1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % Global fit of a String-Inspired model
3: % including Muon (g-2), tau->mu gamma,
4: % Yukawa Unification and b->s gamma
5: % T.Blazek,S.F.King and J.K.Parry
6: %
7: % Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton
8: % Southampton, SO9 5NH, U.K.
9: %
10: %
11: %
12: %
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \documentstyle[12pt,amssymb,graphics]{article}
15: \textwidth 6.0in
16: \textheight 9.0in
17: \topmargin 0.0in
18: \oddsidemargin 0.5in
19: \evensidemargin 0.5in
20: \parskip 0.08in
21:
22: \hfuzz=9mm
23: \input epsf
24:
25: \def\rulerheight{0.5pt}
26: \def\hc{{\dagger}}
27: \def\tp{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}
28: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}}
29: \def\U1{$U(1)$}
30: \def\SU5{$SU(5)$}
31: \def\SO10{$SO(10)$}
32: \def\422{$SU(4)\otimes SU(2)_L \otimes SU(2)_R$}
33: \def\MX{$M_X$}
34: \def\diag.{\hbox{diag.}}
35: \def\muegamma{\hbox{$\mu\to e\gamma$\ }}
36: \def\taumugamma{\hbox{$\tau\to\mu\gamma$\ }}
37: \def\refeqn#1{(\ref{#1})}
38: \def\M_U{\hbox{$M_U$}\ }
39: \def\M_P{\hbox{$M_P$}\ }
40: \def\SM{{SM}}
41: \def\tanb{\hbox{$\tan \beta$}}
42: \def\GeV{{GeV}}
43: \def\MSSM+N{\hbox{MSSM+$\nu$}}
44: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
45: \def\bigsim{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle >} \over {\scriptstyle \sim} }\>}}
46: \def\smlsim{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle <} \over {\scriptstyle \sim} }\>}}
47: \def\bigsml{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle >} \over {\scriptstyle <}}\>}}
48: \def\smlbig{{\>{\buildrel {\scriptstyle <} \over {\scriptstyle >}}\>}}
49: \def\ssstyle{\scriptscriptstyle}
50: \def\MBsl{M_{\rm B \!\!\!\!\!\> /}}
51:
52: \def\ibid{{\it ibid.}}
53: \def\ie{{\it i.e.~}}
54:
55: \def\olbar#1{\overline{#1}}
56:
57: %\epsffile(file.eps)
58:
59:
60: \newcommand\beq{\begin{equation}}
61: \newcommand\eeq{\end{equation}}
62: \newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
63: \newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
64: \newcommand\beann{\begin{eqnarray*}}
65: \newcommand\eeann{\end{eqnarray*}}
66: \newcommand\ba{\begin{array}}
67: \newcommand\ea{\end{array}}
68:
69: \begin{document}
70: \baselineskip 24pt
71: \newcommand{\sheptitle}
72: {Global Analysis of a Supersymmetric Pati-Salam Model }
73:
74: \newcommand{\shepauthor}
75: {T. Bla\v{z}ek$^*$, S. F. King and J. K. Parry}
76:
77: \newcommand{\shepaddress}
78: {Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton \\
79: Southampton, SO17 1BJ, U.K}
80:
81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
82: % ABSTRACT
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84: \newcommand{\shepabstract}
85: {We perform a complete global phenomenological analysis of
86: a realistic string-inspired model
87: based on the supersymmetric Pati-Salam $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$
88: gauge group supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry,
89: and present predictions for all observables including
90: muon $g-2$, $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$,
91: and the CHOOZ angle.
92: Our analysis demonstrates the compatibility of such a model with
93: all laboratory data including charged fermion masses and
94: mixing angles, LMA MSW and atmospheric neutrino masses and
95: mixing angles, and $b \rightarrow s \gamma$,
96: allowing for small deviations from third family
97: Yukawa unification. We show that in such
98: models the squark and slepton masses may be rather light
99: compared to similar models with exact Yukawa unification.}
100:
101: \begin{titlepage}
102:
103: \begin{flushright}
104: hep-ph/0303192
105: \end{flushright}
106: \begin{center}
107: {\large{\bf \sheptitle}}
108: \\ \shepauthor \\ \mbox{} \\ {\it \shepaddress} \\
109: {\bf Abstract} \bigskip \end{center} \setcounter{page}{0}
110: \shepabstract
111: \begin{flushleft}
112: \today
113: \end{flushleft}
114:
115: \vskip 0.1in
116: \noindent
117: $^*${\footnotesize On leave of absence from
118: the Dept. of Theoretical Physics, Comenius Univ., Bratislava, Slovakia}
119:
120: \end{titlepage}
121:
122: \newpage
123: \section{Introduction\label{intro}}
124: The origin of fermion masses and mixing angles represents a challenge
125: faced by theorists for a long time. In the post-SuperKamiokande era
126: this puzzle has become more intriguing than ever before.
127: SuperKamiokande evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations
128: \cite{SKamiokandeColl} has taught us that neutrino masses are non-zero
129: and furthermore that the 23 mixing angle is almost maximal. More recently
130: SNO \cite{Ahmad:2002jz} and KamLAND \cite{kamland_exp} experimemts have
131: confirmed the matter enhanced Large Mixing Angle(LMA) solution to
132: the solar neutrino problem \cite{GoPe}.
133: In this work we assume that the smallness of
134: neutrino masses can be explained by the see-saw
135: mechanism involving very heavy right-handed neutrino states,
136: and that the see-saw mechanism is implemented using
137: single right-handed neutrino dominance \cite{SRHND} which can
138: explain in a natural way the coexistence of large neutrino mixing
139: angles with a mass hierarchy. It then becomes a flavour problem
140: to fit together the neutrino mass puzzle with the pieces provided by
141: the long-known pattern of quark and charged lepton masses.
142:
143: The flavour problem cannot be fully addressed without unification.
144: However, unification has its own challenges.
145: These include the unification of gauge couplings and third family
146: Yukawa couplings and the introduction of supersymmetry.
147: It is well known that supersymmetry facilitates gauge coupling unification,
148: stabilises the hierarchy between the high energy scale and
149: the weak scale, and allows a radiative mechanism of electroweak
150: symmetry breaking. Within the natural framework of supersymmetric
151: unification, the larger high energy gauge group in turn
152: increases the predictive power of the theory in the flavour sector,
153: for example by leading to group theoretical mass relations
154: between quark and lepton masses of the same family.
155: Relations between quarks and leptons of different families
156: require an additional family symmetry, however.
157: In this way it becomes possible to address both the flavour problem
158: and the unification problem, within a single framework.
159: Having defined the framework, it is by no means guaranteed that
160: models exist which satisfy all the phenomenological constraints
161: provided by current data, and comply with all the theoretical
162: requirements such as successful electroweak symmetry breaking,
163: and approximate gauge and Yukawa unification, while reproducing
164: the known observables. It is therefore
165: important to know that at least some models exist which satisfy all
166: the constraints, as an existence proof that such a proceedure
167: can be implemented consistently.
168:
169: In this paper we shall study a particular example of a complete
170: supersymmetric unified model of flavour, based on the Pati-Salam
171: $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ gauge group \cite{PaSa}
172: extended by an additional $U(1)$ family symmetry.
173: Accepting minimality as a model building principle
174: this group has the following nice features:
175: it establishes the third family Yukawa unification,
176: places the right-handed neutrinos into non-trivial multiplets
177: and does not introduce unwanted exotic states in the multiplets
178: containing the Standard Model fermions and two Higgs doublets
179: required by its SUSY extension. The Pati-Salam group can emerge from
180: a simple gauge group like $SO(10)$ or $E(6)$. However, from a
181: string theory perspective, it is not necessary in order to achieve
182: unification that there should be a unified field theory based
183: on a simple group. A partially unified gauge group can equally well
184: emerge directly from string theory, and in the case of the Pati-Salam
185: gauge group this possibility has been explored extensively
186: both in the case of weakly coupled fermionic string theories
187: \cite{AnLe} and in the case of type I strings with D-branes
188: \cite{ShTy}.
189:
190: Although models based on the Pati-Salam gauge group have been
191: extensively examined, there is currently no complete up to date
192: phenomenological study of this model in the literature.
193: For instance \cite{KiOl_LFV} investigated constraints
194: from Lepton Flavour Violation(LFV) in a Pati-Salam model with
195: small neutrino mixing angles. Subsequently a Pati-Salam model
196: was proposed \cite{KiOl_nu}, using single right-handed neutrino
197: dominance \cite{SRHND} to achieve naturally large neutrino mixing
198: angles, but the question of LFV was not readdressed
199: and it was later shown \cite{BlKi_1} that the
200: $\mu\to e\gamma$ branching ratio is too large.
201: Moreover, only the negative $\mu$ parameter
202: was considered in \cite{KiOl_nu,KiOl_yu} which is currently disfavoured by
203: the muon $g-2$. In other works such as
204: \cite{PaSa_Gomez1} and \cite{PaSa_Gomez2}
205: the neutrino sector is absent all together.
206: The complete lepton sector is studied in great detail in a global
207: analysis in \cite{BlKi_1}, but the quark mass matrices used
208: \cite{KiOl_nu} were obtained for the opposite sign of $\mu$,
209: and the analysis gives imperfect fits for
210: % the observables in the quark sector like
211: the branching ratio $BR(b\to s\gamma)$ or $b$ quark
212: mass $m_b$ which both get potentially significant contributions from
213: SUSY loops proportional to $\mu$. To summarise,
214: a completely phenomenologically acceptable supersymmetric
215: Pati-Salam model does not currently exist
216: in the literature. This illustrates the broader point that while
217: many models exist in the literature, it is less common for
218: the analysis of any such model to be complete.
219:
220: In this paper, then,
221: we shall construct a ``4221'' model, following the approach of
222: \cite{KiOl_nu}, and demonstrate its phenomenological viability.
223: The model has approximate
224: third family Yukawa unification perturbed by higher order
225: terms and assumes non-universal soft Higgs masses.
226: To demonstrate the viability of such a model, we perform a top down global
227: analysis of the parameter space carried out on 24 observables.
228: In the leptonic sector the observables include
229: the muon $g-2$ and solar and atmospheric neutrino data.
230: A complete list of observables and their $\sigma$ values, which are used
231: to calculate the $\chi^2$ function can be found in Table \ref{t:observables}.
232: %
233: %
234: % Our global analysis includes a fit to the present muon $g-2$ discrepancy
235: % between Standard Model prediction \cite{muon_SM}
236: % and experiment \cite{muon}.
237: % This discrepancy presently lies at $34\times 10^{-10}$, a $3\sigma$
238: % effect.\footnote{The value of this discrepancy will depend upon whether
239: % one favours the Standard Model prediction determined from $e^{+}e^{-}$
240: % data or from $\tau$ decay data \cite{g-2_tau}. Here we have favoured
241: % the $e^{+}e^{-}$ results, but have carried out a study of the effect
242: % of a lower $g-2$ discrepancy covering the value predicted by $\tau$
243: % decay data.} A fit to quark sector mass and mixing, and the branching
244: % ratio for $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ has also been included in our global
245: % analysis.
246: %
247: %
248: %
249: %
250: %
251: In the analysis we ensure that the upper limits on the branching ratio
252: for the lepton flavour violating processes $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$,
253: $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$ and $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$ are not exceeded
254: as well as the limit on the 13 neutrino mixing angle.
255: In addition to this an experimental lower bound on each sparticle mass was
256: imposed. In particular,
257: the most constraining are: the LEP limits on the charged SUSY masses
258: ($m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm},m_{\tilde{\tau}}>105$GeV), the CDF limit
259: on the mass of the $CP$ odd Higgs state
260: ($m_{A^0}>105$-$110\,$GeV, valid for $\tan\beta\approx 50$) \cite{Tevatron},
261: and the requirement that the lightest SUSY particle should be neutral.
262:
263:
264:
265: Having constructed the model and demonstrated its phenomenological
266: viability, we then discuss the following three aspects of the model in
267: more detail:
268:
269: \begin{itemize}
270:
271: \item The first such aspect, as first pointed out in \cite{BlKi_1},
272: is lepton flavour violation arising from the large 23 neutrino mixing
273: through a neutrino Yukawa texture of the form
274: \beq
275: Y^{\nu}_{LR}
276: \sim
277: \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
278: 0 & 0 & 0 \\
279: 0 & 0 & 1 \\
280: 0 & 0 & 1
281: \end{array}
282: \right).
283: \eeq
284: Due to large $\tan\beta$ additional features emerge when
285: studying correlations among observables like BR($b\rightarrow s \gamma$),
286: BR($\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$) and muon $g-2$. Most notably,
287: two distinct minima are found with similar $\chi^2$ values for the
288: best fits. These conclusions
289: are new since study \cite{BlKi_1} did not investigate a complete
290: model and all other previous works did not involve global
291: analysis.
292:
293: \item The preference for positive $\mu$, given by the sign of
294: the muon $g-2$ discrepancy,
295: implies positive gluino corrections to $m_b$
296: thus leading to difficulties in obtaining $t-b-\tau$ Yukawa unification.
297: Hence a second focus of the present work is to study the required
298: deviation from third family Yukawa unification in the best fits.
299: \footnote{This was also
300: recently studied from a somewhat different point of view in
301: \cite{PaSa_Gomez1}.}
302:
303: \item Thirdly we focus on the effects of future experimental advances,
304: in the form of direct Higgs searches, a lepton flavour violating
305: $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ measurement and a refinement of the
306: muon $g-2$ discepancy, upon our global fits, indicating how further
307: experimental progress in these areas will constrain the parameter
308: space of the model.
309:
310: \end{itemize}
311:
312: The remainder of the paper is layed out as follows.
313: Section 2 briefly reviews our construction
314: of a string-inspired Pati-Salam model. Section \ref{procedure} contains
315: a brief description of the numerical technique used in the
316: analysis. A discussion of our main results can be found in
317: section \ref{res_dis}, with concluding remarks in section \ref{conc}.
318:
319:
320:
321: \section{The Model\label{model}}
322:
323:
324: The model considered in this paper
325: is based on the Pati-Salam gauge group \cite{PaSa},
326: supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry,
327: \begin{equation}
328: \mbox{SU(4)}\times \mbox{SU(2)}_L \times \mbox{SU(2)}_R \times U(1)
329: \label{422}
330: \end{equation}
331: The left-handed quarks and leptons are accommodated in the following
332: representations,
333: \begin{equation}
334: {F^i}^{\alpha a}=(4,2,1)=
335: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
336: u^R & u^B & u^G & \nu \\ d^R & d^B & d^G & e^-
337: \end{array} \right)^i
338: \end{equation}
339: \begin{equation}
340: {\olbar{F}}_{x \alpha}^i=(\bar{4},1,\bar{2})=
341: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
342: \bar{d}^R & \bar{d}^B & \bar{d}^G & e^+ \\
343: \bar{u}^R & \bar{u}^B & \bar{u}^G & \bar{\nu}
344: \end{array} \right)^i
345: \end{equation}
346: where $\alpha=1\ldots 4$ is an SU(4) index, $a,x=1,2$ are
347: SU(2)$_{L,R}$ indices, and $i=1\ldots 3$ is a family index. The Higgs
348: fields are contained in the following representations,
349: \begin{equation}
350: h_{a}^x=(1,\bar{2},2)=
351: \left(\begin{array}{cc}
352: {h_2}^+ & {h_1}^0 \\ {h_2}^0 & {h_1}^- \\
353: \end{array} \right) \label{h}
354: \end{equation}
355: (where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are the low energy Higgs superfields associated
356: with the MSSM.) The two heavy Higgs representations are \cite{AnLe}
357: \begin{equation}
358: {H}^{\alpha b}=(4,1,2)=
359: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
360: u_H^R & u_H^B & u_H^G & \nu_H \\ d_H^R & d_H^B & d_H^G & e_H^-
361: \end{array} \right) \label{H}
362: \end{equation}
363: and
364: \begin{equation}
365: {\olbar{H}}_{\alpha x}=(\bar{4},1,\bar{2})=
366: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
367: \bar{d}_H^R & \bar{d}_H^B & \bar{d}_H^G & e_H^+ \\
368: \bar{u}_H^R & \bar{u}_H^B & \bar{u}_H^G & \bar{\nu}_H
369: \end{array} \right). \label{barH}
370: \end{equation}
371:
372: The Higgs fields are assumed to develop VEVs,
373: \begin{equation}
374: <H>\equiv<\nu_H>\sim M_{GUT}, \ \ <\olbar{H}>\equiv<\bar{\nu}_H>\sim M_{GUT}
375: \label{HVEV}
376: \end{equation}
377: leading to the symmetry breaking at $M_{GUT}$
378: \begin{equation}
379: \mbox{SU(4)}\otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_L \otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_R
380: \longrightarrow
381: \mbox{SU(3)}_C \otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_L \otimes \mbox{U(1)}_Y
382: \label{422to321}
383: \end{equation}
384: in the usual notation. Under the symmetry breaking in
385: Eq.\ref{422to321}, the Higgs field $h$ in Eq.\ref{h} splits into two
386: Higgs doublets $h_1$, $h_2$ whose neutral components subsequently
387: develop weak scale VEVs,
388: \begin{equation}
389: <h_1^0>=v_1, \ \ <h_2^0>=v_2 \label{vevs}
390: \end{equation}
391: with $\tan \beta \equiv v_2/v_1$.
392:
393:
394: %in the superfield multiplets
395: %\begin{equation}
396: %{F^i_{L,R}}=
397: %\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
398: %{u} & {u} & {u} & {\nu} \\
399: %{d} & {d} & {d} & {e^-}
400: %\end{array} \right)_{L,R}^i
401: %\end{equation}
402: %We also have two sets of Higgs, the first $h$ contains the two MSSM Higgs doublets
403: %and transforms as $h\sim (1,2,2)$
404: %\begin{equation}
405: %h=
406: %\left(\begin{array}{cc}
407: %{h_1}^0 & {h_2}^+ \\
408: %{h_1}^- & {h_2}^0
409: %\end{array} \right)
410: %\end{equation}
411: %and the second set, $H,\olbar{H}$, transform as
412: %$H\sim (4,1,2)$, $\olbar{H}\sim (\bar{4},1,2)$
413: %and develop VEVs which break the Pati-Salam group.
414: %Finally there are the Pati-Salam singlets, $\theta, \bar{\theta}$,
415: %which develop VEVs that break the $U(1)$ family symmetry.
416: %\begin{equation}
417: %{H},\olbar{H} =
418: %\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
419: %{u_H} & { u_H} & { u_H} & { \nu_H} \\
420: %{ d_H} & { d_H} & { d_H} & { e_H^-}
421: %\end{array} \right),\cdots
422: %\end{equation}
423: %We assume for convenience that all symmetry breaking
424: %scales are at the GUT scale, $<H>=<\olbar{H}>=<{ \nu_H}>\sim M_{GUT}$ and $<\theta>=<\bar{\theta}>\sim M_{GUT}$.
425: %\begin{equation}
426: %<H>=<\olbar{H}>=<{ \nu_H}>\sim M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}GeV
427: %\end{equation}
428: %\begin{equation}
429: %<\theta>=<\bar{\theta}>\sim M_{GUT} \sim 10^{16}GeV
430: %\end{equation}
431:
432: To construct the quark and lepton mass matrices
433: we make use of non-renormalisable operators \cite{Ops} of the form:
434: \begin{eqnarray}
435: &\left.i\right)& \hspace{1cm} (F^i \olbar{F}^j )h\left(\frac{H\olbar{H}}{M^2}\right)^n
436: \left(\frac{\theta}{M}\right)^{p_{ij}}\label{Yuk_op}\\
437: &\left.ii\right)& \hspace{1cm} (\olbar{F}^i\olbar{F}^j )\left(\frac{HH}{M^2}\right)
438: \left(\frac{H\olbar{H}}{M^2}\right) ^m
439: \left(\frac{\theta}{M}\right) ^{q_{ij}}.\label{Maj_op}
440: \end{eqnarray}
441: The $\theta$ fields are Pati-Salam singlets
442: which carry $U(1)$ family charge and develop VEVs which break the
443: $U(1)$ family symmetry.
444: They are required to be present in the operators above to balance the
445: charge of the invariant operators.
446: After the $H$ and $\theta$ fields acquire VEVs, they generate a hierarchy in
447: $\left.i\right)$ effective Yukawa couplings and $\left.ii\right)$ Majorana masses. These
448: operators are assumed to originate from additional interactions at the scale $M>M_{GUT}$. The
449: value of the powers $p_{ij}$ and $q_{ij}$ are determined by the assignment of $U(1)$ charges,
450: with $X_{\theta}=-1$ then $p_{ij}=(X_{F^{i}}+X_{\olbar{F}^{j}}+X_{h})$ and
451: $q_{ij}=(X_{\olbar{F}^{i}}+X_{\olbar{F}^{j}}+X_{h})$.
452:
453: The contribution to the third family Yukawa coupling is assumed to be only from the renormalisable operator with $n=p=0$ leading to Yukawa unification.
454: The contribution of an operator, with a given power $n$, to the matrices
455: $Y_{f=u,d,\nu,e},\,M_{RR}$ is determined by the
456: relevant Clebsch factors coming from the gauge contractions within
457: that operator. A list of Clebsch factors for all $n=1$ operators can
458: be found in the appendix of \cite{KiOl_nu}. These Clebsch factors give
459: zeros for some matrices and not for others, hence a choice of
460: operators can be made such that a large 23 entry can be given to
461: $Y_{\nu}$ and not $Y_{u,d,e}$. We shall write,
462: \beq
463: \delta = \frac{<H><\olbar{H}>}{M^2}=0.22, \ \ \epsilon =
464: \frac{<\theta>}{M^2}=0.22,
465: \label{eq:de}
466: \eeq
467: then we can identify $\delta$ with mass
468: splitting within generations and $\epsilon$ with splitting between
469: generations.
470:
471: Our choice of $U(1)$ charges are as in \cite{KiOl_nu},
472: and can be summarised as
473: $X_{F^{i}}~=~\left(1,0,0\right)$,
474: $X_{\olbar{F}^{i}}~=~\left(4,2,0\right)$,
475: $X_{h}=0$, $X_{H}=0$ and $X_{\olbar{H}}=0$.
476: This fixes the powers of $\epsilon$ in each entry of the Yukawa
477: matrix, but does not specify the complete operator.
478: The Yukawa couplings are specified by the choice of operators,
479: \begin{equation}
480: Y_{f}(M_{GUT}) =\left(\matrix{
481: ({a_{11}\cal O}^R+a_{11}^{\prime\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime\prime V})\epsilon^5 &
482: (a_{12}{\cal O}^I+a_{12}^{\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime F})\epsilon^3 &
483: (a_{13}^{\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime c})\epsilon \cr
484: (a_{21}{\cal O}^G)\epsilon^4 &
485: (a_{22}{\cal O}^W+a_{22}^{\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime S})\epsilon^2 &
486: (a_{23}{\cal O}^I+a_{23}^{\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime W}) \cr
487: (a_{31}{\cal O}^R)\epsilon^4 &
488: (a_{32}{\cal O}^M+a_{32}^{\prime}{\cal O}^{\prime K})\epsilon^2 &
489: a_{33} }\right)
490: \label{SRNDmRLopMtr}
491: \end{equation}
492: The operators are defined in \cite{KiOl_nu},
493: although the selection of operators here is different from that paper.
494: The notation is such that
495: ${\cal O}$, ${\cal O}^{\prime}$ and ${\cal O}^{\prime\prime}$
496: are $n=1$, $n=2$
497: and (highly small) $n=3$ operators respectively
498: where $n$ refers to the powers of $(H\olbar{H})$, thus~
499: \footnote{The $n=3$ operators can, to a very good approximation,
500: be neglected. Their inclusion here serves only to fill the 11 entries
501: of the $Y_{u,\nu}$ Yukawa matrices, thereby ensuring (for example)
502: that the up quark is given a very small mass.}
503: \beq
504: {\cal O}\sim (H\olbar{H})\sim \delta, \ \
505: {\cal O}^{\prime}\sim (H\olbar{H})^2\sim \delta^2, \ \
506: {\cal O}^{\prime\prime}\sim (H\olbar{H})^3\sim \delta^3.\label{OO'O''}
507: \eeq
508: The order unity coefficients $a_{ij},a_{ij}^{\prime},a_{ij}^{\prime\prime}$
509: multiply the operators ${\cal O},{\cal O}^{\prime},{\cal O}^{\prime\prime}$
510: in the $ij$ position.
511: The Majorana operators are assumed to arise from an $m=0$ operator
512: in the 33 position and $m=1$ operators elsewhere.
513: The operator choice in Eq.\ref{SRNDmRLopMtr} leads to the
514: quark and lepton mass matrices in Table \ref{GUT}. For example the Clebsch
515: coeficients from the leading ${\mathcal{O}}^{W}$ operator in the 22 positon
516: gives the ratio $0:1:3$ in the $Y_{U,D,E}$ matrices. This ratio along with subleading corrections provides the correct $m_{c}:m_{s}:m_{\mu}$ ratio.
517: \begin{table}
518: \bea
519: %
520: %
521: %
522: Y_u(M_{GUT}) & = & \left(\matrix{
523: \sqrt{2}\:a_{11}^{\prime\prime}\delta^3\epsilon^5 &
524: \sqrt{2}\:a_{12}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^3 &
525: {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\:a_{13}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon \cr
526: %
527: \mbox{\rule[-8mm]{0mm}{17mm}}
528: 0 &
529: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{343}{670}}}\:a_{22}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
530: 0 \cr
531: %
532: 0 &
533: {\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\:a_{32}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
534: r_ta_{33} \cr}
535: \right)
536: \nonumber \\
537: %
538: %
539: %
540: \noalign{\bigskip}
541: Y_d(M_{GUT}) & = & \left(\matrix{
542: {\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\:a_{11}\delta \epsilon^5 &
543: -\sqrt{2}\:a_{12}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^3 &
544: {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{5}}}\:a_{13}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon \cr
545: %
546: \mbox{\rule[-8mm]{0mm}{17mm}}
547: {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}}}\:a_{21}\delta \epsilon^4 &
548: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{ 2}{ 5}}}\:a_{22}\delta \epsilon^2 +
549: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{1372}{670}}}\:a_{22}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
550: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{ 2}{ 5}}}\:a_{23}^{\prime}\delta^2 \cr
551: %
552: {\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}\:a_{31}\delta \epsilon^5 &
553: \sqrt{2}\:a_{32}\delta \epsilon^2 &
554: r_ba_{33} \cr}
555: \right)
556: \nonumber \\
557: %
558: %
559: %
560: \noalign{\bigskip}
561: Y_e(M_{GUT}) & = & \left(\matrix{
562: {\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\:a_{11}\delta \epsilon^5 &
563: 0 &
564: 0 \cr
565: %
566: \mbox{\rule[-8mm]{0mm}{17mm}}
567: {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{5}}}\:a_{21}\delta \epsilon^4 &
568: -3\,{\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{ 2}{ 5}}}\:a_{22}\delta \epsilon^2 +
569: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{772}{670}}}\:a_{22}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
570: -3\,{\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{ 2}{ 5}}}\:a_{23}^{\prime}\delta^2 \cr
571: %
572: {\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\:a_{31}\delta \epsilon^5 &
573: \sqrt{2}\:a_{32}\delta \epsilon^2 &
574: a_{33} \cr}
575: \right)
576: \nonumber \\
577: %
578: %
579: %
580: \noalign{\bigskip}
581: Y_{\nu}(M_{GUT}) & = & \left(\matrix{
582: \sqrt{2}\:a_{11}^{\prime\prime}\delta^3\epsilon^5 &
583: 2 \:a_{12}\delta \epsilon^3 &
584: 0 \cr
585: %
586: \mbox{\rule[-8mm]{0mm}{17mm}}
587: 0 &
588: {\displaystyle \sqrt{\frac{193}{670}}}\:a_{22}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
589: 2 \:a_{23}\delta \cr
590: %
591: 0 &
592: {\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\:a_{32}^{\prime}\delta^2\epsilon^2 &
593: r_{\nu}a_{33} \cr}
594: \right)
595: \nonumber \\
596: %
597: %
598: %
599: \noalign{\bigskip}
600: \frac{M_{RR}(M_{GUT})}{M_{R}} & = & \left(\matrix{
601: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{11}\delta \epsilon^8 &
602: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{12}\delta \epsilon^6 &
603: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{13}\delta \epsilon^4 \cr
604: %
605: \mbox{\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{12mm}}
606: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{12}\delta \epsilon^6 &
607: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{22}\delta \epsilon^4 &
608: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{23}\delta \epsilon^2 \cr
609: %
610: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{13}\delta \epsilon^4 &
611: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{23}\delta \epsilon^2 &
612: \phantom{\sqrt{2}} A_{33} \cr}
613: \right)
614: \nonumber
615: %
616: %
617: %
618: \eea
619: \caption{\label{GUT} The quark and lepton Yukawa matrices and neutrino Majorana
620: mass matrix as used in the analysis. In our numerical analysis
621: we set $ M_{R}=3\cdot 10^{14}$~GeV.
622: The Yukawa matrices follow from Eq.\ref{SRNDmRLopMtr} and the
623: Clebsch factors arising from each operator are shown numerically
624: above. Clebsch zeroes play an important part in suppressing
625: the leading operator contribution in a particular element of the
626: matrix, or in simply giving a zero if all the operators are suppressed.
627: The Clebsch coefficients in the Majorana sector are set equal to unity, with
628: $A_{ij}$ being independent order unity coefficients.}
629: \end{table}
630:
631: In the neutrino sector the matrices in Table~\ref{GUT} satisfy the
632: condition of sequential dominance \cite{SRHND} in which a
633: neutrino mass hierarchy naturally results with the
634: dominant third right-handed neutrino being mainly responsible
635: for the atmospheric neutrino mass, and the sub-dominant second
636: right-handed neutrino being mainly responsible for the solar neutrino mass.
637: The atmospheric mixing angle is then determined approximately
638: as a ratio of $Y_{\nu}^{23}:Y_{\nu}^{33}$, and the solar
639: mixing angle is determined by a ratio of $Y_{\nu}^{12}$
640: to a linear combination of $Y_{\nu}^{22}$ and $Y_{\nu}^{32}$,
641: while the CHOOZ angle is determined by a more complicated formula
642: \cite{King:2002nf}. Note that the dominant right-handed neutrino
643: in this model is the heaviest one, corresponding to heavy
644: sequential dominance (HSD) and LFV has been considered
645: in general in this class of models \cite{Blazek:2002wq}.
646:
647: In the previous analysis \cite{BlKi_1} the matrix elements,
648: $Y_{e}^{12}$, $Y_{e,\,\nu}^{13}$ were suppressed artificially to keep
649: $BR(\mu\rightarrow e \gamma)$ within its experimental limit without substantially changing
650: the predictions of fermion masses and mixings. In this new analysis we have built
651: this suppression into the model with our new choice of operators,
652: whose Clebsch
653: coefficients give zeros in the desired matrix elements as can be seen
654: in Table~\ref{GUT}.
655: This can be understood analytically from \cite{Blazek:2002wq}.
656:
657: The subleading operators in the 33 position are
658: not shown explicitly, but are expected to lead to significant
659: deviations from exact Yukawa unification. This effect is parametrised
660: by the ratios
661: \beq
662: r_t\equiv \frac{Y_u(M_{GUT})_{33}}{Y_e(M_{GUT})_{33}},\ \
663: r_b\equiv \frac{Y_d(M_{GUT})_{33}}{Y_e(M_{GUT})_{33}}, \ \
664: r_{\nu}\equiv \frac{Y_{\nu}(M_{GUT})_{33}}{Y_e(M_{GUT})_{33}}.
665: \eeq
666:
667:
668:
669: \section{Numerical Procedure\label{procedure}}
670:
671: In our numerical analysis we have adopted a complete top-down approach
672: \cite{BCRW}.
673: At the GUT scale the MSSM gauge couplings are related to the GUT scale
674: couplings as
675: $\alpha_{2L}=\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{GUT}$ and
676: $\alpha_{3}=\alpha_{GUT}(1+\epsilon_3)$,
677: where $\epsilon_{3}$ sums up the effects of GUT scale threshold corrections.
678: The particular choice of the Yukawa couplings, Table \ref{GUT}, follows
679: from the higher dimensional operators in Eq.~(\ref{SRNDmRLopMtr}) as the
680: latter are matched to the MSSM lagrangian.
681: The parameters
682: \beq
683: \begin{array}{l}
684: \mbox{\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{6mm}}
685: M_{GUT},\;\alpha_{GUT},\;\epsilon_3,\;\delta,\;\epsilon,\;
686: a\mbox{'s}\;\,\mbox{and}\;\,A\mbox{'s},\; r_t,\; r_b,\; r_\nu,\\
687: M_{1/2},\; A_0,\;\mu,\; B\mu,\; m_F^2,\; m_{\olbar{F}}^2,
688: \; m_h^2\;\mbox{and}\;D^2
689: \end{array}
690: \label{GUT.input.1}
691: \eeq
692: are then defined by the boundary conditions at the
693: GUT scale. They parametrise the imprint of a complete Pati-Salam theory
694: together with the SUSY sector (second line) on the MSSM and stand for
695: the input in case this theory is not fully known.
696: In the SUSY sector, the soft SUSY breaking parameters are
697: for simplicity introduced at the same scale. The gaugino masses
698: are assumed universal (equal to $M_{1/2}$) and so do
699: the trilinear couplings: $A_i = A_0\,Y_i$, for $i=u,\:d,\:e,\:\nu$.
700: The soft scalar masses of the MSSM superfields include the $D$ terms from the
701: breaking of the Pati-Salam gauge group \cite{KiOl_yu}
702: \bea
703: m_Q^2 &=& m_F^2 + g_4^2\,D^2 \nonumber\\
704: m_{u_R}^2 &=& m_{\olbar{F}}^2 - (g_4^2-2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \nonumber\\
705: m_{d_R}^2 &=& m_{\olbar{F}}^2 - (g_4^2+2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \nonumber\\
706: m_L^2 &=& m_F^2 - 3g_4^2\,D^2 \\
707: m_{e_R}^2 &=& m_{\olbar{F}}^2 +(3g_4^2-2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \nonumber\\
708: m_{\nu_R}^2 &=& m_{\olbar{F}}^2 +(3g_4^2+2g_{2R}^2) \, D^2 \nonumber\\
709: m_{H_u}^2 &=& m_{h }^2 - 2g_{2R}^2 \, D^2 \nonumber\\
710: m_{H_d}^2 &=& m_{h }^2 + 2g_{2R}^2 \, D^2. \nonumber
711: \label{eq:D}
712: \eea
713: As $D^2=\frac{1}{8}\left(\,|\olbar{H}_{\nu}|^2-|H_{\nu}|^2\,\right)$
714: \cite{KiOl_yu} it is possible for this quantity to be both
715: positive and negative.
716:
717: We now describe minor simplifications to the input in (\ref{GUT.input.1})
718: which were assumed in the actual numerical analysis. We have kept
719: equality between the two order parameters $\delta$ and $\epsilon$
720: as in Eq.(\ref{eq:de}) and the
721: soft SUSY breaking scalar masses $m_F$ and $m_{\olbar{F}}$ have been
722: held equal to each other as well.
723: Furthermore we exploited the fact that determining $\mu(M_{GUT})$ and
724: $B\mu$ at the GUT scale is equivalent to determining the
725: low energy values $\mu(M_Z)$ and $\tan\beta$, respectively.
726: Thus instead of (\ref{GUT.input.1}) our numerical analysis uses
727: \beq
728: \begin{array}{l}
729: \mbox{\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{6mm}}
730: M_{GUT},\;\alpha_{GUT},\;\epsilon_3,\;\delta,\;
731: a\mbox{'s}\;\,\mbox{and}\;\,A\mbox{'s},\; r_t,\; r_b,\; r_\nu,\\
732: M_{1/2},\; A_0,\;\mu(M_Z),\; \tan\beta,\; m_F^2,
733: \; m_h^2\;\mbox{and}\;D^2
734: \end{array}
735: \label{GUT.input.2}
736: \eeq
737: as input parameters.
738: The top down approach implies that we can freely
739: vary or hold fixed any one of them and then investigate the fit properties.
740: This is one of the advantages of doing the analysis top down.
741: For example, in more traditional bottom up approaches it is
742: difficult to control the size of the dimensionless GUT scale parameters.
743: One usually sets up a sample of randomly scattered points and then
744: searches through it to identify a sub-sample with physically interesting
745: GUT scale properties.
746: In our case we can set up the interesting GUT relations explicitly right
747: at the start --- as we have done for instance in section \ref{yuk} where
748: the fits with $r_b$ and $r_t$ approaching unity are studied.
749:
750: We note that taking advantage of the top-down approach
751: we kept $\delta=0.22$, $r_\nu=1$, $A_0=0$ and $\tan\beta=50$ fixed
752: throughout the analysis. This effectively increases the degrees of freedom
753: of the global analysis and can provide a reference point if further analysis
754: is required in the future.
755: We also kept the $\mu$ parameter at scale $M_Z$ fixed to two different
756: values as is explained below.
757:
758:
759: Two-loop RGEs for the dimensionless couplings and
760: one-loop RGEs for the dimensionful couplings were used to
761: run all couplings down to the scale $M_{3R}$ where the heaviest
762: right-handed neutrino decoupled from the RGEs. Similar steps
763: were taken for the lighter $M_{2R}$ and $M_{1R}$ scales,
764: and finally with all three right-handed neutrinos decoupled
765: the solutions for the MSSM couplings and spectra were computed
766: at the $Z$ scale. This includes full one loop SUSY threshold corrections
767: to the fermion mass matrices and all Higgs masses
768: while the sparticle masses are obtained at tree level.
769:
770: $m_h$ and $D$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:D})
771: were varied to optimise radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB),
772: which was checked at one loop with the leading $m_t^4$ and $m_b^4$
773: corrections included
774: following the effective potential method in \cite{EPM}.
775: We note that as $\tan\beta$ determines the Higgs bilinear parameter $B\mu$,
776: there is a redundancy in our procedure since two input parameters,
777: $m_h$ and $D$, determine one condition for the Higgs VEV of $246\,$GeV.
778: This approach enabled us to control the $\mu$ parameter
779: and we explored regions with $\mu$ low
780: ($\mu = 120$GeV) and high ($\mu = 300$GeV) \footnote
781: {
782: For $\tan\beta$ as large as 50, $\mu\gg 300$GeV
783: leads to too large SUSY threshold corrections to the
784: masses of the third generation fermions $\tau$ and $b$
785: unless the sparticles in the loop have masses well above
786: the $1$ TeV region.
787: \cite{large.mb,BCRW}
788: }.
789:
790: An experimental lower bound on each sparticle mass was imposed.
791: In particular,
792: the most constraining are: the LEP limits on the charged SUSY masses
793: ($m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm},m_{\tilde{\tau}}>105$GeV), the CDF limit
794: on the mass of the $CP$ odd Higgs state
795: ($m_{A^0}>105$-$110\,$GeV, valid for $\tan\beta\approx 50$) \cite{Tevatron},
796: and the requirement that the lightest SUSY particle should be neutral.
797: Finally, the $\chi^2$ function $\;\sum (X_i^{th}-X_i^{exp})^2/\sigma_i^2)\;$
798: is evaluated based on the agreement between the theoretical predictions
799: and 24 experimental observables collected in Table \ref{t:observables}.
800: In addition to the constraints listed above and in \cite{BlKi_1},
801: we make a full analysis of the quark sector mass and mixings, in
802: particular we have included the important constraint set by
803: BR($b \rightarrow s \gamma$).
804:
805:
806: %%%%%\newpage
807:
808: \begin{table}
809: \begin{center}
810: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
811: %GG \= bbbbbbbbbbbbb \= eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee \= aaaaaaaaaaaaaa \kill
812: Observable & { Mean } & {$\sigma_{ i}$} \rule[-0.60cm]{0mm}{0.7cm}\\
813: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
814: \noalign{\medskip}
815: $\alpha_{EM} $ & $1/137.036$ & ${7.30\cdot 10^{-6}}$ \\
816: $G_\mu $ & $1.16639\cdot 10^{-5}$ & ${1.12\cdot 10^{-7}}$ \\
817: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ & $0.1181$ & $0.0020 $
818: \rule[-0.60cm]{0mm}{0.7cm} \\
819: $M_t$ & $174.3$ & $5.1$ \\
820: $m_b(m_b) $ & $4.20 $ & ${0.20} $ \\
821: $M_b-M_c $ & $3.4 $ & ${0.2} $ \\
822: $m_s(2\mbox{GeV})$ & $0.110 $ & ${0.035} $
823: \rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.7cm} \\
824: $(m_d^2-m_u^2)/m_s^2$ & $2.03\cdot 10^{-3}$ & ${2.0\cdot 10^{-4}}$
825: \rule[-0.40cm]{0mm}{0.7cm} \\
826: $m_d/m_s$ & $0.05 $ & ${0.015} $ \\
827: $M_\tau $ & $1.777 $ & ${1.8\cdot 10^{-3}} $ \\
828: % zzz !!! zzz
829: $M_\mu $ & $0.106 $ & ${1.1\cdot 10^{-4}} $ \\
830: $M_e $ & $5.11\cdot 10^{-4}$ & ${5.1\cdot 10^{-7}} $ \\
831: $|V_{us}| $ & $0.2196 $ & $0.0023 $ \\
832: $|V_{cb}| $ & $0.0402 $ & $0.003 $ \\
833: $|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}|$ & $0.09 $ & $0.02 $ \\
834: % $\eps_K $ & $2.28\cdot 10^{-3}$ & ${0.23\cdot 10^{-3}}$
835: %
836: \rule[-0.60cm]{0mm}{0.7cm} \\
837: %
838: $M_Z $ & $91.1882$ & ${0.091} $ \\
839: $M_W $ & $80.419 $ & ${0.08} $ \\
840: $\rho_{NEW}$ & $-0.0002 $ & $0.0011 $ \\
841: $BR(b\rightarrow s\gamma)$& $3.47\cdot 10^{-4}$ & $0.45\cdot 10^{-4}$ \\
842: $\delta a_{\mu\;NEW}$ & $34.7.6\cdot 10^{-10}$ &
843: $11\cdot 10^{-10}$
844: %
845: \rule[-0.60cm]{0mm}{0.7cm} \\
846: $\Delta m^2_{ATM}$ & $2.5\cdot 10^{-3}$ &
847: $ 0.8\cdot 10^{-3} $ \\
848: $\sin^22\theta_{ATM}$& $0.99$ & $0.06$ \\
849: $\Delta m^2_{SOL}$ & $7.0\cdot 10^{-5}$ &
850: $ 3\cdot 10^{-5} $ \\
851: $\sin^22\theta_{SOL}$& $0.8$ & $0.09$ \\
852: \vspace{0.3cm}\\
853: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
854: \noalign{\medskip}
855:
856: \end{tabular}
857: \vskip10mm
858: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
859: \caption{
860: {\small Table of observables and $\sigma$ values which are used to calculate the $\chi^2$ that enables best fit regions to be determined via minimisation.}}\label{t:observables}
861: \end{minipage}
862: \end{center}
863: \end{table}
864: \newpage
865:
866:
867:
868: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{res_dis}
869:
870: The numerical results from the global analysis are presented
871: in the form of contour plots in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane and
872: are produced for two different values of the mu parameter
873: $\mu = 120\,$GeV and
874: $\mu = 300\,$GeV.
875: Before we address the details we would like to discuss two different
876: viewpoints of our analysis, namely the flavour sector on the one
877: hand and the unification sector of the other hand.
878: In our discussion we would like to distinguish between the two
879: viewpoints. The main distinction is that in the MSSM analysis the
880: flavour parameters
881: $a_{ij}$ (with the exception of $a_{33}$) and $A_{ij}$ can be considered
882: fixed at unity or at a value of order unity. Up to $a_{33}$ which enters
883: the large Yukawa couplings their exact values do not
884: affect the fit of the SUSY spectra or SUSY-related observables like the muon
885: $g-2$ or branching ratio $b\to s \gamma$. They neither perturb gauge
886: coupling unification nor change the running of the large Yukawa couplings.
887: This means that the discussion of our results is naturally split into a part
888: dealing with the flavour structure of the Pati-Salam model
889: where the variation of the coefficients of the higher dimensional
890: operators matters, and a part where the
891: MSSM analysis is presented and the conclusions do not depend on
892: the variation of the $a$ and $A$ parameters (up to $a_{33}$).
893:
894: Concerning the flavour sector,
895: our results can be used to show how well the model,
896: i.e. the set of higher dimensional operators specified by
897: Eq.~(\ref{SRNDmRLopMtr}), describes the observed fermion masses and mixings.
898: Taking this viewpoint all parameters listed in (\ref{GUT.input.2})
899: represent the input of the analysis. The results in either of the
900: four panels in Figure~\ref{1} show that the model gives a very good
901: agreement with the data. The minimum of the total $\chi^2$ is less
902: than unity obtained for $\mu=120\,$GeV in the upper left panel.
903: This means that it is possible to fit every observable to better than
904: a $1\,\sigma$ accuracy.
905:
906: Concerning the unification sector, the conclusions are much
907: stronger as much fewer number of the input parameters enters
908: effectively after the $a$'s and $A$'s decouple from the analysis.
909: Indeed, the set of the effective input parameters in this sector
910: is reduced to
911: \beq
912: \begin{array}{l}
913: \mbox{\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{6mm}}
914: M_{GUT},\;\alpha_{GUT},\;\epsilon_3,\;
915: a_{33},\; r_t,\; r_b,\\
916: % M_{1/2},\; \mu(M_Z),\; m_F^2,
917: M_{1/2},\; m_F^2, \; m_h^2\;\mbox{and}\;D^2.
918: \end{array}
919: \label{GUT.input.3}
920: \eeq
921: With this input the low energy Higgs and SUSY spectra are determined.
922: The conventional present-day observables include
923: $\alpha_{EM}$, $G_\mu$, $\alpha_s(M_Z)$, $M_t$, $m_b(m_b)$,
924: $M_\tau$, $M_Z$, $M_W$, $\rho_{NEW}$, $BR(b\to s \gamma)$ and
925: $\delta a_\mu$.
926: The $a_{ij}$ and $A_{ij}$ input parameters are all of order one
927: and their exact values are always adjusted to fit the first two
928: generation masses and mixings well while these variations do not
929: affect the fit of the observables listed above.
930:
931: We study many details of the MSSM analysis, in particular the dependence
932: of the fit on $m_F^2$ and $M_{1/2}$, best fit results for muon $g-2$,
933: and $BR(\tau \to \mu\gamma)$ predictions.
934: The numerical results also contain studies of a deviation from Yukawa
935: unification and a future measurement of $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$.
936: The effect of a change to the present muon $g-2$ discrepancy was studied
937: and also the effect of future direct Higgs searches, the results of which
938: can also be found at the end of the paper.
939:
940:
941:
942: \begin{table}
943: \begin{center}
944: \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|r|}
945: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
946: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Inputs}\\
947: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
948: & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf $\mu=120$~GeV}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf $\mu=300$~GeV}\\
949: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
950: & Min A & Min B& Min A & Min B \\
951: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
952: $M_{1/2} $&$450 $&$ 650 $&$450 $&$ 650 $\\
953: $m_{F} $&$500 $&$ 650 $&$500 $&$ 650 $\\
954: $\mu $&$ 120 $&$ 120 $&$ 300 $&$ 300 $ \\
955: $D^2 $&$-6.4\cdot 10^{4}$&$ 17\cdot 10^{4} $&$ -10\cdot 10^{4}$&$ 13\cdot10^{4}$\\
956: $m_{h}^{2} $&$ 6\cdot 10^{5} $&$ 16\cdot 10^{5} $&$ 4.5\cdot 10^{5}$&$ 14\cdot 10^{5}$\\
957: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
958: $ r_{t} $&$ 1.01 $&$ 1.07 $&$ 1.03 $&$ 1.02 $\\
959: $ r_{b} $&$ 0.75 $&$0.72 $&$ 0.66 $&$ 0.64 $\\
960: $ a_{33} $&$ 0.55 $&$ 0.55 $&$ 0.55 $&$ 0.56 $\\
961: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
962: $ a_{11} $&$ -0.93 $&$ -0.92 $&$-0.92 $&$-0.93 $\\
963: $ a_{12} $&$ 0.20 $&$ 0.33 $&$ 0.31 $&$ 0.30 $\\
964: $ a_{21} $&$ 1.67 $&$ 1.67 $&$ 1.67 $&$ 1.75 $\\
965: $ a_{22} $&$ 1.13 $&$ 1.12 $&$ 1.13 $&$ 1.13 $\\
966: $ a_{23} $&$ 0.98 $&$ 0.89 $&$ 1.05 $&$ 0.85 $\\
967: $ a_{31} $&$ -0.20 $&$ -0.21 $&$-0.20 $&$-0.28 $\\
968: $ a_{32} $&$ 2.18 $&$ 2.08 $&$ 2.32 $&$ 2.53 $\\
969: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
970: $ a_{12}^{\prime} $&$ 0.77 $&$0.77 $&$ 0.71 $&$0.71 $\\
971: $ a_{13}^{\prime} $&$ 0.60 $&$ 0.53 $&$ 0.46 $&$0.46 $\\
972: $ a_{22}^{\prime} $&$ 0.66 $&$ 0.66 $&$ 0.64 $&$0.62 $\\
973: $ a_{23}^{\prime} $&$ 0.41 $&$ 0.40 $&$ 0.36 $&$0.36 $\\
974: $ a_{32}^{\prime} $&$ 1.16 $&$ 1.80 $&$ 1.56 $&$1.72 $\\
975: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
976: $a_{11}^{\prime\prime}$&$ 0.32 $&$ 0.278 $&$ 0.20 $&$ 0.23 $\\
977: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
978: $A_{11}$&$ 0.63 $&$ 0.94 $&$ 0.63 $&$ 0.94 $\\
979: $A_{12}$&$ 0.74 $&$ 0.48 $&$ 0.69 $&$ 0.52 $\\
980: $A_{13}$&$ 1.75 $&$ 2.10 $&$ 1.73 $&$ 2.04 $\\
981: $A_{22}$&$ 0.97 $&$ 0.52 $&$ 0.93 $&$ 0.55 $\\
982: $A_{23}$&$ 2.49 $&$ 1.79 $&$ 2.23 $&$ 1.91 $\\
983: $A_{33}$&$ 1.97 $&$ 1.88 $&$ 1.97 $&$ 1.88 $\\
984: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
985: \end{tabular}
986: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
987: \caption{\small Tables of inputs for the best fit points for each of the global $\chi^2$ minima with
988: $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV.}\label{input}
989: \end{minipage}
990: \end{center}
991: \end{table}
992:
993: \begin{table}
994: \begin{center}
995: \begin{tabular}{|l||r|r|r|r|}
996: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
997: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\bf Outputs}\\
998: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
999: & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf $\mu=120$~GeV}& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\bf $\mu=300$~GeV}\\
1000: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1001: & Min A & Min B& Min A & Min B \\
1002: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1003: $m_{A^0} $&$102 $&$ 818 $&$102 $&$ 822 $ \\
1004: $m_{h^0} $&$106 $&$ 114 $&$106 $&$ 114 $ \\
1005: $m_{H^0} $&$112 $&$ 891 $&$113 $&$ 888 $ \\
1006: $m_{H^+} $&$136 $&$ 861 $&$135 $&$ 861 $ \\
1007: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1008: $M_{1} $&$186$&$ 270 $&$ 186 $&$ 271 $\\
1009: $M_{2} $&$371$&$ 537 $&$ 371 $&$ 537 $\\
1010: $M_{3} $&$1175$&$ 1671 $&$ 1175 $&$ 1671 $ \\
1011: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1012: $M_{\chi^{+}_{1}} $&$114 $&$ 117 $&$272$&$ 290 $ \\
1013: $M_{\chi^{+}_{2}} $&$ 390$&$ 549 $&$408$&$ 554 $ \\
1014: $M_{\tilde{N}_{1}} $&$ 98 $&$ 107 $&$179$&$ 249 $\\
1015: $M_{\tilde{N}_{2}} $&$130 $&$ 127 $&$277$&$ 305 $\\
1016: $M_{\tilde{N}_{3}} $&$ 198$&$ 278 $&$307$&$ 311 $ \\
1017: $M_{\tilde{N}_{4}} $&$390 $&$ 549 $&$408$&$ 554 $\\
1018: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1019: $M_{\tilde{Q}_{ 1,\,2}}$&$ 1166 $&$ 1679 $&$ 1159 $&$ 1673 $ \\
1020: $M_{\tilde{Q}_{ 3}} $&$ 979 $&$ 1345 $&$ 960 $&$ 1356 $\\
1021: $M_{\tilde{U}_{ 1,\,2}}$&$ 1131 $&$ 1623 $&$ 1124 $&$ 1617 $ \\
1022: $M_{\tilde{U}_{ 3}} $&$ 798 $&$ 1147 $&$ 805 $&$ 1160 $\\
1023: $M_{\tilde{D}_{ 1,\,2}}$&$ 1182 $&$ 1510 $&$ 1204 $&$ 1529 $ \\
1024: $M_{\tilde{D}_{ 3}} $&$ 923 $&$ 1192 $&$ 1044 $&$ 1251 $\\
1025: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1026: $M_{\tilde{L}_{ 1}} $&$ 673 $&$ 611 $&$715 $&$ 656 $\\
1027: $M_{\tilde{L}_{ 2}} $&$ 665 $&$ 595 $&$707 $&$ 644 $\\
1028: $M_{\tilde{L}_{ 3}} $&$ 580 $&$ 334 $&$638 $&$ 425 $\\
1029: $M_{\tilde{E}_{ 1}} $&$ 496 $&$ 766 $&$473 $&$ 752 $\\
1030: $M_{\tilde{E}_{ 2}} $&$ 495 $&$ 765 $&$473 $&$ 751 $\\
1031: $M_{\tilde{E}_{ 3}} $&$ 201 $&$ 370 $&$188 $&$ 325 $\\
1032: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1033: $\tau\rightarrow\mu\gamma$&$ 2\cdot 10^{-7} $ &$ 3\cdot 10^{-6}$&$ 8\cdot 10^{-8} $&$ 5\cdot 10^{-7} $\\
1034: $\tau\rightarrow e\gamma $&$ 1 \cdot 10^{-14} $&$ 3\cdot 10^{-13}$&$ 6\cdot 10^{-15} $&$ 5\cdot 10^{-14} $ \\
1035: $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma $&$ 3\cdot 10^{-14} $ &$ 1\cdot 10^{-13} $&$ 1\cdot 10^{-14} $&$ 3\cdot 10^{-14} $\\
1036: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1037: $\sin\theta_{13} $&$ 0.053 $&$ 0.078 $&$ 0.037 $&$ 0.10 $\\
1038: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1039: $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$&$0.22 $&$1.0 $&$ 0.15 $&$ 1.0 $ \\
1040: $\cos(\beta-\alpha)$&$-0.98 $&$0.0 $&$ -0.99 $&$ 0.0 $ \\
1041: \noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1042: \end{tabular}
1043: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1044: \caption{\small Tables of outputs for the best fit points for each of the global $\chi^2$ minima with
1045: $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV. The input parameters are as defined in Table~\ref{input}.}\label{output}
1046: \end{minipage}
1047: \end{center}
1048: \end{table}
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054: From our global analysis we found that there are two $\chi^2$ minima
1055: as shown in Figure~\ref{1}.
1056: In this model there are two conditions and three free variables,
1057: $m_{h}^2,\,D^2,$ and $B\mu$, for electroweak symmetry breaking to be
1058: achieved. The two minima hence are independent solutions to these
1059: conditions. Minimum A has $D^2$ negative and smaller $m_{h},\,B\mu$.
1060: Minimum B on the other hand has $D^2$ positive and larger $m_{h},\,B\mu$.
1061: The relative size of $B\mu$ results in a different Higgs spectrum,
1062: particularly the CP odd pseudoscalar Higgs, $A^{0}$, which will be
1063: lighter for minimum A and heavier for minimum B. The difference between
1064: the sign of $D^2$, which contributes to the soft scalar masses as shown
1065: in Eq.~(26), means that minimum B will have lighter right squarks and left
1066: sleptons, along with heavier left squarks and right sleptons, than minimum A.
1067: This difference in sign of $D^2$ has some interesting phenomenological
1068: consequences for the two minima which will now be discussed.
1069:
1070: The upper and lower plots shown in Figure~\ref{1}, display the $\chi^2$
1071: contours for these two minima. Each of the figures display results for
1072: both $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV in the relative left and right positions.
1073: The contours in Figure~\ref{1} are bounded from the lower $m_F$ region due
1074: to the lightest stau becoming the LSP and from the lower $M_{1/2}$ region
1075: due to an increasing $\chi^2$ penalty coming from
1076: $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$.
1077:
1078: The upper minima of Figure~\ref{1}, Minima A, have a preferred region in the
1079: lower $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane, with $M_{1/2}=400\,-\, 500$~GeV and
1080: $m_F=500\,-\, 700$~GeV. The lower minima of Figure~\ref{1}, Minima B, have
1081: their preferred region nearer $M_{1/2}=550\,-\, 650$~GeV and
1082: $m_F=600\,-\, 800$~GeV. A list of inputs and outputs for the best fit
1083: point in each minimum can be found in Tables~\ref{input} and
1084: \ref{output}. The Higgs masses and CP even Higgs mixings
1085: found for minimum A in Table~\ref{output} are
1086: discussed in detail in section~\ref{Higgsmass}.
1087:
1088: \subsection{Muon $g-2$}
1089:
1090: Figure~\ref{2}, shows contour plots for the SUSY contributions towards the muon $g-2$. Both minimum A and minimum B (upper and lower plots respectively) give good fits to the present discrepancy between experiment and Standard Model prediction. As expected, a larger contribution to the muon $g-2$ is obtained in the lower left corner of the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane where the SUSY spectrum is lightest and decreases as we move towards a heavier spectrum in the top right corner. It is also clear that for any one point in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane, minimum B gives a larger contribution than the corresponding point in minimum A. This relative enhancement can be ascribed to the dominant chargino-sneutrino diagram via the presence of a lighter muon sneutrino for the case of minimum B, as can be seen in Figure~{\ref{13b}}.
1091:
1092: The present muon $g-2$ discrepancy lies at $34\times 10^{-10}$ but over the past 12 months it has varied from a $1.5\sigma$ to $3\sigma$ effect. Also the size of the present discrepancy depends on the experimental data used in the calculation of the Standard model prediction. The value we have used throughout our analysis \cite{muon_SM} makes use of $e^{+}e^{-}$ data. On the other hand it is possible to do the same calculation making use if $\tau$ decay data \cite{g-2_tau}, which gives a lower discrepancy of $9.4\times 10^{-10}$. As a result we think it worth while looking into how our best fit regions would change if a lower discrepancy was assumed. For simplicity we took 3 points in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane of minimum A with $\mu=120$~GeV and gradually changed the $g-2$ discrepancy from $34\times 10^{-10}$ down to $0$. The results are presented in Figure~{\ref{32a}} as a plot of $\chi^2$ against the muon $g-2$ discrepancy, $a_{\mu}^{New}$.
1093:
1094: With the discrepancy held at $34\times 10^{-10}$ the best fit point is near $M_{1/2}=450$~GeV and $m_F=550$~GeV. Following the curve corresponding to this point in parameter space, we can see that as the muon $g-2$ discrepancy is lowered the $\chi^{2}$ gradually increased. Therefore the best fit point has moved in the positive $M_{1/2}$, $m_F$ direction. Looking at the two further curves in Figure~\ref{32a} we can see that if $a_{\mu}^{New}\sim 16\times 10^{-10}$ then the best fit point would move nearer $M_{1/2}=550$~GeV and $m_F=650$~GeV. One particular point of interest is $a_{\mu}^{New}=9.4\times 10^{-10}$, the value for the discrepancy as given by the Standard Model prediction from $\tau$ decay data. If we make an approximation, based on the curves in Figure~{\ref{32a}}, we can say that the best fit point, for $a_{\mu}^{New}=9.4\times 10^{-10}$, would be in the region $M_{1/2}=550-700$~GeV, $\,m_F=650-700$~GeV.
1095:
1096: \subsection{$\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$}
1097:
1098: Figure~\ref{5} displays contours for the quantity BR$(\tau\rightarrow\mu\gamma)$ for both minima with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. The general pattern of the contours show larger branching ratio for lighter SUSY spectrum and smaller branching ratio for heavier spectrum. This pattern is not strictly obeyed in the bottom left panel which shows results for minimum B with $\mu=120$~GeV. The reason for this is that our numerical procedure adds a large penalty $\chi^2$ contribution for a $\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ branching ratio larger than the BaBar limit of $2.0 \times 10^{-6}$. Looking at the bottom left panel in Figure~\ref{5} we would expect the branching ratio to exceed the present limit as we go to a lighter spectrum. The result of adding this penalty $\chi^2$ is to numerically force an alternative solution to be found which gives lower branching ratio and disrupts the pattern. Recalculation of this region of parameter space without the additional $\chi^2$ penalty does indeed yield values of BR$(\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ as large as $6.0 \times 10^{-6}$, these points would therefore follow the expected contour pattern but are clearly experimentally excluded.
1099:
1100: Looking at Figure~\ref{5}, the branching ratio for minimum A with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV is well below the present experimental bound. On the other hand, the branching ratio for minimum B, with $\mu=120$~GeV Figure~\ref{5}, is right at the present 90\% confidence level bound of $2.0 \times 10^{-6}$ \cite{babar_tmg}. For $\mu=300$~GeV minimum B gives a branching ratio in the range, $0.1-0.2 \times 10^{-6}$, just below the present bound. With BaBar expected to search as far as BR$(\tau\rightarrow\mu\gamma)\sim 10^{-8}$ over the next 5 years this certainly provides a means of distinguishing the two minima.
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104: \subsection{Deviations from Yukawa Unification}\label{yuk}
1105:
1106: The plots shown in Figure~\ref{3} show contour lines for $r_{b}=Y_{b}/Y_{\tau}$
1107: and those in Figure~\ref{4}, show contour lines for $r_{t}=Y_{t}/Y_{\tau}$
1108: in the best fits over the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane.
1109: These parameters allow the deviation of the top,
1110: bottom and tau Yukawa couplings away from unification($r_{b}=r_{t}=1$). Both
1111: parameters show significant dependence upon $m_F$ and weak dependence upon
1112: $M_{1/2}$, with increasing $r_{t,\,b}$ values as we move towards
1113: larger $m_F$. The plots show that the level of deviation from Yukawa
1114: unification required for a good $\chi^2$ fit to be obtained is of the order
1115: of 20-35\% in $r_b$ and 0-10\% in $r_t$. It is possible to
1116: account for this level of deviation through the presence of subleading
1117: operators, of the type mentioned in Eq.~\ref{OO'O''}, in the $33$ element
1118: of the Yukawa matrices. Hence the $33$ element in Eq.~\ref{SRNDmRLopMtr}
1119: should read,
1120: \beq
1121: Y_{33}=a_{33}+{\cal O} + {\cal O}^{\prime} + \ldots
1122: \eeq
1123: where the operators ${\cal O}$ and ${\cal O}^{\prime}$ are
1124: responsible for generating $r_{t,\,b}\neq 1$. The $23$ block of the neutrino
1125: Yukawa matrix has already shown us that a contribution to the Yukawa matrices
1126: from a subleading operator can actually be comparable to those from a leading
1127: operator. This occurs in the $23$ element of the neutrino Yukawa matrix, where
1128: there is a contribution from the operator ${\cal O}^I$ and the
1129: neutrino matrix is the only one that receives a non-zero Clebsch as can be
1130: seen in Table~\ref{GUT}. This leads to the relative sizes of the elements
1131: $Y_{\nu\,23}\sim 0.44$ and $Y_{\nu\,33}\sim 1$. A similar subleading
1132: contribution to the $33$ element of the up and down quark Yukawa matrices
1133: could easily account for a deviation from third family Yukawa unification
1134: at the level discovered in our study.
1135:
1136: Here we do not study the region in the parameter space $\;m_F>2\,$TeV,
1137: $A_0\approx -2\,m_F$ where the exact unification might work
1138: \cite{exact.yuk.unif}. Instead, we carried out a study of the additional
1139: $\chi^2$ penalty incurred due to demanding exact Yukawa unification in the
1140: region $\;m_F<2\,$TeV and $A_0=0$. Figure~\ref{29} shows the result as
1141: $\chi^2$ contour plots in the $r_{t}-r_{b}$ plane corresponding to the
1142: best fits. The three panels were obtained from three points in the
1143: $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane and show that a very heavy penalty $\delta\chi^2 > 10$
1144: is paid when requiring exact Yukawa unification in this SUSY region.
1145:
1146: \subsection{Future Higgs searches}\label{Higgsmass}
1147:
1148: Figure~{\ref{6}} shows mass contours of the CP odd pseudoscalar Higgs, $m_{A^{0}}$.
1149: These plots show that for the Pseudoscalar Higgs mass minimum A prefers values approximately
1150: $200-300$~GeV lower than minimum B. In Figure~\ref{6} we see that for both $\mu=120$
1151: and $300$~GeV, minimum A gives a very light pseudoscalar Higgs mass, $m_{A^{0}} \sim 108$~GeV,
1152: in the low $M_{1/2},\,m_F$ region. This is in fact the same region in which minimum A
1153: provides its lowest $\chi^2$. In fact Table~\ref{output} shows that for the best fit
1154: point in minimum A we have a pseudoscalar mass of $102$~GeV and a light CP even mass of $106$~GeV.
1155: With the Tevatron now taking data there is a high
1156: probability that the present lower bound on Higgs masses will be pushed higher.
1157: Hence we have undertaken a study of the effect this would have on our best fits.
1158: The plot in Figure~{\ref{32b}} shows the increase in $\chi^2$, for four points
1159: in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane of minimum A, due to an increase in the lower bound
1160: on the Higgs masses $m_{A^{0}}$, $m_{h^{0}}$. It clearly shows that all four of
1161: the points can accommodate an increase in the lower bound up to approximately
1162: $120$~GeV, above this the $\chi^2$ increases sharply due the inability to
1163: accommodate such a large lower bound.
1164:
1165: The coupling of the light CP even Higgs, $h^{0}$, to the $Z$ boson is proportional to
1166: $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ and that of the heavy CP even Higgs, $H^{0}$, is proportional to
1167: $\cos(\beta-\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is the mixing angle for the CP even Higgs states.
1168: In figure~\ref{sinb-a}, which shows contours of $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ for
1169: points in minimum A,
1170: we see that in the low $M_{1/2}$ region $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ is small and hence
1171: % we have the unusual situation of
1172: the $Z$ couples dominantly to the heavier Higgs state $H^{0}$, rather that the lighter $h^{0}$.
1173: Therefore, in this region it is the heavier state, $H^{0}$,
1174: which is the standard model like Higgs and so the LEP limit will apply to the larger $m_{H^{0}}$
1175: and not $m_{h^{0}}$.
1176: Table~\ref{output} shows that we have exactly this situation for the best fit points of minimum A
1177: where $\sin(\beta-\alpha)\sim 0.2$, therefore the standard model like Higgs is the heavier state
1178: $H^{0}$ for these points with a mass of $113$~GeV. Assuming a $3$ GeV error in our numerical
1179: calculation means we are compatible with the present LEP limit of $114.4$ GeV.
1180:
1181: We have checked that the light Higgs spectrum is consistent with the current limit on the
1182: rate for $B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-$. \cite{Bs.mumu}
1183:
1184:
1185:
1186: \subsection{CHOOZ angle, $\theta_{13}$}
1187:
1188: Figure~\ref{14} shows scatter plots of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ against $\Delta m^2_{Atm}$
1189: for both minimum A and minimum B with $\mu = 120$ and $300$~GeV. Each point denotes
1190: values obtained from individual points in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane, with points
1191: grouped according to the value of $\chi^2$. These plots show that the Model can
1192: easily yield values of $\theta_{13}$ that are within the present CHOOZ limit,
1193: $\theta_{13}\lesssim 0.22$. Each of the plots in Figure~\ref{14} shows that the
1194: best fit points, denoted by a $+$ symbol, give a range of values of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$
1195: from, $10^{-6}$ to $0.1$. Although our results do not give any firm prediction for the
1196: value of $\theta_{13}$, it can be seen that the model favours the region,
1197: $10^{-4}<\sin \theta_{13}<0.1$, just below the present CHOOZ limit.
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201:
1202: \section{Summary and Conclusion\label{conc}}
1203:
1204: We have performed a complete global phenomenological analysis of
1205: a realistic string-inspired model
1206: based on the supersymmetric Pati-Salam $SU(4)\times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R$
1207: gauge group supplemented by a $U(1)$ family symmetry.
1208: Global contour plots in the
1209: $(m_F,\,M_{1/2})$ plane have been presented in Figure~\ref{1}, showing two
1210: $\chi^2$ minima.
1211: These two distinct minima differ numerically
1212: by the relative sign of the D-term. This gives interesting
1213: phenomenological differences between the two minima, notably one has
1214: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ near the present limit and a
1215: heavy pseudoscalar Higgs $m_{A^{0}}$, while the other has
1216: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ well below the present bound but
1217: a light pseudoscalar Higgs $m_{A^{0}}$. Both minima
1218: give a good fit to the present muon $g-2$ discrepancy over a large
1219: region of parameter space and give $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ over the
1220: range $10^{-5}-0.1$. Our best fit predictions for the
1221: superpartner masses for each of the two minima for two different
1222: $\mu$ values are summarised in Table~\ref{output}.
1223:
1224: We emphasise again that our analysis really should be considered
1225: as consisting of two distinct parts, associated with flavour physics on the one
1226: hand and unification and electroweak symmetry breaking on the other hand.
1227: For the flavour part, we have proposed a complete model
1228: in Table~\ref{GUT} which gives an accurate description of
1229: all fermion masses and mixing angles,
1230: including the LMA MSW neutrino solution.
1231: We have shown that improved limits on
1232: $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$
1233: could begin to rule out one of our two minima.
1234: The conclusions on $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ are applicable
1235: to a wide class of models which achieve approximate maximal
1236: atmospheric neutrino mixing via the see-saw mechanism in the MSSM with
1237: a large 23 entry in the neutrino Yukawa matrix.
1238: On the other hand $BR(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ is predicted to be about
1239: two orders of magnitude below the current limit, which is a
1240: consequence of the specific flavour structure of the model in
1241: Table~\ref{GUT}.
1242:
1243: Regarding unification,
1244: the model predicts approximate third family Yukawa unification and hence
1245: large $\tan \beta \sim 50$. Electroweak symmetry breaking was achieved
1246: with the help of D-terms and non-universal soft Higgs mass,
1247: which allows small $\mu$ values.
1248: The property of exact Yukawa unification was
1249: relaxed throughout the analysis and it was found that
1250: a deviation of 20-35\% for the bottom Yukawa coupling
1251: and 0-10\% for the top Yukawa coupling are required
1252: for a good fit to be obtained. We showed that
1253: relaxing Yukawa unification has the
1254: effect of allowing small values of the soft scalar mass $m_F$,
1255: and lighter squark and slepton masses as a consequence.
1256:
1257: Further studies of the effects of future direct Higgs searches and a change
1258: to the present muon g-2 discrepancy are shown in
1259: Figures~\ref{32a} and \ref{32b}.
1260: We found that our best
1261: fit points, for the minima with lighter Higgs masses, can accommodate
1262: a lower bound on Higgs masses up to about $120$~GeV. For these points the coupling of the
1263: lighter CP even Higgs state to the $Z$ boson is suppressed, leaving
1264: the heavier of the two CP even states acting as the standard model like Higgs.
1265:
1266: In conclusion, we have constructed and analysed a complete supersymmetric
1267: Pati-Salam model which agrees with all laboratory observables
1268: and constraints. Using a global analysis we identify the most
1269: preferred regions of the SUSY parameter space, and find
1270: a rather light superpartner spectrum corresponding to
1271: $(m_F,M_{1/2})\sim (600,600)$ (in GeV) well within reach
1272: of the LHC.
1273:
1274:
1275:
1276: \vskip 0.1in
1277: \noindent
1278: {\large {\bf Acknowledgments}}\\
1279: S.K. thanks PPARC for a Senior Fellowship and J.P. thanks PPARC for a studentship.
1280: \newpage
1281:
1282: %\appendix
1283: %\section{Clebsch Factors}
1284: %%\section{APPENDIX A}
1285: %%\begin{center}
1286: %%{\bf APPENDIX A}
1287: %%\end{center}
1288: %\vskip -20pt
1289: %\vbox{
1290: %\begin{center}
1291: %\begin{tabular}{clrrrr}
1292: %%\multicolumn{6}{c}{} \cr
1293: %\noalign{\medskip}
1294: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1295: %\noalign{\smallskip}
1296: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1297: %\noalign{\medskip}
1298: %CLASS &
1299: %${\cal O}$ &
1300: %$x_u$ &
1301: %$x_d$ &
1302: %$x_e$ &
1303: %$x_\nu$ \\
1304: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1305: %\noalign{\medskip}
1306: %I & ${ \cal O}^N $& 2.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1307: %I & ${ \cal O}^E $& 0.0000 & 2.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1308: %I & ${ \cal O}^i $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 2.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1309: %I & ${ \cal O}^I $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 2.0000 \\
1310: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1311: %\noalign{\medskip}
1312: %II & ${ \cal O}^M $& 0.0000 & 1.4142 & 1.4142 & 0.0000 \\
1313: %II & ${ \cal O}^G $& 0.0000 & 0.8944 & 1.7889 & 0.0000 \\
1314: %II & ${ \cal O}^R $& 0.0000 & 1.6000 & 1.2000 & 0.0000 \\
1315: %II & ${ \cal O}^W $& 0.0000 & 0.6325 &-1.8974 & 0.0000 \\
1316: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1317: %\noalign{\medskip}
1318: %III & ${ \cal O}^V $& 1.4142 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.4142 \\
1319: %III & ${ \cal O}^O $& 0.8944 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.7889 \\
1320: %III & ${ \cal O}^K $& 1.6000 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.2000 \\
1321: %III & ${ \cal O}^Z $& 0.6325 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 &-1.8974 \\
1322: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1323: %\noalign{\medskip}
1324: %IV & ${ \cal O}^J $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.7889 & 0.8944 \\
1325: %IV & ${ \cal O}^g $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 1.4142 & 1.4142 \\
1326: %IV & ${ \cal O}^h $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 &-1.4142 & 1.4142 \\
1327: %IV & ${ \cal O}^j $& 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.8944 & 1.7889 \\
1328: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1329: %\noalign{\medskip}
1330: %V & ${\cal O}^F $& 1.4142 &-1.4142 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1331: %V & ${\cal O}^a $& 1.4142 & 1.4142 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1332: %V & ${\cal O}^b $& 1.7889 & 0.8944 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1333: %V & ${\cal O}^c $& 0.8944 & 1.7889 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 \\
1334: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1335: %\noalign{\medskip}
1336: %VI & ${\cal O}^H $& 0.8000 & 0.4000 & 0.8000 & 1.6000 \\
1337: %VI & ${\cal O}^f $& 0.4000 & 0.8000 & 1.6000 & 0.8000 \\
1338: %VI & ${\cal O}^S $& 0.7155 & 1.4311 & 1.0733 & 0.5367 \\
1339: %VI & ${\cal O}^L $& 1.4311 & 0.7155 & 0.5367 & 1.0733 \\
1340: %VI & ${\cal O}^T $& 0.5657 & 0.2828 & 0.2828 & 0.5657 \\
1341: %VI & ${\cal O}^U $& 0.2828 & 0.5657 & 0.5657 & 0.2828 \\
1342: %VI & ${\cal O}^X $& 0.5657 & 0.2828 &-0.8485 &-1.6971 \\
1343: %VI & ${\cal O}^Y $& 0.2828 & 0.5657 &-1.6971 &-0.8485 \\
1344: %VI & ${\cal O}^D $& 0.4472 &-0.4472 & 1.3416 &-1.3416 \\
1345: %VI & ${\cal O}^e $& 0.6325 &-0.6325 &-1.2649 & 1.2649 \\
1346: %VI & ${\cal O}^B $& 1.0000 &-1.0000 &-1.0000 & 1.0000 \\
1347: %VI & ${\cal O}^Q $& 1.1314 &-1.1314 &-0.8485 & 0.8485 \\
1348: %VI & ${\cal O}^P $& 1.1314 & 1.1314 & 0.8485 & 0.8485 \\
1349: %VI & ${\cal O}^A $& 1.0000 & 1.0000 & 1.0000 & 1.0000 \\
1350: %VI & ${\cal O}^d $& 0.6325 & 0.6325 & 1.2649 & 1.2649 \\
1351: %VI & ${\cal O}^C $& 0.4472 & 0.4472 &-1.3416 &-1.3416 \\
1352: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1353: %\noalign{\smallskip}
1354: %\noalign{\hrule height\rulerheight}
1355: %\end{tabular}
1356: %\end{center}
1357: %\vskip -15pt
1358: %{\narrower\narrower\footnotesize\noindent
1359: %{TABLE \TabClebsch.}
1360: %List of Clebsch factors resulting from all possible $n=1$ operators,
1361: %as given by Eq.~\ref{Yuk_op},~\ref{Maj_op}, in the Pati-Salam model.
1362: %\par\bigskip}}
1363:
1364:
1365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1366: % REFERENCES
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368:
1369: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1370:
1371: \bibitem{SKamiokandeColl}
1372: Y. Fukuda \etal, Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
1373: Phys. Lett. {\bf B433}, 9 (1998);
1374: \ibid\ Phys. Lett. {\bf B436}, 33 (1998);
1375: \ibid\ Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998).
1376:
1377: %\cite{Ahmad:2002jz}
1378: \bibitem{Ahmad:2002jz}
1379: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.} [SNO Collaboration],
1380: %``Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory,''
1381: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 011301
1382: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008];
1383: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%
1384: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.} [SNO Collaboration],
1385: %``Measurement of day and night neutrino energy spectra at SNO and constraints on neutrino mixing parameters,''
1386: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 011302
1387: [arXiv:nucl-ex/0204009].
1388: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%
1389:
1390: \bibitem{kamland_exp}
1391: K.~Eguchi {\it et al.} [KamLAND Collaboration],
1392: %``First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance,''
1393: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 021802
1394: [arXiv:hep-ex/0212021].
1395: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%
1396:
1397: \bibitem{GoPe}
1398: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.~M.~Rotunno,
1399: %``Solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first KamLAND results,''
1400: arXiv:hep-ph/0212127;
1401: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212127;%%
1402: P.~C.~de~Holanda and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1403: %``LMA MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem and first KamLAND results,''
1404: arXiv:hep-ph/0212270;
1405: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212270;%%
1406: V.~Barger and D.~Marfatia,
1407: %``KamLAND and solar neutrino data eliminate the LOW solution,''
1408: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 555} (2003) 144
1409: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212126];
1410: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212126;%%
1411: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
1412: %``The solar neutrino problem after the first results from KamLAND,''
1413: arXiv:hep-ph/0212146.
1414: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212146;%%
1415: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz and J.~W.~Valle,
1416: %``Combining first KamLAND results with solar neutrino data,''
1417: arXiv:hep-ph/0212129.
1418: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212129;%%
1419:
1420: \bibitem{SRHND}
1421: S.~F.~King,
1422: %``Atmospheric and solar neutrinos with a heavy singlet,''
1423: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439} (1998) 350
1424: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806440];
1425: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806440;%%
1426: S.~F.~King,
1427: %``Atmospheric and solar neutrinos from single right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family symmetry,''
1428: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 562} (1999) 57
1429: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904210];
1430: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904210;%%
1431: S.~F.~King,
1432: %``Large mixing angle MSW and atmospheric neutrinos from single right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family symmetry,''
1433: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 576} (2000) 85
1434: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912492].
1435: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912492;%%
1436: %---- Refs. for Pati-Salam Model. --------------------
1437:
1438: \bibitem{PaSa}
1439: J. C. Pati, A. Salam,
1440: Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 275 (1974).
1441:
1442:
1443: \bibitem{AnLe}
1444: I.~Antoniadis and G.~K.~Leontaris,
1445: %``A Supersymmetric SU(4) X O(4) Model,''
1446: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 216} (1989) 333;
1447: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B216,333;%%
1448: I.~Antoniadis, G.~K.~Leontaris and J.~Rizos,
1449: %``A Three Generation SU(4) X O(4) String Model,''
1450: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 245} (1990) 161.
1451: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B245,161;%%
1452: %-------
1453:
1454: \bibitem{ShTy}
1455: % TEV SCALE SUPERSTRING AND EXTRA DIMENSIONS.
1456: G. Shiu, S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 106007 (1998);
1457: %\cite{Everett:2002pm}
1458: %\bibitem{Everett:2002pm}
1459: L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~F.~King, S.~Rigolin and L.~T.~Wang,
1460: %``Supersymmetric Pati-Salam models from intersecting D-branes,''
1461: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531} (2002) 263
1462: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202100].
1463: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202100;%%
1464:
1465:
1466: \bibitem{KiOl_LFV}
1467: S.~F.~King and M.~Oliveira,
1468: %``Lepton flavor violation in string inspired models,''
1469: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 035003
1470: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804283].
1471: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804283;%%
1472:
1473: \bibitem{KiOl_nu}
1474: S.~F.~King and M.~Oliveira,
1475: %``Neutrino masses and mixing angles in a realistic string-inspired model,''
1476: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 095004
1477: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009287].
1478: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009287;%%
1479:
1480: \bibitem{BlKi_1}
1481: T.~Blazek and S.~F.~King,
1482: %``Muon anomalous magnetic moment and tau $\to$ mu gamma in a realistic string-inspired model of neutrino masses,''
1483: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 109
1484: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105005].
1485: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105005;%%
1486:
1487: \bibitem{KiOl_yu}
1488: S.~F.~King and M.~Oliveira,
1489: %``Yukawa unification as a window into the soft supersymmetry breaking Lagrangian,''
1490: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015010
1491: [arXiv:hep-ph/0008183].
1492: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008183;%%
1493:
1494: \bibitem{PaSa_Gomez1}
1495: M.~E.~Gomez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,
1496: %``Yukawa quasi-unification,''
1497: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 638} (2002) 165
1498: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203131].
1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203131;%%
1500:
1501: \bibitem{PaSa_Gomez2}
1502: M.~E.~Gomez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,
1503: %``On Yukawa quasi-unification with mu < 0,''
1504: arXiv:hep-ph/0301064.
1505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301064;%%
1506:
1507:
1508: \bibitem{Tevatron}
1509: T.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1510: %``Search for neutral supersymmetric Higgs bosons in p anti-p collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''
1511: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 4472
1512: [arXiv:hep-ex/0010052].
1513: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010052;%%
1514:
1515: %----- King operators in the 422 model
1516: \bibitem{Ops}
1517: S.~F.~King,
1518: %``SU(4) X SU(2)-L X SU(2)-R As A Surrogate Susy Gut,''
1519: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 325} (1994) 129
1520: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 325} (1994) 538];
1521: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B325,129;%%
1522: B.~C.~Allanach and S.~F.~King,
1523: %``Fermion masses in a supersymmetric SU(4) x SU(2)-L x SU(2)-R model,''
1524: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 456} (1995) 57
1525: [arXiv:hep-ph/9502219];
1526: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502219;%%
1527: B.~C.~Allanach and S.~F.~King,
1528: %``Neutrino Masses and Mixing Angles in a Supersymmetric SU(4)$ \otimes $SU(2)$_L \otimes $SU(2)$_R$ Model,''
1529: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 459} (1996) 75
1530: [arXiv:hep-ph/9509205];
1531: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509205;%%
1532: B.~C.~Allanach, S.~F.~King, G.~K.~Leontaris and S.~Lola,
1533: %``A new approach to Yukawa textures in supersymmetric unified models with gauged family symmetries,''
1534: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 2632
1535: [arXiv:hep-ph/9610517].
1536: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610517;%%
1537:
1538: %\cite{King:2002nf}
1539: \bibitem{King:2002nf}
1540: S.~F.~King,
1541: %``Constructing the large mixing angle MNS matrix in see-saw models with right-handed neutrino dominance,''
1542: JHEP {\bf 0209} (2002) 011
1543: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204360].
1544: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204360;%%
1545:
1546: %\cite{Blazek:2002wq}
1547: \bibitem{Blazek:2002wq}
1548: T.~Bla\v{z}ek and S.~F.~King,
1549: %``Lepton flavour violation in the constrained MSSM with natural neutrino mass hierarchy,''
1550: arXiv:hep-ph/0211368.
1551: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211368;%%
1552:
1553:
1554: \bibitem{BCRW} T.~Bla\v{z}ek, M.~Carena, S.~Raby and C.E.M.~Wagner,
1555: %``A global chi**2 analysis of electroweak data in SO(10) SUSY GUTs,''
1556: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 6919
1557: [arXiv:hep-ph/9611217].
1558: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9611217;%%
1559:
1560:
1561: \bibitem{EPM} M.Carena, J.R.~Espinosa, M.Quiros and C.~Wagner,
1562: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 355}, 209 (1995);
1563: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504316;%%
1564: M.Carena, M.Quiros and C.~Wagner,
1565: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 461}, 407 (1996);
1566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508343;%%
1567: J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa, M.~Quiros and A.~Riotto,
1568: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 436}, 3 (1995).
1569: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407389;%%
1570:
1571: \bibitem{large.mb} R.~Hempfling,
1572: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 49}, 6168 (1994).
1573: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,6168;%%
1574: L.~Hall, R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid,
1575: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 50}, 7048 (1994).
1576: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306309;%%
1577: M.~Carena, M.~Olechowski, S.~Pokorski and C.~Wagner,
1578: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 426}, 269 (1994).
1579: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402253;%%
1580: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, S.~Raby, and S.~Pokorski,
1581: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 52}, 4151 (1995).
1582: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9504364;%%
1583:
1584: % \bibitem{PDG} J.~Bartels \etal\ (Particle Data Group),
1585: % Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15}, 1 (2000).
1586: %
1587: %
1588: % %%%%%% KamLAND Analysis %%%%%%%%
1589: %
1590: % \bibitem{KamLAND}
1591: % A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
1592: % arXiv:hep-ph/0211266.
1593: % H.~Nunokawa, W.~J.~Teves and R.~Z.~Funchal,
1594: % arXiv:hep-ph/0212202.
1595: % G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.~M.~Rotunno,
1596: % arXiv:hep-ph/0212127.
1597:
1598:
1599: %%%%%%% Bs -> mu mu %%%%%%%
1600: \bibitem{Bs.mumu}
1601: %\cite{Dedes:2002zx}
1602: A.~Dedes, H.~K.~Dreiner, U.~Nierste and P.~Richardson,
1603: %``Trilepton events and B/s $\to$ mu+ mu-: No-lose for mSUGRA at the Tevatron?,''
1604: arXiv:hep-ph/0207026;
1605: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207026;%%
1606: T.~Kamon, arXiv:hep-ph/0301019.
1607: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301019;%%
1608:
1609:
1610:
1611: %%%%%%% muon g-2 %%%%%%%%
1612:
1613: \bibitem{muon_SM}
1614: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,
1615: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 557} (2003) 69
1616: arXiv:hep-ph/0209187.
1617: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209187;%%
1618: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,
1619: arXiv:hep-ph/0208177.
1620: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208177;%%
1621: A.~Hoefer, J.~Gluza and F.~Jegerlehner,
1622: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 24}, 51 (2002)
1623: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107154].
1624: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107154;%%
1625: B.V.~Geshkenbein,
1626: arXiv:hep-ph/0301265.
1627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301265;%%
1628: \bibitem{g-2_tau}
1629: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,
1630: arXiv:hep-ph/0208177.
1631: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208177;%%
1632:
1633:
1634:
1635:
1636:
1637:
1638:
1639: %%%%%%% tau -> mu gamma %%%%%%%
1640:
1641: \bibitem{babar_tmg}
1642: C.~Brown [BABAR Collaboration],
1643: %``Search for the lepton number violating decay tau $\to$ mu gamma,''
1644: arXiv:hep-ex/0212009.
1645: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212009;%%
1646:
1647: %%%%%%% exact Yukawa unification %%%%%%%
1648:
1649: \bibitem{exact.yuk.unif}
1650: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, R.~Derm\'{\i}\v{s}ek and S.~Raby,
1651: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 111804;
1652: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107097;%%
1653: T.~Bla\v{z}ek, R.~Derm\'{\i}\v{s}ek and S.~Raby,
1654: Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}:115004 (2002);
1655: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201081;%%
1656: K.~Tobe and J.~Wells,
1657: arXiv:hep-ph/0301015;
1658: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301015;%%
1659: D.~Auto, H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev,
1660: J.~Ferrandis and X.~Tata,
1661: arXiv:hep-ph/0302155.
1662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302155;%%
1663: \end{thebibliography}
1664:
1665: %%%%%%%%%%%%
1666: \newpage
1667: \clearpage
1668:
1669: %\section{Global Analysis Results with $\mu = 120$~GeV}\label{B}
1670: %{Numerical Results with $\mu = 120$~GeV}
1671:
1672: \begin{figure}[p]
1673: \begin{center}
1674: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{chi.ps}}
1675: \vskip-20mm
1676: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1677: \caption{\small{$\chi^2$ contour plot in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{1}
1678: \end{minipage}
1679:
1680: \end{center}
1681: \end{figure}
1682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1683: \newpage
1684: \clearpage
1685:
1686: \begin{figure}[p]
1687: \begin{center}
1688: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{g-2.ps}}
1689: \vskip-20mm
1690: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1691: \caption{\small{Muon $g-2$ contour plot in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points to the left of the solid red line are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP. The present discrepancy stands at $34(11)\times 10^{-10}$ with the above plots showing 1 and 2 $\sigma$contours.}}\label{2}
1692: \end{minipage}
1693:
1694: \end{center}
1695: \end{figure}
1696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1697: \newpage
1698: \clearpage
1699:
1700: \begin{figure}[p]
1701: \begin{center}
1702: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{m_sneu2.ps}}
1703: \vskip-20mm
1704: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1705: \caption{\small{Contours of the second generation sneutrino mass, $m_{\tilde{\nu}_{\mu}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{13b}
1706: \end{minipage}
1707:
1708: \end{center}
1709: \end{figure}
1710:
1711: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1712: \newpage
1713: \clearpage
1714:
1715: \begin{figure}[p]
1716: \begin{center}
1717: \rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics*{plot_g-2var_l_mu120.ps}}}
1718: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1719: \caption{\small{This plot displays the effect on $\chi^2$ due to a future change in the value of the muon $g-2$ discrepancy. The value of the muon anomalous magnetic moment is varied from the present value of $34\times 10^{-10}$ down to zero. The resulting change in $\chi^2$ is observed for three points in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane.}}\label{32a}
1720: \end{minipage}
1721: %\vskip10mm
1722: \rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics*{higgs_var_l_mu120.ps}}}
1723:
1724: %\vskip-10mm
1725: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1726: \caption{\small{This plot displays the effect on $\chi^2$ due to an increase in the lower bound on the Higgs mass from direct searches. As in Figure~\ref{32a} the variation in $\chi^2$ is observed through individual points in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane.}}\label{32b}
1727: \end{minipage}
1728:
1729: \end{center}
1730: \end{figure}
1731:
1732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1733: \newpage
1734: \clearpage
1735:
1736: \begin{figure}[p]
1737: \scalebox{0.65}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics*{sinb-a_mu120_light.ps}}}
1738: \vskip20mm
1739: \begin{center}
1740: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1741: \caption{\small{Contours of $\sin(\beta - \alpha)$, which defines the strength of the $Z$ boson coupling to the Higgs $h^{0}$ relative to that of $H^{0}$. For values of $\sin(\beta-\alpha)$ near one the $Z-h^{0}$ coupling is large and for small values the $Z-H^{0}$ coupling is large. The contours are plotted using data from minimum A with $\mu=120$~GeV. The the best fit point at $M_{1/2}=450$~GeV, $m_{f}=500$~GeV is marked with an asterisk.}}\label{sinb-a}
1742: \end{minipage}
1743:
1744: \end{center}
1745: \end{figure}
1746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1747: \newpage
1748: \clearpage
1749:
1750: \begin{figure}[p]
1751: \begin{center}
1752: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{tmg.ps}}
1753: \vskip-20mm
1754: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1755: \caption{\small{Contours of $BR(\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma)$ are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{5}
1756: \end{minipage}
1757:
1758: \end{center}
1759: \end{figure}
1760: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1761: %\newpage
1762: %
1763: %\begin{figure}[p]
1764: %\begin{center}
1765: %\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{bsg.ps}}
1766: %\vskip-20mm
1767: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1768: %\caption{\small{BR$(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ contour plot in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP. The above plots show contours for the present experimental value, $3.47\times 10^{-10}$, and $1$ and $2$ $\sigma$ regions.}}\label{2b}
1769: %\end{minipage}
1770: %
1771: %\end{center}
1772: %\end{figure}
1773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1774: \newpage
1775: \clearpage
1776:
1777: \begin{figure}[p]
1778: \begin{center}
1779: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{eps_b.ps}}
1780: \vskip-20mm
1781: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1782: \caption{\small{Contours of $r_{b}=Y_{b}/Y_{\tau}$ are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{3}
1783: \end{minipage}
1784:
1785: \end{center}
1786: \end{figure}
1787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1788: \newpage
1789:
1790: \begin{figure}[p]
1791: \begin{center}
1792: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{eps_t.ps}}
1793: \vskip-20mm
1794: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1795: \caption{\small{Contours of $r_{t}=Y_{t}/Y_{\tau}$ are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{4}
1796: \end{minipage}
1797:
1798: \end{center}
1799: \end{figure}
1800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1801: \newpage
1802: \clearpage
1803:
1804: %\section{Deviation from Yukawa Unification}\label{D}
1805:
1806: \begin{figure}[p]
1807: \begin{center}
1808: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{epsilon.ps}}
1809: \vskip-20mm
1810: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1811: \caption{\small{$\chi^2$ contours in the $r_{t}-r_{b}$ plane. The plots are generated with $\mu=120$~GeV and for minimum A. The three plots are each generated with fixed $M_{1/2}$, $m_F$ as labelled. The plots display the $\chi^2$ penalty which is required for exact Yukawa unification to be achieved.}}\label{29}
1812: \end{minipage}
1813: \end{center}
1814: \end{figure}
1815:
1816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1817: \newpage
1818: \clearpage
1819:
1820: \begin{figure}[p]
1821: \begin{center}
1822: \scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{m_A0.ps}}
1823: \vskip-20mm
1824: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1825: \caption{\small{Contours of the CP odd Pseudoscalar Higgs mass, $m_{A^{0}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{6}
1826: \end{minipage}
1827:
1828: \end{center}
1829: \end{figure}
1830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1831: %\newpage
1832: %\clearpage
1833: %
1834: %\begin{figure}[p]
1835: %\begin{center}
1836: %\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{m_h0.ps}}
1837: %\vskip-20mm
1838: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1839: %\caption{\small{Contours of the CP even Higgs mass, $m_{h^{0}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ . The contours are in the units of~GeV. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{7}
1840: %\end{minipage}
1841: %
1842: %\end{center}
1843: %\end{figure}
1844: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1845: %\newpage
1846: %
1847: %\begin{figure}[p]
1848: %\begin{center}
1849: %\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{m_h.ps}}
1850: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1851: %\caption{\small{Contours of the soft Higgs mass, $m_{h}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{8}
1852: %\end{minipage}
1853: %
1854: %\end{center}
1855: %\end{figure}
1856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1857: %\newpage
1858:
1859: %\begin{figure}[p]
1860: %\begin{center}
1861: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_D_l_mu120.ps}}}
1862: %\vskip-85mm
1863: %\begin{picture}(230,90)
1864: %\Line(0,0)(100,81)
1865: %\end{picture}
1866: %\vskip20mm
1867: %%\vskip-20mm
1868: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_D_h_mu120.ps}}}
1869:
1870: %\vskip-85mm
1871: %\begin{picture}(230,90)
1872: %\Line(0,0)(100,81)
1873: %\end{picture}
1874: %
1875: %\vskip50mm
1876: %%\vskip-10mm
1877: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1878: %\caption{\small{Contours of the magnitude of the broken D-term (Eq.~\ref{eq:D}), $m_{D}=|D|$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The four plots, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A and minimum B with $\mu=120$ and $300$~GeV as labelled. All points in the top left corner with approximately $M_{1/2}> 700$~GeV and $m_F> 700$~GeV are unphysical due to the lightest stau becoming the LSP.}}\label{9}
1879: %\end{minipage}
1880:
1881: %\end{center}
1882: %\end{figure}
1883: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1884: %\newpage
1885:
1886: %\begin{figure}[p]
1887: %\begin{center}
1888: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_D_l_mu300.ps}}}
1889: %\vskip-20mm
1890: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_D_h_mu300.ps}}}
1891:
1892: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1893: %\caption{\small{Contours of the magnitude of the broken D-term (Eq.~\ref{eq:D}), $m_{D}=|D|$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=300$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{23}
1894: %\end{minipage}
1895:
1896: %\end{center}
1897: %\end{figure}
1898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1899: %\newpage
1900: %
1901: %\begin{figure}[p]
1902: %\begin{center}
1903: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_N_l_mu120.ps}}}
1904: %\vskip-20mm
1905: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_N_h_mu120.ps}}}
1906: %
1907: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1908: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest Neutralino, $m_{N}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=120$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{10}
1909: %\end{minipage}
1910: %
1911: %\end{center}
1912: %\end{figure}
1913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1914: %\newpage
1915: %
1916: %\begin{figure}[p]
1917: %\begin{center}
1918: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_N_l_mu300.ps}}}
1919: %\vskip-20mm
1920: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_N_h_mu300.ps}}}
1921: %
1922: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1923: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest Neutralino, $m_{N}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=300$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{24}
1924: %\end{minipage}
1925: %
1926: %\end{center}
1927: %\end{figure}
1928: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1929: %\newpage
1930: %
1931: %\begin{figure}[p]
1932: %\begin{center}
1933: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{chi+_l_mu120.ps}}}
1934: %\vskip-20mm
1935: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{chi+_h_mu120.ps}}}
1936: %
1937: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1938: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest Chargino mass, $m_{\chi}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=120$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{10b}
1939: %\end{minipage}
1940: %
1941: %\end{center}
1942: %\end{figure}
1943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1944: %\newpage
1945: %
1946: %\begin{figure}[p]
1947: %\begin{center}
1948: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{chi+_l_mu300.ps}}}
1949: %\vskip-20mm
1950: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{chi+_h_mu300.ps}}}
1951: %
1952: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1953: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest Chargino mass, $m_{\chi}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=300$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{24b}
1954: %\end{minipage}
1955: %
1956: %\end{center}
1957: %\end{figure}
1958: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1959: %\newpage
1960: %
1961: %\begin{figure}[p]
1962: %\begin{center}
1963: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_st_l_mu120.ps}}}
1964: %\vskip-20mm
1965: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_st_h_mu120.ps}}}
1966: %
1967: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1968: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest stop, $m_{\tilde{t}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=120$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{11}
1969: %\end{minipage}
1970: %
1971: %\end{center}
1972: %\end{figure}
1973: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1974: %\newpage
1975: %
1976: %\begin{figure}[p]
1977: %\begin{center}
1978: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_st_l_mu300.ps}}}
1979: %\vskip-20mm
1980: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_st_h_mu300.ps}}}
1981: %
1982: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1983: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest stop, $m_{\tilde{t}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=300$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{25}
1984: %\end{minipage}
1985: %
1986: %\end{center}
1987: %\end{figure}
1988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1989: %\newpage
1990: %
1991: %\begin{figure}[p]
1992: %\begin{center}
1993: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_sb_l_mu120.ps}}}
1994: %\vskip-20mm
1995: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_sb_h_mu120.ps}}}
1996: %
1997: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
1998: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest sbottom, $m_{\tilde{b}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=120$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{12}
1999: %\end{minipage}
2000: %
2001: %\end{center}
2002: %\end{figure}
2003:
2004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2005: %\newpage
2006:
2007: %\begin{figure}[p]
2008: %\begin{center}
2009: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_sb_l_mu300.ps}}}
2010: %\vskip-20mm
2011: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics*{m_sb_h_mu300.ps}}}
2012:
2013: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
2014: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest sbottom, $m_{\tilde{b}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=300$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot)}}\label{26}
2015: %\end{minipage}
2016:
2017: %\end{center}
2018: %\end{figure}
2019:
2020: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2021: %\newpage
2022: %
2023: %\begin{figure}[p]
2024: %\begin{center}
2025: %\scalebox{0.8}{\includegraphics*{m_stau.ps}}
2026: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
2027: %\caption{\small{Contours of the lightest stau, $m_{\tilde{\tau}}$, are plotted in the plane of $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ with $\mu=120$~GeV. The contours are in the units of~GeV. The two plots, upper and lower, are obtained from the two minima, minimum A(upper plot) and minimum B(lower plot).}}\label{13}
2028: %\end{minipage}
2029: %
2030: %\end{center}
2031: %\end{figure}
2032:
2033: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2034: % study of tmg
2035: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2036: \newpage
2037: \clearpage
2038:
2039: %\section{Study of a future measurement of BR$(\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma)$}\label{E}
2040: %{Study of a future measurement of BR$(\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma)$}
2041:
2042: %\begin{figure}[p]
2043: %\begin{center}
2044: %\scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics*{tmg_var.ps}}
2045: %\vskip-20mm
2046: %\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
2047: %\caption{\small{These plots show data taken with $M_{1/2}=m_F=550$~GeV and $\mu=120$~GeV. The data was produced by introducing an imaginary measurement of $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ and gradually lowering its value. We started with BR$(\tau \rightarrow \mu\gamma)=2\times 10^{-6}$, with a point in minimum B and then lowered the branching ratio down to $0.05\times 10^{-6}$. The upper plot shows the variation of total $\chi^2$ as the imaginary measurement is decreased. At the same time the lower plot shows the variation of $m_{D}=|D^2|$, the magnitude of the broken D-term.}}\label{31}
2048: %\end{minipage}
2049: %
2050: %\end{center}
2051: %\end{figure}
2052:
2053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
2054: %\newpage
2055: %
2056: %\begin{figure}[p]
2057: %\begin{center}
2058: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics*{tmg_var_chi.ps}}}
2059: %\vskip5mm
2060: %\rotatebox{-90}{\scalebox{0.4}{\includegraphics*{tmg_var_m_D.ps}}}
2061: %
2062: %\vskip-10mm\begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
2063: %\caption{\small{Plot}}\label{32}
2064: %\end{minipage}
2065: %
2066: %\end{center}
2067: %\end{figure}
2068: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2069: \newpage
2070:
2071: \begin{figure}[p]
2072: \begin{center}
2073: \scalebox{0.7}{\includegraphics*{sin13.ps}}
2074: %\vskip-20mm
2075: \begin{minipage}[t]{15cm}
2076: \caption{\small{The four panels contain scatter plots of the values of $\Delta m^2_{Atm}$ against $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ coming from the best fit points in the $(m_F,M_{1/2})$ plane. Each plot shows results obtained from either minimum A or minimum B, with $\mu=120$ or $300$~GeV as labelled. The points are grouped according to their $\chi^2$ values as inticated.}}\label{14}
2077: \end{minipage}
2078:
2079: \end{center}
2080: \end{figure}
2081:
2082:
2083:
2084:
2085:
2086:
2087:
2088:
2089: \end{document}
2090:
2091: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%55555%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2092: % END OF DOCUMENT
2093: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2094:
2095: