1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \voffset-1.cm
3: \usepackage{times}
4: \usepackage{cite}
5: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
6: %\usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{epsf}
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{0.833}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{flushright}
12: MC-TH-2002-08\\
13: hep-ph/0210266\\
14: October 2002
15: \end{flushright}
16:
17: \title{Minimal Nonminimal Supersymmetric Standard Model}
18: \author{C. Panagiotakopoulos$^a$ and A. Pilaftsis$^b$\footnote[1]{Talk
19: given at the conference ``Beyond the Desert 2002,'' 2--7 June 2002,
20: Oulu, Finland} }
21: \medskip
22: \address{
23: $^a$ Physics Division, School of Technology,
24: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,\\
25: 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece\\[3mm]
26: $^b$ Department of Physics and Astronomy,
27: University of Manchester,\\
28: Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom }
29: \begin{abstract}
30: We review the basic field-theoretic and phenomenological features of
31: the recently introduced Minimal Nonminimal Supersymmetric Standard
32: Model~(MNSSM). The introduced model is the simplest and most economic
33: version among the proposed nonminimal supersymmetric models, in which
34: the so-called $\mu$-problem can be successfully addressed. As opposed
35: to the MSSM and the frequently-discussed NMSSM, the MNSSM can
36: naturally predict the existence of a light charged Higgs boson with a
37: mass smaller than 100~GeV. Such a possible realization of the Higgs
38: sector can be soon be tested at the upgraded Run II phase of the
39: Tevatron collider.
40: \end{abstract}
41: % Leave the next line commented out!
42: %\maketitle
43:
44: It is known that Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model~(MSSM) suffers
45: from the so called $\mu$-problem. The superpotential of the MSSM
46: contains a bilinear term $-\mu \widehat{H}_{1}\widehat{H}_{2}$
47: involving the two Higgs-doublet superfields $\widehat{H}_{1}$ and
48: $\widehat{H}_{2}$, known as the $\mu$-term. Naive implementation of
49: the $\mu$-parameter within supergravity theories would lead to a $\mu$
50: value of the order of the Planck scale $M_{{\rm P}}$. However, for a
51: successful Higgs mechanism at the electroweak scale, the
52: $\mu$-parameter is actually required to be many orders of magnitude
53: smaller of order $M_{{\rm SUSY}}$. Many scenarios, all based on
54: extensions of the MSSM, have been proposed in the existing
55: literature~\cite{mu} to provide a natural explanation for the origin
56: of the $\mu$-term.
57:
58: Recently, a minimal extension of the MSSM has been
59: presented~\cite{PT,PP1,DHMT,PP2}, called the Minimal Nonminimal
60: Supersymmetric Standard Model~(MNSSM)~\cite{PP1,PP2}, in which the
61: $\mu$-problem can be successfully addressed in a rather minimal way.
62: In the MNSSM the $\mu$-parameter is promoted to a chiral singlet
63: superfield $\widehat{S}$, and all linear, quadratic and cubic
64: operators involving only $\widehat{S}$ are absent from the
65: renormalizable superpotential; $\widehat{S}$ enters through the single
66: term $\lambda\, \widehat{S}\,\widehat{H}_1 \widehat{H}_2$:
67: \begin{equation}
68: \label{Wren}
69: W_{\rm MNSSM}^{\rm ren}\ =\ \widetilde{W}_{\rm MSSM}\:
70: +\: \lambda\, \widehat{S}\,
71: \widehat{H}^T_1\, i\tau_2\,\widehat{H}_2\, ,
72: \end{equation}
73: where $\widetilde{W}_{\rm MSSM}$ is the superpotential of the MSSM
74: without the presence of the $\mu$ term. The crucial difference
75: between the MNSSM and the frequently-discussed Next-to-Minimal
76: Supersymmetric Standard Model~(NMSSM)~\cite{nmssm} lies in the fact
77: that the cubic term $\frac{1}{3}\kappa\, \widehat{S}^3$ does not
78: appear in the renormalizable superpotential of the former.
79:
80: The key point in the construction of the renormalizable MNSSM
81: superpotential is that the simple form~(\ref{Wren}) may be enforced by
82: discrete $R$-symmetries, such as ${\cal Z}^R_5$~\cite{PT,PP1,DHMT,PP2}
83: and ${\cal Z}^R_7$~\cite{PP1,PP2}. These discrete $R$-symmetries,
84: however, must be extended to the gravity-induced non-renormalizable
85: superpotential and K\"ahler potential terms as well. To communicate
86: the breaking of supersymmetry (SUSY), we consider the scenario of
87: $N=1$ supergravity spontaneously broken by a set of hidden-sector
88: fields at an intermediate scale. Within this framework of
89: SUSY-breaking, we have then been able to show~\cite{PP1} that the
90: above $R$-symmetries are sufficient to postpone the appearance of the
91: potentially dangerous tadpole~\cite{NIL,Bag} ~$t_S\, S$ at a loop
92: level $n$ higher than 5, where
93: \begin{equation}
94: \label{tS}
95: t_S\ \sim\ \frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^n}\ M_{\rm P}\,M^2_{\rm SUSY}\; .
96: \end{equation}
97: {}From this last expression, one can estimate that the size of the
98: tadpole parameter $t_S$ is in the right ballpark, i.e.~$|t_S|
99: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 1$--10~TeV$^3$ for $n = 6,7$, such that the
100: gauge hierarchy does not get destabilized. To be specific, the tadpole
101: $t_S\, S$ together with the soft SUSY-breaking mass term $m^2_S S^* S
102: \sim M^2_{\rm SUSY} S^* S$ lead to a vacuum expectation value (VEV)
103: for $S$, $\big< S\big> = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} v_S$, of order $M_{\rm
104: SUSY} \sim 1$~TeV. The latter gives rise to a $\mu$-parameter at the
105: required electroweak scale, i.e.\
106: \begin{equation}
107: \mu\ =\ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, \lambda v_S\ \sim\ M_{\rm SUSY}\; .
108: \end{equation}
109: Thus, a natural explanation for the origin of the $\mu$-parameter can
110: be obtained. Finally, since the effective tadpole term $t_S\, S$
111: explicitly breaks the continuous Peccei--Quinn symmetry governing the
112: remaining renormalizable Lagrangian of the MNSSM, the theory naturally
113: avoids the presence of a phenomenologically excluded weak-scale axion.
114:
115: \begin{figure}[t]
116: \leavevmode
117: \begin{flushleft}
118: \epsfxsize=17cm
119: \epsfysize=19.5cm
120: \epsffile{nmssm1.eps}
121: %\includegraphics{nmssm1.eps}
122: \end{flushleft}
123: \vspace{-1.5cm}
124: \caption{Numerical values for $M_{H_1}$ versus $\mu$ in the MNSSM with
125: $m^2_{12} = 0$, for $M_{H^+} = 0.1$~(solid), 0.3 (dashed),
126: 0.7~(dotted) and 1~(dash-dotted)~TeV.}\label{fig1}
127: \end{figure}
128:
129: \begin{figure}[t]
130: \leavevmode
131: \begin{center}
132: \epsfxsize=16cm
133: \epsffile[0 50 567 454]{nmssm3.eps}
134: \end{center}
135: \caption{The maximal predicted value of $M_{H_1}$
136: as a function of the charged Higgs-boson mass $M_{H^+}$ in the MNSSM
137: with $m^2_{12} =0$.}\label{fig2}
138: \end{figure}
139:
140:
141: In addition to the tadpole $t_S$ of the physical scalar $S$, an
142: effective tadpole for its auxiliary component $F_S$ is
143: generated~\cite{Bag}. However, depending on the underlying mechanism
144: of SUSY breaking, the effective tadpole proportional to $F_S$ could in
145: principle be absent from the model. Such a reduction of the
146: renormalizable operators does not thwart the renormalizability of the
147: theory. The resulting renormalizable low-energy scenario has one
148: parameter less than the frequently-discussed NMSSM with the cubic
149: singlet-superfield term $\frac{\kappa}{3}\widehat{S}^3$ present; it
150: therefore represents the most economic, renormalizable version among
151: the non-minimal supersymmetric models proposed in the literature.
152:
153: As opposed to the NMSSM, the MNSSM satisfies the tree-level mass sum
154: rule~\cite{PP1}:
155: \begin{equation}
156: \label{sumrule}
157: M^2_{H_1}\: +\: M^2_{H_2}\: +\: M^2_{H_3}\ =\ M^2_Z\: +\: M^2_{A_1}\:
158: +\: M^2_{A_2}\,,
159: \end{equation}
160: where $H_{1,2,3}$ and $A_{1,2}$ are the three CP-even and two CP-odd
161: Higgs fields, respectively. The tree-level mass sum
162: rule~(\ref{sumrule}) is very analogous to the corresponding one of the
163: MSSM \cite{GT}, where the two heavier Higgs states $H_3$ and $A_2$ are
164: absent in the latter. This striking analogy to the MSSM allows us to
165: advocate that the Higgs sector of the MNSSM differs indeed minimally
166: from the one of the MSSM, i.e.\ the introduced model truly constitutes
167: the minimal supersymmetric extension of the MSSM. In the NMSSM, the
168: violation of the mass sum rule~(\ref{sumrule}) can become much larger
169: than the one induced by the one-loop stop/top effects, especially for
170: relatively large values of $|\kappa |$, $|\mu|$ and $|A_\kappa|$.
171:
172: In the non-minimal supersymmetric standard models, the upper bound on
173: the lightest CP-even Higgs-boson mass $M_{H_1}$ has a tree-level
174: dependence on the coupling $\lambda$~\cite{nmssm,EQ,PP1,DHMT}, i.e.
175: \begin{equation}
176: \label{mbound}
177: M^{2(0)}_{H_1} \ \le\ M^2_Z\, \bigg( \cos^2 2\beta\:
178: +\: \frac{2\,\lambda^2}{g^2_w + g'^2}\, \sin^2 2\beta\, \bigg)\,,
179: \end{equation}
180: where the angle $\beta$ is defined by means of $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$,
181: the ratio of the VEVs of the two Higgs doublets. Since in the MNSSM
182: $\lambda$ can take its maximum allowed value naturally corresponding
183: to the NMSSM with $\kappa = 0$~\cite{EQ}, the value of $M_{H_1}$ is
184: predicted to be the highest. In particular, a
185: renormalization-group-improved analysis~\cite{PP2} of the effective
186: MNSSM Higgs potential leads to the upper bound: $M_{H_1}
187: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 145$~GeV, for large stop mixing (see also
188: Fig.~\ref{fig1}). Consequently, such a scenario can only be decisively
189: tested by the upgraded Run II phase of the Tevatron collider at
190: Fermilab and by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.
191:
192: \begin{figure}[t]
193: \leavevmode
194: \begin{center}
195: \epsfxsize=17cm
196: \epsfysize=19.5cm
197: \epsffile{ch.eps}
198: \end{center}
199: \vspace{-1.5cm}
200: \caption{Numerical predictions for (a) $M_{H_1}$ and $M_{H_2}$,
201: and (b) $g^2_{H_1ZZ}$ and $g^2_{H_2ZZ}$, as functions of $\mu$ in
202: the MNSSM.}\label{fig3}
203: \end{figure}
204:
205: \begin{figure}[t]
206: \leavevmode
207: \begin{center}
208: \epsfxsize=17cm
209: \epsfysize=19.5cm
210: \epsffile{ch2.eps}
211: \end{center}
212: \vspace{-1.5cm}
213: \caption{Numerical values of (a) $M_{H_1}$ and $M_{H_2}$,
214: and (b) $g^2_{H_1ZZ}$ and $g^2_{H_2ZZ}$, as functions of $\mu$ in
215: the MNSSM.}\label{fig4}
216: \end{figure}
217:
218: The MNSSM can comfortably predict viable scenarios, where the mass of
219: the charged Higgs boson $H^+$ is in the range: 80~GeV~$< M_{H^+}
220: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}$~3~TeV, for phenomenologically relevant values
221: of $|\mu | \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 100$ GeV~\cite{GKLR}. In fact, as can
222: be seen from~Fig.~\ref{fig2}, there is an absolute upper bound on
223: $M_{H^+}$ for fixed values of $\lambda$ and $\tan\beta$.
224:
225: On the other hand, charged Higgs-boson masses smaller than 100~GeV can
226: naturally be obtained within the MNSSM, while the SM-like Higgs boson
227: $H_{\rm SM}$, with dominant coupling to the $Z$ boson, can be heavier
228: than about 115~GeV~\cite{PP1,PP2}. Instead, both in the MSSM and the
229: NMSSM~\cite{PP1}, such a Higgs-boson mass spectrum is theoretically
230: inaccessible, if the phenomenologically favoured range $|\mu |
231: \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 100$ GeV is considered. In Figs.~\ref{fig3} and
232: \ref{fig4}, we display numerical values for the masses of the lightest
233: and next-to-lightest Higgs bosons, $H_1$ and $H_2$, and their
234: couplings to the $Z$ boson as functions of $\mu$, for a number of
235: versions of the MNSSM that predict light charged Higgs bosons. In the
236: MNSSM versions under study, the SM-like Higgs boson $H_{\rm SM}$
237: (mainly $H_2$) can have a mass larger 110~GeV, compatible with the
238: present experimental bound. The generic prediction is that the first
239: CP-even Higgs boson $H_1$ is lighter than $H_2$ and has a suppressed
240: coupling to the $Z$ boson in agreement with LEP2 data. {}From
241: Figs.~\ref{fig3} and~\ref{fig4}, we observe that the charged Higgs
242: boson can be as light as the present experimental upper bound,
243: i.e.~$M_{H^+}\sim 80$~GeV. This is an important phenomenological
244: feature of the MNSSM, which is very helpful to discriminate it from
245: the NMSSM. It is a reflection of a new non-trivial decoupling limit
246: due to a large tadpole $|t_S|$, which is only attainable in the
247: MNSSM~\cite{PP1}. In this limit, the heavier Higgs states $H_{3}$ and
248: $A_3$ can both decouple from the Higgs spectrum as a heavy singlets.
249: The upcoming upgraded Run~II phase of the Tevatron collider has the
250: physics potential to probe the viability of a
251: light-charged-Higgs-boson realization.
252:
253: For scenarios with $M_{H^+} \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 200$ GeV, the
254: distinction between the MNSSM and the NMSSM becomes more difficult.
255: In this case, additional experimental information would be necessary
256: to distinguish the two SUSY extensions of the MSSM, resulting from a
257: precise determination of the masses, the widths, the branching ratios
258: and the production cross sections of the CP-even and CP-odd Higgs
259: bosons. Nevertheless, if the tadpole parameter $\lambda t_S/\mu$
260: becomes much larger than $M^2_{H^+}$ with the remaining kinematic
261: parameters held fixed, the Higgs states $H_3$ and $A_2$ will be
262: predominantly singlets. As an important phenomenological consequence
263: of this, the complementarity relations between the $H_{1,2}ZZ$- and
264: $H_{2,1}A_1Z$- couplings will then hold approximately true in the
265: MNSSM, i.e.
266: \begin{equation}
267: \label{compl}
268: g^2_{H_1ZZ}\ =\ g^2_{H_2A_1 Z}\,,\qquad g^2_{H_2 ZZ}\ =\ g^2_{H_1 A_1 Z}\; .
269: \end{equation}
270: In addition, the couplings of the two heaviest states $H_3$ and $A_2$
271: to the gauge bosons will vanish. Here, we should stress that the
272: relations~(\ref{compl}) are not generically valid in the NMSSM. The
273: latter is a consequence of the absence of the aforementioned large
274: tadpole decoupling limit, such that the states $H_3$ and $A_2$ could
275: decouple as singlets. Future next linear $e^+ e^-$ colliders have the
276: capabilities to experimentally determine the $H_{1,2}ZZ$- and
277: $H_{2,1}A_1Z$- couplings to an accuracy even up to 3\% and so test, to
278: a high degree, the complementarity relations~(\ref{compl}) which are
279: an essential phenomenological feature of the MNSSM.
280:
281: As has been discussed in~\cite{PP1}, the MNSSM also predicts the
282: existence of a light neutralino, the axino. The axino is
283: predominantly a singlet field, for $|\mu| \stackrel{>}{{}_\sim} 120$
284: GeV. LEP limits on the $Z$-boson invisible width lead to the
285: additional constraint: $200 \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} |\mu |
286: \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 250$ GeV, for $\lambda \approx 0.65$. However,
287: such a constraint disappears completely for smaller values of
288: $\lambda$, namely for $\lambda \stackrel{<}{{}_\sim} 0.45$. In fact,
289: the axino may become the lightest supersymmetric particle, which is
290: very long-lived in the MNSSM, and hence it potentially qualifies as a
291: candidate for cold dark matter. We feel that a dedicated study in this
292: direction needs to be done.
293:
294: Let us summarize the basic field-theoretic and phenomenological
295: features of the MNSSM: (i) The MNSSM minimally departs from the MSSM
296: through the presence of a gauge-singlet superfield whose all
297: self-couplings are absent. On the basis of discrete $R$ symmetries,
298: such as ${\cal Z}^R_5$ and ${\cal Z}^R_7$, the quadratically divergent
299: harmful tadpoles first appear at the 6- and 7-loop levels, thereby
300: avoiding to destabilize the gauge hierarchy. By the same token, the
301: MNSSM can minimally account for the origin of $\mu$-term; (ii) Since
302: the loop-induced tadpoles break any continuous or discrete symmetry,
303: the model does not suffer from problems~\cite{ASW} related to visible
304: weak-scale axions and domain walls; (iii) As a consequence of a new
305: decoupling limit due to a large tadpole, the MNSSM can naturally
306: predict viable scenarios in which the charged Higgs boson $H^+$ is
307: much lighter than the neutral Higgs boson with a SM-type coupling to
308: the $Z$ boson. The planned colliders, i.e.\ the upgraded Tevatron
309: collider~\cite{revII} and the LHC, have the potential capabilities to
310: test such interesting scenarios with a relatively light $H^+$; (iv)
311: Unlike the frequently-discussed NMSSM, the Higgs sector of the MNSSM
312: exhibits a much closer resemblance to the one of the MSSM, by means of
313: the tree-level mass sum rule~(\ref{sumrule}) and the complementarity
314: relations~(\ref{compl}) of the Higgs-boson couplings to the $Z$ boson.
315:
316: In conclusion, all the above facts point to a single perspective: the
317: only truly minimal supersymmetric extension of the MSSM is the Minimal
318: Nonminimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.
319:
320:
321:
322: \section*{References}
323: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
324:
325:
326: \bibitem{mu} L. Hall, J. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf
327: D27} (1983) 2359; J.E. Kim and H.-P. Nilles, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B138}
328: (1984) 150; G.F. Giudice and A. Masiero, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf \ B206}
329: (1988) 480; E.J. Chun, J.E. Kim and H.-P. Nilles, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf
330: B370} (1992) 105; I. Antoniadis, E. Gava, K.S. Narain and T.R. Taylor,
331: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B432} (1994) 187; G.R.~Dvali, G.~Lazarides and
332: Q.~Shafi, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B424} (1998) 259.
333:
334: \bibitem{PT} C. Panagiotakopoulos and K. Tamvakis, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf
335: B469} (1999) 145.
336:
337: \bibitem{PP1} C. Panagiotakopoulos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf
338: D63} (2001) 055003.
339:
340: \bibitem{DHMT} A. Dedes, C. Hugonie, S. Moretti and K. Tamvakis,
341: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 055009.
342:
343: \bibitem{PP2} C. Panagiotakopoulos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Lett.\
344: {\bf B505} (2001) 184.
345:
346: \bibitem{nmssm} P. Fayet, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B90} (1975) 104; H.-P.
347: Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B120} (1983)
348: 346; J.-M. Frere, D.R.T. Jones and S. Raby, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B222}
349: (1983) 11; J.-P. Derendinger and C.A. Savoy, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf
350: B237} (1984) 307; B.R. Greene and P.J. Miron, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf
351: B168} (1986) 226; J. Ellis, K. Enqvist and D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A.
352: Olive, M. Quiros and F. Zwirner, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B176} (1986)
353: 403; L. Durand and J.L. Lopez, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B217} (1989) 463;
354: M. Drees, Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A4} (1989) 3635; J. Ellis, J.
355: Gunion, H. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirner, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf
356: D39} (1989) 844; U. Ellwanger, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B303} (1993) 271;
357: U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Taubenberg and C.A. Savoy, Phys.\ Lett.\
358: {\bf B315} (1993) 331; Z. Phys.\ {\bf C67} (1995) 665; Nucl.\ Phys.\
359: {\bf B492} (1997) 21; P.N. Pandita, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B318} (1993)
360: 338; Z. Phys.\ {\bf C59} (1993) 575; T. Elliott, S.F. King and P.L.
361: White, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B305} (1993) 71; Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B314}
362: (1993) 56; Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49} (1994) 2435; Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf
363: B351} (1995) 213; K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}
364: (1994) R2156; S.F. King and P.L. White, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D52} (1995)
365: 4183; N. Haba, M. Matsuda and M. Tanimoto, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D54}
366: (1996) 6928; F. Franke and H. Fraas, Int.\ J. Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A12}
367: (1997) 479; S.W. Ham, S.K. Oh and H.S. Song, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D61}
368: (2000) 055010; D.A. Demir, E. Ma and U. Sarkar, J.\ Phys.\ {\bf G26}
369: (2000) L117; R.~B.~Nevzorov and M.~A.~Trusov, Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\
370: {\bf 64} (2001) 1299; U. Ellwanger and C. Hugonie, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\
371: {\bf C25} (2002) 297.
372:
373: \bibitem{NIL} H.-P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett.
374: {\bf B124 } (1983) 337; A.B. Lahanas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B124} (1983)
375: 341; U.~Ellwanger, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B133} (1983) 187.
376:
377: \bibitem{Bag} J.~Bagger and E.~Poppitz, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 71}
378: (1993) 2380; J.~Bagger, E.~Poppitz and L.~Randall, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf
379: B455} (1995) 59; V.~Jain, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B351} (1995) 481;
380: S.A. Abel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B480} (1996) 55; C. Kolda, S. Pokorski
381: and N. Polonsky, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80} (1998) 5263.
382:
383: \bibitem{GT} J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B272}
384: (1985) 1; J.F. Gunion and A. Turski, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D40} (1989)
385: 2333.
386:
387: \bibitem{EQ} For example, see, J.R. Espinosa and M. Quir\'os, Phys.\
388: Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 516.
389:
390: \bibitem{GKLR} For a recent analysis, see N. Ghodbane, S. Katsanevas,
391: I. Laktineh and J. Rosiek, hep-ph/0012031.
392:
393: \bibitem{ASW} S.A. Abel, S. Sarkar and P.L. White, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf
394: B454} (1995) 663.
395:
396: \bibitem{revII} See, e.g.\ Report of the SUGRA Working Group
397: Collaboration for Run II of the Tevatron, hep-ph/0003154.
398:
399:
400: \end{thebibliography}
401:
402:
403:
404: \end{document}
405: %% End of file btd02proc.tex
406:
407: \bibitem{Romao} J.C. Romao, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B173} (1986) 309;
408:
409:
410: