1: \documentclass[superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}
4: \setlength{\textheight}{241mm}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{170mm}
6:
7: \newcommand{\mpara}[1]{{\marginpar{{\small #1}}}}
8:
9:
10: %\newcommand{\MW}{M_W}
11: %\newcommand{\MZ}{M_Z}
12: %\newcommand{\sweff}{\sin^2\theta_{\mathrm{eff}}}
13: %\newcommand{\gammal}{\Gamma_l}
14: %\newcommand{\mt}{m_t}
15: %\newcommand{\MH}{M_H}
16: %\newcommand{\mh}{m_h}
17: %\newcommand{\De}{\Delta}
18: %\newcommand{\de}{\delta}
19: %\newcommand{\msbar}{$\overline{\rm MS}$}
20: %\def\order#1{${\cal O}(#1)$}
21: %\def\ul#1{\underline{#1}}
22: %\newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
23: %\newcommand{\als}{\alpha_s}
24:
25: \input{defs}
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \begin{flushright}
30: BNL--HET--02/6, CERN--TH/2002--020\\
31: DCPT/02/16, DESY 02--022\\
32: FERMILAB-Conf-02/011-T, HEPHY-PUB 751\\
33: IPPP/02/08, PM/01--69, SLAC-PUB-9134\\
34: UCD-2002-01, UFIFT-HEP-02-2\\
35: UMN--TH--2043/02, ZU-TH 3/02
36: %hep-ph/0202233\\
37: \end{flushright}
38:
39: %\input titlepage
40:
41: % You should use BibTeX and revtex.bst for references
42: \bibliographystyle{revtex}
43: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
44:
45: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report
46: % number and your conference paper identification number on the
47: % title page in preprint mode. Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.
48: %\preprint{XX}
49: %\preprint{BNL--HET--02/6, DCPT/02/16, FERMILAB-Conf-02/011-T,
50: %HEPHY-PUB 751,
51: %IPPP/02/08, SLAC-PUB-9134, UFIFT-HEP-02-2, ZU-TH 3/02}
52: %
53: %\preprint{Snowmass P3-xx}
54: %\preprint{hep-ph/0202233}
55:
56: %Title of paper
57: \title{The Snowmass Points and Slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY Searches}
58: % Optional argument for running titles on pages
59: %\title[]{}
60:
61: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation etc. as needed
62: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current
63: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail
64: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.
65: % Please use the appropriate macro for the type of information
66:
67: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last
68: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow th% other information
69:
70: \author{B.C.~Allanach}
71: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
72:
73: \author{M.~Battaglia}
74: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
75:
76: \author{G.A.~Blair}
77: \affiliation{Royal Holloway, Univ.\ of London, UK}
78:
79: \author{M.~Carena}
80: \affiliation{Fermilab, Batavia IL, U.S.A.}
81:
82: \author{A.~De~Roeck}
83: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
84:
85: \author{A.~Dedes}
86: \affiliation{University of Bonn, Germany}
87:
88: \author{A.~Djouadi}
89: \affiliation{LPMT, Universit\'e de Montpellier II,
90: %F--34095 Montpellier Cedex 5,
91: France}
92:
93: %\author{J.~Ellis}
94: %\affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
95:
96: \author{D.~Gerdes}
97: \affiliation{Dept.\ of Physics, Univ.~of Michigan, U.S.A.}
98:
99: \author{N.~Ghodbane}
100: \affiliation{DESY, Hamburg, Germany}
101:
102: %\author{F.~Gianotti}
103: %\affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
104:
105: %\author{L.~Gibbons}
106: %\affiliation{}
107:
108: \author{J.~Gunion}
109: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California at Davis,
110: Davis CA, U.S.A.}
111:
112: \author{H.E.~Haber}
113: \affiliation{Santa Cruz Inst.~for Part.~Phys., UCSC, Santa Cruz CA, U.S.A.}
114:
115: \author{T.~Han}
116: \affiliation{Dept.\ of Physics, Univ.~of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.}
117:
118: \author{S.~Heinemeyer}
119: %\email[]{Sven.Heinemeyer@bnl.gov}
120: %%\homepage[]{Your web page}
121: %%\thanks{}
122: %%\altaffiliation{}
123: \affiliation{HET Physics Dept., Brookhaven Natl.\ Lab., NY, U.S.A.}
124:
125: \author{J.L.~Hewett}
126: \affiliation{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University,
127: Stanford CA, U.S.A.}
128:
129: \author{I.~Hinchliffe}
130: \affiliation{Lawrence Berkeley Natl.\ Lab., Berkeley CA, U.S.A.}
131:
132: \author{J.~Kalinowski}
133: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Physics, UW, Warsaw, Poland}
134:
135: %\author{G.~Kane}
136: %\affiliation{}
137:
138: \author{H.E.~Logan}
139: \affiliation{Fermilab, Batavia IL, U.S.A.}
140:
141: \author{S.P.~Martin}
142: \affiliation{Fermilab, Batavia IL, U.S.A.}
143: \affiliation{Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL, U.S.A}
144:
145: \author{H.-U.~Martyn}
146: \affiliation{I.~Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen, Germany}
147:
148: \author{K.T.~Matchev}
149: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
150: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Florida,
151: Gainesville FL, U.S.A.}
152:
153: \author{S.~Moretti}
154: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}
155: \affiliation{Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, Durham, UK}
156:
157: \author{F.~Moortgat}
158: \affiliation{University of Antwerpen, Wilrijk, Belgium}
159:
160: \author{G.~Moortgat-Pick}
161: \affiliation{DESY, Hamburg, Germany}
162:
163: \author{S.~Mrenna}
164: \affiliation{Fermilab, Batavia IL, U.S.A.}
165:
166: \author{U.~Nauenberg}
167: \affiliation{Physics Dept., University of Colorado, Boulder CO, U.S.A.}
168:
169: \author{Y.~Okada}
170: \affiliation{KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan}
171:
172: \author{K.A.~Olive}
173: \affiliation{University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MN, U.S.A.}
174:
175: \author{W.~Porod}
176: \affiliation{Inst.~f.~Hochenergiephysik, \"Oster.~Akademie d.~Wissenschaften,
177: Vienna, Austria}
178: \affiliation{Inst.~f\"ur Theor.~Physik, Universit\"at Z\"urich,
179: Switzerland}
180:
181: \author{M.~Schmitt}
182: \affiliation{Northwestern University, Evanston IL, U.S.A.}
183:
184: \author{S.~Su}
185: \affiliation{California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA, U.S.A.}
186:
187: %\author{A.~Turcot}
188: %\affiliation{}
189:
190: \author{C.E.M.~Wagner}
191: \affiliation{High Energy Division, Argonne Natl.~Lab., Argonne IL, U.S.A.}
192: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute, Univ.\ of Chicago, Chicago IL, U.S.A.}
193:
194: \author{G.~Weiglein}
195: \email[]{Georg.Weiglein@durham.ac.uk}
196: %\homepage[]{Your web page}
197: %\thanks{}
198: %\altaffiliation{}
199: \affiliation{Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, Durham, UK}
200:
201: \author{J.~Wells}
202: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California at Davis,
203: Davis CA, U.S.A.}
204:
205: \author{G.W.~Wilson}
206: \affiliation{University of Kansas, Lawrence KS, U.S.A.}
207:
208: \author{P.~Zerwas}
209: \affiliation{DESY, Hamburg, Germany}
210:
211:
212: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
213: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
214: %used with the \author command).
215: %\collaboration{}
216: %\noaffiliation
217:
218: \date{February 22, 2002}
219:
220: \begin{abstract}
221: The ``Snowmass Points and Slopes'' (SPS) are a set of benchmark points
222: and parameter lines in the MSSM parameter space
223: corresponding to different scenarios in the search
224: for Supersymmetry at present and future experiments. This set of
225: benchmarks was agreed upon at the 2001 ``Snowmass Workshop on the Future of
226: Particle Physics'' as a consensus based on different existing proposals.
227: %The SPS are what mankind was desperately waiting for.
228: \end{abstract}
229: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
230: % \pacs{}
231:
232: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract and \pacs
233: \maketitle
234:
235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237:
238: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands
239: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands
240:
241: \section{Why benchmarks --- which benchmarks?}
242: %\label{sec:mhindirect}
243:
244: In the unconstrained version of the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of
245: the Standard Model (MSSM) no particular Supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking
246: mechanism is assumed, but rather a parameterization of all possible soft
247: SUSY breaking terms is used.
248: This leads to more than a hundred parameters
249: (masses, mixing angles, phases) in this model in addition to the ones of
250: the Standard Model. The currently most popular SUSY breaking
251: mechanisms are minimal supergravity (mSUGRA)~\cite{msugra},
252: gauge-mediated SUSY breaking (GMSB)~\cite{gmsb}, and anomaly-mediated
253: SUSY breaking (AMSB)~\cite{amsb}.
254: In these scenarios SUSY breaking happens in a hidden
255: sector and is mediated to the visible sector (i.e.\ the MSSM) in
256: different ways: via gravitational interactions in the mSUGRA scenario,
257: via gauge interactions in the GMSB scenario, and via the super-Weyl
258: anomaly in the AMSB scenario. Assuming one of these SUSY breaking
259: mechanisms leads to a drastic reduction of the number of
260: parameters compared to the MSSM case. The mSUGRA scenario is
261: characterized by four parameters
262: and a sign, the scalar mass parameter $m_0$, the gaugino mass parameter
263: $m_{1/2}$, the trilinear coupling $A_0$, the ratio of the Higgs vacuum
264: expectation values, $\tan\beta$, and the sign of the supersymmetric Higgs
265: mass parameter, $\mu$. The parameters of the (minimal) GMSB scenario are
266: the messenger mass $M_{\rm mes}$, the messenger index $N_{\rm mes}$,
267: the universal soft SUSY breaking mass scale felt by the low-energy
268: sector, $\Lambda$, as well as $\tan\beta$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$.
269: The (minimal) AMSB scenario has the parameters $m_{\rm aux}$, which sets
270: the overall scale of the SUSY particle masses (given by the vacuum
271: expectation value of the auxiliary field in the supergravity multiplet),
272: $\tan\beta$, $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$, and $m_0$, where the latter is a
273: phenomenological parameter introduced in order to keep the squares
274: of slepton masses positive. The mass spectra of the SUSY particles
275: in these scenarios are obtained via renormalization
276: group running from the scale of the high-energy parameters of the
277: SUSY-breaking scenario to the weak scale.
278: The low-energy parameters obtained in this way are then used as input
279: for calculating the
280: predictions for the production cross sections and for the decay
281: branching ratios of the SUSY particles.
282:
283: While a detailed scanning over the more-than-hundred-dimensional parameter
284: space of the MSSM is clearly not practicable, even a sampling of the three-
285: or four-dimensional parameter space of the above-mentioned SUSY breaking
286: scenarios is beyond the present capabilities for phenomenological
287: studies, in particular when it comes to simulating
288: experimental signatures within the detectors. For this reason one often
289: resorts to specific benchmark scenarios, i.e.\ one studies only specific
290: parameter points or at best samples a one-dimensional parameter space
291: (the latter is sometimes called a model line~\cite{modelline}), which
292: exhibit specific characteristics of the MSSM parameter space.
293: Benchmark scenarios of this kind are often used, for instance, for studying
294: the performance of different experiments at the same collider. Similarly,
295: detailed experimental simulations of sparticle production with identical
296: MSSM parameters in the
297: framework of different colliders can be very helpful for developing
298: strategies for combining pieces of information obtained at
299: different machines.
300:
301: The question of which parameter choices are useful as benchmark
302: scenarios depends on the purpose of the actual investigation. If one is
303: interested, for instance, in setting exclusion limits on the SUSY
304: parameter space from the non-observation of SUSY signals at the
305: experiments performed up to now, it is useful to use a benchmark
306: scenario which gives rise to ``conservative'' exclusion bounds. An
307: example of a benchmark scenario of this kind is the
308: $\mh^{\mathrm{max}}$-scenario~\cite{lephiggsbenchmarks} used for the
309: Higgs search at
310: LEP~\cite{lepbench} and the Tevatron~\cite{tevbench}. It gives rise to
311: maximal values of the lightest
312: $\cp$-even Higgs-boson mass (for fixed values of the top-quark mass and
313: the SUSY scale) and thus allows one to set conservative bounds on
314: $\tan\beta$ and $\MA$ (the mass of the $\cp$-odd Higgs boson)~\cite{tbexcl}.
315: Another application of benchmark scenarios is to study ``typical''
316: experimental signatures of SUSY models and to investigate the
317: experimental sensitivities and the achievable experimental precisions
318: for these cases. For this purpose it seems reasonable to choose
319: ``typical'' (a notion which is of course difficult to define) and
320: theoretically well motivated parameters of
321: certain SUSY-breaking scenarios. Examples of this kind are the benchmark
322: scenarios used so far for investigating SUSY searches at the
323: LHC~\cite{benchsnow96,tdratlcms}, the Tevatron~\cite{tevsugra}
324: and at a future Linear Collider~\cite{teslatdr}.
325: As a further possible goal of benchmark scenarios, one can choose them
326: so that they account for a wide variety of SUSY phenomenology.
327: For this purpose, one could for instance analyse
328: SUSY with R-parity breaking, investigate effects of non-vanishing $\cp$~phases,
329: or inspect non-minimal SUSY models. In this context it can also be
330: useful to consider ``pathological'' regions of parameter space or
331: ``worst-case'' scenarios. Examples for this are the ``large-$|\mu|$
332: scenario'' for the Higgs search at LEP~\cite{lephiggsbenchmarks} and the
333: Tevatron~\cite{hadhiggsbenchmarks}, for which the decay $h \to b \bar b$
334: can be significantly suppressed,
335: or a scenario where the Higgs boson has a large branching fraction into
336: invisible decay modes at the LHC (see e.g.\ \citere{fawzi}).
337:
338: A related issue concerning the definition of appropriate benchmarks is
339: whether a benchmark scenario chosen for investigating physics at a
340: certain experiment or for testing a certain sector of the theory should be
341: compatible with additional information from other experiments (or
342: concerning other sectors of the theory). This refers in
343: particular to constraints from cosmology (by demanding that SUSY should
344: give rise to an acceptable dark matter density~\cite{cdm}) and low-energy
345: measurements such as the rate for $b \to s \gamma$~\cite{bsg} and the
346: anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, $g_{\mu} -2$~\cite{gminus2} (see
347: \citere{gminus2th} for the updated SM prediction for $g_{\mu} -2$). On
348: the one hand, applying
349: constraints of this kind gives rise to ``more realistic'' benchmark
350: scenarios. On the other hand, one relies in this way on further
351: assumptions (and has to take account of experimental and theoretical
352: uncertainties related to these additional constraints), and it could
353: eventually turn out that one has inappropriately narrowed down the range of
354: possibilities by applying these constraints. This applies in
355: particular if slight modifications of the SUSY breaking scenarios are
356: allowed that have a minor impact on collider phenomenology but could
357: significantly alter the bounds from cosmology and low-energy
358: experiments. For instance, the presence of small flavor mixing terms in the
359: SUSY Lagrangian could severely affect the prediction for BR($b \to s \gamma$),
360: while allowing a small amount of R-parity violation in the model would
361: strongly affect the constraints from dark matter relic abundance
362: while leaving collider phenomenology essentially
363: unchanged. In the context of additional constraints one also has to
364: decide on the level of fine-tuning of parameters (as a measure to
365: distinguish between ``more natural'' and ``less natural'' parameter
366: choices) one should tolerate in a benchmark scenario.
367:
368: The extent to which additional constraints of this kind should
369: be applied to possible benchmark scenarios is related to the actual purpose
370: of the benchmark scenario. For setting exclusion bounds in a particular
371: sector (e.g.\ the Higgs sector) it seems preferable to apply constraints
372: only from this sector. Similarly, relaxing additional constraints should
373: also be appropriate for the investigation of ``worst-case'' scenarios
374: and for studying possible collider signatures.
375: Making use of all available information, on the other hand, would be
376: preferable when testing whether a certain model is actually the
377: ``correct'' theory.
378:
379: {}From the above discussion it should be obvious that it is not possible
380: to define a single set of benchmark scenarios that will serve all
381: purposes. The usefulness of a particular scenario will always depend on
382: which sector of the theory (e.g.\ the Higgs or the chargino/neutralino
383: sector) and which physics issue is investigated (exclusion limits or
384: ``typical'' scenarios at colliders, dark matter searches, etc.).
385: Accordingly, a comparison of the physics potential of different
386: experiments on the basis of specific benchmark scenarios is necessarily
387: very difficult.
388:
389: The need for reconsidering the issue of defining appropriate benchmarks
390: for SUSY searches at the next generation of colliders becomes apparent
391: from the fact that the exclusion bounds in the Higgs sector of the MSSM
392: obtained from the Higgs search at LEP rule out several of the benchmark
393: points used up to now for studies of SUSY phenomenology at future
394: colliders. Accordingly, after the termination of the LEP program several
395: proposals for new benchmark scenarios for SUSY searches have been made
396: by different groups.
397:
398: The ``Snowmass Points and Slopes'' (SPS), which we will discuss in the
399: following, are a set of benchmark scenarios which arose from
400: the 2001 ``Snowmass Workshop on the Future of
401: Particle Physics'' as a consensus based on different proposals recently
402: made %for benchmark scenarios
403: by various groups. The SPS consist of model
404: lines (``slopes''), i.e.\ continuous sets of parameters depending on one
405: dimensionful parameter (see below) and specific benchmark points, where
406: each model line goes through one of the benchmark points. The SPS should
407: be regarded as a recommendation for future studies of SUSY phenomenology,
408: but of course are not meant as an exclusive and for all purposes sufficient
409: collection of SUSY models. They mainly focus on ``typical'' scenarios
410: within the three currently most prominent SUSY-breaking mechanisms,
411: i.e.\ mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB. Furthermore they contain examples of
412: ``more extreme'' scenarios, e.g.\ a ``focus point''
413: scenario~\cite{focuspoint} with a rather heavy SUSY spectrum, indicating
414: in this way different possibilities for SUSY phenomenology that can
415: be realized within the most commonly used SUSY breaking scenarios.
416:
417:
418: \section{Recent proposals for SUSY benchmarks}
419: \label{sec:two}
420:
421: Before discussing the SPS in detail, we first briefly review some recent
422: proposals for SUSY benchmark scenarios. In \citere{BDEGMOPW}, henceforth
423: denoted as BDEGMOPW, a set of 13 parameter points in the CMSSM (i.e.\
424: the mSUGRA) scenario has been proposed according to the constraints
425: arising from demanding that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)
426: should give rise to a cosmologically acceptable dark matter relic
427: abundance: five points were chosen in the ``bulk'' of the cosmological
428: region, four points along the ``coannihilation tail'' (where a rapid
429: coannihilation takes place between the LSP and the (almost mass degenerate)
430: next-to-lightest SUSY particle (NSLP), which is usually the
431: lighter $\tilde\tau$), two points were chosen in
432: rapid-annihilation ``funnels'' (where an
433: increased annihilation cross section of the LSP results from poles due
434: to the heavier neutral MSSM Higgs bosons $H$ and $A$), and two points in the
435: ``focus-point'' region (where the annihilation cross section of the LSP
436: is enhanced due to a sizable higgsino component). The BDEGMOPW points
437: are all taken for the value of the trilinear coupling $A_0 = 0$, i.e.\ the
438: parameters that are varied are $m_0$, $m_{1/2}$, $\tan\beta$ and
439: $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$. They were in particular chosen to span a wide
440: range of $\tan\beta$ values.
441:
442: The constraints from the LEP Higgs search and the measurement of
443: $b \to s \gamma$ have been imposed
444: for all of the BDEGMOPW points, while the $g_{\mu}-2$ constraint was
445: not enforced (at the time of the proposal of the BDEGMOPW points only
446: the points in the ``bulk'' of the cosmological region were in agreement
447: with the $g_{\mu}-2$ constraint, while taking into account the updated SM value
448: for $g_{\mu}-2$~\cite{gminus2th} all but one of the BDEGMOPW points
449: satisfy the $g_{\mu}-2$ constraint at the $2 \sigma$ level). The
450: ``bulk'' of the cosmological region and the low-mass portion of the
451: ``focus point'' region are favored if fine-tuning constraints are applied.
452:
453: The ``Points d'Aix'' is a different set of benchmark points, which were
454: proposed in the framework of the Euro-GDR SUSY Workshop~\cite{aix}.
455: It consists of eleven benchmark points, out of which six belong to the mSUGRA
456: scenario, four to the GMSB scenario and one to the AMSB scenario. The
457: constraints from the LEP Higgs search and the electroweak precision data
458: have been applied to all benchmark points. For the mSUGRA points
459: further constraints from $b \to s \gamma$, $g_{\mu}-2$, and
460: cosmology have been used, while for the GMSB points the
461: constraints from $b \to s \gamma$ and $g_{\mu}-2$ have been taken into
462: account. No further constraints have been applied for the AMSB point.
463:
464: In \citere{modelline} a set of eight ``model lines'' in the mSUGRA,
465: GMSB and AMSB scenarios has been proposed.
466: The model lines were designed for studying typical SUSY signatures as a
467: function of the SUSY scale. Accordingly, each model line depends on
468: one dimensionful parameter, which sets the overall SUSY scale, while
469: $\tan\beta$ and $\mathrm{sign}(\mu)$ are kept fixed for each model line.
470: The other dimensionful parameters in each SUSY-breaking scenario are
471: taken to scale linearly with the parameter being varied along the model
472: line.
473: %The model lines were designed such that they allow to study
474: %certain SUSY signatures without having to specify a particular SUSY
475: %scale.
476: Since the main focus in this approach lies in investigating
477: typical SUSY signatures, neither constraints from Higgs and SUSY
478: particle searches nor from $b \to s \gamma$, $g_{\mu}-2$, or cosmology
479: were applied. Four of the model lines refer to the mSUGRA scenario, one
480: corresponds to an mSUGRA-like scenario with non-unified gaugino masses,
481: two model lines are realizations of the GMSB scenario, and one of the
482: AMSB scenario.
483:
484: %Benchmarks from I.~Hinchliffe, J.~Wells (HW); work by U.~Nauenberg et al.,
485: %etc.
486:
487:
488: \section{The Snowmass Points and Slopes (SPS)}
489:
490: The Snowmass Points and Slopes (SPS) are based on an attempt to merge
491: the features of the above proposals for different benchmark
492: scenarios into a subset of commonly accepted benchmark scenarios. They
493: consist of benchmark points and model lines (``slopes''). There are
494: ten benchmark points, from which six correspond to an mSUGRA
495: scenario, one is an mSUGRA-like scenario with non-unified gaugino
496: masses, two refer to the GMSB scenario, and one to the AMSB scenario.
497: Seven of these benchmark points are attached to model lines, while the
498: remaining three are supplied as isolated points (one could of course
499: also define model lines going through these points, but since studying a
500: model line will require more effort than studying a single point, it
501: seemed unnecessary to equip every chosen benchmark point with a model
502: line). In studying the benchmark scenarios the model lines should prove
503: useful in performing more general analyses of typical SUSY signatures,
504: while the specific points indicated on the lines are proposed to be
505: chosen as the first sample points for very detailed (and thus
506: time-consuming) analyses. The concept of a model line means of course
507: that more than just one point should be studied on each line.
508: Results along the model lines can often then be roughly
509: estimated by interpolation.
510:
511: An important aspect in the philosophy behind the benchmark scenarios is
512: that the low-energy MSSM parameters
513: %SUSY particle spectra and branching ratios, i.e.\ the
514: %(low-energy) SUSY phenomenology,
515: should be regarded as the actual
516: benchmark rather than the high-energy input parameters $m_0$, $m_{1/2}$,
517: etc. Thus, specifying the benchmark scenarios in terms of the latter
518: parameters is merely understood as an abbreviation for the low-energy
519: phenomenology.
520:
521: The relevant low-energy parameters are the soft SUSY-breaking parameters
522: in the diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices (using the
523: notation of the first generation),
524: \begin{equation}
525: M_{\tilde q1_L}, M_{\tilde d_R}, M_{\tilde u_R}, M_{\tilde e_L},
526: M_{\tilde e_R},
527: \label{eq:param1}
528: \end{equation}
529: and analogously for the other two generations, as well as
530: \begin{equation}
531: A_t, A_b, A_{\tau}, \ldots , M_1, M_2, M_{\tilde g}, \mu, M_A,
532: \tan\beta,
533: \label{eq:param2}
534: \end{equation}
535: where the $A_i$ are the trilinear couplings, $M_1$, $M_2$ are the
536: electroweak gaugino mass parameters, $M_{\tilde g}$ is the
537: gluino mass, and $M_A$ is the mass of the $\cp$-odd neutral Higgs boson.
538:
539: Our convention for the sign of $\mu$ is such that the neutralino and
540: chargino mass matrices have the following form
541: \beq
542: {\bf M}_{\widetilde \chi^0} =
543: \pmatrix{M_1 & 0 & -g'v_d/\sqrt{2}& g'v_u/\sqrt{2} \cr
544: 0 & M_2 & gv_d/\sqrt{2} & - gv_u /\sqrt{2} \cr
545: -g'v_d/\sqrt{2} & gv_d/\sqrt{2} & 0 & -\mu \cr
546: g'v_u/\sqrt{2} & -gv_u/\sqrt{2} & -\mu & 0 },
547: \qquad
548: {\bf M}_{\widetilde \chi^\pm} = \pmatrix{M_2 & g v_u\cr
549: g v_d & \mu} .
550: \eeq
551:
552: In order to relate the high-energy input parameters to the
553: corresponding low-energy MSSM parameters
554: specified in \refeqs{eq:param1}, (\ref{eq:param2}),
555: a certain standard has to be chosen.
556: It was agreed that this standard should be version 7.58 of the program
557: {\sl ISAJET}~\cite{isajet}. It should be stressed at this point that
558: the definition of this standard contains a certain degree of
559: arbitrariness. In particular, for the purpose of defining certain
560: spectra as benchmarks, the issue of how accurately high-energy input
561: parameters can be related (via renormalization group running) to the
562: corresponding low-energy parameters in different programs
563: (e.g.\ {\sl ISAJET}, %{\sl PYTHIA}~\cite{pythia},
564: {\sl SUSYGEN}~\cite{susygen}, {\sl SUSPECT}~\cite{suspect},
565: {\sl SOFTSUSY}~\cite{softsusy}, {\sl SUITY}~\cite{suity},
566: {\sl BMPZ}~\cite{bmpz}, etc.) is of
567: minor importance and therefore has not been addressed in the context of
568: the SPS.
569: Once a standard has been defined for relating the high-energy
570: input parameters to the low-energy MSSM parameters, the way the latter
571: were obtained and the precise values of the high-energy input parameters
572: are no longer relevant.
573:
574: In order to perform the analysis of the SPS benchmark scenarios with
575: a program like {\sl PYTHIA}~\cite{pythia} or {\sl HERWIG}~\cite{herwig},
576: it is the easiest to
577: use the output of {\sl ISAJET 7.58} for the parameters specified
578: in \refeqs{eq:param1}, (\ref{eq:param2}) directly as input for these
579: programs. Alternatively, if one prefers to use the high-energy
580: parameters $m_0$, $m_{1/2}$, etc.\ as input in a program like
581: {\sl SUSYGEN}, one should make sure that the low-energy parameters of
582: \refeq{eq:param1}, (\ref{eq:param2}) agree within reasonable precision
583: with the actual benchmark values. If using the input values $m_0$, $m_{1/2}$,
584: etc.\ given below in a different program %(or another version of {\sl ISAJET})
585: leads to a significant deviation in the parameters of
586: \refeqs{eq:param1}, (\ref{eq:param2}), these high-energy input
587: parameters should be adapted such that the low-energy
588: parameters are brought into approximate agreement.
589: Since the low-energy MSSM parameters corresponding to {\sl ISAJET 7.58}
590: have been frozen as benchmarks by definition, an appropriate adaptation
591: will also be necessary for upgrades of {\sl ISAJET} beyond version 7.58.
592:
593: While it appears to be reasonable to fix certain sets of low-energy
594: MSSM parameters as benchmarks by definition (which in principle could have
595: been done without resorting at all to scenarios like mSUGRA, GMSB and
596: AMSB), it on the other hand doesn't seem justified to freeze the
597: particle spectra, branching ratios, etc.\ obtained from these low-energy
598: MSSM parameters as well. It is obvious that no single program exists
599: which represents the current ``state of the art'' for computing all
600: particle masses and branching ratios, and it should of course also be
601: possible to take future improvements into account. The
602: level of accuracy of the theoretical predictions presently
603: implemented in a
604: multi-purpose program like {\sl ISAJET} will not always be sufficient.
605: This refers in particular to the MSSM Higgs sector, where it will
606: usually be preferable to resort to dedicated programs like
607: \fh~\cite{feynhiggs}, \subh~\cite{subh}, or {\sl HDECAY}~\cite{hdecay}
608: for cross-checking.
609:
610: For the evaluation of the mass spectra and decay branching ratios from
611: the MSSM benchmark parameters one should therefore choose an appropriate
612: program according to the specific requirements of the analysis that is
613: being performed. If detailed comparisons between different experiments or
614: different colliders are carried out, it would clearly be advantageous to
615: use the same results for the mass spectra and the branching ratios.
616:
617: Concerning the compatibility with external constraints, all benchmark
618: points corresponding to the mSUGRA scenario give rise to a
619: cosmologically acceptable dark matter relic abundance (according to the
620: bounds applied in \citeres{BDEGMOPW,aix}, i.e.\
621: $0.1 \leq \Omega_{\chi} h^2 \leq 0.3$ for the BDEGMOPW points and
622: $0.025 < \Omega_{\chi} h^2 < 0.5$ for the ``Points d'Aix'').
623: In all SPS scenarios $\mu > 0$
624: has been chosen. Within mSUGRA models, positive values of $\mu$ lead to
625: values of $b \to s \gamma$ and $g_{\mu}-2$ which, within our present
626: theoretical understanding, are consistent with the current experimental
627: values of these quantities over a wide parameter range. While there is
628: in general a slight preference for $\mu > 0$, one certainly cannot regard
629: the case $\mu < 0$ as being experimentally excluded at present. We have
630: nevertheless restricted to scenarios with positive $\mu$, since choosing
631: $\mu$ negative does not lead to new characteristic experimental
632: signatures as compared to the case with $\mu > 0$.
633:
634: Taking the updated SM value for $g_{\mu}-2$~\cite{gminus2th} into
635: account, the allowed 2-$\sigma$ range for SUSY contributions to
636: $a_{\mu} \equiv (g_{\mu}-2)/2$ is currently $-6 \times 10^{-10} <
637: a_{\mu} < 58 \times 10^{-10}$. Accordingly, at present no upper bound
638: on the SUSY masses can be inferred from the $g_{\mu}-2$ constraint, but
639: only a rather mild lower bound. For the constraint from
640: $b \to s \gamma$, the bound $2.33 \times 10^{-4} < \mbox{BR}(b \to s
641: \gamma) < 4.15 \times 10^{-4}$ has been used for the BDEGMOPW
642: mSUGRA points~\cite{BDEGMOPW}, while $2 \times 10^{-4} < \mbox{BR}(b \to
643: s \gamma) < 5 \times 10^{-4}$ has been used for the mSUGRA and GMSB
644: points of the ``Points d'Aix''~\cite{aix}.
645: %For a more detailed discussion of the
646: %compatibility of the SPS benchmark scenarios with various external
647: %constraints we refer to section~\ref{sec:two} and
648: %\citeres{modelline,BDEGMOPW,aix}.
649:
650: The main qualitative difference between the SPS (and also the recent
651: proposals for post-LEP benchmarks in \citeres{modelline,BDEGMOPW,aix})
652: and the benchmarks used so far for
653: investigating SUSY searches at the LHC, the Tevatron and a future Linear
654: Collider is that scenarios with small
655: values of $\tan\be$, i.e.\ $\tan\be \lsim 3$, are disfavored as a result
656: of the Higgs exclusion bounds obtained at LEP. Consequently, there is
657: more focus now on scenarios with larger values of $\tan\be$ than in
658: previous studies. Concerning the SUSY phenomenology, intermediate and
659: large values of $\tan\be$, $\tan\be \gsim 5$,
660: have the important consequence that there is
661: in general a non-negligible mixing between the two staus (and an even
662: more pronounced mixing in the sbottom sector), leading to a significant mass
663: splitting between the two staus so that the lighter stau becomes the
664: lightest slepton. Neutralinos and charginos therefore decay
665: predominantly into staus and taus, which is experimentally more
666: challenging than the dilepton signal resulting for instance from the decay
667: of the second lightest neutralino into the lightest neutralino and a
668: pair of leptons of the first or the second generation.
669:
670: Large values of $\tan\be$ can furthermore have important consequences
671: for the phenomenology in the Higgs sector, as the couplings of the heavy
672: Higgs bosons $H$, $A$ to down-type fermions are in general enhanced.
673: For sizable values of $\mu$ and $m_{\tilde g}$ the $hb\bar b$ coupling
674: receives large radiative corrections from gluino loop corrections,
675: which in particular affect the branching ratio BR($h \to \tau^+\tau^-$).
676:
677:
678:
679: In the following we list the SPS benchmark scenarios. The value of the
680: top-quark mass in all cases is chosen to be $\mt = 175$~GeV.
681:
682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
683: \begin{figure}[t]
684: \mbox{} \hspace{.7cm} SPS 1a \hspace{7.3cm} SPS 1b
685: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_1.eps} \hspace{.5em}
686: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_1b.eps}\\[1.5em]
687: \hspace{.7cm} SPS 2 \hspace{7.3cm} SPS 3\\
688: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_2.eps} \hspace{.5em}
689: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_3.eps}
690: \caption{The SUSY particle spectra for the benchmark points
691: corresponding to SPS 1a, SPS 1b, SPS 2 and SPS 3 as obtained with
692: {\sl ISAJET 7.58} (see \citere{ulinabil}).
693: }
694: \label{fig1}
695: \end{figure}
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697:
698: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
699: \begin{figure}[t]
700: \mbox{} \hspace{.7cm} SPS 4 \hspace{7.3cm} SPS 5
701: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_4.eps} \hspace{.5em}
702: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_5.eps} \\[1.5em]
703: \hspace{.7cm} SPS 6 \hspace{7.3cm} SPS 7\\
704: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_6.eps} \hspace{.5em}
705: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_7.eps}
706: \caption{The SUSY particle spectra for the benchmark points
707: corresponding to SPS 4, SPS 5, SPS 6 and SPS 7 as obtained with
708: {\sl ISAJET 7.58} (see \citere{ulinabil}).
709: }
710: \label{fig2}
711: \end{figure}
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
713:
714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
715: \begin{figure}[t]
716: \mbox{} \hspace{.7cm} SPS 8 \hspace{7.3cm} SPS 9
717: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_8.eps} \hspace{.5em}
718: \includegraphics[height=7.5cm,width=8cm]{msps_9.eps}
719: \caption{The SUSY particle spectra for the benchmark points
720: corresponding to SPS 8 and SPS 9 as obtained with
721: {\sl ISAJET 7.58} (see \citere{ulinabil}).
722: }
723: \label{fig3}
724: \end{figure}
725: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
726:
727:
728: \begin{description}
729:
730: \item[SPS 1: ``typical'' mSUGRA scenario]
731:
732: \mbox{}
733:
734: This scenario consists of a ``typical'' mSUGRA point with an
735: intermediate value of
736: $\tan\beta$ and a model line attached to it (SPS 1a) and of a ``typical''
737: mSUGRA point with relatively high $\tan\beta$ (SPS 1b). The two-points
738: lie in the ``bulk'' of the cosmological region. For the collider
739: phenomenology in particular the $\tau$-rich neutralino and chargino
740: decays are important.
741:
742: {\bf SPS 1a:}\\[.5em]
743: \underline{Point:}
744: $$
745: m_0 = 100 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 250 \GeV, \quad A_0 = -100 \GeV,
746: \quad \tan\beta = 10, \quad \mu > 0 .
747: $$
748: \underline{Slope:}
749: $$
750: m_0 = -A_0 = 0.4 \, m_{1/2}, \quad m_{1/2} \mbox{ varies} .
751: $$
752: The point is similar to BDEGMOPW point B. %and HW point 2.
753: The slope equals model line A~\cite{modelline}.\\[1em]
754: %
755: %
756: {\bf SPS 1b:}\\[.5em]
757: \underline{Point:}
758: $$
759: m_0 = 200 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 400 \GeV, \quad A_0 = 0, \quad \tan\beta = 30,
760: \quad \mu > 0 .
761: $$
762: This point is the mSUGRA point 6 of the ``Points d'Aix''.\\
763:
764: \item[SPS 2: ``focus point'' scenario in mSUGRA]
765:
766: \mbox{}
767:
768: The benchmark point chosen for SPS~2 lies in the ``focus point'' region,
769: where a too large relic abundance is avoided by an enhanced annihilation
770: cross section of the LSP due to a sizable higgsino component.
771: This scenario features relatively heavy squarks and sleptons, while the
772: charginos and the neutralinos are fairly light and the gluino is lighter
773: than the squarks.
774:
775: \underline{Point:}
776: $$
777: m_0 = 1450 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 300 \GeV, \quad A_0 = 0, \quad \tan\beta = 10,
778: \quad \mu > 0 .
779: $$
780: \underline{Slope:}
781: $$
782: m_0 = 2 \, m_{1/2} + 850 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} \mbox{ varies} .
783: $$
784: The point equals BDEGMOPW point E %and HW point 3
785: and is similar to mSUGRA point 2 of the ``Points d'Aix''.
786: The slope equals model line F.\\
787:
788: \item[SPS 3: model line into ``coannihilation region'' in mSUGRA]
789:
790: \mbox{}
791:
792: The model line of this scenario is directed into the ``coannihilation
793: region'', where a sufficiently low relic abundance can arise from
794: a rapid coannihilation between the LSP and the (almost mass degenerate)
795: NSLP, which is usually the lighter $\tilde\tau$. Accordingly, an
796: important feature in the collider phenomenology of this scenario is the
797: very small slepton--neutralino mass difference.
798:
799: \underline{Point:}
800: $$
801: m_0 = 90 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 400 \GeV, \quad A_0 = 0,
802: \quad \tan\beta = 10, \quad \mu > 0 .
803: $$
804: \underline{Slope:}
805: $$
806: m_0 = 0.25 \, m_{1/2} - 10 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} \mbox{ varies} .
807: $$
808: The point equals BDEGMOPW point C.
809: The slope equals model line H.\\
810:
811: \item[SPS 4: mSUGRA scenario with large $\tan\beta$]
812:
813: \mbox{}
814:
815: The large value of $\tan\be$ in this scenario has an important impact on
816: the phenomenology in the Higgs sector. The couplings of
817: $A, H$ to $b\bar{b}$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ as well as the
818: $H^{\pm} t\bar{b}$ couplings are
819: significantly enhanced in this scenario, resulting in particular
820: in large associated production cross sections for the heavy Higgs
821: bosons.
822: %in particular in the searches for
823: %the heavy Higgs states in the channels $H, A \to \tau^+\tau^-$.
824:
825: \underline{Point:}
826: $$
827: m_0 = 400 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 300 \GeV, \quad A_0 = 0,
828: \quad \tan\beta = 50, \quad \mu > 0 .
829: $$
830: This point equals mSUGRA point 3 of the ``Points d'Aix'' and is
831: similar to BDEGMOPW point L.\\
832:
833: \item[SPS 5: mSUGRA scenario with relatively light scalar top quark]
834:
835: \mbox{}
836:
837: This scenario is characterized by a large negative value of $A_0$, which
838: allows consistency of the relatively low value of $\tan\beta$ with
839: the constraints from the Higgs search at LEP, see
840: \citere{Djouadi:2001yk}.
841:
842: \underline{Point:}
843: $$
844: m_0 = 150 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 300 \GeV, \quad A_0 = -1000,
845: \quad \tan\beta = 5, \quad \mu > 0 .
846: $$
847: This point equals mSUGRA point 4 of the ``Points d'Aix''.\\
848:
849: \item[SPS 6: mSUGRA-like scenario with non-unified gaugino masses]
850:
851: \mbox{}
852:
853: In this scenario, the bino mass parameter $M_1$ is larger than in the
854: usual mSUGRA models by a factor of $1.6$. While a bino-like neutralino is
855: still the LSP, the mass difference between the lightest chargino and the
856: lightest two neutralinos and the sleptons is significantly reduced
857: compared to the typical mSUGRA case. Neutralino, chargino and slepton decays
858: will feature less-energetic jets and leptons as a consequence.
859:
860: \underline{Point:}
861: \begin{eqnarray}
862: && \mbox{at GUT scale: } M_1 = 480 \GeV, \quad M_2 = M_3 = 300 \GeV \non \\
863: &&
864: m_0 = 150 \GeV, \quad m_{1/2} = 300 \GeV, \quad A_0 = 0,
865: \quad \tan\beta = 10, \quad \mu > 0 . \non
866: \end{eqnarray}
867: \underline{Slope:}
868: $$
869: M_3({\rm GUT}) = M_2({\rm GUT}), \quad
870: M_1({\rm GUT}) = 1.6 \, M_2({\rm GUT}), \quad
871: m_0 = 0.5 \, M_2({\rm GUT}),
872: \quad M_2({\rm GUT}) \mbox{ varies} .
873: $$
874: The slope equals model line B.\\
875:
876: \item[SPS 7: GMSB scenario with $\tilde \tau$ NLSP]
877:
878: \mbox{}
879:
880: The NLSP in this GMSB scenario is the lighter stau, with allowed three
881: body decays of right-handed selectrons and smuons into it.
882: The decay of the NLSP into the Gravitino and the $\tau$ in this scenario
883: can be chosen to be prompt, delayed or quasi-stable.
884:
885: \underline{Point:}
886: $$
887: \Lambda = 40 \TeV, \quad M_{\rm mes} = 80 \TeV, \quad N_{\rm mes} = 3,
888: \quad \tan\beta = 15, \quad \mu > 0 .
889: $$
890: \underline{Slope:}
891: $$
892: M_{\rm mes}/ \Lambda = 2, \quad \Lambda \mbox{ varies} .
893: $$
894: The point equals GMSB point 1 of the ``Points d'Aix''.
895: The slope equals model line D.\\
896:
897: \item[SPS 8: GMSB scenario with neutralino NLSP]
898:
899: \mbox{}
900:
901: The NLSP in this scenario is the lightest neutralino. The second
902: lightest neutralino has a significant branching ratio into $h$ when
903: kinematically allowed.
904: The decay of the NLSP into the Gravitino (and a photon or a $Z$~boson)
905: in this scenario can be chosen to be prompt, delayed or quasi-stable.
906:
907: %This scenario is defined for two values of $\tan\beta$. SPS 8a refers to
908: %$\tan\beta = 15$, while SPS 8b refers to $\tan\beta = 30$.
909:
910: \underline{Point:}
911: $$
912: \Lambda = 100 \TeV, \quad M_{\rm mes} = 200 \TeV, \quad N_{\rm mes} = 1,
913: \quad \tan\beta = 15, \quad \mu > 0 .
914: $$
915: \underline{Slope:}
916: $$
917: M_{\rm mes}/ \Lambda = 2, \quad \Lambda \mbox{ varies} .
918: $$
919: The point equals GMSB point 2 of the ``Points d'Aix''.
920: The slope equals model line E.\\
921:
922: \item[SPS 9: AMSB scenario]
923:
924: \mbox{}
925:
926: This scenario features a very small neutralino--chargino mass
927: difference, which is typical for AMSB scenarios. Accordingly, the LSP is
928: a neutral wino and the NLSP a nearly degenerate charged wino. The NLSP
929: decays to the LSP and a soft pion with a macroscopic decay length, as
930: much as 10~cm.
931:
932: \underline{Point:}
933: $$
934: m_0 = 450 \GeV, \quad m_{\rm aux} = 60 \TeV,
935: \quad \tan\beta = 10, \quad \mu > 0 .
936: $$
937: \underline{Slope:}
938: $$
939: m_0 = 0.0075 \, m_{\rm aux}, \quad m_{\rm aux} \mbox{ varies} .
940: $$
941: The slope equals model line G.
942:
943: \end{description}
944:
945: \begin{table}[t]
946: \begin{center}
947: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
948: \hline\hline
949: %SPS & & & & & & & Slope\\
950: SPS & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Point \hspace{3em}} & Slope\\
951: \hline\hline
952: mSUGRA: & $m_0$ & $m_{1/2}$ & $A_0$ & $\tan\beta$ & & & \\
953: % & (GeV) & (GeV) & (GeV) & & & & \\
954: \hline
955: 1a & 100 & 250 & -100 & 10 & & & $m_0 = -A_0 = 0.4 \, m_{1/2}$,
956: $\; m_{1/2}$ varies\\
957: 1b & 200 & 400 & 0 & 30 & & & \\
958: 2 & 1450 & 300 & 0 & 10 & & & $m_0 = 2 \, m_{1/2} + 850 \GeV$,
959: $\; m_{1/2}$ varies\\
960: 3 & 90 & 400 & 0 & 10 & & & $m_0 = 0.25 \, m_{1/2} - 10 \GeV$,
961: $\; m_{1/2}$ varies \\
962: 4 & 400 & 300 & 0 & 50 & & & \\
963: 5 & 150 & 300 & -1000 & 5 & & & \\
964: \hline\hline
965: mSUGRA-like: & $m_0$ & $m_{1/2}$ & $A_0$ & $\tan\beta$ &
966: $M_1$ & $M_2 = M_3$ & \\
967: % & (GeV) & (GeV) & (GeV) & & (GeV) & (GeV) & \\
968: \hline
969: 6 & 150 & 300 & 0 & 10 & 480 & 300 & $M_1 = 1.6 \, M_2$,
970: $m_0 = 0.5 \, M_2$, $\; M_2$ varies \\
971: \hline\hline
972: GMSB: & $\Lambda/10^3$ & $M_{\rm mes}/10^3$ & $N_{\rm mes}$ & $\tan\beta$ & & & \\
973: % & (TeV) & (TeV) & & & & & \\
974: \hline
975: 7 & 40 & 80 & 3 & 15 & & & $M_{\rm mes}/ \Lambda = 2$,
976: $\; \Lambda$ varies \\
977: 8 & 100 & 200 & 1 & 15 & & & $M_{\rm mes}/ \Lambda = 2$,
978: $\; \Lambda$ varies \\
979: \hline\hline
980: AMSB: & $m_0$ & $m_{\rm aux}/10^3$ & & $\tan\beta$ & & & \\
981: % & (GeV) & (TeV) & & & & & \\
982: \hline
983: 9 & 450 & 60 & & 10 & & & $m_0 = 0.0075 \, m_{\rm aux}$,
984: $\; m_{\rm aux}$ varies \\
985: \hline\hline
986: \end{tabular}
987: \end{center}
988: \caption{The parameters (which refer to
989: {\sl ISAJET} version 7.58) for the Snowmass Points and Slopes (SPS).
990: The masses and scales are given in GeV.
991: All SPS are defined with $\mu > 0$. The parameters $M_1$, $M_2$, $M_3$
992: in SPS 6 are understood to be taken at the GUT scale. The value of the
993: top-quark mass for all SPS is $\mt = 175$~GeV.
994: \label{params}}
995: \end{table}
996:
997: For completeness, the parameters of all benchmark scenarios have been
998: collected in Table~\ref{params}.
999: The SUSY particle spectra corresponding to the benchmark points of the
1000: SPS as obtained with {\sl ISAJET 7.58} are shown in
1001: \reffis{fig1}-\ref{fig3}.
1002: %Since the SUSY spectra and
1003: %branching ratios for SPS 8a and SPS 8b are almost identical, we show
1004: %here only the spectrum for SPS 8a.
1005:
1006: For a detailed listing of the low-energy MSSM parameters obtained with
1007: {\sl ISAJET 7.58} corresponding to the benchmark points specified above
1008: we refer to \citere{ulinabil}.$^a$
1009: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
1010: \footnotetext[1]{The results for SPS~1b are not given in
1011: \citere{ulinabil}.}
1012:
1013: In \citere{ulinabil} furthermore {\sl PYTHIA} and {\sl SUSYGEN} have
1014: been used in order to derive the low-energy MSSM parameters for the
1015: mSUGRA benchmark points of the SPS (i.e.\ using the high-energy
1016: parameters specified in SPS 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5 as input). These results can
1017: be used to adapt the high-energy input parameters in {\sl PYTHIA} and
1018: {\sl SUSYGEN} such that the actual benchmarks are closely resembled.
1019: For SPS 1a, 3, and 5 quite good agreement (typically within 10\%)
1020: between the low-energy MSSM parameters obtained with {\sl ISAJET 7.58},
1021: {\sl PYTHIA 6.2/00} and {\sl SUSYGEN 3.00/27} has been found. For the
1022: high-energy input parameters corresponding to SPS~2 and 4, which involve
1023: more extreme values (large $m_0$ in SPS~2 and large $\tan\beta$ in
1024: SPS~4), rather drastic deviations between low-energy parameters obtained
1025: with the
1026: three programs can occur (in the chargino and neutralino sector for
1027: SPS~2 and in the Higgs and third generation sfermion sector for SPS~4),
1028: indicating that the theoretical uncertainties in relating the
1029: high-energy input parameters to the low-energy MSSM parameters are very
1030: large in these cases.
1031: Consequently, some adaptations of the high-energy input parameters
1032: will be necessary when analyzing
1033: SPS~2 and 4 with different codes in order to match the actual
1034: benchmarks.
1035:
1036: In \citere{ulinabil} also the particle spectra and decay branching
1037: ratios obtained with {\sl ISAJET 7.58}, {\sl PYTHIA 6.2/00} and {\sl
1038: SUSYGEN 3.00/27} have been compared. For SPS 6 -- 9,
1039: where the benchmark values of the low-energy MSSM parameters have been
1040: used as input for {\sl PYTHIA} and {\sl SUSYGEN}, a good overall
1041: agreement in the particle spectra and branching ratios between the three
1042: programs has been found.
1043: For a similar analysis, in which the outputs of different codes
1044: are compared for some of the model lines specified above, see
1045: \citere{benallanach}.
1046:
1047: As mentioned above, in order to allow detailed comparisons between
1048: future studies based on the SPS it is not only important that the
1049: correct values for the actual benchmark parameters specified
1050: in \refeqs{eq:param1}, (\ref{eq:param2}) are used, but also the mass
1051: spectra and branching ratios that were used in the studies should be
1052: indicated.
1053:
1054: \section{Conclusions}
1055:
1056: Detailed experimental simulations in the search for supersymmetric
1057: particles make it often necessary to restrict oneself to specific
1058: benchmark scenarios. The usefulness of a particular benchmark scenario
1059: depends on the physics issue being investigated, and the question of which
1060: points or parameter lines should be selected from a multi-dimensional
1061: parameter space is to a considerable extent a matter of taste.
1062: After the completion of the LEP program several sets of benchmark
1063: scenarios for SUSY searches
1064: have been proposed as a guidance for experimental analyses at
1065: the Tevatron, the LHC and future lepton and hadron colliders.
1066: %as well as at
1067: %low-energy experiments such as measurements of rare $b$ decays and of the
1068: %anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, and at experiments aiming at a
1069: %direct detection of dark matter.
1070: These proposals have been
1071: discussed at the ``Snowmass Workshop on the Future of Particle
1072: Physics'', and have briefly been reviewed in this paper.
1073:
1074: As an outcome of the Snowmass Workshop the ``Snowmass Points and Slopes''
1075: (SPS) have been agreed upon as an attempt to merge elements of the
1076: different existing proposals into a common set of benchmark scenarios.
1077: The SPS, as spelled out in this paper, consist of a set of benchmark
1078: points and model lines (``slopes'') within the mSUGRA, GMSB and AMSB
1079: scenarios, where each model line contains one of the benchmark points.
1080: We hope that this collection of benchmark scenarios will prove useful
1081: in future experimental studies.
1082:
1083: \begin{acknowledgments}
1084: Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc.\
1085: under contract no.\ DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the U.S.\ Department of
1086: Energy.
1087: This work was supported in part by the European Community's Human
1088: Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Colliders.
1089: J.F.G.\ is supported, in part, by the U.S.\ Department of Energy,
1090: Contract DE-FG03-91ER-40674, and by
1091: the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics.
1092: H.E.H.\ is supported in part by a grant from the U.S.\ Department of
1093: Energy.
1094: The work of J.L.H.\ is supported by the U.S.\ Department of Energy, Contract
1095: DE-AC03-76SF00515.
1096: J.K.\ is supported in part by the KBN Grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001-2002).
1097: The work of S.P.M.\ is supported in part by U.S.\ National Science Foundation
1098: grant PHY-9970691.
1099: F.M.\ is supported by the Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium).
1100: S.Mo.\ would like to thank The Royal Society (London, UK) for
1101: financial support in the form of a Conference Grant.
1102: The work of K.A.O.\ was supported in part by DOE grant
1103: DE--FG02--94ER--40823.
1104: \end{acknowledgments}
1105:
1106: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:
1107:
1108: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1110:
1111: % \bibliography{sps}
1112: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1113:
1114: %\bibitem{susy} H.P.~Nilles,
1115: % {\em Phys.\ Rep.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1; \\
1116: % %%CITATION = PRPLC,110,1;%%
1117: % H.E.~Haber and G.L.~Kane,
1118: % {\em Phys.\ Rep.} {\bf 117}, (1985) 75; \\
1119: % %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
1120: % R.~Barbieri,
1121: % {\em Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.} {\bf 11}, (1988) 1.
1122: % %%CITATION = RNCIB,11,1;%%
1123:
1124: \bibitem{msugra} H.~P.~Nilles,
1125: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 115} (1982) 193;
1126: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,193;%%
1127: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 217} (1983) 366.\\
1128: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B217,366;%%
1129: A.~H.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
1130: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 49} (1982) 970;\\
1131: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,970;%%
1132: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~A.~Savoy,
1133: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 119} (1982) 343.
1134: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B119,343;%%
1135:
1136: \bibitem{gmsb} For a review, see G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,
1137: {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 322} (1999) 419,
1138: hep-ph/9801271.
1139: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801271;%%
1140:
1141: \bibitem{amsb} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
1142: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 557} (1999) 79,
1143: hep-th/9810155;\\
1144: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9810155;%%
1145: G.~F.~Giudice, M.~A.~Luty, H.~Murayama and R.~Rattazzi,
1146: {\em JHEP} {\bf 9812} (1998) 027,
1147: hep-ph/9810442.
1148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810442;%%
1149:
1150: \bibitem{modelline}
1151: S.P.~Martin, {\tt
1152: http://zippy.physics.niu.edu/modellines.html};\\
1153: S.P.~Martin, S.~Moretti, J.~Qian and G.W.~Wilson, Snowmass P3-46.
1154: %{\tt http://131.156.85.18/P3_DirectSUSYSummary.ps}.
1155:
1156: \bibitem{lephiggsbenchmarks}
1157: M.~Carena, S.~Heinemeyer, C.~Wagner and G.~Weiglein,
1158: hep-ph/9912223.
1159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912223;%%
1160:
1161: \bibitem{lepbench} LEP Higgs Working Group Collaboration,
1162: hep-ex/0107030.
1163: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107030;%%
1164:
1165: \bibitem{tevbench} T.~Affolder {\it et al.}, (CDF Collaboration)
1166: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf D 86} (2001) 4472,
1167: hep-ex/0010052.
1168: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010052;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{tbexcl} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1171: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0006} (2000) 009,
1172: hep-ph/9909540.
1173: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909540;%%
1174:
1175: \bibitem{benchsnow96}
1176: A.~Bartl {\it et al.},
1177: %``Supersymmetry at LHC,''
1178: LBL-39413,
1179: {\it Presented at 1996 DPF / DPB Summer Study on New Directions for
1180: High-Energy Physics (Snowmass 96), Snowmass, CO, 25 Jun -- 12 Jul
1181: 1996};\\
1182: I.~Hinchliffe, F.E.~Paige, M.D.~Shapiro, J.~Soderqvist and W.~Yao,
1183: {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D55} (1997) 5520.
1184: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610544;%%
1185:
1186: \bibitem{tdratlcms}
1187: ATLAS Collaboration, {\it ATLAS detector and physics performance
1188: Technical Design Report}, CERN/LHCC 99-14/15 (1999);\\
1189: S.~Abdullin {\it et al.} (CMS Collaboration),
1190: hep-ph/9806366;
1191: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806366;
1192: S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles,
1193: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B547} (1999) 60;
1194: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811402;%%
1195: CMS Collaboration, Technical Proposal, CERN/LHCC 94-38 (1994).
1196:
1197: \bibitem{tevsugra}
1198: S.~Abel {\it et al.} (SUGRA Working Group Collaboration),
1199: {\it Report of the SUGRA working group for run II of the Tevatron},
1200: hep-ph/0003154.
1201: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003154;%%
1202:
1203: \bibitem{teslatdr}
1204: J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},
1205: (ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group),
1206: {\em TESLA Technical Design Report Part III: Physics at an
1207: $e^+e^-$ Linear Collider} (2001), hep-ph/0106315;\\
1208: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
1209: T.~Abe {\it et al.}, (American Linear Collider Working Group),
1210: {\em Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001.
1211: 2: Higgs and supersymmetry studies}
1212: (2001), hep-ex/0106056;\\
1213: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106056;%%
1214: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, (ACFA Linear Collider Working Group),
1215: {\em Particle physics experiments at JLC} (2001), hep-ph/0109166.
1216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%
1217:
1218: \bibitem{hadhiggsbenchmarks}
1219: M.~Carena, S.~Heinemeyer, C.~Wagner and G.~Weiglein,
1220: hep-ph/0202167.
1221: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202167;%%
1222:
1223: \bibitem{fawzi}
1224: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Cottrant, R.M.~Godbole and A.~Semenov,
1225: %``The MSSM invisible Higgs in the light of dark matter and g-2,''
1226: {\em Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B 519} (2001) 93.
1227: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106275].
1228: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106275;%%
1229:
1230: %\bibitem{asbs} S. Ambrosanio, A. Dedes, S. Heinemeyer, S. Su and
1231: % G. Weiglein,
1232: % hep-ph/0106255.
1233: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106255;%%
1234:
1235: \bibitem{cdm}
1236: J.~Ellis, J.~Hagelin, D.~Nanopoulos, K.A.~Olive and M. Srednicki,
1237: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B238} (1984) 453; \\
1238: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B238,453;%%
1239: H.~Goldberg, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 50} (1983) 1419;\\
1240: %%CITATION = PRLTA,50,1419;%%
1241: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
1242: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 510} (2001) 236, hep-ph/0102098.
1243: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%
1244:
1245: \bibitem{bsg} CLEO Collaboration, M.S.~Alam {\it et al.},
1246: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 74} (1995) 2885
1247: %%CITATION = PRLTA,74,2885;%%
1248: as updated in
1249: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.}, {CLEO CONF 99-10};\\
1250: K.~Abe {\it et al.}, Belle Collaboration,
1251: hep-ex/0103042.
1252: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%
1253:
1254: \bibitem{gminus2} H.N.~Brown {\it et al.}, Muon $g_\mu - 2$ Collaboration,
1255: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86} (2001) 2227,
1256: hep-ex/0102017;\\
1257: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0102017;%%
1258: A.~Czarnecki and W.J.~Marciano,
1259: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 64} (2001) 013014,
1260: hep-ph/0102122.
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102122;%%
1262:
1263: \bibitem{gminus2th}
1264: M.~Knecht and A.~Nyffeler,
1265: %``Hadronic light-by-light corrections to the muon g-2: The pion-pole
1266: %contribution,''
1267: hep-ph/0111058;\\
1268: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111058;%%
1269: M.~Knecht, A.~Nyffeler, M.~Perrottet and E.~De Rafael,
1270: %``Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon g-2: An
1271: %effective field theory approach,''
1272: {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002) 071802,
1273: hep-ph/0111059;\\
1274: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111059;%%
1275: I.~Blokland, A.~Czarnecki and K.~Melnikov,
1276: %``Pion pole contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering and muon
1277: %anomalous magnetic moment,''
1278: {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002) 071803,
1279: hep-ph/0112117;\\
1280: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112117;%%
1281: M.~Hayakawa and T.~Kinoshita,
1282: %``Comment on the sign of the pseudoscalar pole contribution to the muon g-2,''
1283: hep-ph/0112102;\\
1284: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112102;%%
1285: J.~Bijnens, E.~Pallante and J.~Prades,
1286: %``Comment on the pion pole part of the light-by-light contribution to
1287: %the muon g-2,''
1288: hep-ph/0112255.
1289: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112255;%%
1290:
1291: \bibitem{focuspoint} J.L.~Feng and T.~Moroi,
1292: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 61} (2000) 095004,
1293: hep-ph/9907319;\\
1294: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907319;%%
1295: J.L.~Feng, K.T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,
1296: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84} (2000) 2322,
1297: hep-ph/9908309;
1298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%
1299: {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D 61} (2000) 075005,
1300: hep-ph/9909334.
1301: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%
1302:
1303: \bibitem{BDEGMOPW}
1304: M.~Battaglia, A.~De~Roeck, J.~Ellis, F.~Gianotti, K.T.~Matchev,
1305: K.A.~Olive, L.~Pape and G.W.~Wilson,
1306: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22}, 535 (2001), hep-ph/0106204;
1307: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%
1308: Snowmass P3-47, hep-ph/0112013.
1309: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112013;%%
1310:
1311: \bibitem{aix}
1312: A.~Djouadi et al., GDR SUSY Workshop Aix-la-Chapelle 2001,
1313: see {\tt www.desy.de/$\sim$heinemey/LesPointsdAix.html}.
1314:
1315: \bibitem{isajet}
1316: H.~Baer, F.E.~Paige, S.D.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,
1317: %``Simulating supersymmetry with ISAJET 7.0 / ISASUSY 1.0,''
1318: hep-ph/9305342,
1319: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305342;%%
1320: hep-ph/0001086.
1321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001086;%%
1322:
1323: \bibitem{susygen}
1324: S.~Katsanevas and P.~Morawitz,
1325: %``SUSYGEN-2.2: A Monte Carlo event generator for MSSM sparticle
1326: %production at e+ e- colliders,''
1327: {\em Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.} {\bf 112} (1998) 227,
1328: hep-ph/9711417;
1329: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711417;%%
1330: N.~Ghodbane et al., hep-ph/9909499.
1331: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909499;%%
1332:
1333: \bibitem{suspect}
1334: A.~Djouadi, J.L.~Kneur and G.~Moultaka, hep-ph/9901246.\\
1335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901246;%%
1336: The program can be downloaded from:
1337: {\tt www.lpm.univ.montp2.fr:6714/$\sim$kneur/suspect.html}.
1338:
1339: \bibitem{softsusy}
1340: B.C.~Allanach, hep-ph/0104145.
1341: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104145;%%
1342:
1343: \bibitem{suity}
1344: A.~Dedes, A.B.~Lahanas and K.~Tamvakis,
1345: %``Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in the MSSM and low-energy
1346: %threshold,''
1347: {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D 53} (1996) 3793,
1348: hep-ph/9504239;\\
1349: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504239;%%
1350: A.~Dedes, S.~Heinemeyer and G.~Weiglein, to appear in the proceedings of
1351: {\it Physics at TeV Colliders}, Les Houches, 2001.
1352:
1353: \bibitem{bmpz}
1354: D.M.~Pierce, J.A.~Bagger, K.T.~Matchev and R.j.~Zhang,
1355: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
1356: {\em Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B 491} (1997) 3,
1357: hep-ph/9606211.
1358: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%
1359:
1360: \bibitem{pythia}
1361: T.~Sjostrand, P.~Eden, C.~Friberg, L.~Lonnblad, G.~Miu, S.~Mrenna and
1362: E.~Norrbin,
1363: %``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1,''
1364: {\em Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.} {\bf 135} (2001) 238,
1365: hep-ph/0010017;\\
1366: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%
1367: T.~Sjostrand, L.~Lonnblad and S.~Mrenna,
1368: %``PYTHIA 6.2: Physics and manual,''
1369: hep-ph/0108264.
1370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108264;%%
1371:
1372: \bibitem{herwig}
1373: G.~Corcella {\it et al.},
1374: %``HERWIG 6: An event generator for hadron emission reactions with
1375: %interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes),''
1376: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0101} (2001) 010,
1377: hep-ph/0011363;\\
1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011363;%%
1379: G.~Corcella {\it et al.},
1380: %``HERWIG 6.4 release note,''
1381: hep-ph/0201201.
1382: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201201;%%
1383:
1384: \bibitem{feynhiggs} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein, {\em
1385: Comp. Phys. Comm.} {\bf 124} 2000 76,
1386: hep-ph/9812320;
1387: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%
1388: hep-ph/0002213;
1389: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002213;%%
1390: hep-ph/0202166.
1391: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202166;%%
1392: The codes are accessible via
1393: {\tt www.feynhiggs.de} .
1394:
1395: \bibitem{subh}
1396: M.~Carena, J.~Espinosa, M.~Quir\'os and C.~Wagner,
1397: {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 355} (1995) 209,
1398: hep-ph/9504316;\\
1399: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504316;%%
1400: M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os and C.~Wagner,
1401: {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 461} (1996) 407,
1402: hep-ph/9508343;\\
1403: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508343;%%
1404: M.~Carena, H.~Haber, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, C.~Wagner
1405: and G.~Weiglein, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B 580} (2000)
1406: 29, hep-ph/0001002.
1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001002;%%
1408:
1409: \bibitem{hdecay} A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,
1410: {\em Comp. Phys. Comm.} {\bf 108} (1998) 56,
1411: hep-ph/9704448.
1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704448;%%
1413:
1414: \bibitem{ulinabil}
1415: N.~Ghodbane and H.-U.~Martyn, LC Note LC-TH-2001-079, hep-ph/0201233.
1416: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201233;%%
1417:
1418: \bibitem{Djouadi:2001yk}
1419: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.L.~Kneur,
1420: %``Constraints on the minimal supergravity model and prospects for SUSY
1421: %particle production at future linear e+ e- colliders,''
1422: {\em JHEP} {\bf 0108} (2001) 055,
1423: hep-ph/0107316.
1424: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%
1425:
1426: \bibitem{benallanach}
1427: B.C.~Allanach, these proceedings, hep-ph/0110227.
1428: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110227;%%
1429:
1430: \end{thebibliography}
1431:
1432: \end{document}
1433:
1434:
1435: