain cancellations occur.   In addition to the

144: branching ratio, the recent measurement of the CP asymmetry has been

145: updated to \cite{CLEO001}

146: \beq

147: \mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}} \equiv {{\rm BR}\left(b\rightarrow s \gamma\right) -

148: {\rm BR}\left(\bar b\rightarrow \bar s \gamma\right) \over

149: {\rm BR}\left(b\rightarrow s \gamma\right) +

150: {\rm BR}\left(\bar b\rightarrow \bar s \gamma\right)} = (-0.079 \pm 0.108 \pm 0.022)

151: (1.0 \pm 0.03)

152: \eeq

153: implying a 95\% CL range of 

154: \begin{eqnarray}

155: \label{expCP}

156: -0.30\: < \: \mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}}\left(B\rightarrow X_s \gamma\right)\: < \:

157: 0.14

158: \end{eqnarray}

159: In the SM, this value is calculated to be rather small: $\mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}}\sim 1\%$

160: \cite{kagan2}.  

161: 

162: The LEP era has ended with a clear preference to large values of $\tan\beta$

163: \cite{lep}, for  which it is known that there are $\tan\beta$--enhanced SUSY threshold

164: corrections \cite{correc} which ($i$) significantly modify \cite{giudice} the leading

165: order (LO) Wilson coefficients \cite{masiero}, and can ($ii$) dominate the NLO

166: contributions \cite{giudice,partial}.  In the absence of CP violation, 

167: weak--scale SUSY satisfies the $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$

168: constraints at large

169: $\tan\beta$ more easily if the

170: $\mu$ parameter and the trilinear soft masses are of opposite sign

171: \cite{largetanbet1,largetanbet2}. 

172: 

173: 

174: In this work we will analyze $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ decay in the

175: minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM in connection with the CP violating phases. 

176: Above the electroweak breaking scale, the SUSY Lagrangian possesses two global

177: symmetries: a continious $R$--symmetry, $U(1)_R$, and a Peccei--Quinn symmetry, $U(1)_{PQ}$.

178: The $U(1)_R$ symmetry is broken by the $\mu$ parameter, the trilinear couplings $A_{f}$ and

179: the gaugino masses. The $U(1)_{PQ}$ symmetry, however, is sensitive to $\mu$ parameter and Higgs 

180: bilinear mass parameter $B$ only. Treating the soft masses (and $\mu$ parameter) as spurions it is easy to 

181: see that theory possesses a full $U(1)_R\times U(1)_{PQ}$ invariance above the 

182: electroweak scale thereby allowing for the elimination of two dynamical phases.

183: Though the electroweak breaking leaves only one symmetry to use, the phase

184: of the Higgs bilinear soft mass $B$ can be always eliminated by rephasing the 

185: Higgs vacuum expectation values, and therefore, one more phase can be still 

186: eliminated. Depending on the specific structure of the soft breaking sector this

187: invariance allows for eliminating one or more phases. In the constrained minimal

188: supersymmetric standard model (CMSSM) the gaugino masses are universal, and therefore,

189: all of them can be chosen real leaving the $\mu$ parameter and the trilinear

190: couplings as the only sources of the supersymmetric  CP violation. In the unconstrained model,

191: however, one is left with more phases to generate CP violation. In what

192: follows we will assume a universal phase for the masses of

193: the $SU(2)$ and  $U(1)_Y$ gauginos, and measure the rest of the phases

194: (the phase of the $\mu$ parameter, the trilinear couplings, and the gluino mass) with respect to them.

195: In addition, the sign conventions ($e.g.$ the sign of the $\mu$ parameter 

196: relative to the trilinear couplings) for soft masses can be fixed from 

197: the sparticle mass matrices listed in the appendices.

198: 

199: Concerning the calculational precison, we consider the $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ decay using 

200: the LO Wilson coefficients \cite{masiero} and by incorporating beyond leading order (BLO) 

201: $\tan\beta$--enhanced SUSY threshold corrections \cite{giudice} in the

202: presence of soft SUSY phases \cite{susy} (which we hereafter call the BLO

203: scheme to differentiate it from one which includes NLO QCD corrections).

204: It is important to note that the LO direct CP violation is small 

205: in  both constrained

206: \cite{constrainedcpv} and unconstrained

207: \cite{asymm}  SUSY models once the EDM constraints

208: \cite{edmexpn,edmexpe,edmexpm} are taken into account

209: \cite{edm-ucmssm,oneloop,edm-cmssm,barger,shaaban,twoloop}.

210: 

211: Sec. III is devoted to the study of $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ decay in an

212: unconstrained supersymmetric model, i.e., in a model in which soft masses are not

213: subject to the constraints from supergravity or stringy boundary conditions at

214: ultra high energies. After determining an appropriate region of the parameter space

215: that ($i$) suppresses the EDMs and ($ii$) enhances the SUSY threshold corrections,

216: the allowed ranges of the SUSY phases as well as the resulting CP asymmetry will be

217: numerically estimated. 

218: In Sec. IV,  we will perform a detailed analysis of  $b\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ decay

219: in the constrained MSSM  with explicit CP violation by taking into account the

220: $\tan\beta$--enhanced SUSY threshold corrections at the weak scale. Since the flavor

221: mixings in the CMSSM are determined by the CKM matrix, the dominant

222: contribution to the decay comes from the chargino and charged Higgs exchanges with

223: flavor--blind phases playing the main role \cite{constrainedcpv}.

224: Our conclusion are given in section V.

225:   

226: \section{General Formalism with CP-Violating Phases}

227: In this section we study the inclusive radiative $B$--meson decay in a general low

228: energy SUSY model with nonvanishing soft phases. To a very good approximation,

229: $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ is well approximated \cite{misiak} by the partonic decay

230: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ whose analysis can be performed via the effective

231: hamiltonian 

232: \begin{eqnarray}

233: \label{heff}

234: {\cal{H}}_{eff}= -\f{4 G_F \lambda_{t}}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{i=1}^{8}

235: {\cal{C}}_i(Q) {\cal{O}}_i(Q)\:\:,\:\:\left\{ \begin{array}{c}

236: {\cal{C}}_{1,3,\cdots,6}(Q_W)=0\:, \:

237: {\cal{C}}_2 (Q_W)=1\:,\\

238: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}(Q_W)={\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{W} (Q_W) + {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H}(Q_W)

239: +{\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_W)\end{array}\right.

240: \end{eqnarray}

241: where $\lambda_{t}=K^{*}_{t s} K_{t b}$, $K$ is the CKM matrix, and the

242: operators ${\cal{O}}_i(Q)$  are defined in \cite{misiak}. Also listed here are the

243: values of the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale where the electric and

244: chromoelectric dipole coefficients

245: ${\cal{C}}_{7,8} (Q_W)$ are decomposed in terms of the

246: $W^{\pm}$, $H^{\pm}$ and $\chi^{\pm}$ contributions as is appropriate in

247: the MFV scheme.

248: 

249: 

250: The negative Higgs searches at LEP prefer those regions of the SUSY parameter space with $\tan\beta \simgt

251: 3.5$ \cite{lep}, and therefore, it is necessary to improve the leading order analysis \cite{masiero,asymm}

252: by incorporating those SUSY corrections which grow with $\tan\beta$. Indeed, such

253: non--logarithmic threshold corrections significantly modify tree level Higgs and chargino couplings

254: \cite{correc,giudice}. The effective lagrangian describing the interactions of quarks with  

255: $W^{\pm}$, $H^{\pm}$ and the charged Goldstone boson ($G^{\pm}$) is given by

256: \begin{eqnarray}

257: \label{lagran}

258: {\cal{L}}&=&g_{2}\left(Q_W\right)\: \left[K_{t q}\ \overline{t_{L}}\ \gamma^{\mu}\ \ q_{L}\ W_{\mu}^{+}

259: \: +\: \mbox{h. c.}\right] \nonumber\\

260: &+&\frac{g_{2}\left(Q_W\right)\ \overline{m_t}\left(Q_W\right)}{\sqrt{2}\ M_W}\:

261: \left[K_{t s}\ \overline{t_{R}} \left\{ \cot\beta\left(1+ \epsilon_{t s}\ \tan\beta\right)\ H^{+}\: + \:

262: G^{+} \right\} s_{L}\: +\: \mbox{h. c.}\right]\nonumber\\ 

263: &+&\frac{g_{2}\left(Q_W\right) \overline{m_b}\left(Q_W\right)}{\sqrt{2}\ M_W

264: \left(1+\epsilon_{b b}^{\ *}\ \tan\beta\right)}\:

265: \left[ K_{t b}\ \overline{t_{L}} \left\{ \tan \beta \ H^{+}\: - \:

266: \left(1+\epsilon_{t b}\ \tan\beta \right)\ G^{+} \right\} b_R \: +\: \mbox{h. c.}\right]

267: \end{eqnarray} 

268: where the dimensionless complex coefficients $\epsilon_{b b}$,

269: $\epsilon_{t s}$ and $\epsilon_{t b}$  represent the SUSY threshold corrections at the associated vertices

270: \begin{eqnarray}

271: \label{epsb}

272: \epsilon_{b b}&=&- \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3

273: \pi}\: \frac{\mu^{*}}{m_{\widetilde{g}}}\:

274: {\cal{H}}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{b}_1}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2},

275: \frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{b}_2}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2}\right]

276: -\frac{\alpha_t}{4 \pi}\:\sum_{j=1}^{2}\ \frac{A_t^{*}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\: 

277: \left(C_L\right)_{2 j} \left(C_R^{\dagger}\right)_{2 j}

278: {\cal{H}}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_1}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2},

279: \frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]\nonumber\\

280: \epsilon_{t s}&=&\frac{2 \alpha_s}{3

281: \pi}\: \frac{\mu^{*}}{m_{\widetilde{g}}}\:\sum_{k=1}^{2} \left|C_{\widetilde{t}}^{2

282: k}\right|^{2}\  {\cal{H}}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2},

283: \frac{Q_{12}^{2}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2}\right]\nonumber\\

284: \epsilon_{t b}&=&- \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3

285: \pi} \frac{\mu}{m^{*}_{\widetilde{g}}}\ \sum_{k=1}^{2} \sum_{l=1}^{2}

286: \left|C_{\widetilde{t}}^{1 k}\right|^{2}\ \left|C_{\widetilde{t}}^{2 l}\right|^{2}\

287: {\cal{H}}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2},

288: \frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{b}_l}}{|m_{\widetilde{g}}|^2}\right]\nonumber\\

289: &-&\frac{\alpha_t}{4 \pi}\ \sum_{i=1}^{4} \sum_{k=1}^{2} \sum_{l=1}^{2}

290: \frac{A_t}{M_{\chi^{0}_i}} \left(C_0\right)_{4 i}

291: \left(C_0^{\dagger}\right)_{3 i}

292: \left|C_{\widetilde{t}}^{2 k}\right|^{2}\ \left|C_{\widetilde{b}}^{1 l}\right|^{2}\

293: {\cal{H}}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}{M_{\chi^{0}_i}^{2}},

294: \frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{b}_l}}{M_{\chi^{0}_i}^{2}}\right]

295: \end{eqnarray}   

296: where the sfermions of first two generations are assigned an average mass of $Q_{12}$.  

297: The mixing matrices of charginos $C_{L,R}$, neutralinos $C_{0}$ and squarks

298: $C_{\widetilde{t},\widetilde{b}}$ are all defined in Appendix A, and the loop function

299: ${\cal{H}}$ is given in Appendix B. In computing (\ref{epsb}), only the gluino  and

300: Higgsino exchanges are considered as they dominate over those of the  electroweak

301: gauginos since $\alpha_{2,1}=g_{2,1}^2/(4\pi) \ll \alpha_s=g_s^2/(4\pi)\:,\:

302: \alpha_t=|h_t|^2/(4\pi)$. A remarkable feature of these vertex corrections is that

303: they assume nonvanishing values when all SUSY masses are of equal size \cite{correc} 

304: \begin{eqnarray}

305: \label{decoup}

306: \epsilon_{b b}\ \rightarrow \frac{\alpha_s}{3 \pi}\: e^{- i \theta_1}

307: +\frac{\alpha_t}{8 \pi}\:  e^{- i \theta_2}\ =\

308: \epsilon_{t b}^{*}\:\: ,\: \: \epsilon_{t s} \rightarrow

309: -\ \frac{\alpha_s}{3 \pi}\: e^{- i  \theta_1}

310: \end{eqnarray}

311: where the two independent phases are given by

312: $\theta_1=\mbox{Arg}\left[\mu\right]+\mbox{Arg}\mbox{[}m_{\widetilde{g}}\mbox{]}$ and

313: $\theta_2=\mbox{Arg}\left[\mu\right]+\mbox{Arg}\left[A_t\right]$. Numerically,

314: $\left|\epsilon_{b b}\right|\sim \left|\epsilon_{t b}\right|\sim \left|\epsilon_{t s}\right|\sim 10^{-2}$,

315: so that the radiative corrections in (\ref{lagran}) will be ${\cal{O}}(1)$ when $\tan\beta\sim 10^2$.

316: 

317: 

318: Using the effective lagrangian (\ref{lagran}) it is straightforward to compute the $W^{\pm}$ and $H^{\pm}$ 

319: contributions to the electric and chromoelectric dipole coefficients in (\ref{heff})

320: \begin{eqnarray}

321: \label{cw}

322: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{W} (Q_W)&=&\frac{3}{2}\

323: F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{\overline{m_{t}}^{2}\left(Q_W\right)}{M_W^2}\right]+

324: \frac{\left[\epsilon_{bb}^{*}-\epsilon_{tb}\right]\

325: \tan\beta}{1+\epsilon_{bb}^{*}\ \tan\beta} \tilde{F}_{7,8}^{LL}

326: \left[\frac{\overline{m_{t}}^{2}\left(Q_W\right)}{M_W^2}\right]\\

327: \label{char}

328: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)&=&\frac{1}{2}\cot^2\beta\

329: F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{\overline{m_{t}}^{2}\left(Q_W\right)}{M_H^2}\right]+

330: \frac{1+\epsilon_{ts}^{*}\ \tan\beta}

331: {1+\epsilon_{bb}^{*}\ \tan\beta}\ \tilde{F}_{7,8}^{LL}

332: \left[\frac{\overline{m_{t}}^{2}\left(Q_W\right)}{M_H^2}\right]

333: \end{eqnarray}

334: where the loop functions are given in Appendix B. These Wilson coefficients now 

335: possess a  CP--violating character via the $\tan\beta$--enhanced SUSY threshold 

336: corrections so that they can play a role in the CP asymmetry. Indeed, one may 

337: treat the BLO piece in ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{W} (Q_W)$ as the radiative corection

338: to the CKM factor $\lambda_t$ (so that the $W$ boson contribution reduces to

339: its LO form) but this does not eliminate the BLO corrections (and the BLO sources

340: of CP violation) as the same quantity appears this time in ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$

341: and the chargino contribution.

342: 

343: 

344: Even at the LO level, the complex part of the chargino contribution grows linearly

345: with $\tan\beta$ at large $\tan\beta$ \cite{masiero}. For instance, the 

346: heavy top squark and charginos give the contribution 

347: \begin{eqnarray}

348: \label{wilson}

349: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_s)&=&-\sum_{j=1}^{2}\Bigg\{\left| \Gamma_{L}^{1 j} \right|^{2}\

350: \frac{M_W^2}{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_1}}\ F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_1}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

351: + \gamma^{1 j}_{L R}\ \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{7,8}^{LR}

352: \left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_1}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right] \Bigg\}

353: \end{eqnarray}

354: where the vertex factors are defined by 

355: \begin{eqnarray}

356: \label{vertex}

357: \Gamma_{L}^{k j}= \left( C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k 1} \left( C_L\right)^{1 j} -

358: \frac{\overline{m_{t}}\left(Q_s\right)}{\sqrt{2} M_W \sin \beta}\ \left( C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k 2}

359: \left( C_L\right)^{2 j}\:,\:

360: \Gamma_{R}^{k j}= \frac{ \left( C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k 1}

361: \left(C_R\right)^{2 j}}{\sqrt{2}\ \cos\beta \left(1+\epsilon_{b b}^{*}\

362: \tan\beta\right)}\:,

363: \end{eqnarray}

364: with $\gamma^{k j}_{L R}=\left(\Gamma_{L}^{k j}\right)^{*}\ \Gamma_{R}^{k j}$. The dipole

365: coefficients (\ref{wilson}) are defined at the scale $Q_s$ ($Q_s \gg  Q_W$) which may be 

366: identified with the masses of the heavy stop or gluino \cite{giudice,partial}.

367: 

368: In the absence of the SUSY CP phases, the theoretical estimate of

369: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ is subject to experimental limits on the branching ratio (\ref{exp})

370: as well as the bounds on the sparticle masses from the direct searches. When the

371: CP phases are switched on, however, induction of the EDMs is unavoidable and

372: imposes severe constraints on the parameter space. In supersymmetric models with

373: explicit  CP violation, the EDM of a fundamental fermion $f$ (first or

374: second generation leptons or quarks) can receive contributions from

375: both one-- and two--loop quantum effects:

376: \begin{eqnarray}

377: \label{edm}

378: \frac{{\cal{D}}_f}{e} \: &=& \:\left(\frac{{\cal{D}}_f}{e}\right)_{1-loop}\left[\frac{2 \alpha_s}{3 \pi}\ \frac{m_f\

379: m_{\widetilde{g}}}{Q^{3}_{12}}\: ,\: \frac{\alpha_2}{4\pi}\ \frac{m_f}{Q^2_{12}} \: ,\: \frac{\alpha_1}{4\pi}\

380: \frac{m_f}{Q^2_{12}}\right]+\left(\frac{{\cal{D}}_f}{e}\right)_{2-loop}

381: \end{eqnarray}

382: where $m_f$ is the mass of the fermion. The arguments of the one--loop contribution corresponds to  the gluino, chargino and neutralino

383: exchanges, respectively. It is not surprising that this one--loop term

384: \cite{oneloop} behaves roughly as 

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386: \label{edmrel}

387: \left(\frac{{\cal{D}}_f}{e}\right)_{1-loop}\sim \frac{m_f}{Q^2_{12}}\times \mbox{Im}

388: \left[\epsilon_{bb}\right]

389: \left(M_{\tilde{t},\tilde{b}}  \rightarrow Q_{12} \right),

390: \end{eqnarray}

391: that is,  the $\tan\beta$--enhanced CP--violating contributions to the Wilson coefficients are directly suppressed by the

392: one--loop EDMs unless either ($i$) one chooses $Q_{12}$ large enough \cite{oneloop}, or ($ii$) invokes a cancellation mechanism among 

393: different SUSY contributions. In fact, studies of both unconstrained

394: \cite{edm-ucmssm,oneloop,barger,shaaban} and constrained

395: \cite{edm-cmssm,barger,shaaban} supersymmetry show that  the one--loop

396: EDMs are sufficiently suppressed if $\left|\theta_{\mu}\right| \simlt \pi/(5 \tan\beta)$ with 

397: no constraints on other  soft phases. In the next section, we will follow the first option, 

398: that is, we suppress the one--loop EDMs by taking a large enough $Q_{12}$, say, $Q_{12}\simgt 4\ {\rm

399: TeV}$ \cite{shaaban}.  In Sec. III we will discuss $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ in the

400: constrained MSSM in which the one--loop EDMs

401: already agree with the bounds when $\theta_{\mu}$ is close to a

402: CP--conserving point.

403:  

404: The suppression of the one--loop EDMs, however, is not necessarily sufficient, as

405: there exist two--loop contributions \cite{twoloop} which are 

406: generated by third generation sfermions. Particularly for down--type fermions,

407: the two--loop EDMs grow linearly with $\tan\beta$

408: \begin{eqnarray}

409: \label{2loop}

410: \left(\frac{{\cal{D}}_f}{e}\right)_{2-loop}&\sim & |Q_f|\ N_c\ \frac{\alpha\ \alpha_2}{64 \pi^2}\ \frac{m_f m_t}{M_A^2 M_W^2}\ \tan\beta\

411: \times\nonumber\\

412:  &&\left[|\mu|\ \sin(2\theta_{\widetilde{t}})\ \sin(\theta_{\mu}+\theta_{A_t})\ f_{\widetilde{t}} - |A_b|\ \sin(2\theta_{\widetilde{b}})\

413: \sin(\theta_{\mu}+\theta_{A_b})\ f_{\widetilde{b}}\right] 

414: \end{eqnarray}

415: where $f=e$ or $d$, and use has been made of the relation $m_b/\cos \beta \sim m_t$. In this expression, the two--loop functions $f_{{\widetilde{b}},

416: {\widetilde{t}}}$ are defined by 

417: \begin{eqnarray}

418: f_{\widetilde{q}}=F\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{q}_1}}{M_A^2}\right] - F\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{q}_2}}{M_A^2}\right]

419: \end{eqnarray}

420: where the loop function $F\left[x\right]$ is given in Appendix B. This two--loop

421: contribution is proportional to $\tan\beta/M_A^2$, and can be sizable at large

422: $\tan\beta$ when the charged Higgs boson is relatively light.   Although one can

423: partially cancel (\ref{2loop}) by choosing the sbottom sector parameters

424: appropriately, e.g.,

425:  $|A_b|\sim |\mu|$, $\theta_{A_t}\sim \theta_{A_b}$ and 

426: $\theta_{\widetilde{t}}\sim

427: \theta_{\widetilde{b}}$  at a specific value of $\tan\beta$, in general,

428: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ must be analyzed in conjunction with two--loop EDMs in

429: determining the allowed portions of the SUSY parameter space.

430: 

431:   

432: \section{$B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ in an Effective SUSY Model}

433: In this section we will discuss the $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ decay in the framework

434: of an effective SUSY \cite{effsusy} scenario. We choose the first two

435: generations of sfermions to be heavy enough to suppress their  contributions to EDMs.

436: Clearly, for $Q_{12}\gg Q_s$ the contributions of the first and second generations

437: to

438: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ are also suppressed \cite{asymm}. 

439:  

440: Given the precise fit to the electroweak observables, either both stops

441: must weigh 

442: ${\cal O}(1)\ {\rm TeV}$ or only a predominantly right--handed stop can be

443: allowed to weigh as light as 

444: $\sim Q_W$. In other words, the  stop mixing angle should be small

445: enough to have 

446: $\widetilde{t}_2= - \sin \theta_{\widetilde{t}} e^{i

447: \gamma_{\widetilde{t}}} \widetilde{t}_{L} + \cos \theta_{\widetilde{t}}

448: \widetilde{t}_{R} \approx \widetilde{t}_{R}$, and $\widetilde{t}_1= \sin

449: \theta_{\widetilde{t}} e^{-i \gamma_{\widetilde{t}}} \widetilde{t}_{R} +

450: \cos \theta_{\widetilde{t}}\widetilde{t}_{L} \approx \widetilde{t}_{L}$.

451: Therefore, a light sparticle spectrum with hierarchy $M_{H},

452: M_{\tilde{t}_2}, M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}\sim Q_W$, $M_{\tilde{t}_1}\sim

453: m_{\widetilde{g}}\sim Q_s$ enhances the SUSY contribution to $b\rightarrow

454: s \gamma$ without spoiling the electroweak precision data

455: \cite{partial,giudice}. Given that the  SM result (\ref{sm}) is in good

456: agreement with the experimental result (\ref{exp}) then it is clear that

457: the contributions of the charged Higgs (which is of the same sign as the

458: SM result) and chargino--stop loop must largely cancel so  as to agree

459: with experiment. 

460: 

461: In the limit of degenerate soft masses, the $\tan\beta$--enhanced vertex corrections assume 

462: nonvanishing values in (\ref{decoup}). In this limiting case, the

463: $W$--contribution 

464: ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$ reduces to its LO form as the radiative

465: corrections cancel. However, in the very same limit, the charged

466: Higgs contribution ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$ maintains an explicit

467: dependence on the SUSY phases via $\epsilon_{bb}$ and $\epsilon_{ts}$.

468: Therefore, unlike the LO  ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$, the BLO charged

469: Higgs contribution obtains a CP--violating character, and together with

470: the chargino contribution (which contributes to CP violation at

471: the LO level) they form the two key contributions to the CP asymmetry in

472: the decay. The vertex correction factors $\epsilon_{bb}, \epsilon_{tb}$

473: and

474: $\epsilon_{ts}$ are of ${\cal{O}}(10^{-2})$ in the decoupling limit, and

475: they induce large corrections at large $\tan\beta$ \cite{giudice}.

476: 

477: Next one observes that in the limiting case of degenerate soft masses (\ref{decoup}), the radiative

478: corrections to ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{W} (Q_W)$ vanish identically in accord with the decoupling 

479: theorem. However, in the very same limit, the charged Higgs contribution ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$

480: still has an explicit dependence on the SUSY phases via $\epsilon_{bb}$

481: and

482: $\epsilon_{ts}$. Therefore, unlike the LO case, the charged

483: Higgs--induced BLO dipole coefficients acquire a CP--violating potential.

484: The $\tan\beta$--enhanced vertex corrections $\epsilon_{bb},

485: \epsilon_{tb}$  and $\epsilon_{ts}$ (at least their dominant pieces 

486: proportional to $\alpha_s$) assume a value  of $\sim 10^{-2}$ in the

487: decoupling limit. Actually, they remain close to this value in most of  the

488: SUSY parameter space. 

489: 

490: Significant stop mass splitting implies that large

491: logarithms appear when the Wilson

492: coefficients (\ref{wilson}) are evolved from $Q\sim Q_s$ to $Q\sim Q_W$.

493: The chargino contribution at the electroweak scale $Q_W$ is

494: therefore obtained after resummation of such logarithms

495: \cite{giudice}

496: \begin{eqnarray}

497: \label{c7}

498: {\cal{C}}_{7}^{\chi} (Q_W)&=&\left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{16}{3 \beta_0}}

499: {\cal{C}}_{7}^{\chi} (Q_s) +\frac{8}{3}\left[ \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{14}{3

500: \beta_0}} - \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{16}{3 \beta_0}}\right]

501: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi}(Q_s) \nonumber\\

502: &-&\sum_{j=1}^{2}\Bigg\{ \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{-\frac{4}{\beta_0}}

503: \left|\Gamma_{L}^{2 j} \right|^{2}\

504: \frac{M_W^2}{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}\ F_{7}^{LL}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

505: + {\widetilde{\gamma}}^{2 j}_{L R}\ \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{7}^{LR}

506: \left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right] \Bigg\}\\

507: \label{c8}

508: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi} (Q_W)&=&\left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{14}{3 \beta_0}}

509: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi} (Q_s)\nonumber\\

510: &-&\sum_{j=1}^{2}\Bigg\{ \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{-\frac{4}{\beta_0}}

511: \left|\Gamma_{L}^{2 j} \right|^{2}\

512: \frac{M_W^2}{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}\ F_{8}^{LL}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

513: + {\widetilde{\gamma}}^{2 j}_{L R}\ \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{8}^{LR}

514: \left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_2}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right] \Bigg\}

515: \end{eqnarray}

516: where the CP--violating parts proportional to $F_{L R}^{7,8}$ are defined via tilded vertex factors 

517: \begin{eqnarray}

518: \widetilde{\gamma}^{k j}_{L R}=\gamma^{k j}_{L R}\:+\: \left(\widetilde{\Gamma}_{L}^{k j}\right)^{*}\ \widetilde{\Gamma}_{R}^{k j}\:.

519: \end{eqnarray}

520: with  $\widetilde{\Gamma}_{L,R}$ are defined by 

521: \begin{eqnarray}

522: \widetilde{\Gamma}_{L}^{k j}= \left( C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k 1} \left( C_L\right)^{1 j} -

523: \frac{\overline{m_{t}}\left(Q_W\right)}{\sqrt{2} M_W \sin \beta}\ \left( C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k

524: 2}\left( C_L\right)^{2 j}\:,\:

525: \widetilde{\Gamma}_{R}^{k j}= \tan\beta\ \epsilon_{bb}^{*}\ \frac{ \left(

526: C_{\widetilde{t}}^{\dagger}\right)^{k 1} \left(C_R\right)^{2 j}}{\sqrt{2}\ \cos\beta}\:.

527: \end{eqnarray}

528: Obviously, the evolution from $Q_s$ to $Q_W$ depends on the light colored

529: particle spectrum: when all colored sparticles are heavy $\beta_0=7$,

530: when the light stop is significantly  lighter than $Q_s$ $\beta_0=41/6$,

531: and when the light stop, sbottoms and gluino are all much  lighter than

532: $Q_s$ $\beta_0=9/2$.

533: 

534: After computing the $W$--boson (\ref{cw}), charged Higgs (\ref{char}), and the chargino (\ref{c7},\ref{c8})

535: contributions to the Wilson coefficients at the weak scale, one can use the standard QCD RGEs for

536: obtaining the Wilson coefficients at the hadronic mass scale $Q_B\sim m_b$. Then the branching fraction \cite{kagan2}

537: and the CP asymmetry \cite{kagan1} can be estimated directly. In the calculations below we will take 

538: $\delta=0.9$, where $\delta$ is a parameter determined by the condition

539: that the photon energy is above a given threshold

540: $E_{\gamma} > (1/2) (1-\delta)\ m_{b}$.

541: 

542: The Standard Model CP asymmetry in the $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ decay is

543: $\sim 1\%$, and therefore, this quantity can be  quite sensitive to

544: new physics contributions \cite{kagan1}. In an effective supersymmetric

545: model with LO Wilson coefficients, the CP asymmetry can be as large as

546: $\sim 8\%$ \cite{asymm} when the charged Higgs, charginos and the lighter

547: stop all have masses of order the weak scale. In what follows, we will

548: determine ($i$) the allowed rages of the SUSY CP phases, ($ii$) the size

549: of the CP asymmetry, and  ($iii$) the correlation between the asymmetry

550: and the branching ratio. The numerical predictions made via the exact 

551: expressions of the threshold corrections in (\ref{epsb}) and via the limiting

552: expressions (\ref{decoup}) are similar to each other. To illustrate the

553: effects of the threshold corrections on the branching ratio and the

554: CP asymmetry we fix the values of the parameters as 

555: $M_{\tilde{t}_2}=M_{H}=250\ {\rm GeV}$, $\left|\mu\right|=\left|A_b\right|=150\

556: {\rm GeV}$, $\theta_{\widetilde{t}}=\pi/20$, $\theta_{A_b}=\theta_{A_t}$, 

557: $\tilde{m}_{Q}^{2}=(M_{\widetilde{t}_1})^{2}=(1.2\ {\rm TeV})^2$, and 

558: $\tilde{m}_{b_R}^{2}=(1\ {\rm TeV})^2$ where the last two masses are

559: needed to fix the sbottom sector for evaluating the two--loop EDMs (\ref{2loop}).

560: When evaluating the threshold  correction (\ref{epsb}) we consider their

561: limiting forms (\ref{decoup}).  

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: 

567: Given that the $W$--boson contribution alone is already consistent with the

568: experiment, and that ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{W}(Q_W)$ and ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{H} (Q_W)$ have the same sign,

569: it is clear that some cancellation is needed between the $H^{\pm}$ and  $\chi^{\pm}$

570: contributions. In the large $\tan\beta$ regime, the difference

571: between the total SUSY prediction ${\cal{C}}_{7}(Q_W)$ and the

572: experimental result

573: ${\cal{C}}_{7}^{exp}\sim {\cal{C}}_{7}^{W}(Q_W)$ behaves roughly as

574: \begin{eqnarray}

575: \label{rough}

576: {\cal{C}}_{7}(Q_W)- {\cal{C}}_{7}^{exp}\ \sim\  -\ \left(\cdots\right)\ -\  \tan\beta\

577: \left(\cdots\right)\ e^{i \theta_2}\: +\: \tan\beta\ \left[\cdots\right]\ \left\{ e^{i \theta_1}\ +\ e^{i\theta_2}\right\}

578: \end{eqnarray}

579: where the symbols $\left[\cdots\right]$ and $\left(\cdots\right)$ stand for positive numerical coefficients

580: with and without the loop suppression, respectively. Shown here is only a rough estimate of the actual coefficients

581: (\ref{cw}--\ref{c8}) after neglecting several subleading terms. For small or moderate values of $\tan\beta$, 

582: a cancellation between the chargino and charged Higgs contributions is

583: needed, and this happens when 

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: \label{phaserel2}

586: \theta_{\mu}+\theta_{A_t}\leadsto \pi \:.

587: \end{eqnarray}

588: At higher values of $\tan\beta$, threshold corrections

589: become important, and a suppression of such terms occurs when

590: \begin{eqnarray}

591: \label{phaserel3}

592: \theta_{\mu}+\theta_{\widetilde{g}}\leadsto 0

593: \end{eqnarray}

594: thus imposing a constraint on the gluino phase. These rough estimates

595: on the allowed ranges of the  SUSY phases are confirmed in Figure \ref{phases},

596: which shows the allowed region in $\theta_{A}$--$\theta_{\mu}$ plane 

597: for the LO approximation. The allowed region when BLO Wilson

598: coefficients  are included is similar. Here the BLO region is valid so long as the 

599: gluino mass is positive, $\theta_{\widetilde{g}}=0$. When the sign of the gluino mass is inverted,

600: $\theta_{\widetilde{g}}=\pi$, the allowed region gets reflected with respect to

601: the $\theta_{\mu} = \theta_{A}$ line. These direct estimates are in agreement

602: with the rough estimates in (\ref{phaserel2}) and (\ref{phaserel3})

603: above.   

604: 

605: 

606: \begin{figure}

607: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

608: \hspace*{1in}

609: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

610: \epsfig{file=0phases.ps,height=3.25in}

611: %\epsfig{file=phases.ps,height=3.25in} \hfill

612: \end{minipage}

613: \vskip .2in

614: \caption{\label{phases}

615: {\it The allowed region in the $\theta_{A}$--$\theta_{\mu}$ plane

616: with LO for $10\leq \tan\beta\leq 60$. The allowed region when BLO Wilson

617: coefficients  are included is similar.}} 

618: \end{figure}

619: 

620: In Figure \ref{asym}, we show the variation of the CP asymmetry with

621: $\tan\beta$ for LO (upper window) and BLO (lower window) Wilson coefficients.

622: The individual points correspond to a scan over values of $\theta_\mu$ and

623: $\theta_A$ taken from Figure \ref{phases}. Since the allowed values of the 

624: phases in the LO and BLO approximations are not the same, the surviving points

625: in the scans will also differ as seen in comparing the two panels of Figure \ref{asym}.

626: At LO precision, $\mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}}$ ranges from

627: $-8\%$ to $8\%$ uniformly, that is, for a given value of $\tan\beta$,

628: there is no strong preference to positive  or negative values. When BLO

629: Wilson coefficients are included however, the dependence of 

630: the CP asymmetry  is modified. We find that there is an observable preference

631: to  to positive values of  $\mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}}$ distorting the

632: uniformity of the LO behavior. This particular behaviour of the CP

633: asymmetry results from our choice of a positive gluino mass, 

634: $\theta_{\widetilde{g}}=0$. For $\theta_{\widetilde{g}}=\pi$, the graph is 

635: approximately inverted (relative to that shown in the lower panel of Figure

636: \ref{asym}), i.e., with a preference to negative values. Therefore, the sign of

637: the CP asymmetry tracks the phase of the gluino mass for most of the parameter space at

638: large values of $\tan \beta$.

639: 

640: 

641: \begin{figure}

642: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

643: \hspace*{1in}

644: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

645: \epsfig{file=0asym.ps,height=3.25in}

646: \epsfig{file=asym.ps,height=3.25in} \hfill

647: \end{minipage}

648: \vskip .2in

649: \caption{\label{asym}

650: {\it Variation of the CP asymmetry with $\tan\beta$ for LO (upper

651: window) and BLO (lower window) Wilson coefficients for $10\leq \tan\beta

652: \leq 60$, and $0\leq (\theta_\mu, \theta_A) \leq \pi$. Individual points correspond to values of the two CP

653: violating phases taken from Figure \protect\ref{phases}. For $\tan\beta\simlt 35$, 

654: for which the radiative corrections are small, both asymmetries behave similarly, 

655: and fall around $2\%$ when  $\tan\beta\sim 10$. The BLO CP asymmetry shown here is 

656: computed for a positive gluino mass, and to a good approximation, $\mbox{A}_{\small 

657: \mbox{CP}}\rightarrow - \mbox{A}_{\small \mbox{CP}}$ as $m_{\widetilde{g}}\rightarrow 

658: -m_{\widetilde{g}}$ at large $\tan\beta$.}}

659: \end{figure}

660: 

661: In general, there are two main reasons that the CP asymmetry is enhanced:

662: ($i$) it is maximized when the branching ratio is minimized, and ($ii$)

663: it can be maximized  due to specific relations among the Wilson

664: coefficients depending on the  underlying model. Indeed, it is known that

665: the asymmetry in the  decay behaves as $\sim 10 \% \times

666: \left|{\cal{C}}_{8}(m_b)\right|/\left|{\cal{C}}_{7}(m_b)\right|$

667: \cite{kagan2,wolf}, and reaches the $10\%$ level when the chromoelectric

668: coefficient has a size similar to the  electric coefficient, as was first

669: pointed out in the framework of two--doublet models \cite{wolf}. Depicted

670: in Figure \ref{asym2} is the variation of the CP asymmetry with  the

671: branching ratio of the decay, where the enhancement of the asymmetry  with

672: decreasing branching ratio is manifest. In this figure, we assume

673: $m_{\widetilde{g}} >0$.

674: For most of the points plotted, there is a correlation  

675: between the signs of the CP asymmetry and the gluino mass.

676: 

677: \begin{figure}

678: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

679: \hspace*{1in}

680: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

681: \epsfig{file=asymBR.ps,height=3.25in}

682: %\epsfig{file=masymBR.ps,height=3.25in}\hfill

683: \end{minipage}

684: \vskip .2in

685: \caption{\label{asym2}

686: {\it Variation of the CP asymmetry with the branching 

687: ratio using BLO Wilson coefficients for $m_{\widetilde{g}}>0$.

688: For most of the points shown, the sign of the CP asymmetry 

689: is correlated to the sign of the gluino mass.}}

690: \end{figure}

691: 

692: 

693: In this section we have analyzed the rare radiative $B$ meson decay $B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ in the 

694: framework of an effective supersymmetric model \cite{effsusy} in which the

695: sfermions in first two generations are  heavy enough to suppress the

696: one--loop EDMs

697: \cite{edm-ucmssm,oneloop,barger,shaaban}, and the two--loop EDMs

698: \cite{twoloop} are suppressed by appropriately tuning the stop and

699: sbottom sector parameters in addition to choosing small stop mixing angles

700: (which are also required by the electroweak precision

701: data). 

702: 

703: In this framework we find that, in regions of the SUSY parameter space

704: where there is a large  CP asymmetry at LO, the BLO effects induce

705: asymmetries  which are twice as large as the LO asymmetry at sufficiently

706: large values of

707: $\tan\beta$. Moreover, certain combinations of the SUSY soft phases

708: are constrained  to reside  close to CP--conserving points in

709: order to agree with experimental bounds. The size of the allowed

710: ranges of the SUSY phases, which is mainly dictated by the experimental 

711: bounds on the branching fraction and the EDMs, is wide enough to have an

712: enhanced production of the P--wave bottomonia in lepton colliders

713: \cite{pmeson}, to have observable CP violation in the Higgs system

714: \cite{higgs}  in next generation of colliders, and to have observable

715: leptonic polarization asymmetries in $B$--meson decays \cite{lpol}.

716: Neither of these phenomena have been observed yet but they are all 

717: interrelated. First of all, the P--wave  bottomonium  

718: production rate is determined by $\mbox{Im}[{\cal{C}}_7]$ \cite{pmeson}

719: which has a richer structure in the BLO case. Secondly, in the 

720: Higgs system, where the mixing of the opposite CP Higgs bosons depend 

721: on $\sin(\theta_2)\sin(\theta_{\widetilde{t}})$, there exists sizable

722: CP violation in the parameter space of Fig. 1 when $\theta_2$ differs

723: from $\pi$. Moreoever, altough $\theta_{\widetilde{t}}$ is relatively

724: small (as required by the precision data and EDM constraints) the

725: CP--violating Higgs mixings are still important with relatively 

726: light Higgs bosons \cite{higgs} as allowed by $b\rightarrow s \gamma$.

727: Finally, a simultaneous measurement of the lepton polarization asymmetry and CP asymmetry

728: in $B\rightarrow K^{\star} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay provides a good consistencey

729: check of the 'new physics' contributions where both depend on the 

730: imaginary parts of the dipole coefficients ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}$ (and other

731: relevant coefficients), and they are necessarily enhanced in the BLO case \cite{lpol}. 

732: 

733: 

734: \section{$B\rightarrow X_s \gamma$ in the CMSSM}

735: 

736: In this section, we will analyze the implications of the SUSY CP violating

737: phases on  $b\rightarrow s \gamma$  in the framework of  the

738: minimal supergravity model, or equivalently, the constrained MSSM or CMSSM

739: \cite{CMSSM}.

740: In the CMSSM, universal gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$,

741: scalar masses $m_0$ (including those of the Higgs multiplets) and

742: trilinear supersymmetry breaking parameters $A_0$ are input at the

743: supersymmetric grand unification scale. In this framework, the Higgs

744: mixing parameter $\mu$ can be derived (up to its phase which does not run) from the

745: other MSSM parameters by imposing the electroweak vacuum conditions for any given

746: value of $\tan \beta$.   In the CMSSM, there are only two physical phases

747: to consider.

748: Thus, given the set of input parameters determined

749: by $\{ m_{1/2}, m_0, |A_0|,\tan\beta,\theta_\mu$ and $\theta_A \}$, the entire

750: spectrum of sparticles can be derived. 

751: 

752: 

753: In CMSSM, the low energy mass spectrum is completely controlled by the

754: GUT--scale parameters above, and one cannot decouple the first two

755: generations of sfermions (though they are nearly  degenerate to an

756: excellent approximation); therefore, the Wilson coefficients at the

757: SUSY--breaking scale (\ref{wilson}) must be updated by taking

758: $Q_{12}\sim Q_s$. Consequently, the contribution of squarks

759: in the first two generations give 

760: \begin{eqnarray}

761: \label{wilson2}{\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_s)&=& \left[

762: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_s)\ \mbox{in Eq.}\

763: (\ref{wilson})\right]\nonumber\\ &+&\sum_{j=1}^{2}\Bigg\{

764: \left| \widehat{\Gamma}_{L}^{1 j} \right|^{2}\

765: \frac{M_W^2}{Q_s^2}\ F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{Q_s^2}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

766: +\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_{L}^{1 j}\right)^{\star}\ \widehat{\Gamma}_{R}^{1 j}\

767: \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{7,8}^{LR} \left[\frac{Q_s^2}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]\Bigg\}

768: \end{eqnarray}where $\widehat{\Gamma}_{L,R}$  is obtained by replacing

769: the stop mixing matrix $C_{\widetilde{t}}$ with the identity matrix in

770: (\ref{vertex}). If the CMSSM spectrum admits the lighter stop to be as

771: light as $\sim Q_W$ (which can occur when large values of $A_0$ are

772: assumed), then the analysis of

773: $b\rightarrow s

774: \gamma$ proceeds  as in the last section, in particular, the chargino

775: contribution at the weak scale is given by  (\ref{c7}) and (\ref{c8})

776: where ${\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_s)$ is now given by (\ref{wilson2}).

777: 

778: The remaining colored sparticles typically have masses

779: around the SUSY breaking scale, $Q_s$.

780: For such a hierarchy of the masses, the analysis of the Wilson coefficients differs 

781: from the previous cases, in particular, the chargino contribution at the SUSY breaking scale is now 

782: given by 

783: \begin{eqnarray}

784: \label{wilson3}

785: {\cal{C}}_{7,8}^{\chi} (Q_s)&=&\sum_{j=1}^{2}\Bigg\{

786: \left| \widehat{\Gamma}_{L}^{1 j} \right|^{2}\

787: \frac{M_W^2}{Q_s^2}\ F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{Q_s^2}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

788: +\left(\widehat{\Gamma}_{L}^{1 j}\right)^{\star}\ \widehat{\Gamma}_{R}^{1 j}\

789: \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{7,8}^{LR}

790: \left[\frac{Q_s^2}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]\nonumber\\

791: &-&\sum_{k=1}^{2}\left\{ \left| \Gamma_{L}^{k j} \right|^{2}\

792: \frac{M_W^2}{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}\ F_{7,8}^{LL}\left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]

793: -\gamma^{k j}_{L R}\ \frac{M_W}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}}\ F_{7,8}^{LR}

794: \left[\frac{M^{2}_{\tilde{t}_k}}{M_{\chi^{\pm}_j}^2}\right]\right\} \Bigg\}

795: \end{eqnarray}   

796: which can be rescaled to the electroweak scale via QCD running

797: \begin{eqnarray}

798: \label{c7p}

799: {\cal{C}}_{7}^{\chi} (Q_W)&=&\left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{16}{3 \beta_0}}

800: {\cal{C}}_{7}^{\chi} (Q_s) +\frac{8}{3}\left[ \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{14}{3

801: \beta_0}} - \left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{16}{3 \beta_0}}\right]

802: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi}(Q_s)\\

803: \label{c8p}

804: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi} (Q_W)&=&\left(\frac{\alpha_s(Q_s)}{\alpha_s(Q_W)}\right)^{\frac{14}{3 \beta_0}}

805: {\cal{C}}_{8}^{\chi} (Q_s)

806: \end{eqnarray}

807: where $\beta_0=7$, as the colored spectrum below $Q_s$ is just that of the

808: SM. The formulae (\ref{wilson2},\ref{wilson3})  give possible changes in

809: the effective theory at the weak scale in analyzing $b\rightarrow s

810: \gamma$, which  will be numerically analyzed by taking into account

811: cosmological and collider constraints. 

812: 

813: Due to the restricted parameter set, and the strong correlation among the 

814: masses of the sparticles, there are a number of experimental constraints which must be

815: considered.  The most important of these are provided by LEP searches for sparticles

816: and Higgs bosons~\cite{Junk}, the latter constraining the sparticle spectrum

817: indirectly via radiative corrections. The kinematic reach for charginos was

818: $m_{\chi^\pm} = 104$~GeV, and the LEP limit is generally close to this value, within

819: the CMSSM framework. The LEP searches for sleptons impose $m_{\tilde e} >

820: 97$~GeV, $m_{\tilde \mu} > 94$~GeV and $m_{\tilde \tau} > 80$~GeV for $m_\chi <

821: 80$~GeV.  Other important sparticle

822: constraints are those on stop squarks ${\tilde t}$: $m_{\tilde t} >

823: 94$~GeV for $m_\chi < 80$~GeV from LEP, and $m_{\tilde t} \ga 115$~GeV

824: for $m_\chi \la 50$~GeV from the Fermilab Tevatron collider~\cite{stopT}.

825: 

826: The lower limit on the mass of a Standard Model Higgs boson imposed by the

827: combined LEP experiments

828: is $113.5$~GeV~\cite{LEPHiggs}. This lower limit also applies to the

829: MSSM for small $\tan \beta$, even if squark mixing is maximal. In the

830: CMSSM, maximal mixing is not attained, and the $e^+ e^- \to Z^0 + h$

831: production rate is very similar to that in the Standard Model~\cite{ZH},

832: for all values of $\tan \beta$. As is well known, a 2.9-$\sigma$ signal

833: for a Higgs boson weighing about $115^{+1.3}_{-0.7}$~GeV has been

834: reported~\cite{LEPHiggs}.  

835: 

836: In addition, the BNL E821 experiment has recently reported \cite{Brown:2001mg} a new

837: value for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: $g_\mu - 2 \equiv 2 \times

838: a_\mu$,  which yields an apparent discrepancy with the Standard Model prediction

839: at the level of 2.6 $\sigma$: 

840: $

841: \delta a_\mu \; = \; (43 \pm 16) \times 10^{-10}.

842: $

843: This result has been well studied in the CMSSM \cite{gm2}, resulting in a strong

844: preference to $\mu > 0$ and relatively low values of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$.

845: 

846: In addition to the phenomenological constraints, one must also carefully consider the

847: resultant relic density of the LSP \cite{EHNOS}.  This constraint generally disfavors

848: large values of either of the SUSY breaking mass scales $m_0, m_{1/2}$ except in some

849: well defined regions of parameter space where an enhanced annihilation cross section

850: ensures that  the relic density $\Omega h^2 < 0.3$ \cite{efgosi,others}. These 

851: include regions where co-annihilations are important \cite{cos}, s-channel 

852: pseudo-scalar exchange is important \cite{efgosi}, or in the focus point region at

853: large $m_0$ \cite{fp}. The co-annihilation region is important at large $m_{1/2}$ and

854: the allowed regions due to pseudo-scalar exchange occur at large $m_{1/2}$ and large

855: $m_0$ at large $\tan \beta$. As we will see, the sensitivity to the phase

856: $\theta_A$ occurs at relatively low $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$. This is the region favored by

857: the recent results from the $g-2$ experiment.

858: 

859: In Figure \ref{plane}, we show the cosmological and phenomenological

860: constraints in the

861: $m_{1/2},m_0$ parameter plane for $\tan \beta = 10$. 

862: The very dark (red) regions  correspond to either

863: $m_{\tilde \tau_1} < m_{\chi}$, or $m_{\tilde t_1} < m_{\chi}$ where the subscript 1

864: denotes the lighter of the 

865: $\tilde

866: \tau$ or $\tilde t$ mass eigenstates. These regions 

867: are ruled out by the requirement that the LSP be neutral.  For $A_0 < 0 $, the

868: excluded  region is found at low values of $m_0$ where $\tilde \tau_1$ is the LSP. For

869: $A_0 > 0$, the $\tilde \tau_1$ LSP region is similar, but there is in addition a

870: region where the stop is lighter than the neutralino at low $m_{1/2}$ and extends to

871: $m_0 \simeq 500$  GeV (in much of this region the stop is actually tachyonic).  We

872: show as (red) dash-dotted, nearly vertical lines the

873: $m_h = 113$~GeV contour calculated using {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{Heinemeyer:2000yj}.

874: For $A_0 < 0$, the limit is quite strong and excludes values of $m_{1/2} \la 440$

875: GeV.  For $A_0 > 0$, the Higgs mass limit is not significant.  The (dashed) bound on

876: the chargino mass from LEP excludes very low values of 

877: $m_{1/2} \la 140$ GeV.

878:  The branching

879: ratio for $b \rightarrow s \gamma$

880: excludes a dark (green) shaded  area at low $m_{1/2}$.

881: For these parameter choices, this region is only present for $A_0 > 0$.

882: The (pink) medium-shaded region corresponds to the region {\em preferred}

883: by the recent $g-2$ experiment. The region bounded by the solid curves

884: corresponds to the 2-$\sigma$ preferred region, whereas the dashed curves

885: correspond to 1-$\sigma$. Finally, the (turquoise) light shaded region

886: corresponds to the parameter space for which the neutralino relic density

887: falls in the range $0.1 < \Omega h^2 < 0.3$.

888: 

889: \begin{figure}

890: \vspace*{-0.75in}

891: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

892: \epsfig{file=tb10ams.eps,height=3.25in}

893: \epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

894: \end{minipage}

895: \vskip .2in

896: \caption{\label{plane}

897: {\it The $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\tan \beta = 10$, $\mu > 0$ and  (a) $A_0 =

898: -1000$ GeV, (b) $A_0 = 1000$ GeV.  In each case we have assumed $m_t = 175$ and  

899: $m_b(m_b)^{\overline {MS}}_{SM} = 4.25$~GeV. The near-vertical (red) dot-dashed

900: lines are the contours

901: $m_h = 113$~GeV, as evaluated using the {\tt FeynHiggs} code.

902: The medium (dark green) shaded regions are excluded by $b

903: \rightarrow s \gamma$.

904: The light (turquoise) shaded areas are the cosmologically

905: preferred

906: regions with \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq \Omega h^2 \leq 0.3$}. In the

907: dark (brick red) shaded regions, the LSP is either ${\tilde \tau}_1$ or $\tilde t_1$,

908: so this region is excluded. The regions allowed by the E821 measurement of

909: $a_\mu$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level are shaded (pink) and bounded by solid

910: black lines, with dashed lines indicating the 1-$\sigma$ ranges. 

911: }}

912: \end{figure}

913: 

914: 

915: 

916: The CP violating phases in the CMSSM have been studied

917: \cite{edm-cmssm,barger,shaaban} in relation to their effects on EDMs. 

918: Generally, it is found that while the phase of $\mu$ is strongly constrained

919: by the EDMS to be close to either of its two CP conserving values, the

920: phase of

921: $A$ is largely unconstrained. For this reason, in what follows, we will

922: set $\theta_\mu = 0$ and concentrate on the effect of $\theta_A$ on the

923: rate for

924: $b \rightarrow s \gamma$. 

925: 

926: In the CMSSM, we specify the phases at the GUT scale.  Since $\theta_\mu$,

927: is not affected by the running of the renormalization group equations, the value of

928: $\theta_\mu$ at the weak scale is identical to its input value.  However, the real and

929: imaginary parts of $A$ run differently and hence, the weak scale phase, $\theta_A$

930: differs from its input value $\theta_{A_0}$. In Figure \ref{theta2}, we show the

931: resulting phase of $A_t$ at the weak scale as a function of the input value for

932: several choices of $m_{1/2} = 200, 400$, and 600 GeV, with $m_0$ = 400 GeV

933: and $|A_0| = 1000$ GeV. The shaded regions show the dependence with

934: respect to

935: $\tan \beta$ between 10 and 30. The values of $\theta_A$ for $\tan \beta = 10$ are

936: given by the lower edge of each shaded region, whereas the result for $\tan \beta =

937: 30$ is given by the upper edge.  As one can see in the figure, the

938: tendency of the RGE's is to drive $A_t$ towards real values, particularly

939: at higher values of $m_{1/2}$. Nevertheless, the resulting phase at the

940: weak scale is sufficient to have a strong impact on  the branching ratio

941: of $b

942: \rightarrow s \gamma$ as we now discuss. 

943: 

944: \begin{figure}

945: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

946: \hspace*{1in}

947: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

948: \epsfig{file=theta2s.eps,height=3.25in}

949: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

950: \end{minipage}

951: \vskip .2in

952: \caption{\label{theta2}

953: {\it The value of the phase of A at the weak scale as a function of the

954: input phase, $\theta_{A_0}$ for $m_{1/2}$ = 200, 400, and 600 GeV in the

955: range $\tan \beta =$ 10 - 30. Here $m_0$ is fixed at 400 GeV and $|A_0| =

956: 1000$ GeV.}}

957: \end{figure}

958: 

959: 

960: In Figures \ref{tb10} -- \ref{tb30}, we show the calculated branching

961: ratio of

962: $B

963: \rightarrow X_s \gamma$ (scaled to the experimental value of $3.11 \times

964: 10^{-4}$) as a function of $m_{1/2}$ for $\theta_{A_0} = 0, \pi/2$, and

965: $\pi$ for both $\mu < 0$ (dotted curves) and $\mu > 0$ (dashed curves).

966: The horizontal lines correspond to the 95 \% CL range (2.27 -- 4.01)

967: $\times 10^{-4}$. We have fixed the value of $m_0 = 140$, for $\tan \beta = 10$, which

968: is the value which best yields a good relic density (for this value of $|A_0|$).

969: As one can see the curves calculated for $\mu < 0$ show a branching ratio which is

970: too large unless $m_{1/2} \ga 430$ GeV.  At low $m_{1/2}$, even though the phase of

971: $A_0$ has a strong effect on the calculated branching ratio, it can not reduce it to

972: the experimentally allowed value. On the other hand, for $\mu > 0$, we see that while

973: all values of $m_{1/2}$ are allowed by $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ for $\theta_{A_0} = \pi$,

974: there is a strong dependence on $\theta_A$ thus enabling one to set a limit on the

975: phase of

976: $A_0$ from $b \rightarrow s \gamma$, at least for some values of

977: $m_{1/2}$. One should bear in mind that while the range $m_{1/2} < 440$

978: GeV is nominally excluded by the Higgs mass limit, the theoretical

979: uncertainty in the calculated Higgs mass is about 3 GeV. The $m_h = 110$

980: GeV contour would lie at $m_{1/2} = 320$ GeV in Figure \ref{plane}b.

981: 

982: 

983: 

984: 

985: 

986: \begin{figure}

987: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

988: \hspace*{1in}

989: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

990: \epsfig{file=dtb10s.eps,height=3.25in}

991: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

992: \end{minipage}

993: \vskip .2in

994: \caption{\label{tb10}

995: {\it The calculated branching ratio for $b \to s \gamma$ scaled to the experimental

996: value of 3.11 $\times 10^{-4}$ as a function of $m_{1/2}$ for $\tan \beta = 10, m_0 =

997: 140$ GeV, and $|A_0| = 1000$ GeV. Shown are the branching ratios for $\theta_{A_0} = 0,

998: \pi/2$, and $\pi$. Curves for $\mu > 0$ are shown as dotted and red, while curves for

999: $\mu < 0$ are dashed and blue. The horizontal solid black lines delimit the 95 \% CL

1000: experimental range.}}

1001: \end{figure}

1002:  

1003: 

1004: In Figures \ref{tb20} and \ref{tb30}, we show the analogous behavior of

1005: the  branching ratio for $\tan \beta = 20$ and 30 respectively. For the

1006: larger values of 

1007: $\tan \beta$, it is not possible to satisfy the cosmological constraint with a single

1008: value of $m_0$.  However, we have chosen a value of $m_0$ which best fits the

1009: cosmological region for both signs of $\mu$ and $A$. In addition, we note that the

1010: dependence of the branching ratio on $m_0$ is relatively weak. Thus had we

1011: in fact varied $m_0$ with $m_{1/2}$ (to insure a proper relic density),

1012: the curves in Figures \ref{tb20} and \ref{tb30} would differ only very slightly.

1013: 

1014: The sensitivity of the branching ratio to the phase of $A_0$ is also strong at

1015: the larger values of $\tan \beta$ as seen in Figures \ref{tb20} and \ref{tb30}.

1016: As $\tan \beta$ is increased, one is pushed to higher values of $m_{1/2}$

1017: and therefore we are able to set bounds on $\theta_{A_0}$ for a wider range in

1018: $m_{1/2}$. The Higgs mass bounds are also weaker at higher $\tan \beta$. 

1019: 

1020: \begin{figure}

1021: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

1022: \hspace*{1in}

1023: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

1024: \epsfig{file=dtb20s.eps,height=3.25in}

1025: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

1026: \end{minipage}

1027: \vskip .2in

1028: \caption{\label{tb20}

1029: {\it As in Fig. \protect\ref{tb10} for $\tan \beta = 20$ and $m_0 =

1030: 220$}}

1031: \end{figure}

1032: 

1033: \begin{figure}

1034: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

1035: \hspace*{1in}

1036: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

1037: \epsfig{file=dtb30s.eps,height=3.25in}

1038: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

1039: \end{minipage}

1040: \vskip .2in

1041: \caption{\label{tb30}

1042: {\it As in Fig. \protect\ref{tb10} for $\tan \beta = 30$ and $m_0 =

1043: 320$}}

1044: \end{figure}

1045: 

1046: As noted above, for a given range in $m_{1/2}$, we are able to use the constraints

1047: from $b \to s \gamma$ to set a limit on $\theta_{A_0}$.  These limits are summarized

1048: in Figure \ref{theta1}. Shown there is the {\em lower} limit to $\theta_{A_0}$ as a

1049: function of $m_{1/2}$ for the three values of $\tan \beta$ indicated. Values of

1050: $m_0$ were taken from Figures \ref{tb10} - \ref{tb30}. One can also read off from this

1051: figure the minimal value of $m_{1/2}$ such that all values of the phase,

1052: $\theta_{A_0}$, are allowed.

1053: 

1054: \begin{figure}

1055: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

1056: \hspace*{1in}

1057: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

1058: \epsfig{file=theta1s.eps,height=3.25in}

1059: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

1060: \end{minipage}

1061: \vskip .2in

1062: \caption{\label{theta1}

1063: {\it The lower bound on $\theta_{A_0}$ as a function of $m_{1/2}$ for $\tan \beta =

1064: 10, 20$ and  30.  Values of $m_0$ are the same as in Figures \protect\ref{tb10} -

1065: \protect\ref{tb30}. Note that at $m_{1/2}\approx 170\ {\rm GeV}$ there will be 

1066: a small window at $\theta_{A_0}\approx 0$ which is allowed for $\tan\beta=30$. We do

1067: not include this curve in the figure. 

1068: }}

1069: \end{figure}

1070: 

1071: 

1072: Finally, in Figures \ref{tb1} and \ref{tb2}, we show the branching ratio as a function

1073: of  $\tan \beta$ for fixed $m_0 = 400$ GeV , $|A_0|$ = 1000 GeV, and $m_{1/2}$ = 200

1074: and 400 GeV respectively. Recall that the sensitivity of these curves to $m_0$ (at

1075: least for relatively low $m_0$) is rather small. As one can see, at

1076: small values of $m_{1/2}$, there is a strong dependence of the branching

1077: ratio on the phase. At higher values of $m_{1/2}$, not only is the

1078: dependence weaker, but also as one can see, for a given value of $\tan

1079: \beta$, either all phases are allowed or forbidden by the experimental

1080: constraint on $b \to s \gamma$. 

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \begin{figure}

1084: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

1085: \hspace*{1in}

1086: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

1087: \epsfig{file=dtb1s.eps,height=3.25in}

1088: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

1089: \end{minipage}

1090: \vskip .2in

1091: \caption{\label{tb1}

1092: {\it The calculated branching ratio for $b \to s \gamma$ scaled to the experimental

1093: value of 3.11 $\times 10^{-4}$ as a function of $\tan \beta$ for $m_{1/2} = 200$ GeV,

1094: $m_0 = 400$ GeV, and $|A_0| = 1000$ GeV. Shown are the branching ratios for

1095: $\theta_{A_0} = 0, \pi/2$, and $\pi$. Curves for $\mu > 0$ are shown as dotted and red,

1096: while curves for

1097: $\mu < 0$ are dashed and blue. The horizontal solid black lines delimit the 95 \% CL

1098: experimental range.}}

1099: \end{figure}

1100: 

1101: \begin{figure}

1102: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

1103: \hspace*{1in}

1104: \begin{minipage}{7.5in}

1105: \epsfig{file=dtb2s.eps,height=3.25in}

1106: %\epsfig{file=tb10aps.eps,height=3.25in} \hfill

1107: \end{minipage}

1108: \vskip .2in

1109: \caption{\label{tb2}

1110: {\it As in Fig. \protect\ref{tb1} for $m_{1/2} = 400$.}}

1111: \end{figure}

1112: 

1113: \section{Summary}

1114: 

1115: In this work we have performed a thorough study of the constraints on the

1116: SUSY soft phases from $B\to X_s \gamma$ decay using existing experimental

1117: bounds. Our analysis was restricted to the MFV scheme in which 

1118: flavor violation occurs only through the CKM matrix. We

1119: considered both unconstrained as well as constrained supersymmetric

1120: models.

1121: 

1122: In particular, we considered an unconstrained supersymmetric model, for

1123: which low energy supersymmetry bears no imprint of the stringy boundary

1124: conditions at ultra high energies. In particular, we chose a particle

1125: spectrum such that the charged Higgs boson, charginos, and the lighter

1126: stop are relatively light (with masses of order the weak scale).  In this

1127: case,  we found that:

1128: ($i$) the sum of the phases of the $\mu$ parameter and the stop trilinear 

1129: coupling must take values around the CP--conserving point

1130: $\pi$, with a width determined by experimental uncertainties; ($ii$)

1131: the sum of the phases of the $\mu$ parameter and the gluino mass tends to

1132: zero within the present experimental precision; ($iii$) the LO CP

1133: asymmetry swings from

1134: $-8\%$ to $+8\%$ where positive and negative values are equally possible;

1135: ($iv$) the inclusion of the $\tan\beta$--enhanced corrections widens the

1136: allowed range of $\tan\beta$ values, though it does not lead to a

1137: significant change in the size of the CP asymmetry except for the fact

1138: that ($a$) it can be approximately twice as large as the LO prediction,

1139: and ($b$) it tends to follow the sign of the gluino mass for most of the

1140: parameter space, for $\tan\beta\sim {\cal{O}}(50)$. Consequently, there

1141: exist observable effects of the SUSY threshold corrections  at large

1142: $\tan\beta$. If experiments measure a large CP asymmetry

1143: (compared to the SM expectation), this may be interpreted as having

1144: originating from the soft phases and as an indication for weak scale

1145: SUSY. 

1146: 

1147: After analyzing the implications of the CP violating phases

1148: in an unconstrained supersymmetric model, we turned to a detailed

1149: discussion of the CMSSM with explicit CP violation. In our numerical

1150: estimates, we took the $\mu$ parameter to be real as implied by earlier

1151: studies of the EDM constraints, and we explored the

1152: $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ branching ratio in regions of the parameter space

1153: allowed by the cosmological as well as other collider constraints

1154: displayed in Figure

1155: \ref{plane}. In particular, we discussed the impact of the phase of the

1156: universal trilinear coupling at the GUT scale on the branching ratio. 

1157: As the associated figures suggest, the branching ratio is quite sensitive

1158: to $\theta_{A_0}$, at least for moderately small values of $m_{1/2}$. 

1159: As we have shown, for positive values of $\mu$, while $\theta_{A_0} =

1160: \pi$, generally produced branching ratios in agreement with the

1161: experimental bounds, deviations from this CP conserving point can lead to

1162: branching ratios which are not compatible with experiment.  We have also

1163: seen that the phase of the universal trilinear coupling can not

1164: ameliorate the inconsistency at low $m_{1/2}$ when

1165: $\mu<0$.  

1166: 

1167: 

1168: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

1169: \noindent  

1170: This work was supported in part by DOE grant

1171: DE--FG02--94ER--40823. We would like to thank Toby Falk, Gerri Ganis and

1172: Stefano Rigolin for many helpful conversations.

1173:  

1174: 

1175: 

1176: 

1177: 

1178: 

1179: 

1180: 

1181: \section*{Appendix A: Masses and Mixings of SUSY Particles}

1182: \setcounter{equation}{0}\def\theequation{A.\arabic{equation}}

1183: Given that the intergenerational mixings are proportional to the

1184: corresponding quark masses, the weak eigenstate squarks are

1185: approximately the mass eigenstates for the first two generations.

1186: However, the third generation squarks as well as the  gauginos and

1187: Higgsinos can mix strongly after electroweak symmetry breaking. Since

1188: the chargino mass matrix

1189: $M_{\chi^\pm}$ is not hermitian, it is convenient to consider

1190: $\widetilde{M_L}^2=M_{\chi^\pm}^{\dagger}\cdot M_{\chi^\pm}$ and

1191: $\widetilde{M_{R}}^2=M_{\chi^\pm} \cdot M_{\chi^\pm}^{\dagger}$ which are

1192: hermitian and can be diagonalized by

1193: \begin{eqnarray}

1194: \label{sf}

1195: {C}_{\alpha}^{\dagger}\, \widetilde{M_{\alpha}}^2\, {C}_{\alpha} =

1196: \mbox{diag.}\left(M^{2}_{\alpha_1}, M^{2}_{\alpha_2}\right)\:\:\mbox{with}\:\:

1197: {C}_{\alpha}  = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos \theta_{\alpha} & - \sin \theta_{\alpha}\, e^{- i

1198: \gamma_{\alpha}}\\

1199: \sin \theta_{\alpha}\, e^{ i \gamma_{\alpha}} & \cos \theta_{\alpha}\end{array}\right) \cdot \left(

1200: \begin{array}{cc} e^{i\eta_{\alpha}} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\rho_{\alpha}} \end{array}\right)

1201: \end{eqnarray}

1202: The squark mass matrices

1203: $\widetilde{M_{\widetilde{t, b}}}^2$ are similarly diagonalized. The relative sign between $A_{t, b}$

1204: and $\mu$ is set by the corresponding off--diagonal element of the sfermion mass matrix: $m^{2}_{12}=

1205: -m_t(A_t - \mu \cot \beta)$ for stops, and $m^{2}_{12}=-m_b(A_b - \mu \tan\beta)$ for sbottoms.

1206: In eq. (\ref{sf}), the explicit expressions for the angle parameters are given by

1207: \begin{eqnarray}

1208: &&\gamma_{\widetilde{t}}=-\mbox{Arg}\left[A^*_t - \mu\cot\beta\right]\:\:,\:\:

1209:  \tan\ 2 \theta_{\widetilde{t}}= \frac{ 2 m_t \left|A^*_t -

1210: \mu\cot\beta\right|}{M^2_{\tilde{t}_{L}} -M^2_{\tilde{t}_{R}}-(1/6) \cos 2\beta

1211: \left(5 M_Z^2 - 8 M_W^2\right)}\nonumber\\

1212: &&\gamma_{\widetilde{b}}=-\mbox{Arg}\left[A^*_b - \mu\tan\beta\right]\:\:,\:\:

1213:  \tan\ 2 \theta_{\widetilde{b}}= \frac{ 2 m_b \left|A^*_b -

1214: \mu\tan\beta\right|}{M^2_{\tilde{b}_{L}} -M^2_{\tilde{b}_{R}}+(1/6) \cos 2\beta

1215: \left(M_Z^2 - 4 M_W^2\right)}\nonumber\\ &&\gamma_{L}=-\mbox{Arg}\left[M_2  +\mu

1216: \cot\beta\right]\:\:,\:\:

1217: \tan\ 2 \theta_L= \frac{ \sqrt{8} M_W \sin \beta \left| M_2  +

1218: \mu \cot\beta\right|}{M_2^{2} + |\mu|^{2} + 2 M_W^{2} \cos 2 \beta}\nonumber\\

1219: &&\gamma_{R}=-\mbox{Arg}\left[M_2  + \mu^{*} \tan\beta\right]\:\:,\:\:

1220: \tan\ 2 \theta_R= \frac{ \sqrt{8} M_W \cos

1221: \beta \left| M_2  + \mu^{*} \tan \beta \right|}{M_2^{2} - \left|\mu\right|^{2} - 2

1222: M_W^{2} \cos 2 \beta}

1223: \end{eqnarray}

1224: where $0\leq \theta_{\alpha} \leq \pi/2$ to ensure $M^{2}_{\alpha_1} >

1225: M^{2}_{\alpha_2}$. Finally, one can choose

1226: $\eta_{\widetilde{t},L}=\rho_{\widetilde{t},L}=0$, and

1227: \begin{eqnarray}

1228: \eta_R&=&\mbox{Arg}\left[c_R\left( M_2 c_L +\sqrt{2} M_W \sin\beta s_L e^{i\gamma_L}\right)

1229: +s_R e^{-i \gamma_R}\left(\sqrt{2} M_W \cos\beta c_L + \mu s_L

1230: e^{i\gamma_L}\right)\right]\\

1231: \rho_R&=&\mbox{Arg}\left[c_R\left(-\sqrt{2} M_W \cos\beta  s_L e^{-i \gamma_L}-\mu c_L\right)

1232: -s_R e^{i \gamma_R}\left(-M_2 s_L e^{-i \gamma_L}+ \sqrt{2} M_W \sin\beta c_L \right)\right]

1233: \end{eqnarray}

1234: with $s_{L,R}=\sin \theta_{L,R}$ and $c_{L,R}=\cos \theta_{L,R}$. The mixing matrix $C_{\alpha}$ guarantees

1235: that both chargino masses are real positive with $M^{2}_{\chi_1}> M^{2}_{\chi_2}$ and $M^{2}_{\widetilde{t,b}_1}>

1236: M^{2}_{\widetilde{t,b}_2}$.

1237: 

1238: Finally, the neutralinos are described by a $4\times4$ mass matrix

1239: \begin{eqnarray} M^{0} \ =\ \left(

1240: \begin{array}{cccc} M_1& 0 & M_Z s_w \cos \beta & - M_Z s_w \sin \beta\\

1241: 0 & M_2 & - M_Z c_w \cos \beta & M_Z c_w

1242: \sin \beta\\ M_Z s_w \cos \beta & - M_Z c_w \cos \beta & 0 & -\mu \\ -

1243: M_Z s_w \sin \beta & M_Z c_w \sin \beta &

1244: -\mu & 0\end{array}\right)

1245: \end{eqnarray}

1246: which can be diagonalized numerically via

1247: \begin{eqnarray}

1248: C_{0}^{T} M^{0} C_{0} =\mbox{diag.}\left(M_{\chi^{0}_1}, \cdots,

1249: M_{\chi^{0}_4}\right)

1250: \end{eqnarray}

1251: where $M_{\chi^{0}_1}< \cdots < M_{\chi^{0}_4}$.

1252: 

1253: \section*{Appendix B: Loop Functions}

1254: \setcounter{equation}{0}\def\theequation{B.\arabic{equation}}

1255: The two--point function entering the expressions of $\epsilon_{bb,ts,tb}$ (\ref{epsb}) is

1256: \begin{eqnarray}

1257: {\cal{H}}\left[x, y\right]&=&\frac{x}{(1-x)\ (x-y)}\ \ln{x} + \frac{y}{(1-y)\ (y-x)}\ \ln{y}

1258: \end{eqnarray}

1259: with ${\cal{H}}\left[1, 1\right]=-1/2$, and ${\cal{H}}\left[1, 0\right]=-1$. 

1260: 

1261: The loop functions entering the expressions of the Wilson coefficients (\ref{cw}--\ref{wilson})

1262: are given by

1263: \begin{eqnarray}

1264: F_{7}^{LL}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{x\left(7 - 5 x - 8 x^2\right)}{36 (x-1)^3}+\frac{x^2\left(3 x - 2\right)}{6 (x-1)^4}

1265: \ln{x}\nonumber\\

1266: F_{7}^{LR}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{5 - 7 x}{6 (x-1)^2}+\frac{x\left(3 x - 2\right)}{3 (x-1)^3} \ln{x}\nonumber\\

1267: F_{8}^{LL}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{x\left(2 + 5 x - x^2\right)}{12 (x-1)^3}-\frac{3 x^2}{6 (x-1)^4}\ln{x}\nonumber\\

1268: F_{8}^{LR}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{1 + x}{2 (x-1)^2}-\frac{x}{(x-1)^3} \ln{x}\nonumber\\

1269: \tilde{F}_{7}^{LL}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{x\left(3 - 5 x\right)}{12 (x-1)^2}+\frac{x\left(3 x - 2\right)}{6

1270: (x-1)^3} \ln{x}\nonumber\\

1271: \tilde{F}_{8}^{LL}\left[x\right]&=&\frac{x\left(3 - x\right)}{4 (x-1)^2}-\frac{x}{2

1272: (x-1)^3}\ln{x}\:.

1273: \end{eqnarray}

1274: In order to make numerical estimates, it is useful to know the values of

1275: these functions evaluated at $x=1$:

1276: \begin{eqnarray}

1277: F_{7}^{LL}\left[1\right]&=&-\frac{5}{72}\:\:,\:\:

1278: F_{8}^{LL}\left[1\right]= -\frac{1}{24}\:\:,\:\:  

1279: F_{7}^{LR}\left[1\right] = \frac{4}{9}\:\:,\nonumber\\  

1280: F_{8}^{LR}\left[1\right]&=& \frac{1}{6}\:\:,\:\: 

1281: \tilde{F}_{7}^{LL}\left[1\right] = -\frac{7}{36}\:\:,\:\: 

1282: \tilde{F}_{8}^{LL}\left[1\right] =-\frac{1}{6}\:.

1283: \end{eqnarray}

1284:  

1285: The two--loop EDMs, on the other hand, depend on the two--loop function

1286: \begin{eqnarray}

1287: F\left[x\right]=\int_{0}^{1} d z\ \frac{z \overline{z}}{x-z \overline{z}}\ \ln{\frac{z \overline{z}}{x}}

1288: \end{eqnarray}

1289: where $\overline{z}=1-z$ with $F\left[1\right]\approx -2.34$.

1290: 

1291: 

1292: 

1293: 

1294: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1295: 

1296: \bibitem{susy}

1297: M.~Dugan, B.~Grinstein and L.~Hall,

1298: %``CP Violation In The Minimal N=1 Supergravity Theory,''

1299: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B255}, 413 (1985);

1300: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B255,413;%%

1301: M.~J.~Duncan, %``Generalized Cabibbo Angles In Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,''

1302: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B221}, 285 (1983).

1303: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B221,285;%%

1304: 

1305: \bibitem{masiero2}

1306: B.~A.~Campbell,

1307: %``Supersymmetry And Neutral Flavor Nonconservation,''

1308: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28} (1983) 209;

1309: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,209;%%

1310: J.~S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and T.~Tanaka,

1311: %``Supersymmetric flavor changing neutral currents: Exact amplitudes and phenomenological analysis,''

1312: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 415}, 293 (1994);

1313: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B415,293;%%

1314: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

1315: %``A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constraints in general SUSY extensions of the standard model,''

1316: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B477}, 321 (1996)

1317: [hep-ph/9604387].

1318: %CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%

1319: 

1320: \bibitem{higgs}

1321: A.~Pilaftsis,

1322: %``Higgs scalar-pseudoscalar mixing in the minimal supersymmetric standard  model,''

1323: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435}, 88 (1998)

1324: [hep-ph/9805373];

1325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805373;%%

1326: D.~A.~Demir,

1327: %``Effects of the supersymmetric phases on the neutral Higgs sector,''

1328: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 055006 (1999)

1329: [hep-ph/9901389];

1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901389;%%

1331: A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~Wagner,

1332: %``Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with explicit  CP

1333: %violation,'' 

1334: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 553}, 3 (1999)

1335: [hep-ph/9902371];

1336: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902371;%%

1337: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,

1338: %``Corrections to the Higgs boson masses and mixings from chargino, W and  charged

1339: %Higgs exchange loops and large CP phases,''

1340: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 035009 (2001)

1341: [hep-ph/0008237];

1342: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008237;%%

1343: M.~Carena, J.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~Wagner,

1344: %``Renormalization-group-improved effective potential for the MSSM Higgs  sector with explicit CP violation,''

1345: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 92 (2000)

1346: [hep-ph/0003180];

1347: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003180;%%

1348: %``CP-violating MSSM Higgs bosons in the light of LEP 2,''

1349: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495}, 155 (2000)

1350: [hep-ph/0009212].

1351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009212;%%

1352: 

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{edm-ucmssm}

1355: R. Arnowitt, J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos, 

1356: Phys. Rev. {\bf D42} (1990) 2423;  

1357: R. Arnowitt, M.J. Duff and K.S. Stelle,

1358: Phys. Rev. {\bf D43} (1991) 3085; 

1359: P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66} (1991) 2565; 

1360: T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Phys.Lett. {\bf B354}  (1995) 99. 

1361: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. {\bf B418} (1998) 98;

1362: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 478. 

1363: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,

1364: %``The neutron and the lepton EDMs in MSSM, large CP violating phases, and  the cancellation mechanism,''

1365: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 111301 (1998)

1366: [hep-ph/9807501];

1367: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807501;%%

1368: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61} (2000) 093004.

1369: M.~Brhlik, G.~J.~Good and G.~L.~Kane,

1370: %``Electric dipole moments do not require the CP-violating phases of  supersymmetry to be small,''

1371: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 115004 (1999)

1372: [hep-ph/9810457];

1373: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810457;%%

1374: S.~Pokorski, J.~Rosiek and C.~A.~Savoy,

1375: %``Constraints on phases of supersymmetric flavour conserving couplings,''

1376: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 570}, 81 (2000)

1377: [hep-ph/9906206].

1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906206;%%

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{oneloop} Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D45} (1992) 1806;

1382: {\bf D46} (1992) 3025.

1383: 

1384: 

1385: 

1386: \bibitem{edm-cmssm}

1387: T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive,

1388: %``Electric Dipole Moment Constraints on Phases in the Constrained MSSM,''

1389: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B375}, 196 (1996)

1390: [hep-ph/9602299];

1391: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602299;%%

1392: %``More on electric dipole moment constraints on phases in the constrained  MSSM,''

1393: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 71 (1998)

1394: [hep-ph/9806236];

1395: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806236;%%

1396: C.~Hamzaoui, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,

1397: %``Constrained MSSM and the electric dipole moment of the neutron,''

1398: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 4295 (1997)

1399: [hep-ph/9702292];

1400: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702292;%%

1401: A.~Bartl, T.~Gajdosik, W.~Porod, P.~Stockinger and H.~Stremnitzer,

1402: %``Electron and neutron electric dipole moments in the constrained MSSM,''

1403: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 073003 (1999)

1404: [hep-ph/9903402].

1405: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903402;%%

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{barger}

1408: T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and R.~Roiban,

1409: %``MSSM predictions for the electric dipole moment of the Hg-199 atom,''

1410: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 560}, 3 (1999)

1411: [hep-ph/9904393];

1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904393;%%

1413: V.~Barger, T.~Falk, T.~Han, J.~Jiang, T.~Li and T.~Plehn,

1414: %``CP-violating phases in SUSY, electric dipole moments, and linear  colliders,''

1415: hep-ph/0101106.

1416: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101106;%%

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{shaaban}

1419: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

1420: %``EDM constraints in supersymmetric theories,''

1421: hep-ph/0103320.

1422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103320;%%

1423: 

1424: 

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{lpol}

1427: F.~Kruger and J.~C.~Romao,

1428: %``Flavour-conserving CP phases in supersymmetry and implications for  exclusive B decays,''

1429: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 034020 (2000)

1430: [hep-ph/0002089];

1431: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002089;%%

1432: T.~M.~Aliev, D.~A.~Demir and M.~Savci,

1433: %``Probing the sources of CP violation via B --> K* l+ l- decay,''

1434: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 074016 (2000)

1435: [hep-ph/9912525].

1436: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912525;%%

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{pmeson}

1439: D.~A.~Demir and M.~B.~Voloshin,

1440: %``The b-quark EDM in SUSY and CP-odd bottomonium formation,''

1441: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 115011 (2001)

1442: [hep-ph/0012123].

1443: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012123;%%

1444: 

1445: \bibitem{ali}

1446: A.~Ali, H.~Asatrian and C.~Greub,

1447: %``Inclusive decay rate for B --> X/d + gamma in next-to-leading

1448: %logarithmic order and CP asymmetry in the standard model,''

1449: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B429}, 87 (1998)

1450: [hep-ph/9803314].

1451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803314;%%           

1452: 

1453: \bibitem{ali2}

1454: A.~Ali and E.~Lunghi,

1455: %``Extended minimal flavor violating MSSM and implications for B physics,''

1456: hep-ph/0105200.

1457: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105200;%%

1458: 

1459: \bibitem{kagan2}

1460: A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,

1461: %``Direct CP violation in B --> X/s gamma decays as a signature of new  physics,''

1462: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094012 (1998)

1463: [hep-ph/9803368].

1464: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803368;%%

1465: 

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{indirect}

1468: T.~Nihei,

1469: %``Effect of SUSY phases on the B/d0 anti-B/d0 mixing in the minimal  supergravity model,''

1470: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 98}, 1157 (1997)

1471: [hep-ph/9707336];

1472: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707336;%%

1473: S.~Baek and P.~Ko,

1474: %``Probing SUSY-induced CP violations at B factories,''

1475: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 488 (1999)

1476: [hep-ph/9812229];

1477: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812229;%%

1478: D.~A.~Demir, A.~Masiero and O.~Vives,

1479: %``Fully supersymmetric CP violation in K and B systems,''

1480: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82}, 2447 (1999)

1481: [hep-ph/9812337].

1482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812337;%%

1483: 

1484: \bibitem{edmexpn}

1485: K.~F.~Smith {\it et al.},

1486: %``A Search For The Electric Dipole Moment Of The Neutron,''

1487: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 234}, 191 (1990);

1488: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B234,191;%%

1489: I.~S.~Altarev {\it et al.},

1490: %``New measurement of the electric dipole moment of the neutron,''

1491: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 276}, 242 (1992);

1492: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B276,242;%%

1493: P.~G.~Harris {\it et al.},

1494: %``New experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron,''

1495: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 904 (1999).

1496: %%CITATION = PRLTA,82,904;%%      

1497: 

1498: \bibitem{edmexpe}

1499: E.~D.~Commins, S.~B.~Ross, D.~DeMille and B.~C.~Regan,

1500: %``Improved experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron,''

1501: Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf 50}, 2960 (1994).

1502: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A50,2960;%%

1503: 

1504: \bibitem{edmexpm}

1505: J.P. Jacobs {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 

1506: 3782; J.P. Jacobs {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf A52} (1995) 3521;

1507: M.~V.~Romalis, W.~C.~Griffith and E.~N.~Fortson,

1508: %``A new limit on the permanent electric dipole moment of Hg-199,''

1509: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 2505 (2001)

1510: [hep-ex/0012001].

1511: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012001;%%

1512:                  

1513: 

1514: 

1515: \bibitem{effsusy}

1516: A.~G.~Cohen, D.~B.~Kaplan and A.~E.~Nelson,

1517: %``The more minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1518: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388}, 588 (1996)

1519: [hep-ph/9607394].

1520: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607394;%%

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{twoloop}

1523: D.~Chang, W.~Keung and A.~Pilaftsis,

1524: %``New two-loop contribution to electric dipole moment in supersymmetric theories,''

1525: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82}, 900 (1999) [hep-ph/9811202];

1526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811202;%%

1527: A.~Pilaftsis,

1528: %``Higgs-boson two-loop contributions to electric dipole moments in the MSSM,''

1529: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B471}, 174 (1999) [hep-ph/9909485];

1530: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909485;%%

1531: D.~Chang, W.~Chang and W.~Keung,

1532: %``Additional two-loop contributions to electric %dipole moments in supersymmetric

1533: %theories,''

1534: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B478}, 239 (2000) [hep-ph/9910465].

1535: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910465;%%

1536: 

1537: \bibitem{misiak}

1538: K.~Chetyrkin, M.~Misiak and M.~Munz,

1539: %``Weak radiative B-meson decay beyond leading logarithms,''

1540: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 400}, 206 (1997)

1541: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 425}, 414 (1997)]

1542: [hep-ph/9612313];

1543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612313;%%

1544: T.~Hurth,

1545: %``Inclusive rare B decays,''

1546: hep-ph/0106050;

1547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106050;%%

1548: 

1549: %\cite{Greub:1996tg}

1550: %\bibitem{Greub:1996tg}

1551: C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler,

1552: %``Virtual $O(\a_s)$ corrections to the inclusive decay $b \to s \gamma$,''

1553: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3350 (1996)

1554: [hep-ph/9603404];

1555: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603404;%%

1556: 

1557: %\cite{Adel:1994ah}

1558: %\bibitem{Adel:1994ah}

1559: K.~Adel and Y.~Yao,

1560: %``Exact alpha-s calculation of b $\to$ s + gamma b $\to$ s + g,''

1561: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 4945 (1994)

1562: [hep-ph/9308349];

1563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308349;%%

1564: 

1565: %\cite{Ali:1995bi}

1566: %\bibitem{Ali:1995bi}

1567: A.~Ali and C.~Greub,

1568: %``Photon energy spectrum in B $\to$ X(s) + gamma and comparison with data,''

1569: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 361}, 146 (1995)

1570: [hep-ph/9506374].

1571: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506374;%%

1572: 

1573: 

1574: 

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{2hdm}

1577: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1578: %``Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B --> X/s gamma: Standard model and  two-Higgs doublet model,''

1579: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 527}, 21 (1998)

1580: [hep-ph/9710335];

1581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710335;%%

1582: F.~M.~Borzumati and C.~Greub,

1583: %``2HDMs predictions for anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma in NLO {QCD},''

1584: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 074004 (1998)

1585: [hep-ph/9802391];

1586: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802391;%%

1587: %``Two Higgs doublet model predictions for anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma in  NLO {QCD}. (Addendum),''

1588: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 057501 (1999)

1589: [hep-ph/9809438].

1590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809438;%%

1591: 

1592: 

1593:  

1594: 

1595: 

1596: \bibitem{partial}

1597: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1598: %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B --> X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''

1599: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B534}, 3 (1998)

1600: [hep-ph/9806308].

1601: 

1602: \bibitem{partial1}

1603: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler,

1604: %``Gluino contribution to radiative B decays: 

1605: %Organization of QCD  corrections and leading order results,''

1606: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 075005 (2000)

1607: [hep-ph/9911245].

1608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911245;%%

1609: 

1610: 

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{CLEO}

1613: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1614: %``b --> s gamma branching fraction and CP asymmetry,''

1615: hep-ex/9908022.

1616: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9908022;%%

1617: 

1618: \bibitem{ALEPH}

1619: R.~Barate {\it et al.}  [ALEPH Collaboration],

1620: %``A measurement of the inclusive b --> s gamma branching ratio,''

1621: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 169 (1998).

1622: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B429,169;%%

1623: 

1624: \bibitem{BELLE}

1625: K.~Abe  {\it et al.}   [Belle Collaboration],

1626: %``A measurement of the branching fraction for the inclusive B --> X/s  gamma decays with Belle,''

1627: hep-ex/0103042.

1628: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%

1629: 

1630: \bibitem{kagan1}

1631: A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,

1632: %``{QCD} anatomy of B --> X/s gamma decays,''

1633: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C7}, 5 (1999)

1634: [hep-ph/9805303].

1635: 

1636: \bibitem{CLEO001}

1637: T.~E.~Coan {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1638: %``CP asymmetry in b --> s gamma decays,''

1639: hep-ex/0010075.

1640: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010075;%%

1641: 

1642: 

1643: \bibitem{lep}

1644: J.~Ellis, G.~Ganis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

1645: %``What if the Higgs boson weighs 115-GeV?,''

1646: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502}, 171 (2001)

1647: [hep-ph/0009355];

1648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009355;%%

1649: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1650: %``The CMSSM parameter space at large tan beta,''

1651: hep-ph/0102098.

1652: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{correc}

1655: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~Matchev and R.~Zhang,

1656: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1657: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B491}, 3 (1997)

1658: [hep-ph/9606211];

1659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%

1660: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1661: %``Effective Lagrangian for the anti-t b H+ interaction in the MSSM and  charged Higgs phenomenology,''

1662: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B577}, 88 (2000)

1663: [hep-ph/9912516];

1664: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912516;%%

1665: T.~Blazek, S.~Raby and S.~Pokorski,

1666: %``Finite supersymmetric threshold corrections to CKM matrix elements in the large tan Beta regime,''

1667: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 4151 (1995)

1668: [hep-ph/9504364];

1669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504364;%%

1670: H.~E.~Haber, M.~J.~Herrero, H.~E.~Logan, S.~Penaranda, S.~Rigolin and D.~Temes,

1671: %``SUSY QCD corrections to the MSSM h0 b anti-b vertex in the decoupling  limit,''

1672: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 055004 (2001)

1673: [hep-ph/0007006];

1674: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007006;%%

1675: V.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger, P.~Ohmann and R.~J.~Phillips,

1676: %``Constraints on SUSY GUT unification from b $\to$ s gamma decay,''

1677: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 2438 (1995)

1678: [hep-ph/9407273].

1679: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407273;%%

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{giudice}

1682: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1683: %``B --> X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions beyond the  leading order,''

1684: JHEP{\bf 0012}, 009 (2000)

1685: [hep-ph/0009337].

1686: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{masiero}

1689: S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,

1690: %``Effects of supergravity induced electroweak breaking on rare B decays and mixings,''

1691: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B353}, 591 (1991);

1692: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B353,591;%%

1693: F.~M.~Borzumati,

1694: %``The Decay b $\to$ s gamma in the MSSM revisited,''

1695: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63}, 291 (1994)

1696: [hep-ph/9310212];

1697: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310212;%%

1698: R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice,

1699: %``b $\to$ s gamma decay and supersymmetry,''

1700: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 309}, 86 (1993)

1701: [hep-ph/9303270];

1702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303270;%%

1703: N.~Oshimo,

1704: %``Radiative B meson decay in supersymmetric models,''

1705: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 404}, 20 (1993);

1706: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B404,20;%%

1707: M.~A.~Diaz,

1708: %``Constraints on supersymmetry due to b $\to$ s gamma: An Improved calculation,''

1709: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 304}, 278 (1993)

1710: [hep-ph/9303280];

1711: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303280;%%

1712: Y.~Okada,

1713: %``Light stop and the b $\to$ s gamma process,''

1714: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315}, 119 (1993)

1715: [hep-ph/9307249];

1716: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307249;%%

1717: R.~Garisto and J.~N.~Ng,

1718: %``Supersymmetric b $\to$ s gamma with large chargino contributions,''

1719: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315}, 372 (1993)

1720: [hep-ph/9307301];

1721: 

1722: \bibitem{largetanbet1}

1723: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, D.~Castano and X.~Tata,

1724: %``b --> s gamma constraints on the minimal supergravity model with large  tan(beta),''

1725: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 015007 (1998)

1726: [hep-ph/9712305];

1727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712305;%%

1728: W.~d.~Boer, M.~Huber, A.~V.~Gladyshev and D.~I.~Kazakov,

1729: %``The b --> X/s gamma rate and Higgs boson limits in the constrained  minimal supersymmetric model,''

1730: hep-ph/0102163.

1731: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102163;%%

1732:  

1733: \bibitem{largetanbet2}

1734: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1735: %``b --> s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''

1736: hep-ph/0010003.

1737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%                                                                                            

1738: 

1739: 

1740: 

1741: 

1742: 

1743: \bibitem{constrainedcpv}

1744: T.~Goto, Y.~Y.~Keum, T.~Nihei, Y.~Okada and Y.~Shimizu,

1745: %``Effect of supersymmetric CP phases on the B --> X/s gamma and  B --> X/s l+ l- decays in the minimal

1746: %supergravity model,''

1747: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B460}, 333 (1999)

1748: [hep-ph/9812369];

1749: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812369;%%

1750: D.~A.~Demir, A.~Masiero and O.~Vives,

1751: %``CP conserving constraints on supersymmetric CP violation in the MSSM,''

1752: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 075009 (2000)

1753: [hep-ph/9909325];

1754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909325;%%

1755: %``CP violation as a probe of flavor origin in supersymmetry,''

1756: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 479}, 230 (2000)

1757: [hep-ph/9911337];

1758: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911337;%%

1759: A.~Bartl, T.~Gajdosik, E.~Lunghi, A.~Masiero, W.~Porod, H.~Stremnitzer and

1760: O.~Vives,

1761: %``General flavor blind MSSM and CP violation,''

1762: hep-ph/0103324.

1763: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103324;%%

1764: 

1765:  

1766: \bibitem{asymm}

1767: M.~Aoki, G.~Cho and N.~Oshimo,

1768: %``CP asymmetry for radiative B meson decay in the supersymmetric standard  model,''

1769: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B554}, 50 (1999)

1770: [hep-ph/9903385].

1771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903385;%%

1772: 

1773: 

1774: 

1775: 

1776: \bibitem{wolf}

1777: L.~Wolfenstein and Y.~L.~Wu,

1778: %``CP violation in the decay b $\to$ s gamma in the two Higgs doublet model,''

1779: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73}, 2809 (1994)

1780: [hep-ph/9410253];

1781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410253;%%

1782: T.~M.~Aliev, D.~A.~Demir, E.~Iltan and N.~K.~Pak,

1783: %``The CP Asymmetry in $b \to s l~+ l~-$ Decay,''

1784: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 851 (1996)

1785: [hep-ph/9511352].

1786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511352;%%

1787: 

1788: \bibitem{CMSSM}

1789: L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.G.~Ross, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B110} (1982) {215}; \\

1790: L.E.~Ib\'a\~nez, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B118} (1982) {73}; \\

1791: J.~Ellis, D.V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

1792: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B121} (1983) {123}; \\

1793: J.~Ellis, J. Hagelin, D.V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

1794: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B125} (1983) {275}; \\

1795: L.~Alvarez-Gaum\'e, J.~Polchinski, and M.~Wise,

1796: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B221} (1983) {495}.

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{Junk}

1799: For a recent compilation of LEP search data, as presented on Sept. 5th,

1800: 2000, see:\\

1801: T. Junk, hep-ex/0101015.

1802: 

1803: \bibitem{stopT}

1804: B. Abbott {\it et al}., D0 Collaboration, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60} (1999)

1805: 031101;

1806: A.~Nomerotski, for the CDF Collaboration,

1807: {\it Talk given at the 34th Rencontres De Moriond: Electroweak

1808: Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 13-20 Mar 1999},

1809: Fermilab CONF-99-117-E.

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}

1812: R.~Barate {\it et al.}, [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}

1813: (2000) 1;

1814: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011045;%%

1815: M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}, [L3 Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B495}

1816: (2000) 18;

1817: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011043;%%

1818: P. Abreu {\it et al.}, [DELPHI Collaboration],

1819: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 23;

1820: G. Abbiendi {\it et al.}, [OPAL Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B499}

1821: 38.

1822: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102036;%%

1823: For a preliminary compilation of the LEP data presented on Nov. 3rd, 2000,

1824: see:

1825: P. Igo-Kemenes, for the LEP Higgs working group,\\

1826: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/talks/index.html}.

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{ZH}

1829: J.~Ellis, M.K.~Gaillard and D.V.~Nanopoulos, Nucl.\

1830:  Phys.\ {\bf B106} (1976) 292; B.L.~Ioffe and V.A.~Khoze, Sov.\ J.\

1831:  Part.\ Nucl.\ {\bf 9} (1978) 50; B.W.~Lee, C.~Quigg and H.B.~Thacker,

1832:  Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D16} (1977) 1519.

1833: 

1834: \bibitem{Brown:2001mg}

1835: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1836: %``Precise measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment,''

1837: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001).

1838: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{gm2}

1841: L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,

1842: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3484 (2001);

1843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%

1844: J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,

1845: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3480 (2001);

1846: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%

1847: E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,

1848: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5004 (2001);

1849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%

1850: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,

1851: hep-ph/0102157.

1852: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%

1853: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,

1854: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B506}, 93 (2001);

1855: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%

1856: J.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

1857: hep-ph/0102331; 

1858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%

1859: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,

1860: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B505} (2001) 177;

1861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%

1862: S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells,

1863: hep-ph/0103067;

1864: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%

1865: H. Baer, C. Balazs, J. Ferrandis and X. Tata, hep-ph/0103280.

1866: 

1867: 

1868: \bibitem{EHNOS}

1869: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive

1870: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 453.

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{efgosi} J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1873: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510}, 236 (2001).

1874: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1875: 

1876: \bibitem{others}

1877: A.~Bottino, V.~de Alfaro, N.~Fornengo, G.~Mignola and S.~Scopel,

1878: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 1}, 61 (1992);

1879: %%CITATION = APHYE,1,61;%%

1880: P.~Nath and R.~Arnowitt,

1881: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 3696 (1993);

1882: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302318;%%

1883: G.~L.~Kane, C.~Kolda, L.~Roszkowski and J.~D.~Wells,

1884: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 6173 (1994);

1885: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9312272;%%

1886: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

1887: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D54}, 2374 (1996).

1888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509260;%%

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{cos}

1891: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf

1892: B444}, 367 (1998);  J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1893: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 13} (2000) 181;

1894: M.~E.~G\'omez,

1895: G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,

1896: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61}, 123512 (2000)

1897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%

1898: and

1899: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B487}, 313 (2000);

1900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004028;%%

1901: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,

1902: hep-ph/0102181.

1903: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

1904: 

1905: \bibitem{fp}

1906: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

1907: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 388 (2000).

1908: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004043;%%

1909: 

1910: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:2000yj}

1911: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1912: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124}, 76 (2000).

1913: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

1914: 

1915: 

1916: \end{thebibliography}

1917: \end{document}

1918: 

1919: 

1920: 

1921: