1: %=============================================================================

2: %

3: % CALCULATIONS OF NEUTRALINO-STOP COANNIHILATION CHANNELS IN THE MSSM

4: %

5: % September 2K+1

6: %

7: % John Ellis

8: % Keith Olive

9: % Yudi Santoso

10: %=============================================================================

11: \documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}

12: \textwidth6.5in

13: \textheight8.7in

14: \oddsidemargin0.0in

15: \topmargin-0.5in

16: 

17: %==================== time stamp and draft macros ======================

18: % \clock returns time in hours:minutes on a AM/PM  basis

19: % \fullclock returns time in hours:minutes on a 24 hour basis

20: % \let\rel@x=\relax

21: \newcount\timecount

22: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes  \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours

23: 

24: \hours = \time

25: \divide\hours by 60

26: \temp = \hours

27: \multiply\temp by 60

28: \minutes = \time

29: \advance\minutes by -\temp

30: \def\hour{\the\hours}

31: \def\minute{\ifnum\minutes<10 0\the\minutes

32:             \else\the\minutes\fi}

33: \def\clock{

34: \ifnum\hours=0 12:\minute\ AM

35: \else\ifnum\hours<12 \hour:\minute\ AM

36:       \else\ifnum\hours=12 12:\minute\ PM

37:             \else\ifnum\hours>12

38:                  \pmhours=\hours

39:                  \advance\pmhours by -12

40:                  \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM

41:                  \fi

42:             \fi

43:       \fi

44: \fi

45: }

46: \def\fullclock{\hour:\minute}

47: \def\monthname{\relax\ifcase\month 0/\or January\or February\or

48:    March\or April\or May\or June\or July\or August\or September\or

49:    October\or November\or December\else\number\month/\fi}

50: \def\today{\monthname~\number\day, \number\year}

51: 

52: % this gives you a boldface character in math mode.

53: \def\bold#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%

54:      \kern-.025em\copy0\kern-\wd0

55:      \kern.05em\copy0\kern-\wd0

56:      \kern-.025em\raise.0433em\box0 }

57: 

58: \def\draft{$\bold{

59: \hbox{\tt Draft: printed \clock, \today.}

60: }$\par\noindent}

61: %============= end of time stamp and draft macros ============

62: 

63: \newcommand{\mycomm}[1]{\hfill\break{ \tt===$>$ \bf #1}\hfill\break}

64: 

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

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

67: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}

68: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}

69: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

70: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

71: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

72: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

73: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

74: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

75: \def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}

76: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}

77: \def\mpar{m_{\ss\|}^2}

78: \def\mpl{M_{\rm Pl}}

79: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}

80: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\chi} h^2}

81: \def\msn{m_{\tilde\nu}}

82: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}

83: \def\mstpl{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 1}}^2}

84: \def\mstpr{m_{\tilde t_{\ss 2}}^2}

85: 

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

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

88: \def\gyr{{\rm \, G\kern-0.125em yr}}

89: \def\gev{{\rm \, Ge\kern-0.125em V}}

90: \def\tev{{\rm \, Te\kern-0.125em V}}

91: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

92: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

93: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

94: \def\scs{\scriptstyle}

95: \def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

96: \def\mst{m_{\tilde\tau_R}}

97: \def\mstop{m_{\tilde t_1}}

98: \def\msl{m_{\tilde{\ell}_1}}

99: \def\stau{\tilde \tau}

100: \def\stop{\tilde t}

101: \def\sbot{\tilde b}

102: \def\mchi{m_{\tilde \chi}}

103: \def\mxi{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}}

104: \def\mxj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0}}

105: \def\mchari{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^+}}

106: \def\mcharj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^+}}

107: \def\mgluino{m_{\tilde g}}

108: \def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

109: \def\m12{m_{1\!/2}}

110: \def\mtb{\overline{m}_{\ss t}}

111: \def\mbb{\overline{m}_{\ss b}}

112: \def\mfb{\overline{m}_{\ss f}}

113: \def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}

114: \def\gt{\gamma_t}

115: \def\gb{\gamma_b}

116: \def\gf{\gamma_f}

117: \def\thm{\theta_\mu}

118: \def\tha{\theta_A}

119: \def\thb{\theta_B}

120: \def\mgl{m_{\ss \tilde g}}

121: \def\cp{C\!P}

122: \def\ohsq{\Omega_{\widetilde\chi}\, h^2}

123: \def\ch{{\widetilde \chi}} 

124: \def\st{{\widetilde \tau}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm 1}}

125: \def\sm{{\widetilde \mu}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

126: \def\sel{{\widetilde e}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

127: \def\sl{{\widetilde \ell}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

128: \def\msn{m_{\ch}}

129: \def\tsq{|{\cal T}|^2}

130: \def\tcm{\theta_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle CM}}

131: \def\half{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}

132: \def\neq{n_{\rm eq}}

133: \def\qeq{q_{\rm eq}}

134: \def\slash#1{\rlap{\hbox{$\mskip 1 mu /$}}#1}%

135: \def\mw{m_W}

136: \def\mz{m_Z}

137: \def\mhb{m_{H}}

138: \def\mhl{m_{h}}

139: \newcommand\f[1]{f_#1}

140: \def\nl{\hfill\nonumber\\&&} 

141: 

142: \newcommand{\Zee}{$Z^0$}

143: 

144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  my definitions  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

145: 

146: \def\Yi{\eta^{\ast}_{11} \left( \frac{y_{i}}{2} g' Z_{\chi 1} + 

147:         g T_{3i} Z_{\chi 2} \right) + \eta^{\ast}_{12} 

148:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}} Z_{\chi 5-i}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}}}

149: 

150: \def\Xii{\eta^{\ast}_{11} 

151:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}}Z_{\chi 5-i}^{\ast}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}} - 

152:         \eta_{12}^{\ast} e_{i} g' Z_{\chi 1}^{\ast}}

153: 

154: \def\Wi{\eta_{21}^{\ast}

155:         \frac{g m_{q_{i}}Z_{\chi 5-i}^{\ast}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}} -

156:         \eta_{22}^{\ast} e_{i} g' Z_{\chi 1}^{\ast}}

157: 

158: \def\Vi{\eta_{22}^{\ast} \frac{g m_{q_{i}} Z_{\chi 5-i}}{2 m_{W} B_{i}}

159:         + \eta_{21}^{\ast}\left( \frac{y_{i}}{2} g' Z_{\chi 1}

160:         + g T_{3i} Z_{\chi 2} \right)}

161: 

162: \def\zthree{\delta_{1i} [g Z_{\chi 2} - g' Z_{\chi 1}]}

163: 

164: \def\zfour{\delta_{2i} [g Z_{\chi 2} - g' Z_{\chi 1}]}

165: 

166: 

167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

168: 

169: \begin{document}

170: \begin{titlepage}

171: \pagestyle{empty}

172: \baselineskip=21pt

173: \rightline{hep-ph/0112113}

174: \rightline{CERN--TH/2001-339}

175: \rightline{UMN--TH--2032/01}

176: \rightline{TPI--MINN--01/50}

177: \vskip 0.2in

178: \begin{center}

179: {\large{\bf Calculations of Neutralino-Stop Coannihilation in the CMSSM}}

180: \end{center}

181: \begin{center}

182: \vskip 0.2in

183: {{\bf John Ellis}$^1$, {\bf Keith

184: A.~Olive}$^{2}$ and {\bf Yudi Santoso}$^{2}$}\\

185: \vskip 0.1in

186: {\it

187: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

188: $^2${Theoretical Physics Institute,

189: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA}}\\

190: \vskip 0.2in

191: {\bf Abstract}

192: \end{center}

193: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

195: 

196: We present detailed calculations of the $\ch {\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation

197: channels that have the largest impact on the relic $\ch$ density in the

198: constrained minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model

199: (CMSSM), in which scalar masses $m_0$, gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and the

200: trilinear soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters $A_0$ are each assumed to

201: be universal at some input grand unification scale. The most important

202: ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}^*$ and ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}$ annihilation

203: channels are also calculated, as well as ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde \ell}$

204: coannihilation channels.  We illustrate the importance of these new

205: coannihilation calculations when $A_0$ is relatively large. While they do

206: not increase the range of $m_{1/2}$ and hence $m_\chi$

207: allowed by cosmology, these coannihilation channels do open up new `tails'

208: of parameter space extending to larger values of $m_0$. 

209: 

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: \vfill

212: \leftline{CERN--TH/2001-339}

213: \leftline{November 2001}

214: \end{titlepage}

215: \baselineskip=18pt

216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

217: 

218: \section{Introduction}

219: 

220: A favoured candidate for cold dark matter is the lightest supersymmetric

221: particle (LSP), which is generally thought to be the lightest neutralino

222: $\ch$~\cite{EHNOS} in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the

223: Standard Model (MSSM).  It is common to focus attention on the constrained

224: MSSM (CMSSM), in which all the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses

225: $m_0$ are required to be equal at an input superysmmetric GUT scale, as

226: are the gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and the trilinear soft

227: supersymmetry-breaking parameters $A_0$. These assumptions yield

228: well-defined relations between the various sparticle masses, and

229: correspondingly more definite predictions for the relic abundance

230: $\Omega_\ch h^2$ and observable signatures. This paper is devoted to

231: %an improvement of previous 

232: relic-abundance calculations including

233: coannihilations of the lightest neutralino $\ch$ with ${\tilde t}_1$, the

234: lighter supersymmetric partner of the top quark~\cite{stopco}.

235: 

236: The range $0.1 < \Omega_\ch h^2 < 0.3$ is generally thought to be

237: preferred by astrophysics and cosmology~\cite{omegah2}. Lower values of

238: $\Omega_\ch h^2$ might be possible if there is some other source of cold

239: dark matter, but higher values are incompatible with observation. The

240: regions of the $m_{1/2}, m_0$ plane where the relic density falls within

241: the preferred range $0.1 < \Omega_\ch h^2 < 0.3$ have generally been

242: divided into four generic parts.

243: %, whose relative significances depend on $\tan \beta$ and $A_0$.

244: There is a

245: `bulk' region at moderate $m_{1/2}$ and

246: $m_0$~\cite{EHNOS}. Then, extending to larger $m_{1/2}$, there is a `tail'

247: of the parameter space where the LSP $\ch$ is almost degenerate with the

248: next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP), which is in this region

249: the ${\tilde \tau}_1$, the lighter supersymmetric partner of the $\tau$

250: lepton. Along this `tail', efficient coannihilations~\cite{gs,oldcoann,eg}

251: keep

252: $\Omega_\ch h^2$ down in the preferred range, even for larger values of

253: $m_\ch$~\cite{efo,efosi,coann,ADS}. At larger $m_0$, close to the boundary

254: where electroweak symmetry breaking is no longer possible, there is the

255: `focus-point' region where the LSP has a larger Higgsino component and

256: $m_\ch$ is small enough for $\Omega_\ch h^2$ to be

257: acceptable~\cite{focus}. Finally, extending to larger $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$

258: at intermediate values of $m_{1/2} / m_0$, there may be a `funnel' of

259: CMSSM parameter space where rapid direct-channel annihilations via the

260: poles of the heavier Higgs bosons $A$ and $H$ keep $\Omega_\ch h^2$

261: in the preferred range~\cite{EFGOSi,funnel}.

262: 

263: In this paper, we emphasize the significance of coannihilation of the LSP

264: $\ch$ with ${\tilde t}_1$, the lighter supersymmetric

265: partner of the

266: $t$ quark \cite{stopco}. This mechanism opens up another `tail' of

267: parameter space, this time extending to larger values of $m_0$. It is not

268: relevant for the small values of $A_0$ considered in previous

269: coannihilation calculations~\cite{efosi,coann,ADS}, but may be important

270: for large

271: $A_0$, as we demonstrate in this paper. Coannihilations of $\ch$ with

272: ${\tilde t}_1$ are important when the latter is the NLSP, just as $\ch

273: {\tilde

274: \tau}_1$ coannihilations are important when the ${\tilde \tau}_1$ is the

275: NLSP. In the latter case, one must also consider coannihilations with the

276: ${\tilde e}_1$ and ${\tilde \mu}_1$, which are not much heavier than the

277: ${\tilde \tau}_1$~\cite{efo,efosi,coann,ADS}. There are also regions of

278: CMSSM parameter space where

279: both the ${\tilde t}_1$ and ${\tilde \tau}_1$ are close in mass to the LSP

280: $\ch$, and ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \tau}_1$ coannihilations must also be

281: considered. We present here detailed calculations of the matrix elements

282: and cross sections for all the leading $\ch {\tilde t}_1$ and ${\tilde

283: t}_1 {\tilde \ell}$ coannihilation processes, and illustrate their

284: importance for $\Omega_\ch h^2$ in some instances in the CMSSM when $A_0

285: \ne 0$.

286: 

287: The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall some

288: important features of LSP relic-density calculations in general, and

289: coannihilations in particular. Then, in Section 3 we compare the relative

290: magnitudes of the $\ch \ch$, $\ch {\tilde t}_1$, ${\tilde t}_1 

291: {\tilde t}^{(*)}_1$ 

292: and ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \ell}^{(*)}$ processes for some specific

293: choices of the CMSSM parameters. Section 4 provides an overview of the

294: implications of $\ch {\tilde t}_1$ coannihilation and related

295: processes for the regions of the $m_{1/2}, m_0$ plane allowed by the

296: constraint $0.1 < \Omega_\ch h^2 < 0.3$ for various choices of the other

297: CMSSM parameters. Relevant details of our calculations of the matrix

298: elements are contained in an Appendix.

299: 

300: \section{Formalism for Annihilation and Coannihilation}

301: 

302: The density of neutralino relics left over from the early Universe may be

303: determined relatively simply in terms of relevant annihilation cross

304: sections, using the Boltzmann rate equation to determine a freeze-out

305: density. The relic density subsequently scales with the inverse of the

306: comoving volume, and hence with the entropy density. In the MSSM framework

307: discussed here, since neutralinos are Majorana fermions, the $S$-wave

308: annihilation cross sections into fermion-antifermion pairs are suppressed

309: by the masses of the final-state fermions, and it is therefore necessary

310: to compute $P$-wave contributions to the cross sections~\cite{EHNOS}.

311: 

312: The rate equation for a stable particle with density $n$ is

313: \beq

314: {dn \over dt} = -3 {\dot R \over R} n - \langle \sigma v_{\rm rel}

315: \rangle (n^2 - \neq^2) \;,

316: \label{rate}

317: \eeq

318: where $\neq$ is the equilibrium number density and $\langle \sigma v_{\rm 

319: rel}

320: \rangle$ is the thermally averaged product of the annihilation cross

321: section $\sigma$ and the relative velocity $v_{\rm rel}$.

322: In the early Universe, we can write $\dot R/R = (8\pi G_N \rho/3)^{1/2}$,

323: where $\rho = \pi^2 g(T) T^4/30$ is the energy density in radiation and

324: $g(T)$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom.

325: Conservation of the entropy density $s = 2 \pi^2 h(T) T^4/45$ implies that

326: $\dot R/R = - \dot T/T - h'\dot{T}/3h$ where 

327: $h' \equiv dh/dT$.  Generally, we have $h(T)

328: \approx g(T)$. Defining $x \equiv T/m$ and $q \equiv n/T^3h$, we can

329: write

330: \beq

331: {dq \over dx} = m \left({\textstyle{4\pi^3\over 45}} G_N g\right)^{-1/2}

332:                 \left(h + {\textstyle{1 \over 3}}mxh'\right)

333:                 \langle\sigma v_{\rm rel} \rangle

334:                 (q^2 - \qeq^2) \; .

335: \label{rate2}

336: \eeq

337: The effect of the $h'$ term was discussed in detail in~\cite{swo}, and is

338: most important when the mass $m$ is between 2 and 10 GeV.  Since we

339: only consider neutralinos that are significantly more massive, we neglect

340: it below (though it is not neglected in our calculations). In the case of

341: the MSSM, freeze-out occurs when

342: $x

343: \sim 1/20$,  and the final relic density is determined by integrating

344: (\ref{rate}) down to

345: $x = 0$, and is given by

346: \beq

347: \rho_\ch = m q(0)h(0)T_0^3.

348: \eeq

349: 

350: When coannihilations are important, there are several relevant

351: particle species $i$, each with different mass, number density $n_i$ and

352: equilibrium number density $n_{{\rm eq},i}$. Even

353: in such a situation~\cite{gs}, the rate equation (\ref{rate}) still 

354: applies, provided $n$ is interpreted as the total number density,

355: \beq

356: n \equiv \sum_i n_i \;,

357: \label{n}

358: \eeq

359: $\neq$ as the total equilibrium number density,

360: \beq

361: \neq \equiv  \sum_i n_{{\rm eq},i} \;,

362: \label{neq}

363: \eeq

364: and the effective annihilation cross section as

365: \beq

366: \langle\sigma_{\rm eff} v_{\rm rel}\rangle \equiv

367: \sum_{ij}{ n_{{\rm eq},i} n_{{\rm eq},j} \over \neq^2}

368: \langle\sigma_{ij} v_{\rm rel}\rangle \;.

369: \label{sv2} 

370: \eeq

371: In (\ref{rate2}),  $m$ is now understood as the mass of the lightest

372: particle under consideration. For $T \la m_i$,

373: the equilibrium number density of each species is given by \cite{swo,gg}

374: \begin{eqnarray}

375: n_{{\rm eq},i} &=& g_i\int {d^3p\over(2\pi)^3} \; e^{-E/T}

376: \nonumber \\

377:                &=& {g_i m_i^2 T \over 2\pi^2} K_2(m_i/T) \;,

378: \nonumber \\

379:                &=& g_i \left({m_i T \over 2\pi}\right)^{3/2} \exp(-m_i/T)

380:                        \left(1 + {15 T\over 8m_i}+ \ldots \right) \;,

381: \label{neqi}

382: \end{eqnarray}

383: where $g_i$ is a spin and color degeneracy factor and

384: $K_2(x)$ is a modified Bessel function.

385: We make the approximation of

386: Boltzmann statistics for the annihilating particles, which is

387: excellent in practice.

388: 

389: We now recall how to compute

390: $\langle\sigma_{12} v_{\rm rel}\rangle$

391: for the process $1+2\to 3+4$ in an efficient manner.

392: Suppose we have determined the squared transition matrix element $\tsq$

393: (summed over final spins and averaged over initial spins) and expressed 

394: it as a function of the Mandelstam variables $s$, $t$, $u$.

395: We then express $\tsq$ in terms of $s$ and the

396: scattering angle $\tcm$ in the center-of-mass frame, as described 

397: in~\cite{efosi}. We now define

398: \begin{eqnarray}

399: w(s) &\equiv& {1\over4}

400:               \int {d^3 p_3\over(2\pi)^3 E_3}\,{d^3 p_4\over(2\pi)^3 E_4}

401:               \,(2\pi)^4\delta^4(p_1+p_2-p_3-p_4)\; \tsq

402: \nonumber \\

403: &=& {1\over32\pi}\,{p_3(s)\over s^{1/2}} \int_{-1}^{+1}d\cos\tcm\,\tsq \;.

404: \label{w}

405: \end{eqnarray}  

406: In terms of $w(s)$, the total annihilation cross section

407: $\sigma_{12}(s)$ is given by

408: $\sigma_{12}(s) = w(s)/s^{1/2}p_1(s)$~\footnote{Our $w(s)$

409: is also the same as $w(s)$ in~\cite{swo,fkosi,efo},

410: which is written as $W/4$ in~\cite{eg}.}.

411: 

412: The above analysis is exact.  To reproduce the usual partial wave 

413: expansion,

414: we expand $\tsq$ in powers of $p_1(s)/m_1$.

415: The odd powers vanish upon

416: integration over $\tcm$, while the zeroth- and second-order terms

417: correspond to the usual $S$ and $P$ waves, respectively.

418: Each factor of $p_1(s)$ is accompanied by a factor of $\cos\tcm$,

419: so we have

420: \begin{equation}

421: \int_{-1}^{+1}d\cos\tcm\,\tsq =

422:  \left(\tsq_{\cos\tcm\,\to\, +1/\sqrt3} \; + \;

423:        \tsq_{\cos\tcm\,\to\, -1/\sqrt3}\right) + {\cal O}(p_1^4)\;.

424: \label{itsq}

425: \end{equation}

426: We can therefore evaluate the $S$- and $P$-wave contributions to

427: $w(s)$ simply by evaluating $\tsq$

428: at two different values of $\cos\tcm$;

429: no integrations are required.

430: 

431: The proper procedure for thermal averaging has been discussed

432: in~\cite{swo,gg} for the case of $m_1=m_2$, and

433: in~\cite{fkosi,eg} for the case of $m_1\ne m_2$, so we do not discuss

434: it in detail here. One finds

435: \begin{equation}

436: \langle\sigma_{12} v_{\rm rel}\rangle

437: = a_{12} + b_{12} \, x + {\cal O}(x^2) \;,

438: \label{sv3}

439: \end{equation}

440: where $x \equiv T/m_1$ (assuming $m_1<m_2$).

441: In our case, we extract $a_{12}$ and $b_{12}$

442: from the transition amplitudes

443: listed in the Appendix for each final state.   We set

444: $x=0$ to get $a_{12}$, and then compute $b_{12}$ by setting $x$

445: to a numerical value small enough to render the ${\cal O}(x^2)$ terms 

446: negligible.

447: We then compute

448: $a_{\rm eff}$ and $b_{\rm eff}$ by performing the sum over initial

449: states as in (\ref{sv2}), and integrate the rate equation (\ref{rate2}) 

450: numerically to obtain the relic

451: LSP abundance. To a fair approximation, the relic density can simply be

452: written as~\cite{EHNOS,gs}

453: \begin{equation}

454:   \label{eq:ohsq}

455:   \Omega h^2 \approx

456: {10^9 \gev^{-1} \over g_{\ss f}^{1/2} M_{\rm pl}(a_{\rm eff}+

457: b_{\rm eff} x_{\ss f}/2)x_{\ss f}},

458: \end{equation} 

459: where the freeze-out temperature $T_{\!f}\sim m_\ch/20$, and $g_{\ss f}$

460: is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at $T_{\!f}$. 

461: 

462: This implies that the

463: ratio of relic densities computed with and without coannihilations is

464: approximately

465: \begin{equation}

466:   \label{eq:R}

467:  R\equiv{\Omega^0\over\Omega}

468:  \approx \left({\hat\sigma_{\rm eff}\over\hat\sigma_0}\right)

469: \left({x_{\!\ss f}\over x_{\!\ss f}^{0}}\right),

470: \end{equation}

471: where $\hat\sigma\equiv a + b x/2$ and sub- and superscripts 0 denote

472: quantities computed ignoring coannihilations.  The ratio ${x_{\!\ss

473:     f}^0 / x_{\!\ss f}}\approx 1+x_{\!\ss f}^0 \ln (g_{\rm

474:   eff}\sigma_{\rm eff}/g_1\sigma_0)$, where

475: $g_{\rm eff}\equiv\sum_i g_i (m_i/m_1)^{3/2}e^{-(m_i-m_1)/T}$.

476: For the case where the ${\tilde t}_1$ and $\ch$ are almost degenerate, 

477: $g_{\rm eff} \approx \sum_i g_i =8$ and

478: ${x_{\!\ss f}^0 / x_{\!\ss f}}\approx 1.2$.

479: 

480: \section{Coannihilation Rates for ${\tilde t}_1$ in the MSSM}

481: 

482: We now use the above formalism to estimate the relative importance of the

483: ${\tilde t}_1 \ch$ coannihilation processes, ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde

484: t}_1^*$ and ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde t}_1$ annihilations calculated in the

485: Appendix.  We also take into account the $\ch {\tilde \ell}$

486: coannihilations calculated previously~\cite{efo,efosi} and, for

487: completeness, include the

488: ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \ell}$ and ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \ell}^*$

489: coannihilations also calculated in the Appendix.

490: 

491: To compute the effective annihilation cross sections for light

492: sparticles in the MSSM, we allow the index $i$ in (\ref{n}) to run

493: over ${\tilde t}_1, {\tilde t}_1^*, \st, \st^*, \sel, \sel^*, \sm$ and 

494: $\sm^*$, as well as $\ch$. The following is the change in $\sigma_{\rm 

495: eff}$ compared with~\cite{efosi}, where

496: 49 of the $\sigma_{ij}$ in (\ref{sv2}) were already included:

497: \begin{equation}

498: \Delta \sigma_{\rm eff} =  2\, (\sigma_{\stop_1\stop_1}+

499: \sigma_{\stop_1\stop_1^*})r_{\stop_1}^2 + 4\, \sigma_{\ch {\tilde

500: t}_1} r_{\ch}r_{{\tilde t}_1} + 

501: 8\, (\sigma_{\stop_1 {\tilde e_R}}+\sigma_{\stop_1

502: {\tilde e_R}^*})r_{\stop_1}r_{\tilde e_R} + 4\, (\sigma_{\stop_1 {\tilde

503: \tau}_1}+\sigma_{\stop_1 {\tilde \tau}_1^*}) r_{\st}  r_{{\tilde t}_1}

504: \end{equation}

505: where $r_i\equiv n_{{\rm eq},i}/n_{\rm eq}$.

506: We have taken the $\sel$ and $\sm$ (but not the $\stau$) to be degenerate 

507: in mass, thus accounting for the 81 possible initial state combinations.

508: Note that we have summed over color states in the cross sections

509: amplitudes listed in the Appendix, and we have taken the stop degeneracy

510: factor

511: $g_{\stop} = 3$. 

512: We list in Table~\ref{table:states} the sets of initial and final states

513: for which we compute the annihilation cross sections, using the transition

514: amplitudes given in the Appendix. We use $q$ to denote the four light

515: quarks, which we have taken to be massless.

516: 

517: \begin{table}[htb]\caption{Initial and Final States for 

518: ${\tilde t}_1$ Annihilation and Coannihilation Processes}

519: \begin{center}

520: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|}

521: \hline

522: Initial State & Final States\\ 

523: \hline

524: ~ & ~ \\

525: ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde t}^*_1$ & $g g, \gamma g, Z g, t {\bar t}, b {\bar

526: b}, q {\bar q}, g h, g H, Z h, Z H, Z A, W^\pm H^\mp$, \\

527: ~ & $h h, h H, H H, A A, h A, H A, H^+ H^-$ \\

528: ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde t}_1$ & $t t$ \\

529: $\ch {\tilde t}_1$ & $t g, t Z, b W^+, t H, t h, t A, b H^+$ \\

530: ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \ell}$ & $t \ell, b \nu $ \\

531: ${\tilde t}_1 {\tilde \ell}^*$ & $t {\bar \ell}$ \\

532: \hline

533: \end{tabular}

534: \label{table:states}

535: \end{center}

536: \end{table}

537: \vspace{-.5cm}

538: 

539: In the CMSSM, the diagonal entries of the squark mass matrix tend to pick

540: up large contributions from the gaugino masses, $m_{LL,RR}^2 \ni {\cal O}

541: (6) m_{1/2}^2$,

542: thus making the squarks heavier than the neutralinos.  The off-diagonal

543: entry for an up-type

544: squark~\footnote{Note here our sign convention for $A_q$.} 

545: \beq

546: m_{LR}^2 = -m_q (A_q + \mu \cot \beta)

547: \label{offdiag}

548: \eeq

549: can, however, be large, particularly for the stops, or for sbottoms at

550: large

551: $\tan \beta$~\footnote{For down-type squarks, the factor $\cot \beta$ in

552: (\ref{offdiag}) is replaced by $\tan \beta$.}. When $A_t$ is sufficiently

553: large, the lighter

554: stop, ${\tilde t_1}$, can become degenerate with (or lighter than) the

555: neutralino.

556: Thus, it is when $A_0$ is large that we expect $\ch \stop_1$

557: coannihilations to become important.  

558: 

559: It is important to distinguish

560: between the effective low-energy parameters $A_t$, etc., and the 

561: high-energy input parameter

562: $A_0$, which are related through the running of the renormalization-group

563: equations. For example, for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $m_0 = 300\gev$,

564: $\stop_1 \ch$ coannihilations are important when $m_{1/2} = 200,

565: 450$,and $670 \gev$ and

566: $A_0 = 1000, 2000$, and $3000\gev$, but these values correspond to $A_t

567: \simeq 565, 1200$, and $1700

568: \gev$ respectively. Furthermore, the values of $A$ for the light squarks

569: are different and typically larger than $A_t$. 

570: 

571: 

572: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahatchit} numerical values of the

573: contributions to $\hat\sigma\equiv a + b x/2$ (see (\ref{eq:ohsq})) in

574: $\ch {\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation, for the representative values $x=1/23,

575: \tan\beta=10, \mu>0$ and (a) $\m12 =

576: 230\gev, A_0 = 1000\gev$ and (b) $\m12 =

577: 450\gev, A_0 = 2000\gev$ as functions of $m_0$. 

578: For comparison, the total cross section for $\ch

579: \ch$ annihilation to all final states is also shown, as a thick dotted

580: line. We see that the

581: $\ch {\tilde t_1}

582: \to  t g$ and $t h$ coannihilation cross sections dominate by large

583: factors over the total $\ch \ch$ annihilation cross section, suggesting

584: that they may have a greater importance than that suggested by simply

585: comparing Boltzmann suppression factors. The feature in

586: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahatchit}(a) at $m_0 \sim 400 \gev$ is due to the 

587: threshold for the production of $t h$ final states.  At smaller values of

588: $m_0$, this final state is kinematically forbidden.

589: 

590: \begin{figure}

591: %\vspace*{-0.5in}

592: \begin{minipage}[b]{8in}

593: \epsfig{file=chit1.eps,height=2.5in}

594: \epsfig{file=chit2.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

595: \end{minipage}

596: \hspace*{1.6in}

597: %\epsfig{file=chit3.eps,height=2.5in}

598: \caption{{\it 

599: The separate contributions to the $\ch {\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation cross 

600: sections $\hat\sigma\equiv

601: a+{1\over2}b x$ for $x=T/m_\ch=1/23$ as functions of

602: $m_0$ for (a) $\m12 = 230\gev$, $A_0 = 1000\gev$ and (b) $\m12 = 450\gev$,

603: $A_0 = 2000\gev$. Also shown are the total cross section and , for

604: comparison, the much smaller total cross  section for $\ch \ch$ annihilation.

605: }

606: \label{fig:sigmahatchit}}

607: \end{figure}  

608: 

609: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahatttbar} displays similar plots for ${\tilde t_1}

610: {\tilde t_1}^*$ annihilation, for the same parameter choices as in

611: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahatchit}.

612: In this case, the dominant ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}^*$ annihilation

613: cross sections are into $g g$ and $h h$, and even subdominant cross

614: sections such as $\gamma g$, $Z g$, $g h$ and the various quark-antiquark

615: channels are far larger than the total $\ch \ch$ annihilation cross 

616: section. Once again, when $A_0 = 1000\gev$ we see

617: thresholds, in this case corresponding to $h h$ production at $m_0 \sim

618: 180 \gev$ and $t \bar t$ production at $m_0 \sim 330\gev$. 

619: 

620: \begin{figure}

621: %\vspace*{-0.5in}

622: \begin{minipage}[b]{8in}

623: \epsfig{file=ttbar1.eps,height=2.5in}

624: \epsfig{file=ttbar2.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

625: \end{minipage}

626: \hspace*{1.6in}

627: %\epsfig{file=ttbar3.eps,height=2.5in}

628: \caption{{\it

629: The separate contributions to the ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}^*$ 

630: annihilation cross

631: sections $\hat\sigma\equiv

632: a+{1\over2}b x$ for $x=T/m_\ch=1/23$, as functions of  

633: $m_0$ for (a) $\m12 = 230\gev$,  $A_0 = 1000\gev$ and (b) $\m12 = 450\gev$,

634: $A_0 =

635: 2000\gev$. Also shown are the total cross section and, for comparison,

636: the much smaller total cross section for $\ch \ch$ annihilation.

637: }

638: \label{fig:sigmahatttbar}}

639: \end{figure}

640: 

641: The ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}$ annihilation cross sections shown in 

642: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahattt} show that the cross section for annihilation 

643: into the $t t$ final state, when it is kinematically open, is also far

644: larger  than the total $\ch \ch$ annihilation cross section. 

645: 

646: \begin{figure}

647: \vspace*{-0.5in}

648: \begin{minipage}[b]{8in}

649: \epsfig{file=tt1.eps,height=2.5in}

650: \epsfig{file=tt2.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

651: \end{minipage}

652: \hspace*{1.6in}

653: %\epsfig{file=tt3.eps,height=2.5in}

654: \caption{{\it

655: The ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1} \to t t$ 

656: annihilation cross

657: sections $\hat\sigma\equiv

658: a+{1\over2}b x$ for $x=T/m_\ch=1/23$, as functions of  

659: $m_0$ for (a)  $\m12 = 230\gev$, $A_0 = 1000\gev$ and (b) $\m12 = 450\gev$, 

660: $A_0 = 2000\gev$. Also shown, for comparison, is the much smaller total

661: cross section for $\ch \ch$ annihilation.

662: }

663: \label{fig:sigmahattt}}

664: \end{figure}

665: 

666: A complete study of coannihilation effects must include not only the $\ch

667: {\tilde \ell}$ processes considered previously~\cite{efo,efosi}, and the

668: $\ch {\tilde t_1}$

669: processes considered above, but also ${\tilde \ell_1} {\tilde t_1}$

670: coannihilations. Accordingly, the final set of coannihilation cross

671: sections we present are those for ${\tilde \ell_1} {\tilde t_1}$ and

672: ${\tilde \ell_1^*} {\tilde t_1}$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahattl}. We

673: see that, when (a) $A_0 = 1000\gev$, the $t \tau$, $t {\bar \tau}$ and $b

674: \nu_e$ final states are the most important, followed by $t e$, $b

675: \nu_\tau$ and $t {\bar e}$, whereas (b) the $t {\bar \tau}$ and $t {\bar

676: e}$

677: final states are relatively much less important when $A_0 = 2000\gev$.

678: In all panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmahattl}, there are coannihilation cross 

679: sections much greater than the total $\ch \ch$ annihilation cross section, 

680: which is also plotted.

681: 

682: \begin{figure}

683: \vspace*{-0.5in}

684: \begin{minipage}[b]{8in}

685: \epsfig{file=tl1.eps,height=2.5in}

686: \epsfig{file=tl2.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

687: \end{minipage}

688: \hspace*{1.6in}

689: %\epsfig{file=tl3.eps,height=2.5in}

690: \caption{{\it

691: The separate contributions to the ${\tilde \ell_1} {\tilde t_1}$ 

692: coannihilation cross

693: sections $\hat\sigma\equiv

694: a+{1\over2}b x$ for $x=T/m_\ch=1/23$, as functions of  

695: $m_0$ for (a)  $\m12 = 230\gev$,  $A_0 = 1000\gev$ and (b)   $\m12 = 450\gev$,

696: $A_0 = 2000\gev$. Also shown, for comparison, is the much smaller total

697: cross section for $\ch \ch$ annihilation.

698: }

699: \label{fig:sigmahattl}}

700: \end{figure}

701: 

702: The basic reason for the relatively small magnitude of the $\ch \ch$

703: annihilation cross section is that it is dominated by the $P$-wave

704: suppressed cross sections for $\ch \ch$ annihilation to fermion pairs.

705: This was also the basic reason why $\ch {\tilde \ell}$ coannihilation

706: processes were previously found to be so

707: important~\cite{efo,efosi,coann,ADS}.

708: 

709: The contributions of the various annihilation channels to $\sigma_{\rm

710: eff}$ are weighted by the relative abundances of the $\ch$, $\tilde t_1$

711: and $\tilde \ell_1$.  For a stop degenerate with the $\ch$, ${\tilde t_1}

712: {\tilde t_1}^*$ annihilation, ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}$ annihilation and

713: $\ch {\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation are clearly the dominant contributions

714: to $\Delta \sigma_{\rm eff}$, and hence to $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ in

715: (\ref{sv2}), and the final neutralino relic density is greatly reduced.  

716: As the stops become heavier than the neutralinos, their number densities

717: are exponentially suppressed and the stop contributions to $\sigma_{\rm

718: eff}$ become less important. Fig.~\ref{fig:svdm} shows the sizes of the

719: separate contributions to $\hat\sigma_{\rm eff}$ from $\ch \ch$

720: annihilation, ${\tilde t_1} \ch$ coannihilation and ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde

721: t_1}^*$, ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}$ annihilations (combined), as

722: functions of the mass difference between the ${\tilde t_1}$ and $\ch$.  In

723: Fig.~\ref{fig:svdm}, we have fixed $m_0=300\gev$, $\tan\beta=10$, $\mu >

724: 0$,

725: $A_0=$ (a) 1000 and (b)  2000~GeV, and computed $\hat\sigma_{\rm eff}$ for

726: varying $m_{1/2}$, which amounts to varying the fractional mass difference

727: $\Delta M \equiv (m_{\tilde t_1} - m_\ch)/ m_\ch$. For these choices, the

728: stau mass, $m_{\stau_1}$, is much larger than $\mchi$. The thin dotted

729: lined is the value of

730: $\hat\sigma$ that one would compute if one ignored all coannihilation

731: contributions~\footnote{This differs from

732: ${\hat \sigma}_{\ch \ch}$ because of the number-density weighting

733: factor.}.

734: Note that, in the case of close degeneracy between the

735: $\ch$ and

736: ${\tilde t_1}$, the

737: ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}$ and ${\tilde t_1} {\tilde t_1}^*$

738: annihilations dominate

739: $\hat\sigma_{\rm eff}$. However, since these contributions are suppressed

740: by two powers of $n_{\rm eq,{\tilde t_1}}$, they drop rapidly with $\Delta

741: M$, and neutralino-stop coannihilation takes over. For $A_0 = 2000

742: \gev$, this occurs at

743: $\Delta M\ga 0.18$.  This contribution in turn falls with one power of

744: $n_{\rm eq,{\tilde t_1}}$, and $\ch \ch$ annihilation re-emerges as the

745: dominant reaction for $\Delta M\ga0.25$. When $\Delta M\ga 0.35$,

746: ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation effects can be neglected. In

747: We see the presence of kinematic thresholds also in Fig.~\ref{fig:svdm}.

748: In panel (a), we see the threshold for producing a single top

749: quark in $\stop \ch$ coannihilations, and in panel (b) we see

750: the threshold for producing a $t {\bar t}$ pair in $\ch \ch$

751: annihilations.  

752: 

753: 

754: \begin{figure}

755: %\vspace*{-0.75in}

756: %\hspace*{-.70in}

757: \begin{minipage}{8in}

758: \epsfig{file=svdm1.eps,height=2.5in}

759: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

760: \epsfig{file=svdm2.eps,height=2.5in} \hfill

761: \end{minipage}

762: \caption{\label{fig:svdm}

763: {\it 

764: The separate contributions to the total effective cross sections

765: $\hat\sigma_{\rm eff}$ for $x=T/m_\ch=1/23$, as functions

766: of $\Delta M\equiv(\mst- m_\ch)/m_\ch$, obtained by varying $m_{1/2}$, 

767: with (a) $A_0 = 1000\gev$ 

768: and (b) $A_0 = 2000\gev$, both for $\tan \beta = 10, \mu > 0$ and 

769: $m_0 = 300\gev$.

770: }}

771: \end{figure}

772: 

773: \section{Implications of ${\tilde t_1}$ Coannihilations for the 

774: Region of CMSSM Parameter Space Favoured by Cosmology}

775: 

776: We now explore the consequences of ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilations for the

777: region of CMSSM parameter space in which $0.1 < \Omega_\ch h^2 < 0.3$, as

778: favoured by cosmology. We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10} the

779: $(\m12, m_0)$ planes for $\tan\beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$, for the different

780: values of $A_0 =$ (a) 0, (b) 1000, (c) 2000 and (d) 3000~GeV. The very

781: dark

782: (red) shaded regions have $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1}$ or $m_{\tilde t_1} < m_\ch$, and

783: hence are excluded by the very stringent bounds on charged dark

784: matter~\cite{EHNOS}. The light (turquoise) shaded regions correspond to

785: the

786: preferred relic-density range \mbox{$0.1<\ohsq<0.3$}. The dark (green)

787: shaded regions are those excluded by measurements of $b \to s \gamma$. The

788: intermediate (pink) shaded regions in panels (a) and (b) are those

789: favoured by the BNL measurement of $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$

790: level~\cite{g-2}.  

791: The (black) dashed line in panel (a)  is the contour $m_{\ch^\pm} =

792: 104$~GeV, corresponding to the kinematic range of LEP~2, and the (red)

793: dotted line is the contour $m_h = 114$~GeV, as evaluated using {\tt

794: FeynHiggs}~\cite{FeynHiggs}, corresponding to the LEP lower limit on the

795: mass of the Higgs

796: boson. These contours are also glimpsed in the other panels.

797: 

798: \begin{figure}

799: %\vspace*{-1.8in}

800: \hspace*{-.70in}

801: \begin{minipage}{8in}

802: \epsfig{file=plane100.eps,height=3.5in} 

803: \epsfig{file=plane101.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill

804: \end{minipage}

805: \begin{minipage}{8in}

806: \hspace*{-.70in}

807: \epsfig{file=plane102.eps,height=3.5in} 

808: %\hspace*{0.3in}

809: \epsfig{file=plane103.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill

810: \end{minipage}

811: %\vskip-0.7in

812: \caption{\label{fig:plane10}

813: {\it

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

815: (a) 0, (b) 1000, (c) 2000 and (d) 3000~GeV.

816: The very dark (red) shaded regions are excluded because the LSP is 

817: the ${\tilde t_1}$ or the ${\tilde \tau_1}$. The dark shaded regions 

818: are excluded by $b \to s \gamma$. The intermediate shaded regions are 

819: favoured by $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level. The light 

820: (turquoise) shaded regions are those favoured by cosmology,

821: with \protect\mbox{$0.1\leq\ohsq\leq 0.3$} after the inclusion of 

822: coannihilation effects. The (black) dashed lines are the contours 

823: $m_{\ch^\pm} = 104$~GeV, and the (red) dotted lines are the contours $m_h 

824: = 114$~GeV.

825: }}

826: \end{figure}

827: 

828: Panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10} is indistinguishable from analogous

829: plots shown previously~\cite{efosi,EFGOSi}: ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilations

830: are not important

831: when $A_0 = 0$. Panel (b) shows how ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation

832: generates a `tail' of allowed CMSSM parameter space, extending the `bulk'

833: region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane up as far as $m_0 \sim 450$~GeV. 

834: The boundary of the region where $m_{\stop_1} < m_\ch$, and hence

835: the $\stop_1 \ch$ coannihilation region, slopes to the left as $m_0$ is

836: increased, since we have fixed $A_0$ over the plane.  As $m_0$ is

837: increased, the impact of the $A$-dependent off-diagonal term is diminished

838: and the light stop is heavier. To compensate for this, one must decrease

839: $m_{1/2}$ to obtain the necessary degree of degeneracy between

840: $\stop_1$ and $\ch$. This effect is also seen in panels (c) and (d) of

841: Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10}.

842: 

843: In the particular cae of $A_0 = 1000\gev$ shown in panel (b) of 

844: Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10}, the ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation tail

845: happens to be excluded by $b \to s \gamma$. However, this is not the case

846: for (c) $A_0 = 2000$~GeV and (d) $A_0 = 3000$~GeV, where the ${\tilde

847: t_1}$ coannihilation tail extends up to $m_0 \sim 900$ and beyond

848: 1350~GeV, respectively. For (b) $A_0 = 2000$~GeV, the region

849: favoured by $g_\mu -

850: 2$ is hidden on the left, inside the excluded region.

851: However, around

852: $A_0 = 1500$~GeV there is a $\ch \stop_1$ coannihilation region that

853: satisfies both the $b \to s \gamma$ and $g_\mu -

854: 2$ constraints. 

855: 

856: The cosmologically-favoured region is broadened significantly when

857: $t {\bar t}$ production is kinematically allowed in $\ch \ch$

858: annihilation The t-channel stop exchange contribution to this process

859: is significantly enhanced when

860: $\stop_1$ is relatively light: $m_{\stop_1} \simeq

861: m_\ch$.

862: This feature can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10}(c) and

863: Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10}(d). The  

864: $\stop_1 {\tilde \ell}$ coannihilations are only important in the

865: corner area near the instep of the dark

866: (red) shaded region where $m_{\tilde{\tau}_1} \simeq m_{\tilde t_1}

867: \simeq

868: m_\ch$. 

869: 

870: Fig.~\ref{fig:plane2030} shows analogous $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for the

871: larger values $\tan \beta = 20$ and 30, both again for $\mu > 0$. We see

872: in panel (a) that the ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation tail extends up to

873: $m_0 \sim 900$~GeV when $\tan \beta = 20$ and $A_0 = 2000$~GeV, beyond the

874: region forbidden by $b \to s \gamma$. We then see in panel (b) that the

875: ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation tail extends beyond $m_0 \sim 1400$~GeV when

876: $\tan \beta = 20$ and $A_0 = 3000$~GeV. A similar portion of the ${\tilde

877: t_1}$ coannihilation tail that is consistent with $b \to s \gamma$ is also

878: visible in panel (c), for $\tan \beta = 20$ and $A_0 = 2000$~GeV, where

879: $m_0 \sim 900$~GeV. For fixed $A_0$, as $\tan \beta$ is increased the $b \to s

880: \gamma$ constraint becomes more severe.

881: 

882: \begin{figure}

883: %\vspace*{-1.8in}

884: \hspace*{-.70in}

885: \begin{minipage}{8in}

886: \epsfig{file=plane202.eps,height=3.5in}

887: \epsfig{file=plane203.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill

888: \end{minipage}

889: \begin{minipage}{8in}

890: \hspace*{-.70in}

891: \epsfig{file=plane302.eps,height=3.5in}

892: %\hspace*{0.3in}

893: \epsfig{file=plane303.eps,height=3.5in} \hfill

894: \end{minipage}

895: %\vskip-0.7in

896: \caption{\label{fig:plane2030}

897: {\it 

898: Notation as for Fig.~\ref{fig:plane10}. Panels (a,b) are for $\tan \beta = 

899: 20, \mu > 0$, and panels (c,d) are for $\tan \beta = 30, \mu > 0$. Panels 

900: (a,c) are for $A_0 = 2000$~GeV, and panels (b,d) for $A_0 = 3000$~GeV.

901: }}

902: \end{figure}

903: 

904: The

905: ${\tilde t_1}$ coannihilation tails do not increase the allowed range of

906: $m_{1/2}$, as was the case for the

907: ${\tilde

908: \ell}$ coannihilation tail~\cite{efo,efosi,coann,ADS}, but they do add a

909: significant filament to

910: the CMSSM region allowed by experiment and favoured by cosmology.

911: 

912: In the above illustrative examples, we have chosen the sign of $A_0$ to be

913: the same as that of $\mu$, with the effect of maximizing the stop

914: off-diagonal mass terms, and hence minimizing $m_{\stop_1}$. If 

915: the sign

916: of $A_0$ is switched while keeping $\mu > 0$, an analogous $\ch

917: \stop_1$

918: coannihilation region is found only at even larger negative $A_0$.

919: However, the $m_h$ constraint is more severe for

920: $A_0 < 0$, and also 

921: for $\mu < 0$, excluding the region of  parameter space of interest in the

922: $\ch \stop_1$

923: coannihilation context.    

924: 

925: We have not discussed in this paper the potential constraint imposed by

926: the absence of

927: colour and charge breaking (CCB) vacua, or at least the suppression of

928: transitions to CCB vacua. This constraint would restrict

929: the value of $A_0$ relative to $m_0$~\cite{AF}. If the CCB constraint is

930: imposed, 

931: some of the parameter space for small $m_0$ will be excluded, but

932: there will still be regions at high $m_0$ where $\ch {\tilde t_1}$

933: coannihilation is crucial. The issue of compatibity with the

934: potential $g_\mu

935: -2$ constraint would then arise. Since raising $m_0$ suppresses the

936: neutralino-proton elastic

937: scatttering cross

938: section, $\ch \stop_1$ coannihilation would tend to lower the neutralino

939: direct

940: detection rate for the same range of $m_\ch$.   

941: 

942: \section{Conclusions and Open Issues}

943: 

944: We have documented in this paper the potential importance of $\ch {\tilde

945: t_1}$

946: coannihilation in delineating the preferred domain of CMSSM parameter

947: space for $A_0 \ne 0$. In this paper, we have only sctratched the surface

948: of this subject, whose higher-dimensional parameter space merits more

949: detailed exploration. The Appendix provides details of the diagrammatic

950: calculations that should be sufficient for our results to be verified and

951: used by other authors. Although applied in the context of the CMSSM, our

952: results may also be used in more general MSSM contexts.  However, other

953: coannihilation processes are also important in other regions of the

954: general MSSM parameter space. For example, in the CMSSM the sbottom mass

955: is

956: generally larger than the stop mass even for large $\tan \beta$. However, if one

957: allow non-degeneracy in the scalar soft breaking mass term, a sbottom NLSP

958: becomes

959: possible~\cite{ADS}. A complete calculation of the LSP relic

960: density in the MSSM requires a careful discussion of all such

961: coannihilation possibilities.

962: 

963: \

964: \vskip 0.5in

965: \vbox{

966: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

967: \noindent 

968: We thank Toby Falk for many related discussions. 

969: The work of K.A.O. and Y.S. was supported in part by DOE grant

970: DE--FG02--94ER--40823.}

971: %\newpage

972: 

973: \newpage

974: \input APPENDIX

975: 

976: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

977: 

978: \bibitem{EHNOS}

979: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive

980: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 238}, 453 (1984); see also

981: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 1419 (1983).

982: 

983: \bibitem{stopco}

984: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,

985: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 035012 (2000) 

986: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911496].

987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911496;%%

988: 

989: \bibitem{omegah2} N.~Bahcall, J.~P.~Ostriker, S.~Perlmutter and

990: P.~J.~Steinhardt, Science {\bf 284}, 1481 (1999). 

991: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906463;%%

992: 

993: \bibitem{gs}

994: K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 3191 (1991).

995: 

996: \bibitem{oldcoann}

997: S.~Mizuta and M.~Yamaguchi,

998: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 298}, 120 (1993)

999: [arXiv:hep-ph/9208251].

1000: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208251;%%

1001: 

1002: \bibitem{eg}

1003: J.~Edsjo and P.~Gondolo,

1004: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 1879 (1997)

1005: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704361].

1006: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704361;%%

1007: 

1008: \bibitem{efo}

1009: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.A.~Olive,

1010: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 444}, 367 (1998).

1011: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B444,367;%%

1012: 

1013: \bibitem{efosi}

1014: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 13}

1015: 181 (2000).

1016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905484

1017: 

1018: \bibitem{coann}

1019: M.~E.~G\'omez,

1020: G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,

1021: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 123512 (2000)

1022: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907261]

1023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%

1024: and

1025: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487}, 313 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0004028];

1026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004028;%%

1027: see also:

1028: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62},

1029: 023515 (2000), [arXive:hep-ph/9909497].

1030: \bibitem{ADS}

1031: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso, 

1032: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 59 (2001)

1033: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102181].

1034: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

1035: 

1036: \bibitem{focus}

1037: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1038: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 2322 (2000)

1039: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908309];

1040: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%

1041: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1042: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 075005 (2000)

1043: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334];

1044: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%

1045: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

1046: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 388 (2000)

1047: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004043].

1048: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004043;%%

1049: 

1050: \bibitem{EFGOSi}

1051: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1052: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510}, 236 (2001)

1053: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098].   

1054: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1055: 

1056: 

1057: \bibitem{funnel}

1058: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1059: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 376 (1993);

1060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207234;%%

1061: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

1062: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 597 (1996) and Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 567 

1063: (1998);

1064: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

1065: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante, P.~Quintana

1066: and X.~Tata,

1067: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 015007 (2001);

1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%

1069: A.~B.~Lahanas and V.~C.~Spanos, hep-ph/0106345.

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \bibitem{swo}

1073: M.~Srednicki, R.~Watkins and K.~A.~Olive,

1074: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 310}, 693 (1988).

1075: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B310,693;%%

1076: 

1077: \bibitem{gg}

1078: P.~Gondolo and G.~Gelmini,

1079: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 360}, 145 (1991).

1080: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,145;%%

1081: 

1082: \bibitem{fkosi}

1083: T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1084: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 339}, 248 (1994)

1085: [arXiv:hep-ph/9409270].

1086: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409270;%%

1087: 

1088: \bibitem{g-2}

1089: H.~N.~Brown {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1090: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001)

1091: [hep-ex/0102017].

1092: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%

1093: 

1094: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

1095: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1096: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124}, 76 (2000)

1097: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];

1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

1099: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1100: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9}, 343 (1999)

1101: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].

1102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

1103: 

1104: \bibitem{AF}

1105: H. Baer, M. Brhlik and D. Casta\~no, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 6944;

1106: S. Abel and T. Falk, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 444} (1998) 427.

1107: 

1108: 

1109: \end{thebibliography}

1110: 

1111: \end{document}

1112: 

1113: 

1114: 

1115: \bibitem{EFGOS}

1116: J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Schmitt,

1117: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B388} (1996) 97

1118: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B388,97;%%

1119: and Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B413} (1997) 355;

1120: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B413,355;%%

1121: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.A.~Olive

1122: and M.~Schmitt,

1123: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58} (1998) 095002.

1124: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,095002;%%

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{EFGO}

1127: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis and K.~A.~Olive, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D} (in

1128: press),  hep-ph/0004169.

1129: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004169;%%

1130: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=HEP-PH/0004169}{SPIRES}

1131: 

1132: 

1133: \bibitem{BOOM}

1134: P.~de Bernardis {\it et al.},

1135: Nature {\bf 404} (2000) 955;

1136: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0004404;%%

1137: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=ASTRO-PH/0004404}{SPIRES}

1138: A.~E.~Lange {\it et al.},

1139: astro-ph/0005004.

1140: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005004;%%

1141: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=ASTRO-PH/0005004}{SPIRES}

1142: 

1143: \bibitem{MAXI}

1144: A.~Balbi {\it et al.},

1145: astro-ph/0005124.

1146: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005124;%%

1147: %\href{\wwwspires?eprint=ASTRO-PH/0005124}{SPIRES}

1148: 

1149: 

1150: \bibitem{bsg}

1151: P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 4592;

1152: F.~M.~Borzumati, M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1153: Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf D51} (1995) 341;

1154: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55} (1997) 3201.

1155: 

1156: 

1157: 

1158: \bibitem{GW}

1159: M.W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 31}, 3059 (1986).

1160: 

1161: \bibitem{searches}

1162: For a review, see, e.g., G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys.

1163: Rep. {\bf 267}, 195 (1996).

1164: 

1165: \bibitem{DAMA}

1166: R.~Bernabei {\it et al.}, DAMA Collaboration,

1167: Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 480}, 23 (2000).

1168: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B480,23;%%

1169: %\href{\wwwspires?j=PHLTA\%2cB480\%2c23}{SPIRES}

1170: 

1171: \bibitem{GENIUS}

1172: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,

1173: %``New underground neutrino observatory - GENIUS - in the new

1174: %millenium:  For solar neutrinos, dark matter and double beta decay,''

1175: arXiv:hep-ph/0104028.

1176: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104028;%%

1177: 

1178: \bibitem{EFlO2}

1179: J.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and K.~A.~Olive,

1180: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 065016 (2001)

1181: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007113].

1182: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007113;%%

1183: 

1184: \bibitem{EFlO1}

1185: J.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and K.~A.~Olive,

1186: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 481}, 304 (2000)

1187: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001005].

1188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001005;%%

1189: 

1190: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}

1191: LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collaboration,

1192: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

1193: Collaboration,

1194: {\it Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP},

1195: ALEPH-2001-066, DELPHI-2001-113, CERN-L3-NOTE-2699, OPAL-PN-479,

1196: LHWG-NOTE-2001-03, CERN-EP/2001-055, arXiv:hep-ex/0107029;

1197: {\it Searches for the neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM: Preliminary

1198: combined results using LEP data collected at energies up to 209 GeV},

1199: LHWG-NOTE-2001-04, ALEPH-2001-057, DELPHI-2001-114, L3-NOTE-2700,

1200: OPAL-TN-699, arXiv:hep-ex/0107030.

1201: 

1202: 

1203: 

1204: \bibitem{susyg-2}

1205: L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~Rigolin and L.~Wang,

1206: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3484 (2001)

1207: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102145];

1208: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102145;%%

1209: J.~L.~Feng and K.~T.~Matchev,

1210: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 3480 (2001)

1211: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102146];

1212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102146;%%

1213: %\bibitem{Baltz:2001ts}

1214: E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,

1215: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5004 (2001)

1216: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102147];

1217: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102147;%%

1218: %\bibitem{Chattopadhyay:2001vx}

1219: U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath, 

1220: %``Upper limits on sparticle masses from g-2 and the possibility for

1221: % discovery of SUSY at colliders and in dark matter searches,''

1222: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5854 (2001)

1223: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102157];

1224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102157;%%

1225: S.~Komine, T.~Moroi and M.~Yamaguchi,

1226: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 93 (2001)

1227: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102204];

1228: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102204;%%

1229: %\bibitem{Martin:2001st}

1230: S.~P.~Martin and J.~D.~Wells,

1231: %``Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in supersymmetric theories,''

1232: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035003 (2001)

1233: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103067];

1234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103067;%%

1235: %\bibitem{Baer:2001kn}

1236: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,

1237: %``Impact of muon anomalous magnetic moment on supersymmetric models,''

1238: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035004 (2001)

1239: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103280];

1240: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103280;%%

1241: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, B.~Hu and Y.~Santoso,

1242: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505}, 177 (2001)

1243: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102344].

1244: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102344;%%

1245: 

1246: \bibitem{ENO}

1247: J.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

1248: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 65 (2001)

1249: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102331].

1250: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102331;%%

1251: 

1252: \bibitem{otherCMSSMDM}

1253: For other scattering calculations, see, for example:

1254: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

1255: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 567 (1998)

1256: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706509];

1257: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706509;%%

1258: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,

1259: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 125003 (2001)

1260: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010203];

1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010203;%%

1262: %\bibitem{Drees:2001bs}

1263: M.~Drees, Y.~G.~Kim, T.~Kobayashi and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1264: %``Direct detection of neutralino dark matter and the anomalous dipole

1265: %  moment of the muon,''

1266: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 115009 (2001)

1267: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011359];

1268: %\bibitem{Kim:2001eg}

1269: Y.~G.~Kim and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1270: %``Implications of muon anomalous magnetic moment for direct detection of

1271: %  neutralino dark matter,''

1272: arXiv:hep-ph/0104258;

1273: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104258;%%

1274: %\bibitem{Lahanas:2001xd}

1275: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1276: %``Neutralino dark matter elastic scattering in a flat and accelerating  

1277: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 16}, 1229 (2001)

1278: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009065];

1279: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009065;%%

1280: %\bibitem{Lahanas:2001mu}

1281: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1282: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 94 (2001)

1283: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107151].

1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107151;%

1285: 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: \bibitem{EGNO}

1290: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ganis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

1291: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502}, 171 (2001)

1292: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009355].

1293: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009355;%%

1294: 

1295: \bibitem{bsg}

1296: CLEO Collaboration, S. Chen {\it et al.},

1297: CLEO CONF 01-16, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D;

1298: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0003, contribution to the 30th

1299: International conference on High-Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000.

1300: See also

1301: K.~Abe {\it et al.},  [Belle Collaboration],

1302: arXiv:hep-ex/0107065;

1303: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107065;%%

1304: L.~Lista  [BaBar Collaboration],

1305: arXiv:hep-ex/0110010;

1306: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110010;%%

1307: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1308: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions beyond the

1309: % leading order,''

1310: JHEP {\bf 0012}, 009 (2000)

1311: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

1312: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1313: see also

1314: %\bibitem{Carena:2001uj}   

1315: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1316: %``b $\to$ s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''

1317: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499}, 141 (2001)

1318: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003].

1319: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1320: 

1321: 

1322: \bibitem{SSARD}

1323: Information about this code is available from K.~A.~Olive: it contains

1324: important contributions from T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, J.~McDonald,

1325: K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki.  

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{EO}

1328: J.~R.~Ellis and K.~A.~Olive,

1329: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 114 (2001)

1330: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105004].

1331: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105004;%%

1332: 

1333: \bibitem{otherCMSSMomega}

1334: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1335: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 023515 (2000)

1336: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909497];

1337: %\bibitem{Barger:2001yy}

1338: V.~Barger and C.~Kao,  

1339: %``Implications of new CMB data for neutralino dark matter,''

1340: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 117 (2001)   

1341: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189];

1342: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106189;%%

1343: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,

1344: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 024 (2001)

1345: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334];

1346: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%

1347: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

1348: %``Constraints on the minimal supergravity model and prospects for SUSY  

1349: JHEP {\bf 0108}, 055 (2001)

1350: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107316].

1351: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%

1352: 

1353: \bibitem{Neutdriver}

1354: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest, \\

1355: {\tt http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/jungman/neut-package.html}.

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{EFFMO}

1358: J.~Ellis, J.~L.~Feng, A.~Ferstl, K.~T.~Matchev and K.~A.~Olive,

1359: [arXiv:astro-ph/0110225].

1360: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0110225;%%

1361: 

1362: \bibitem{LEPsusy}

1363: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group,

1364: {\it Combined LEP Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV}, \\

1365: {\tt http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos{\_}moriond01/%

1366: charginos{\_}pub.html}.

1367: 

1368: 

1369: 

1370: 

1371: 

1372: 

1373: 

1374: 

1375: 

1376: 

1377: 

1378: 

1379: 

1380: 

1381: 

1382: 

1383: 

1384: 

1385: 

1386: 

1387: 

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: 

1392: 

1393: 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: 

1397: 

1398: 

1399: