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

2: %

3: %  Constraints on Patterns of Supersymmetry Breaking

4: %

5: %  May 2K+3

6: %

7: %  John Ellis

8: %  Keith Olive

9: %  Yudi Santoso

10: %  Vassilis Spanos

11: %

12: %=============================================================================

13: 

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

15: \textwidth6.5in

16: \textheight8.7in

17: \oddsidemargin0.0in

18: \topmargin-0.5in

19: 

20: %%%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

25: \newcount\timecount

26: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes  \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours

27: \hours = \time

28: \divide\hours by 60

29: \temp = \hours

30: \multiply\temp by 60

31: \minutes = \time

32: \advance\minutes by -\temp

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

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

35:             \else\the\minutes\fi}

36: \def\clock{

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

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

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

40:             \else\ifnum\hours>12

41:                  \pmhours=\hours

42:                  \advance\pmhours by -12

43:                  \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM

44:                  \fi

45:             \fi

46:       \fi

47: \fi

48: }

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

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

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

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

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

54: 

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

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

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

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

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

60: 

61: \def\draft{$\bold{

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

63: }$\par\noindent}

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

65: 

66: %%%%%%%%%%%% New Command %%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

69: 

70: %%%%%%%%%%%% Environment Short Cuts %%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

73: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}

74: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}

75: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fonts, Special symbols, etc %%%%%

76: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

77: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

85: \def\Zee{$Z^0$}

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

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

88: %\def\tcm{\theta_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle CM}}

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

90: \def\neqi{n_{\rm eq}}       % \neq = not equal to

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

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

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

94: \def\nnl{\hfill\nonumber\\}

95: \def\thw{\theta_{\ss W}}

96: \def\thell{\theta_{\st \ell}}

97: \def\thf{\theta_{\st \ell}}

98: \def\tbt{\tan \beta}

99: \def\ttbt{\tan^2 \beta}

100: \def\Atau{A_{\st \ell}}

101: \def\thA{\theta_{\st A}}

102: \def\thB{\theta_{\st B}}

103: \def\gappeq{\mathrel{\rlap {\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}

104: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

105: \def\lappeq{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}

106: {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

107: \def\Toprel#1\over#2{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}}}

108: \def\FF{\Toprel{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle(-)$}}\over{$\nu$}}

109: %%%%%%%%%%%% Spartners %%%%%%%%%%%

110: \def\schi{\widetilde \chi}        %\def\ch{{\widetilde \chi}}

111: \def\slept{\widetilde \ell} 

112: %\def\stau{{\widetilde \tau}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm 1}}

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

114: \def\selR{{\widetilde e}_{\scriptscriptstyle\rm R}}

115: \def\sel{{\widetilde e}}

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

117: \def\stau{\widetilde \tau}

118: \def\stop{\widetilde t}

119: \def\sbot{\widetilde b}

120: \def\snu{\widetilde \nu}

121: 

122: %%%%%%%%%% Masses %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

123: %\def\mb{m_{\widetilde B}}

124: %\def\msf{m_{\tilde f}}

125: %\def\mst{m_{\tilde t}}

126: %\def\mf{m_{\ss{f}}}

127: %\def\mpar{m_{\ss\|}^2}

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

129: %\def\mchi{m_{\chi}}   

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

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

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

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

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

135: %\def\mst{m_{\tilde\tau_R}}

136: \def\mst{m_{\tilde{\ell}_1}}

137: \def\mstwo{m_{\tilde{\ell}_2}}

138: \def\msti{m_{\tilde{\ell}_i}}

139: \def\mstj{m_{\tilde{\ell}_j}}

140: \def\msei{m_{\tilde{e}_i}}

141: \def\msej{m_{\tilde{e}_j}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

148: \def\mxi{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^+}}

149: \def\mxj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^+}}

150: \def\mchar{m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^+}}

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

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

153: \def\mt{m_{t}}

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

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

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

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

158: %\def\msn{m_{\ch}}

159: \def\mw{m_{\ss W}}

160: \def\mz{m_{\ss Z}}

161: \def\mA{m_{\ss A}}

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

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

164: \def\mstau{m_{\tilde{\ell}_1}}

165: \def\mell{m_{\st \ell}}

166: \def\mtau{m_{\st \ell}}

167: \def\nevalsj{m_{\tilde{\chi}_j^0}}

168: \def\nevalsi{m_{\tilde{\chi}_i^0}}

169: \def\msn{m_{\tilde{\nu}_\ell}}

170: \def\msnu{m_{\tilde{\nu}}}

171: \def\mHp{m_{H^+}}

172: \def\mla{m_A}

173: \def\mlb{m_B}

174: \def\msa{m_{\widetilde{A}}}

175: \def\msel{m_{\tilde{e}}}

176: \def\mselL{m_{\tilde{e}_L}}

177: 

178: 

179: \def\NP{{\it Nucl.Phys.} }

180: \def\PL{{\it Phys.Lett.} }

181: \def\PR{{\it Phys.Rev.} }

182: \def\PRL{{\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} }

183: %%%%%%%%%%%%  END OF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

184: 

185: \begin{document}

186: \begin{titlepage}

187: \pagestyle{empty}

188: \baselineskip=21pt

189: \rightline{\tt hep-ph/0305212}

190: \rightline{CERN--TH/2003-107}

191: \rightline{UMN--TH--2201/03}

192: \rightline{FTPI--MINN--03/12}

193: \vskip 0.2in

194: \begin{center}

195: {\large {\bf Phenomenological Constraints on Patterns of Supersymmetry Breaking}}

196: \end{center}

197: \begin{center}

198: \vskip 0.2in

199: {\bf John~Ellis}$^1$, {\bf Keith~A.~Olive}$^{2}$, {\bf Yudi Santoso}$^{2}$

200: and {\bf Vassilis~C. Spanos}$^{2}$

201: \vskip 0.1in

202: {\it

203: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

204: $^2${William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\

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

206: \vskip 0.2in

207: {\bf Abstract}

208: \end{center}

209: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

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

211: 

212: Specific models of supersymmetry breaking predict relations between the

213: trilinear and bilinear soft supersymmetry breaking parameters $A_0$ and

214: $B_0$ at the input scale. In such models, the value of $\tan \beta$ can be

215: calculated as a function of the scalar masses $m_0$ and the gaugino masses

216: $m_{1/2}$, which we assume to be universal. The experimental constraints

217: on sparticle and Higgs masses, $b \to s \gamma$ decay and the cold dark

218: matter density $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ can then be used to constrain $\tan

219: \beta$ in such specific models of supersymmetry breaking. In the simplest

220: Polonyi model with $A_0 = (3 - \sqrt{3})m_0 = B_0 + m_0$, we find $11

221: \lappeq \tan \beta \lappeq 20$ ($\tan \beta \simeq 4.15$) for $\mu > 0$ ($\mu < 0$).

222: We also discuss other models with $A_0 = B_0 + m_0$, finding that only

223: the range $-1.9 \la A_0/m_0 \la 2.5$ is allowed for $\mu > 0$, and the

224: range $1.25 \la A_0/m_0 \la  4.8$ for $\mu < 0$. In these models,

225: we find no solutions in the rapid-annihilation `funnels' or in the `focus-point' region.

226: We also discuss the allowed

227: range of $\tan \beta$ in the no-scale model with $A_0 = B_0 = 0$. In all

228: these models, most of the allowed regions are in the $\chi - {\tilde

229: \tau_1}$ coannihilation `tail'. 

230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

231: \vfill

232: \leftline{CERN--TH/2003-107}

233: \leftline{May 2003}

234: \end{titlepage}

235: \baselineskip=18pt

236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

237: 

238: \section{Introduction}

239: 

240: One of the most important and least understood problems in the

241: construction of supersymmetric models is the mechanism of supersymmetry

242: breaking~\cite{BIM}. Direct exploration of this may be far beyond our 

243: experimental

244: reach for some considerable time, so we may have to rely on indirect

245: information provided by measurements of the different soft

246: supersymmetry-breaking parameters. Even here, so far we have no determinations,

247: only limits obtained from accelerator experiments, cosmology and

248: theoretical considerations. It is commonly assumed that the soft

249: supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses $m_0$ have universal values at some

250: GUT input scale, as do the gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ and the trilinear soft

251: supersymmetry-breaking parameters $A_0$, which is referred to as the constrained

252: MSSM (CMSSM). One then frequently analyzes the impacts of the different 

253: phenomenological limits on the allowed values of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ as 

254: functions of $\tan \beta$, the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values, 

255: assuming some default value of $A_0$ and determining the Higgs mixing 

256: parameter $\mu$ and the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$ by using the 

257: electroweak vacuum consistency 

258: conditions (see \cite{efgos} - \cite{hyperbolic} for recent studies of this type). 

259: The tree-level value of $m_A$ may be 

260: related to the bilinear soft supersymmetry-breaking parameter $B$, via 

261: $m_A^2 = - 2 B \mu / \sin 2 \beta$.

262: 

263: Specific models of supersymmetry breaking predict relations between these 

264: different soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters. For example, certain 

265: `no-scale' models \cite{noscale} may predict $m_0 = 0$ at the Planck scale, and we have 

266: analyzed the extent to which this assumption is compatible with the 

267: phenomenological constraints, taking account of the possible running of 

268: $m_0$ between the Planck scale and the GUT scale \cite{eno5}. Here we analyze a 

269: different question, namely the consistency of some proposed relations 

270: between $m_0$, $A_0$ and $B_0$ which take the characteristic form

271: \beq

272: A_0 \; = \; {\hat A} m_0, \quad \quad B_0 \; = \; {\hat B} m_0.

273: \label{hats}

274: \eeq

275: A generic minimal supergravity model \cite{sugr2} prediction is that

276: ${\hat B} = {\hat A} -1$ \cite{mark}, and the simplest Polonyi 

277: model~\cite{pol} predicts that $\vert {\hat A} \vert = 3 - \sqrt{3}$~\cite{bfs}.

278: 

279: The first of the two relations (\ref{hats}) may be used to replace an {\it

280: ad hoc} assumption on the input value of $A_0$. The second imposes an

281: important consistency condition on the value of $m_A$, which was otherwise

282: treated as a dependent quantity that was not constrained {\it a priori}.  

283: For any given value of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, this constraint is satisfied

284: for only one specific value of $\tan \beta$. Therefore, the results of

285: imposing the two constraints (\ref{hats}) may conveniently be displayed in 

286: a single $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane across which $\tan \beta$ varies in a 

287: determined manner. The phenomenological constraints on $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ 

288: can then be used to provide both upper and lower limits on the allowed 

289: values of $\tan \beta$.

290: 

291: In this paper, we analyze these constraints on $\tan \beta$ as functions

292: of ${\hat A}$ in the generic scenario (\ref{hats}), including the Polonyi

293: case ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$ and other models with ${\hat A} = {\hat B}

294: + 1$. In the Polonyi case, we find that $11 \lappeq \tan \beta \lappeq 20$

295: for $\mu > 0$, with only a small area in the $m_{1/2} - m_0$ plane with

296: $\tan \beta \simeq 4.15$ surviving for $\mu < 0$. In general, we find

297: consistent solutions for $-1.9 \la {\hat A} \la 2.25$ for $\mu > 0$ and

298: $1.25 \la {\hat A} \la 4.8$ for $\mu < 0$. We also explore the range of

299: $\tan \beta$ that is allowed in a no-scale scenario with $A_0 = B_0 = 0$

300: at the GUT scale. It should, however, be recalled that the no-scale

301: boundary conditions~\cite{noscale} were originally proposed to hold at the

302: supergravity scale, which might be significantly above the GUT scale. In

303: this case, renormalization-group running between these scales would

304: generate ${\hat A}$ and ${\hat B} \ne 0$ at the GUT scale.

305: 

306: \section{Models of Supersymmetry Breaking}

307: 

308: In this Section, we review briefly models that yield the characteristic

309: patterns of supersymmetry breaking whose phenomenology we study later in

310: the paper. We assume an $N = 1$ supergravity framework, interpreted as a

311: low-energy effective field theory. This may be characterized by a

312: K{\"a}hler function $K$ that describes the kinetic terms for the chiral

313: supermultiplets $\Phi \equiv (\zeta, \phi)$, where the $\zeta$ represent

314: hidden-sector fields and the $\phi^i$ observable-sector fields, a

315: holomorphic function $f(\Phi)$ that yields kinetic terms for the gauge

316: supermultiplets $A_a$ as well as gauge couplings, and a holomorphic

317: superpotential $W(\Phi)$. We assume the form of the gauge kinetic function

318: $f$ to be such that the gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ are universal at the GUT

319: input scale, as are the gauge couplings.

320: 

321: So-called minimal supergravity theories have $K = \Sigma_i |\Phi^i|^2$,

322: whereas no-scale models have non-trivial K{\"a}hler functions such as $K =

323: - 3{\rm ln}(\zeta + \zeta^\dagger - \Sigma_j |\phi^j|^2)$. The scalar 

324: potential

325: (neglecting any gauge contributions) is in general~\cite{sugr2}

326: \beq

327: V(\phi,\phi^*) \; = \; e^K \left[ K^i (K^{-1})^j_i

328: K_j -3 \right]

329: \label{generalpot}

330: \eeq

331: where we are working in Planck units.

332: For minimal supergravity, we have $K^i = 

333: {\phi^i}^* + {W^i}/W$, $K_i =  \phi_i + W_i^*/W^*$, and

334: $({K^{-1}})^j_i = \delta ^j_i$, and the resulting scalar

335: potential is

336: \beq

337: V(\phi,\phi^*) \; = \; e^{ \phi_i {\phi^i}^*} \left[

338: |W^i + {\phi^i}^* W |^2 - 3|W|^2 \right].

339: \label{msgpot}

340: \eeq

341: In this minimal case, the soft supersymmetry-breaking

342: scalar masses $m_0$ are universal at the input GUT scale, with~\cite{BIM}

343: \beq

344: m_0^2 \; = \; m_{3/2}^2 + \Lambda,

345: \label{msugra}

346: \eeq

347: where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass and $\Lambda$ is the tree-level

348: cosmological constant. If we further assume that the

349: superpotential $W(\Phi)$ may be separated into pieces $F$ and $g$ that are

350: functions only of observable-sector fields $\phi^i$ and hidden-sector

351: fields $\zeta$, respectively, so that the superpotential

352: parameters of the observable-sector fields do not depend on the

353: hidden-sector fields, then the trilinear terms $A_0$ and bilinear terms

354: $B_0$ are also universal, and~\cite{BIM}

355: \beq

356: B_0 \; = \; A_0 - m_{3/2}.

357: \label{BA}

358: \eeq

359: Finally, if we further assume that $\Lambda = 0$, then $m_0 = m_{3/2}$ 

360: and~\cite{BIM}

361: \beq

362: {\hat B} \; = \; {\hat A} - 1,

363: \label{BAhat}

364: \eeq

365: which is one of the principal options we study below.

366: 

367: One of the primary motivations for the CMSSM, and for scalar mass

368: universality in particular, comes from the simplest model for local

369: supersymmetry breaking~\cite{pol}, which involves just one additional

370: chiral multiplet $\zeta$ in addition to the observable matter fields

371: $\phi_i$. We consider, therefore, a superpotential which is separable in

372: this so-called Polonyi field and the $\phi_i$, and of the simple form

373: \beq

374: g(\zeta) \; = \; \nu(\zeta + \beta)

375: \label{polonyi}

376: \eeq

377: with $\vert \beta \vert = 2 - \sqrt{3}$, ensuring that $\Lambda = 0$. The 

378: scalar 

379: potential in this model takes the form~\cite{bfs}

380: \ba

381: V & = & e^{(|\zeta|^2 + |\phi|^2)} \left[ |{\partial g \over \partial 

382: \zeta} + \zeta^* (g(\zeta) + F(\phi) )|^2 \right. \nonumber \\

383: & & + \left. |{\partial F \over \partial \phi} +

384: \phi^* (g(\zeta) + F(\phi) )|^2 - 3 | g(\zeta) + F(\phi) |^2 \right].

385: \label{cpot0}

386: \ea

387: We next expand the 

388: expression (\ref{cpot0}) and drop terms that are suppressed by 

389: inverse powers of the Planck scale, which can be done simply by dropping 

390: terms of mass dimension greater than four. In the positive case, after 

391: inserting the vev for

392: $\zeta$, $\langle \zeta \rangle = \sqrt{3} - 1$, we have~\cite{bfs}: 

393: \ba

394: V & = & e^{(4 - 2\sqrt{3})} \left[ |\nu + (\sqrt{3} -

395: 1) (\nu + F(\phi)) |^2 \right. \nonumber \\

396: & & \left. +|{\partial F \over

397: \partial \phi} + \phi^* (\nu + F(\phi) )|^2 - 3 | \nu + F(\phi) |^2

398: \right] \nonumber \\

399: & = & e^{(4 - 2\sqrt{3})} |{\partial F \over \partial

400: \phi}|^2 \nonumber \\

401: & & + m_{3/2} e^{(2 - \sqrt{3})}(\phi {\partial F

402: \over \partial \phi} - \sqrt{3} F + h.c.) )  + m_{3/2}^2 \phi

403: \phi^* ,

404: \label{cpot}

405: \ea

406: which deserves some discussion.

407: 

408: First, up to an overall rescaling of the superpotential, $F \to

409: e^{\sqrt{3}-2} F$, the first term is the ordinary $F$-term part of the

410: scalar potential of global supersymmetry. The next term, which is

411: proportional to $m_{3/2}$, provides universal trilinear soft

412: supersymmetry-breaking terms $A = (3 -

413: \sqrt{3}) m_{3/2}$ and bilinear

414: soft supersymmetry-breaking terms $B = (2 - \sqrt{3}) m_{3/2}$, i.e., a

415: special case of the general relation (\ref{BA}) above between $B$ and

416: $A$. Finally, the last term represents a universal scalar mass of the type

417: advocated in the CMSSM, with $m_0^2 = m_{3/2}^2$, since the cosmological

418: constant $\Lambda$ vanishes in this model, by construction.

419: 

420: As we have seen above, the generation of such soft terms is a rather

421: generic property of low-energy supergravity models~\cite{mark} and many of

422: these conclusions persist when one generalizes the Polonyi potential. For

423: example, if we choose $g(\zeta)$ so that~\footnote{One could also consider 

424: models in which several fields $\zeta_i$ contribute to supersymmetry 

425: breaking.}

426: $\langle g \rangle = \nu$, $\langle \partial g / \partial \zeta \rangle =

427: a^* \nu$, and $\langle \zeta \rangle = b$, the condition that $\Lambda =

428: 0$ at $\zeta = b$ implies $|a + b|^2 = 3$. Substituting these expectation

429: values in (\ref{cpot0}), we find~\cite{mark} that $A = b^* ( a+ b) \nu $

430: and once again $B = A - \nu$, but now with $A$ free.  The constant $\nu$ 

431: determines the gravitino mass, and hence $m_0$, through: 

432: $m_0 = m_{3/2} = e^{{1 \over 2} b b^*} \nu$.

433: 

434: 

435: Another broad option for supersymmetry breaking is that provided by

436: no-scale models \cite{noscale}, of which the simplest example is

437: \beq

438: K \; = \; - 3 {\rm ln} \left( \zeta + \zeta^\dagger - \Sigma_i | \phi^i

439: |^2 \right).

440: \label{noscale}

441: \eeq

442: No-scale models have the universal values

443: \beq

444: m^2_0 \; = \; 0, \; A_0 \; = \; 0, \; B_0 \; = \; 0

445: \label{noscalesusyx}

446: \eeq

447: at the input supergravity scale. The possibility that $m_0 = 0$ at the GUT

448: scale has recently been studied~\cite{eno5,emy}, and shown to be excluded by 

449: the phenomenological constraints. However, it was recalled that the input

450: supergravity scale could be somewhat higher than the GUT scale, in which

451: case one might find $m_0 \ne 0$ already at the GUT scale. Clearly the same

452: could also be true for $A_0$ and $B_0$. However, the deviations from

453: (\ref{noscalesusyx})  are model-dependent, and we think it important to

454: be aware of the phenomenological fate of the clear-cut $A_0 = 

455: B_0 = 0$ option for supersymmetry breaking.

456: 

457: \section{Electroweak Vacuum Conditions}

458: 

459: Before discussing the phenomenological constraints on this model, we first

460: show more precisely how the relation between $A$ and $B$ can be used to

461: determine $\tan \beta$ when the radiative electroweak symmetry breaking

462: conditions are applied.

463: 

464: In general, we start with the following set of input parameters defined at

465: the GUT scale: $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, $A_0$, $B_0$ and the Higgs mixing 

466: parameter $\mu_0$.  By running the

467: full renormalization-group equations (RGEs) down to the weak scale and

468: minimizing the Higgs potential, one can solve for the Higgs vevs and

469: masses or, equivalently, $M_Z$, $\tan \beta$, and $m_A$. At the tree

470: level, these solutions take the simple form:

471: \ba

472: M_Z^2 & = & {2 (m_1^2 + \mu^2 - (m_2^2 + \mu^2) \tan^2 \beta) \over

473: (\tan^2 \beta -1)} \nonumber \\ 

474: \sin 2 \beta & = & { - 2 B \mu}/(m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2) \nonumber \\ 

475: m_A^2 & = & m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2 

476: \label{treerel}

477: \ea

478: where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the soft supersymmetry-breaking masses for the

479: two Higgs doublets at the electroweak scale. However, since $M_Z$ is

480: known, and because the full one-loop set of tadpole equations does not

481: admit an analytical solution for $\tan \beta$, it is customary to use

482: $M_Z$ and $\tan \beta$ as inputs and instead solve for $\mu$ and $B$:

483: \ba

484: \mu^2 & = & \frac{m_1^2 - m_2^2 \tan^2 \beta + \frac{1}{2} \mz^2 (1 -

485: \tan^2 \beta) + \Delta_\mu^{(1)}}{\tan^2 \beta - 1 + \Delta_\mu^{(2)}} 

486: \nonumber \\

487: B \mu  & = & -{1 \over 2} (m_1^2  + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2) \sin 2 \beta + \Delta_B

488: \label{onelooprel}

489: \ea

490: where $\Delta_B$ and $\Delta_\mu^{(1,2)}$ are loop

491: corrections~\cite{Barger:1993gh,deBoer:1994he,Carena:2001fw}, and here

492: $m_{1,2} \equiv m_{1,2}(\mz)$.  Since $\Delta_\mu$ depends on $\tan \beta$

493: and $\Delta_B$ depends on both $\mu$ and $\tan \beta$ in a nonlinear way,

494: it is not possible to write down an analytical solution for $\tan \beta$.  

495: The above set of inputs and outputs defines the CMSSM.

496: 

497: In the types of models discussed in the previous section, we have specific

498: GUT-scale

499: boundary conditions on $B_0$, namely $B_0 = A_0 - m_0$ in minimal

500: supergravity models or $B_0 = A_0 = 0$ in no-scale models. Therefore, we

501: cannot treat the value of $B(M_Z)$ as a free parameter, and instead must

502: solve numerically for $\tan \beta$. Thus, a given value of $m_{1/2}$,

503: $m_0$, $A_0/m_0$, and $sgn(\mu)$ will correspond to a definite value for

504: $\tan \beta$.  When combined with the phenomenological constraints

505: discussed below, we can determine for a particular model of supersymmetry

506: breaking the allowed (and often quite restricted) values of $\tan \beta$.

507: 

508: \section{Phenomenological Constraints on $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$}

509: 

510: We apply the standard LEP constraints on the supersymmetric parameter

511: space, namely $m_{\chi^\pm} > 104$~GeV \cite{LEPsusy}, $m_{\tilde e} > 99$~GeV 

512:  \cite{LEPSUSYWG_0101} and $m_h >

513: 114$~GeV \cite{LEPHiggs}. The former two constrain $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ directly

514: via the sparticle masses, and the latter indirectly via the sensitivity of

515: radiative corrections to the Higgs mass to the sparticle masses,

516: principally $m_{\tilde t, \tilde b}$~\footnote{We assume as our default

517: that $m_t = 175$~GeV.}. We use the  latest version

518: of {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{FeynHiggs} for the calculation of $m_h$. We require

519: the branching ratio for $b \rightarrow

520: s \gamma$ to be consistent with the experimental measurements \cite{bsg}. We also

521: indicate the regions of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane that are favoured by

522: the BNL measurement ~\cite{newBNL} of $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level, corresponding to 

523: a deviation of $(33.9 \pm 11.2) \times 10^{-10}$ from the Standard Model calculation

524: of~\cite{Davier} using $e^+ e^-$ data.  We are however 

525: aware that this constraint is still under discussion and do not use it to

526: constrain $\tan \beta$. All the $\mu > 0$

527: planes would be consistent with $g_\mu - 2$ at the 3-$\sigma$ level,

528: whereas $\mu < 0$ is disfavoured even if one takes a relaxed view of the

529: $g_\mu - 2$ constraint.

530: 

531: Finally, we impose the following requirement on the relic density of

532: neutralinos $\chi$: $0.094 \le \Omega_\chi h^2 \le 0.129$, as suggested by

533: the recent WMAP data~\cite{wmap}, in agreement with earlier indications.

534: We recall that several cosmologically-allowed domains of the $(m_{1/2},

535: m_0)$ planes for different values of $\tan \beta$ have been discussed

536: previously in the general CMSSM framework 

537: \cite{efgos} - \cite{efgosi}, \cite{otherOmega} - \cite{hyperbolic}. One is a

538: `bulk' region at low

539: $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, which has been squeezed considerably by the WMAP

540: constraint on $\Omega_\chi h^2$. A second region is the $\chi - {\tilde

541: \tau_1}$ coannihilation `tail' \cite{stauco,moreco}, which stretches to larger

542: $m_{1/2}$, close

543: to the boundary of the acceptable region where $m_\chi \le m_{\tilde

544: \tau_1}$. In the wake of WMAP, this `tail' is now much narrower - because

545: of the smaller range of $\Omega_\chi h^2$ - and shorter - because of the

546: more stringent upper limit on $\Omega_\chi h^2$ \cite{eoss,wmapothers}. A third

547: region is the

548: `funnel' due to rapid $\chi \chi \to H, A$ annihilation that occurs at

549: larger $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ \cite{efgosi,funnel}. Finally, the fourth domain is the

550: `focus-point' region at large $m_0$, close to the boundary where radiative

551: breaking of electroweak symmetry is no longer possible \cite{focus,hyperbolic}.

552: 

553: We see in the next Section that the `funnel' and `focus-point' regions are

554: not present in the simple models of supersymmetry breaking

555: introduced earlier, whilst the `bulk' region is possible only for a very

556: restricted range of $\tan \beta$. On the other hand, the coannihilation

557: `tail' generally remains permitted.

558: 

559: \section{Examples of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ Planes}

560: 

561: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi} the contours of $\tan \beta$ (solid

562: blue lines) in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for selected values of ${\hat

563: A}$, ${\hat B}$ and the sign of $\mu$. Also shown are the contours where

564: $m_{\chi^\pm} > 104$~GeV (near-vertical black dashed lines) and $m_h >

565: 114$~GeV (diagonal red dash-dotted lines). The excluded regions where

566: $m_\chi > m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ have dark (red) shading, those excluded by $b

567: \to s \gamma$ have medium (green) shading, and those where the relic

568: density of neutralinos lies within the WMAP range $0.094 \le \Omega_\chi

569: h^2 \le 0.129$ have light (turquoise) shading. Finally, the regions

570: favoured by $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level are medium (pink) shaded.

571: 

572: \begin{figure}

573: \begin{center}

574: \mbox{\epsfig{file=n1.5p.eps,height=7cm}}

575: \mbox{\epsfig{file=0.75p.eps,height=7cm}}

576: \end{center}

577: \begin{center}

578: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Pp.eps,height=7cm}}

579: \mbox{\epsfig{file=2p.eps,height=7cm}}

580: \end{center}

581: \caption{\it

582: Examples of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes with contours of $\tan \beta$ 

583: superposed, for $\mu > 0$ and (a) ${\hat A} = - 1.5, {\hat B} = 

584: {\hat A} -1$, (b) ${\hat A} = 0.75, {\hat B} =

585: {\hat A} -1$, (c) the simplest Polonyi model with ${\hat A} = 3 - 

586: \sqrt{3}, {\hat B} = {\hat A} -1$ and (d) ${\hat A} = 2.0, {\hat B} =

587: {\hat A} -1$. In each panel, we show the regions excluded by 

588: the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles, those ruled out by $b

589: \to s \gamma$ decay~\protect\cite{bsg} (medium green shading), and those 

590: excluded 

591: because the LSP would be charged (dark red shading). The region favoured 

592: by the WMAP range $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 =

593: 0.1126^{+0.0081}_{-0.0091}$ has light turquoise shading. The region 

594: suggested by $g_\mu - 2$ is medium (pink) shaded.}

595: \label{fig:Polonyi}

596: \end{figure}

597: 

598: 

599: As seen in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, when $\mu > 0$ and ${\hat

600: A} = -1.5$, close to its minimum possible value, the contours of $\tan

601: \beta$ rise diagonally from low values of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ to higher

602: values, with higher values of $\tan \beta$ having lower values of $m_0$

603: for a given value of $m_{1/2}$. The $m_h = 114$~GeV contour rises in a

604: similar way, and regions above and to the left of this contour have 

605: $m_h < 114$ GeV and are excluded.  Therefore,  only a very limited 

606: range of $\tan \beta \sim 4$ is

607: compatible with the $m_h$ and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ constraints. 

608: At lower values of ${\hat A}$, the slope of the Higgs contour softens and 

609: even less of the parameter space is allowed.  Below ${\hat A} \simeq -1.9$, 

610: the entire $m_{1/2} - m_0$ plane is excluded. When ${\hat

611: A}$ is increased to 0.75, as seen in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi},

612: both the $\tan \beta$ and $m_h$ contours rise more rapidly with $m_{1/2}$,

613: and a larger range $ 9 \la  \tan \beta \la 14$ is allowed~\footnote{Note that the

614: contours for given values of $\tan \beta$ always intersect the axis $m_0 =

615: 0$ at the same value of $m_{1/2}$.}. In the simplest Polonyi model with

616: ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$ shown in panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, we

617: see that the $\tan \beta$ contours have noticeable curvature. In this

618: case, the Higgs constraint combined with the relic density requires $\tan \beta

619: \gappeq 11$, whilst the relic density also enforces $\tan \beta \lappeq 

620: 20$~\footnote{The other Polonyi case with ${\hat A} = - 3 + \sqrt{3}$ 

621: (not shown) is very similar to panel (a) for ${\hat A} = - 1.5$, and has 

622: a very narrow allowed range of $\tan \beta \sim 4.5$.}. Finally, in panel 

623: (d) of

624: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, when ${\hat A} = 2.0$, close to its maximal value

625: for $\mu > 0$, the $\tan \beta$ contours turn over towards smaller

626: $m_{1/2}$, and only relatively large values $25 \la \tan \beta \la 35$ are

627: allowed by the $b \to s \gamma$ and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ constraints,

628: respectively.

629: 

630: In the case of $\mu < 0$, negative values of ${\hat A}$ are not allowed,

631: and only a tiny area in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane near the end point of

632: the coannihilation tail around $m_{1/2} = 1000$ GeV is allowed in the

633: positive Polonyi case ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$, as seen in panel (a) of

634: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin}. This is because the Higgs and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$

635: constraints are barely compatible in this case, and allow only $\tan \beta

636: \simeq 4.15$. At larger values of ${\hat A}$, the allowed region is

637: extended, as exemplified in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin} for the

638: case ${\hat A} = 2.0$, where a small region around $\tan \beta \simeq 5.5

639: - 5.7$ is allowed. This panel shows that, approximately, the value of

640: $\tan \beta$ depends only on the ratio $m_{1/2}/m_0$~\cite{th}.

641: 

642: 

643: There are several generic patterns in the results above that can be

644: explained qualitatively, as follows. First, we notice that for any given

645: value of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$, $\tan \beta$ increases as ${\hat A}$ increases.  

646: The reason for this can be found by looking at the second equation of

647: (\ref{treerel}), and setting $A_0 = B_0 + m_0$. For large $\tan \beta$,

648: $\sin 2 \beta \sim 1/\tan \beta$, so $B$ at the weak scale is inversely

649: proportional to $\tan \beta$, at the tree level. In the $\mu > 0$ case,

650: this tree-level value of $B$ is negative, so its value {\it grows} as

651: $\tan \beta$ increases. While loop corrections are generally negative 

652: for $\mu > 0$, and RGE corrections to obtain $B(M_X)$ are positive, the

653: monotonic growth of $B_0$ with $\tan \beta$ is preserved. Thus the

654: resulting value of $B_0$, and hence also $A_0$, increases with $\tan

655: \beta$. In the $\mu < 0$ case, the tree-level value of $B$ is generally positive

656: (the exception being when $m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2 < 0$), and so its value

657: {\it decreases} as $\tan \beta$ increases. However, there are some terms

658: in the loop correction $\Delta_B$ that are proportional to $\mu \tan

659: \beta$ and flip the sign of $\Delta_B$ at a particular value of $\tan

660: \beta$, so that the full one-loop $B(M_W)$ is then again an increasing

661: function of $\tan \beta$, and likewise $A_0$.

662: 

663: Using similar arguments, we can further understand the different

664: behaviours of the $\tan\beta$ contours when $\mu$ is positive or negative

665: with fixed ${\hat A}$, for example in the last panels in

666: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi} and Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin} for ${\hat A}=2$. To

667: this end, look at the second equation in (\ref{onelooprel}), bearing in

668: mind that $\sin 2 \beta \sim 1/\tan \beta$. For $\mu>0$ and fixed $m_0$,

669: as $m_{1/2}$ increases both $\Delta_B$ and the RGE corrections to $B$

670: increase, yielding a relatively constant value for $\tan\beta$ when

671: the growth of the term $-\Delta_B$ almost compensates the positive

672: RGE corrections. For large values of $m_{1/2}$, the RGE corrections take

673: over, resulting in the bending of the $\tan\beta$ contours. On the other

674: hand, for $\mu<0$, the flipping of the sign of $\Delta_B$ described in the

675: paragraph above results in different behaviour. In this case, as $m_{1/2}$

676: increases with fixed $m_0$, $\tan\beta$ always decreases.

677: 

678: In panel (a) of  Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin}, the magnitude of the tree 

679: level value of $B$ at

680: the weak scale increases with $m_0$, decreasing the value of $\tan

681: \beta$. However, the loop correction is also growing, tending to

682: increase  $\tan \beta$. 

683: We see from the figure that $\tan \beta$ is first decreasing and

684: then increasing  as $m_0$ is increased. This behaviour is different 

685: from panel

686: (b) of  Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin}, where the tree level value of $B$ at

687: the weak scale is decreasing with $m_0$, and dominates the 

688: determination of

689: $\tan \beta$, which is now increasing monotonically. 

690: 

691: At high values of ${\hat A}$ (and high $\tan \beta)$, the off-diagonal 

692: elements  in the squark mass matrix become large at large $m_0$.

693: Therefore, we find no solutions which are phenomenologically viable

694: above a certain value of ${\hat A}$. This is

695: because the regions where the LSP is the $\stau$ or the $\stop$ close off

696: the parameter space~\footnote{The neutralino-stop coannihilation region

697: which occurs when $A_0$ is large in the small $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$

698: region~\cite{stopco} does not appear in our analysis because $A_0$ is

699: still too small.}. In fact, this feature is generic in the CMSSM as shown in

700: Fig. 3 of \cite{efgo}. This effect is more severe at large $\tan\beta$, which 

701: further compounds the difficulty in going to large values of ${\hat A}$ in the type of models

702: discussed here.

703: 

704: Finally, we note the absences of both the funnel and the focus-point

705: regions. In the case of the funnel, this is due to the relatively small values of

706: $\tan \beta$ allowed in the class of models considered here: we recall

707: that the funnel region appears only for large $\tan \beta \gappeq 45$ for

708: $\mu > 0$ and $\tan \beta \gappeq 30$ for $\mu < 0$ in the CMSSM.

709: 

710: To understand the absence of the focus-point region, we refer

711: to~\cite{hyperbolic}, where it was shown that the position of the focus

712: point is sensitive to the value of $A_0$. As $A_0$ is increased, the focus

713: point is pushed up to higher values of $m_0$. Here, with $A_0 \propto m_0$, the

714: focus-point region recedes faster than $m_0$ if ${\hat A}$ is large

715: enough, and is therefore never encountered. For small ${\hat A}$, $\tan

716: \beta$ is small at large $m_0$, as shown in panel (b) of

717: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, so we do not find a focus point in this case,

718: either. In addition, as can be inferred from the small disconnected

719: segment of the $\tan \beta = 10$ contour in the top left corner of panel

720: (c), all the $\tan \beta$ contours loop back down to lower $m_0$ before

721: reaching the focus-point region.

722: 

723: 

724: \begin{figure}

725: \begin{center}

726: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Pn.eps,height=7cm}}

727: \mbox{\epsfig{file=2n.eps,height=7cm}}

728: \end{center}

729: \caption{\it

730: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, but now for $\mu < 0$ and the 

731: choices (a) ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}, {\hat B} = 

732: {\hat A} -1$ and (b) ${\hat A} = 2, {\hat B} =

733: {\hat A} -1$ and $\mu < 0$. 

734: }

735: \label{fig:Polonyin}

736: \end{figure}

737: 

738: The above analysis shows that the `bulk' $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ region is

739: almost completely excluded by the Higgs constraint, but a larger fraction

740: would be allowed if we allowed a 2-GeV error in the CMSSM Higgs mass

741: calculation, or if $m_t$ turns out to be significantly greater than

742: $175$~GeV. Almost all the coannihilation `tail' region is allowed. As remarked on above, there

743: is no `funnel' region at large $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, nor any `focus-point'

744: region at large $m_0$.

745: 

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: \section{Bounds on $\tan \beta$}

750: 

751: It is clear from the previous figures that only limited ranges of $\tan 

752: \beta$ are consistent with the phenomenological constraints within any 

753: given pattern of supersymmetry breaking. We display in 

754: Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta} the ranges of $\tan \beta$ allowed as a function  

755: of ${\hat A}$. For ${\hat B} = {\hat A} -1$ and $\mu > 0$, as shown by the 

756: solid lines, we see that the upper and lower limits on $\tan \beta$ both 

757: increase monotonically with ${\hat A}$. We find consistent solutions to 

758: all the phenomenological constraints only for

759: \beq

760: - 1.9 \; < \; {\hat A} \; < \; 2.5,

761: \label{rangeA}

762: \eeq

763: over which range

764: \beq

765: 3.7 \; < \; \tan \beta \; \la \; 46.

766: \label{rangetb}

767: \eeq

768: Generally speaking, the range of $\tan \beta$ for any fixed value of 

769: ${\hat A} < 0$ is very restricted, with larger ranges of $\tan \beta$ 

770: becoming allowed for ${\hat A} > 0$. In the specific case of the simplest 

771: Polonyi model with positive ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$, we find

772: \beq

773: 11 \; < \; \tan \beta \; < \; 20,

774: \label{Polonyitb}

775: \eeq

776: whereas the range in $\tan \beta$ for the negative Polonyi model 

777: with ${\hat A} = \sqrt{3} - 3$, is 4.4 -- 4.6.

778: Furthermore, the difference between the upper and lower limits on  $\tan \beta$ 

779: never exceeds $\sim$ 14 for any fixed value of  ${\hat A}$.

780: 

781: The corresponding results for $\mu < 0$ are 

782: \beq

783: 1.2 \; < \; {\hat A} \; < \; 4.8,

784: \label{rangeAn}

785: \eeq

786: over which range

787: \beq

788: 4 \; < \; \tan \beta \; \la \; 26.

789: \label{rangetbn}

790: \eeq

791: The range of ${\hat A}$ is shifted, and the range of $\tan \beta$ reduced, 

792: as compared to the case of $\mu > 0$. In particular, the negative Polonyi 

793: model is disallowed and the positive version is allowed only for $\tan 

794: \beta \sim 4.15$.

795: 

796: 

797: \begin{figure}

798: \begin{center}

799: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tbp.eps,height=10cm}}

800: \end{center}

801: \caption{\it

802: The ranges of $\tan \beta$ allowed if ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 1$ for $\mu > 

803: 0$ (solid lines) and $\mu < 0$ (dashed lines). The Polonyi model

804: corresponds to ${\hat A}  \simeq \pm 1.3$. Also shown as `error bars' 

805: are the ranges of $\tan \beta$ allowed in the no-scale case ${\hat A} = 

806: {\hat B} = 0$ for $\mu > 0$ (upper) and $\mu < 0$ (lower).}

807: \label{fig:tanbeta}

808: \end{figure}

809: 

810: \section{No-Scale Models}

811: 

812: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:noscale} the results of a similar analysis for 

813: the no-scale case ${\hat A} = {\hat B} = 0$. For $\mu > 0$, the allowed 

814: range of $\tan \beta$ is

815: \beq

816: 16 \; < \; \tan \beta \; < 30, 

817: \label{tbpnoscale}

818: \eeq

819: where the lower limit is provided by the Higgs search, and the upper limit

820: is at the tip of the coannihilation `tail'. For $\mu < 0$, the same

821: constraints allow just a small range around $\tan \beta \sim 4.8$.  These

822: two ranges are both shown as `error bars' in Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta}.

823: 

824: However, the other no-scale condition $m_0 = 0$ is not allowed for either

825: sign of $\mu$, the minimum being $m_0 \simeq 62$~GeV for $\mu > 0$ and

826: $\tan \beta \simeq 16$. The fact that $m_0 \ne 0$ is no surprise, since the 

827: same conclusion was reached previously without imposing the supplementary

828: no-scale conditions ${\hat A} = {\hat B} = 0$~\cite{eno5}. However, as we

829: have already pointed out, the no-scale boundary conditions should be

830: interpreted as applying at the supergravity scale, so it is possible that

831: $m_0, {\hat A}, {\hat B}$ all $\ne 0$, albeit small, at the GUT scale.

832: We note that in this case, there is in fact a focus-point region at 

833: roughly the same position as in the CMSSM with $A_0 = 0$.

834: 

835: 

836: 

837: \begin{figure}

838: \begin{center}

839: \mbox{\epsfig{file=NSp.eps,height=7cm}}

840: \mbox{\epsfig{file=NSn.eps,height=7cm}}

841: \end{center}

842: \caption{\it

843: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, for the no-scale cases ${\hat A} = 0,

844: {\hat B} = 0$ and (a) $\mu > 0$, (b) $\mu < 0$.

845: }

846: \label{fig:noscale}

847: \end{figure}

848: 

849: \section{Conclusions}

850: 

851: We have shown in this paper that only a restricted range of $\tan \beta$

852: is allowed in any specific pattern of supersymmetry breaking. We have

853: illustrated this point by discussions of minimal supergravity models with

854: ${\hat A} = {\hat B} + 1$ and no-scale models with ${\hat A} = {\hat B} =

855: 0$, but the same comment would apply to other models of supersymmetry

856: breaking not discussed here. Within the class of minimal supergravity

857: models, we have selected in particular the simplest Polonyi model with

858: $\vert {\hat A} \vert = 3 - \sqrt{3}$, but also discussed models with

859: other values of ${\hat A}$, finding a rather restricted range, in

860: particular for $\mu < 0$.

861: 

862: One inference from our analysis is that an experimental determination of 

863: $\tan \beta$ could be a useful discriminator between different models of 

864: supersymmetry breaking. To understand the potential scope of this analysis 

865: tool, it would be necessary to study a wider class of models of 

866: supersymmetry breaking than those discussed here.

867:  

868: 

869: \vskip 0.5in

870: \vbox{

871: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

872: \noindent  The work of K.A.O., Y.S., and V.C.S. was supported in part

873: by DOE grant DE--FG02--94ER--40823.}

874: 

875: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

876: 

877: \bibitem{BIM}

878: For reviews, see:

879: H.~P.~Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110} (1984) 1;

880: A.~Brignole, L.~E.~Ibanez and C.~Munoz,

881: arXiv:hep-ph/9707209,

882: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707209;%%

883: published in {\it Perspectives on supersymmetry}, ed.

884: G.~L.~Kane, pp. 125-148. 

885: 

886: \bibitem{efgos}

887: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Schmitt,

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

889: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801445].;

890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801445;%%

891: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

892: %``Constraining supersymmetry,''

893: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (2002) 32

894: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202110].

895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202110;%%

896: 

897: \bibitem{efgo}

898: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis and K.~A.~Olive,

899: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in the light of LEP and the Tevatron  collider,''

900: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 075010

901: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004169].

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

903: 

904: 

905: \bibitem{efgosi}

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

907: %``The CMSSM parameter space at large tan(beta),''

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

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

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

911: 

912: 

913: \bibitem{eoss}

914: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

915: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in light of WMAP,''

916: arXiv:hep-ph/0303043.

917: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303043;%%

918: 

919: \bibitem{otherOmega}

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

921: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 023515

922: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909497];

923: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909497;%%

924: V.~Barger and C.~Kao,

925: Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B518} (2001) 117

926: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189];

927: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106189;%%

928: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,

929: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 024

930: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334];

931: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%

932: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

933: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 055

934: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107316];

935: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%

936: R.~Arnowitt and B.~Dutta,

937: arXiv:hep-ph/0211417;

938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211417;%%

939: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs and A.~Belyaev,

940: JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 042

941: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202076];

942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202076;%%

943: T.~Kamon, R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and V.~Khotilovich,

944: %``Probing mSUGRA models at linear colliders,''

945: arXiv:hep-ph/0302249;

946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302249;%%

947: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and X.~Tata,

948: %``Updated reach of the CERN LHC and constraints from relic density, b  $\to$ s gamma and a(mu) in the mSUGRA model,''

949: arXiv:hep-ph/0304303.

950: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304303;%%

951: 

952: 

953: 

954: \bibitem{stauco}

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

956: %``Neutralino stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the  mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle,''

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

958: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360];

959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810360;%%

960: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

961: %``Calculations of neutralino stau coannihilation channels and the  cosmologically relevant region of MSSM parameter space,''

962: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 13} (2000) 181

963: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 15} (2001) 413]

964: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481];

965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905481;%%

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

967: %``Coannihilation effects in supergravity and D-brane models,''

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

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

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

971: 

972: \bibitem{moreco}

973: M.~E.~G\'omez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,

974: Phys. Rev. D {\bf D61} (2000) 123512

975: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907261];

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

977:   Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B487} (2000) 313

978: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004028];

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

980:   Nucl. Phys. B {\bf B638} (2002) 165

981: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203131];

982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203131;%%

983: T.~Nihei, L.~Roszkowski and R.~Ruiz de Austri,

984: %``Exact cross sections for the neutralino slepton coannihilation,''

985:   JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 024

986: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206266].

987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206266;%%

988: 

989: 

990: \bibitem{funnel}

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

992: %``The Neutralino relic density in minimal N=1 supergravity,''

993: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 376

994: [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234];

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

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

997: %``Cosmological relic density from minimal supergravity

998: %with implications for collider physics,''

999: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 597

1000: [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321];

1001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

1002: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante,  

1003: P.~Quintana and X.~Tata,

1004: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015007

1005: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005027];

1006: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%

1007: A.~B.~Lahanas and V.~C.~Spanos,

1008: %``Implications of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson in determining the  neutralino dark matter,''

1009: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 185

1010: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106345].

1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106345;%%

1012: 

1013: \bibitem{focus}

1014: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1015:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 2322;

1016: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1017: Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D61} (2000) 075005;

1018: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

1019: Phys.\ Lett.   {\bf B482} (2000) 388.

1020: 

1021: \bibitem{hyperbolic}

1022: K.~L.~Chan, U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,

1023: %``Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the  observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the LHC,''

1024: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 096004

1025: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710473].

1026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710473;%%

1027: 

1028: \bibitem{noscale}E.~Cremmer, S.~Ferrara, C.~Kounnas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1029: %``Naturally Vanishing Cosmological Constant In N=1 Supergravity,''

1030: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 133} (1983) 61;

1031: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B133,61;%%

1032: J.~R.~Ellis, A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,

1033: %``No - Scale Supersymmetric Standard Model,''

1034: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 134} (1984) 429;

1035: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B134,429;%%

1036: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1037: %``The Road To No Scale Supergravity,''

1038: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 145} (1987) 1.

1039: %%CITATION = PRPLC,145,1;%%

1040: 

1041: 

1042: \bibitem{eno5}

1043: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

1044: %``Lower limits on soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses,''

1045: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525} (2002) 308

1046: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109288].

1047: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109288;%%

1048: 

1049: 

1050: \bibitem{sugr2}

1051: E. Cremmer, B. Julia, J. Scherk, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and P. Van 

1052: Nieuwenhuizen, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 79B} (1978) 231; 

1053: and Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B147} (1979) 105;  

1054: E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 116B} 

1055: (1982) 231; and Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B212} (1983) 413;  

1056: R. Arnowitt, A.H. Chamseddine 

1057: and P. Nath, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 49} (1982) 970; 

1058: {\bf 50} (1983) 232 and Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 

1059: 121B} (1983) 33;  

1060: J. Bagger and E. Witten, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 115B} (1982) 202 and {\bf 118B} (1982) 

1061: 103;  

1062: J. Bagger, Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B211} (1983) 302.

1063: 

1064: \bibitem{mark} 

1065: H.-P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 120B} (1983) 345; 

1066: L.J. Hall, J. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 2359.

1067: 

1068: \bibitem{pol} 

1069: J. Polonyi, Budapest preprint KFKI-1977-93 (1977).

1070: 

1071: \bibitem{bfs} 

1072: R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C.A. Savoy, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 119B} (1982) 343.

1073: 

1074: \bibitem{emy}

1075: M.~Endo, M.~Matsumura and M.~Yamaguchi,

1076: %``Phenomenology of minimal supergravity with vanishing A and B soft  supersymmetry-breaking parameters,''

1077: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 544} (2002) 161

1078: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204349].

1079: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204349;%%

1080: 

1081: 

1082: \bibitem{Barger:1993gh}

1083: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

1084: %``Loop Corrections To Radiative Breaking Of Electroweak 

1085: %Symmetry In Supersymmetry,''

1086: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}  (1992) 3981;

1087: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,3981;%%

1088: V.~D.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger and P.~Ohmann,

1089: %``The Supersymmetric particle spectrum,''

1090: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 4908

1091: [arXiv:hep-ph/9311269].

1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311269;%%

1093: 

1094: 

1095: \bibitem{deBoer:1994he}

1096: W.~de Boer, R.~Ehret and D.~I.~Kazakov,

1097: %``Predictions of SUSY masses in the minimal supersymmetric grand unified theory,''

1098: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 647

1099: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405342];

1100: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405342;%%

1101: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~T.~Matchev and R.~J.~Zhang,

1102: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1103: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 491} (1997) 3

1104: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606211].

1105: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \bibitem{Carena:2001fw}

1109: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~Wagner,

1110: %``Higgs-boson pole masses in the MSSM with explicit CP violation,''

1111: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625} (2002) 345

1112: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111245].

1113: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111245;%%

1114: 

1115: \bibitem{LEPsusy}

1116: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group,

1117: {\it Combined LEP Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV}, \\

1118: {\tt http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos{\_}moriond01/%

1119: charginos{\_}pub.html}.

1120: 

1121: \bibitem{LEPSUSYWG_0101}

1122: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group, %\\

1123: {\it Combined LEP

1124: Selectron/Smuon/Stau Results, 183-208 GeV}, \\

1125: {\tt 

1126: http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/sleptons{\_}summer02/slep{\_}2002.html}.

1127: 

1128: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}

1129: LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collaboration,

1130: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

1131: Collaboration,

1132: {\it Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP},

1133: CERN-EP/2003-011, available from \\

1134: {\tt http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/index.html}.

1135: 

1136: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

1137: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1138: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124} (2000) 76 

1139: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];

1140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

1141: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1142: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 343 

1143: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].

1144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

1145: 

1146: 

1147: \bibitem{bsg}

1148: M.S. Alam et al., [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} 

1149: (1995) 2885 as updated in

1150: S.~Ahmed et al., {CLEO CONF 99-10};

1151: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0003, contribution to the 30th 

1152: International conference on High-Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000.

1153: See also

1154: K.~Abe {\it et al.},  [Belle Collaboration],

1155: [arXiv:hep-ex/0107065];

1156: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107065;%%

1157: L.~Lista  [BaBar Collaboration],

1158: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110010];

1159: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110010;%%

1160: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

1161: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

1162: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1163: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1164: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

1165: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003];

1166: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1167: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,

1168: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338; 

1169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%

1170: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,

1171: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''

1172: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007

1173: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];

1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%

1175: T.~Hurth, arXiv:hep-ph/0212304. 

1176: 

1177: 

1178: 

1179: \bibitem{newBNL}

1180: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1181: %``Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7 ppm,''

1182: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 101804

1183: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 129903]

1184: [arXiv:hep-ex/0208001].

1185: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%

1186: 

1187: \bibitem{Davier}

1188: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,

1189: %``Confronting spectral functions from e+ e- annihilation and tau decays:  Consequences for the muon magnetic moment,''

1190: arXiv:hep-ph/0208177; see also

1191: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208177;%%

1192: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

1193: %``The SM prediction of g-2 of the muon,''

1194: arXiv:hep-ph/0209187;

1195: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209187;%%

1196: F.~Jegerlehner, unpublished, as reported in

1197: M.~Krawczyk,

1198: arXiv:hep-ph/0208076.

1199: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208076;%%

1200: 

1201: \bibitem{wmap}

1202: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

1203: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1204: %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

1205: arXiv:astro-ph/0302207;

1206: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

1207: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1208: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1209: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1210: arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.

1211: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

1212: 

1213: \bibitem{wmapothers}

1214: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1215: %``WMAP constraints, SUSY dark matter and implications for the direct  detection of SUSY,''

1216: arXiv:hep-ph/0303201; 

1217: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303201;%%

1218: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs,

1219: %``Chi**2 analysis of the minimal supergravity model including WMAP,  g(mu)-2 and b $\to$ s gamma constraints,''

1220: arXiv:hep-ph/0303114; 

1221: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303114;%%

1222: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1223: %``WMAPing out supersymmetric dark matter and phenomenology,''

1224: arXiv:hep-ph/0303130.

1225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303130;%%

1226: 

1227: \bibitem{stopco}

1228: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

1229: %``Calculations of neutralino stop coannihilation in the CMSSM,''

1230: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 18} (2003) 395

1231: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112113];

1232: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112113;%%

1233: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,

1234: %``Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter,''

1235: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 035012

1236: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911496].

1237: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911496;%%

1238: 

1239: \bibitem{th}

1240: J.~Tabei and H.~Hotta,

1241: %``Constraints on trilinear coupling constant A(0) and tan beta in minimal  supergravity model,''

1242: arXiv:hep-ph/0208039.

1243: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208039;%%

1244: 

1245: \end{thebibliography}

1246: 

1247: \end{document}

1248: 

1249: 

1250: 

1251: --------------050208090508060007070906--

1252: