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

2: %

3: %  Likelihood Analysis of the CMSSM Parameter Space

4: %

5: %  October 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: 

74: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fonts, Special symbols, etc %%%%%

75: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

76: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108: %%%%%%%%%%%% Spartners %%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

117: \def\stop{\widetilde t}

118: \def\sbot{\widetilde b}

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

120: 

121: %%%%%%%%%% Masses %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

171: \def\mla{m_A}

172: \def\mlb{m_B}

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

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

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

176: %%%%%%%%%%%%  END OF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

177:  

178: \begin{document}

179: \begin{titlepage}

180: \pagestyle{empty}

181: \baselineskip=21pt

182: \rightline{\tt hep-ph/0310356}

183: \rightline{CERN--TH/2003-262}

184: \rightline{UMN--TH--2217/03}

185: \rightline{TPI--MINN--03/28}

186: \vskip 0.2in

187: \begin{center}

188: {\large {\bf Likelihood Analysis of the CMSSM Parameter Space}}

189: \end{center}

190: \begin{center}

191: \vskip 0.2in

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

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

194: \vskip 0.1in

195: {\it

196: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

197: $^2${William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\

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

199: \vskip 0.2in

200: {\bf Abstract}

201: \end{center}

202: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

203: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

204: 

205: We present a likelihood analysis of the parameter space of the constrained

206: minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (CMSSM), in which

207: the input scalar masses $m_0$ and fermion masses $m_{1/2}$ are each

208: assumed to be universal. We include the full experimental likelihood

209: function from the LEP Higgs search as well as the likelihood from a global

210: precision electroweak fit.  We also include the likelihoods for $b \to s

211: \gamma$ decay and (optionally) $g_\mu - 2$. For each of these inputs, both

212: the experimental and theoretical errors are treated. We include the

213: systematic errors stemming from the uncertainties in $m_t$ and $m_b$,

214: which are important for delineating the allowed CMSSM parameter space as

215: well as calculating the relic density of supersymmetric particles. We

216: assume that these dominate the cold dark matter density, with a density in

217: the range favoured by WMAP. We display the global likelihood function

218: along cuts in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\tan \beta = 10$ and both

219: signs of $\mu$, $\tan \beta = 35, \mu < 0$ and $\tan \beta = 50, \mu > 0$,

220: which illustrate the relevance of $g_\mu - 2$ and the uncertainty in

221: $m_t$. We also display likelihood contours in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes

222: for these values of $\tan \beta$. The likelihood function is generally

223: larger for $\mu > 0$ than for $\mu < 0$, and smaller in the focus-point

224: region than in the bulk and coannihilation regions, but none of these

225: possibilities can yet be excluded.

226: 

227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

228: \vfill

229: \leftline{CERN--TH/2003-262}

230: \leftline{October 2003}

231: \end{titlepage}

232: \baselineskip=18pt

233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

234: 

235: \section{Introduction}

236: 

237: Supersymmetry remains one of the best-motivated frameworks for possible

238: physics beyond the Standard Model, and many analyses have been published

239: of the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the

240: Standard Model (MSSM). It is often assumed that  the soft

241: supersymmetry-breaking mass terms $m_{1/2}, m_0$ are universal at an input

242: GUT scale, a restriction referred to as the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). In 

243: addition to

244: experimental constraints from sparticle and Higgs searches at 

245: LEP~\cite{LEPHWG}, the

246: measured rate for $b \to s \gamma$~\cite{bsgex} and the value of $g_\mu -

247: 2$~\cite{BNL}~\footnote{In view of the chequered history of this 

248: constraint, we

249: present results obtained neglecting $g_\mu - 2$, as well as results using

250: the latest re-evaluation of the Standard Model

251: contribution~\cite{newDavier}.}, the CMSSM parameter space is also

252: restricted by the cosmological density of non-baryonic cold dark matter,

253: $\Omega_{CDM}$ \cite{ganis,LS,eos2,cmssm}. It is also often assumed that most

254: of $\Omega_{CDM}$ is

255: provided by the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), which we presume

256: to be the lightest neutralino $\chi$.

257: 

258: The importance of cold dark matter has recently been supported by the WMAP

259: Collaboration~\cite{wmap,reion}, which has established a strong upper limit on

260: hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos. Moreover, the WMAP Collaboration

261: also reports the observation of early reionization when $z \sim

262: 20$~\cite{reion}, which disfavours models with warm dark matter.

263: Furthermore, the WMAP data greatly restrict the possible range for the

264: density of cold dark matter: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 =

265: 0.1126^{+0.0081}_{-0.0091}$ (one-$\sigma$ errors). Several recent papers

266: have combined this information with experimental constraints on the CMSSM

267: parameter space~\cite{EOSS,LN,Baer,Nath,Arnowitt}, assuming that LSPs 

268: dominate $\Omega_{CDM}$.

269: 

270: The optimal way to combine these various constraints is via a likelihood

271: analysis, as has been done by some authors both before~\cite{DeBoer} and

272: after~\cite{Baer} the WMAP data was released. When performing such an analysis,

273: in addition to the formal experimental errors, it is also essential to

274: take into account theoretical errors, which introduce systematic

275: uncertainties that are frequently non-negligible. The main aim of this

276: paper is to present a new likelihood analysis which includes a careful

277: treatment of these errors.

278: 

279: The precision of the WMAP constraint on $\Omega_{CDM}$ selects narrow

280: strips in the CMSSM parameter space, even in the former `bulk' region at

281: low $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$. This narrowing is even more apparent in the

282: coannihilation `tail' of parameter space extending to larger $m_{1/2}$, in

283: the `funnels' due to rapid annihilations through the $A$ and $H$ poles

284: that appear at large $\tan \beta$, and in the focus-point region at large

285: $m_0$, close to the boundary of the area where electroweak symmetry

286: breaking remains possible. The experimental and theoretical errors are

287: crucial for estimating the widths of these narrow strips, and also for

288: calculating the likelihood function along cuts across them, as well as for

289: the global likelihood contours we present in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes

290: for different choices of $\tan \beta$ and the sign of $\mu$.

291: 

292: In the `bulk' and coannihilation regions, we find that the theoretical

293: uncertainties are relatively small, though they could become dominant if

294: the experimental error in $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ is reduced below 5\% some

295: time in the future. However, theoretical uncertainties in the calculation

296: of $m_h$ do have an effect on the lower end of the `bulk' region, and

297: these are sensitive to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties in

298: $m_t$ and (at large $\tan \beta$) also $m_b$. The theoretical errors due

299: to the current uncertainties in $m_b$ and $m_t$ are dominant in the

300: `funnel' and `focus-point' regions, respectively. These sensitivities may

301: explain some of the discrepancies between the results of different codes

302: for calculating the supersymmetric relic density, which are particularly

303: apparent in these regions. These sensitivities imply that results depend

304: on the treatment of higher-order effects, for which there are not always

305: unique prescriptions.

306: 

307: With our treatment of these uncertainties, we find that the half-plane

308: with $\mu > 0$ is generally favoured over that with $\mu < 0$, and that,

309: within each half-plane, the coannihilation region of the CMSSM parameter

310: space is generally favoured over the focus-point region~\footnote{Our

311: conclusions differ in this respect from those of~\cite{Baer}.}, but these

312: preferences are not strong.

313: 

314: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section~\ref{sec:treat},

315: we discuss the treatment of the various constraints employed to

316: define the global likelihood function. In section~\ref{sec:strips}, we

317: present the profile of the global likelihood function along cuts in the

318: $(m_{1/2},m_0)$ plane for different choices of $\tan\beta$ and the sign of

319: $\mu$.  In section~\ref{sec:contours}, we present iso-likelihood contours

320: at certain CLs, obtained by integrating the likelihood function. Finally,

321: in section~\ref{sec:summary}, we summarize our findings and suggest

322: directions for future analyses of this type.

323: 

324: \section{Constraints on the CMSSM Parameter Space}

325: \label{sec:treat}

326: 

327: \subsection{Particle Searches}

328: 

329: We first discuss the implementation of the accelerator constraints on

330: CMSSM particle masses. Previous studies have shown that the LEP limits on

331: the masses of sparticles such as the selectron and chargino constrain the

332: CMSSM parameter space much less than the LEP Higgs limit and $b \to s

333: \gamma$ (see, e.g.,~\cite{eos2,benchmark}).

334: As we have discussed previously, in the CMSSM parameter regions

335: of interest, the LEP Higgs constraint reduces essentially to that on the

336: Standard Model Higgs boson \cite{benchmark}. This is often implemented as the 95\%

337: confidence-level lower limit $m_h > 114.4$~GeV~\cite{LEPHWG}. However,

338: here we use the full likelihood function for the LEP Higgs search, as

339: released by the LEP Higgs Working Group. This includes the small

340: enhancement in the likelihood just beyond the formal limit due to the LEP

341: Higgs signal reported late in 2000. This was re-evaluated most recently

342: in~\cite{LEPHWG}, and cannot be regarded as significant evidence for a

343: light Higgs boson. We have also taken into account the indirect information 

344: on $m_h$ provided by a global fit to the precision electroweak data. 

345: The likelihood function from this indirect source does not vary 

346: rapidly over the range of Higgs masses found in the CMSSM, but we 

347: include this contribution with the aim of completeness.

348: 

349: The interpretation of the combined Higgs likelihood, ${\cal L}_{exp}$,  

350: in the $(m_{1/2},

351: m_0)$ plane depends on uncertainties in the theoretical calculation of

352: $m_h$. These include the experimental error in $m_t$ and (particularly at

353: large $\tan \beta$) $m_b$, and theoretical uncertainties associated with

354: higher-order corrections to $m_h$. Our default assumptions are that $m_t =

355: 175 \pm 5$~GeV for the pole mass, and $m_b = 4.25 \pm 0.25$~GeV for the

356: running $\overline {MS}$ mass evaluated at $m_b$ itself.

357: The theoretical uncertainty in $m_h$,  $\sigma_{th}$,  is dominated by

358: the experimental uncertainties in $m_{t,b}$, which are 

359: treated as uncorrelated Gaussian errors:

360: \beq

361: \sigma_{th}^2 = \left( \frac{\partial m_h}{\partial m_t} \right)^2 \Delta 

362: m_t^2 + \left( \frac{\partial m_h}{\partial m_b} \right)^2 \Delta m_b^2 \,.

363: \label{eq:sigmath}

364: \eeq

365: The Higgs mass is calculated using  the  latest version

366: of {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{FeynHiggs}. 

367: Typically, we find that $(\partial m_h/\partial m_t) \sim 0.5$, so that 

368: $\sigma_{th}$ is roughly 2-3 GeV.

369: Subdominant two-loop contributions as well as  higher-order 

370: corrections have been shown to contribute much less~\cite{martin}.       

371: 

372: 

373: The

374: combined experimental likelihood, ${\cal L}_{exp}$, from 

375: direct searches at LEP~2 and a global

376: electroweak fit is then convolved with a theoretical likelihood

377: (taken as a Gaussian) with uncertainty given by $\sigma_{th}$ from

378: (\ref{eq:sigmath}) above. Thus, we define the

379: total Higgs likelihood function, ${\cal L}_h$, as

380: \beq

381: {\cal L}_h(m_h) = { {\cal N} \over {\sqrt{2 \pi}\, \sigma_{th}  }}

382:  \int d m^{\prime}_h \,\, {\cal L}_{exp}(m^{\prime}_h)

383:  \,\, e^{-(m^{\prime}_h-m_h)^2/2 \sigma_{th}^2 }\, ,

384: \label{eq:higlik}

385: \eeq

386: where ${\cal N}$ is a factor that normalizes  the experimental likelihood

387: distribution. 

388: 

389: \subsection{$b \to s \gamma$ Decay}

390: 

391: The branching ratio for the rare decays $b \to s \gamma$ has been measured

392: by the CLEO, BELLE and BaBar collaborations~\cite{bsgex}, and we take as

393: the combined value ${\cal{B}}(b \to s \gamma)=(3.54 \pm 0.41 \pm

394: 0.26)\times 10^{-4}$. The theoretical prediction of $b \to s \gamma$

395: \cite{gam,bsgth} contains uncertainties which stem from the uncertainties

396: in $m_b$, $\alpha_s$, the measurement of the semileptonic branching ratio

397: of the $B$ meson as well as the effect of the scale dependence. In

398: particular, the scale dependence of the theoretical prediction arises from

399: the dependence on three scales: the scale where the QCD corrections to the

400: semileptonic decay are calculated and the high and low energy scales,

401: relevant to $b \to s \gamma$ decay. These sources of uncertainty can be

402: combined to determine a total theoretical uncertainty. Finally, the

403: experimental measurement is converted into a Gaussian likelihood and

404: convolved with a theoretical likelihood to determine the total likelihood

405: ${\cal L}_{bsg}$ containing both experimental and theoretical

406: uncertainties~\cite{gam}~\footnote{Further details of our treatment of

407: experimental and theoretical errors, as applied to the CMSSM, can be found

408: in~\cite{ganis}.}.

409: 

410: \subsection{Measurement of $g_\mu - 2$}

411: 

412: The interpretation of the BNL measurement of $a_\mu \equiv g_\mu - 

413: 2$~\cite{BNL} is 

414: not yet settled. Two updated Standard Model predictions for $a_\mu$ 

415: have recently been calculated \cite{newDavier}. One is based on $e^+ e^- \to$~hadrons data, 

416: incorporating the recent re-evaluation of radiative cross 

417: sections by the CMD-2 group: 

418: \begin{equation}

419: a_\mu = (11,659,180.9 \pm 7.2 \pm 3.5 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-10},

420: \label{amuhad}

421: \end{equation}

422: and the second estimate is based on $\tau$ decay data:

423: \begin{equation}

424: a_\mu = (11,659,195.6 \pm 5.8 \pm 3.5 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-10},

425: \label{amutau}

426: \end{equation}

427: where, in each case, the first error is due to uncertainties in the

428: hadronic vacuum polarization, the second is due to light-by-light

429: scattering and the third combines higher-order QED and electroweak

430: uncertainties. Comparing these estimates with the experimental 

431: value~\cite{BNL}, one 

432: finds discrepancies

433: \begin{equation}

434: \Delta a_\mu = (22.1 \pm 7.2 \pm 3.5 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10} (1.9~\sigma)

435: \label{delta}

436: \end{equation}

437: and

438: \begin{equation}

439: \Delta a_\mu = (7.4 \pm 5.8 \pm 3.5 \pm 8.0) \times 10^{-10} (0.7~\sigma),

440: \label{deltatau}

441: \end{equation}

442: for the $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau$ estimates, respectively, where the 

443: second error is from the light-by-light scattering contribution and the 

444: last is the experimental error from the BNL measurement.

445: 

446: Based on the $e^+ e^-$ estimate, one would tempted to think there is some 

447: hint for new physics beyond the Standard Model. However, the $\tau$ 

448: estimate does not confirm this optimistic picture. Awaiting 

449: clarification of the discrepancy between the $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau$ data, 

450: we calculate the likelihood function for the CMSSM under two 

451: hypotheses:

452: \begin{itemize}

453: \item{neglecting any information from $g_\mu - 2$, which may be 

454: unduly pessimistic, and}

455: \item{taking the $e^+ e^-$ estimate (\ref{delta}) at face value, which 

456: may be unduly optimistic.}

457: \end{itemize}

458: \noindent

459: 

460: When including the likelihood for the muon anomalous magnetic

461: moment, $a_\mu$, we calculate it combining the experimental 

462: and the theoretical uncertainties as follows:

463: \beq

464: {\cal L}_{a_\mu}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma}

465: e^{-(a_\mu^{th}-a_\mu^{exp})^2/2 \sigma^2} \,,

466: \label{eq:likamu}

467: \eeq 

468: where $\sigma^2=\sigma_{exp}^2+\sigma_{th}^2$, with

469: $\sigma_{exp}$ taken from (\ref{delta}) and $\sigma_{th}^2$

470: from (\ref{eq:sigmath}), replacing $m_h$ by $a_\mu$.

471: 

472: As is well known, the discrepancy (\ref{delta}) would place significant

473: constraints on the CMSSM parameter space, favouring $\mu > 0$, though we

474: do consider both signs of $\mu$. In fact, we find that $\mu > 0$ is 

475: favoured somewhat, even with the `pessimistic' version (\ref{deltatau}) of 

476: the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint.

477: 

478: \subsection{Density of Cold Dark Matter}

479: 

480: As already mentioned, we identify the relic density of LSPs with

481: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$. In addition to the CMSSM parameters, the calculation

482: of $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ involves some parameters of the Standard Model that

483: are poorly known, such as $m_t$ and $m_b$. The default values and 

484: uncertainties we assume

485: for these parameters have been mentioned above. Here we stress that both

486: these parameters should be allowed to run with the effective scale $Q$ at

487: which they contribute to the calculation of the relic density, which is

488: typically $Q \simeq 2 m_\chi$. This effect is particularly important when

489: treating the rapid-annihilation channels due to $\chi \chi \to A, H \to

490: X\bar{X}$

491: annihilations, but is non-negligible also in other parts of the CMSSM

492: parameter space.

493: 

494: 

495: Specifically, the location of the rapid-annihilation funnel

496: due to $A,H$ Higgs-boson exchange, which

497: appears in the region where $m_A \simeq 2 m_\chi$, depends significantly

498: on the determination of $m_A$~\cite{LS}. For this

499: determination, the input value of the running $\overline{MS}$ mass 

500: of  $m_b$ is a crucial parameter, 

501: and the appearance of the funnels depends noticeably on 

502: $m_b$~\cite{ganis,ftuning}. On the other hand, the exact location

503: of the focus-point region~\cite{focus} 

504: (also known as the hyperbolic branch of radiative symmetry breaking 

505: \cite{hbrsb}) depends sensitively on $m_t$ \cite{rs,ftuning,eos2}, which

506: dictates the scale of radiative

507: electroweak symmetry breaking~\cite{LNM}.   

508:  

509: In calculating the likelihood of the CDM density, we follow a similar

510: procedure as for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in

511: (\ref{eq:sigmath}, \ref{eq:likamu}), again taking into

512: account the contribution the uncertainties in $m_{t,b}$. In this case, we

513: take the experimental uncertainty from WMAP \cite{wmap,reion} and the

514: theoretical uncertainty from (\ref{eq:sigmath}), replacing $m_h$ by

515: $\Omega_\chi h^2$. We will see that the theoretical uncertainty plays a

516: very significant role in our analysis.

517: 

518: \subsection{The Total Likelihood}

519: 

520: The total likelihood function is computed by combining all the components

521: described above: \beq {\cal L}_{tot} = {\cal L}_h \times {\cal

522: L}_{bs\gamma} \times {\cal L}_{\Omega_\chi h^2} \times {\cal L}_{a_\mu}

523: \eeq In what follows, we consider the CMSSM parameter space at fixed

524: values of $\tan \beta$ = 10, 35, and 50 with $A_0 = 0$. For $\tan \beta $

525: = 10 and 35, we compute the likelihood function for both signs of $\mu$,

526: but not for $\tan \beta = 50$, since in the case the choice $\mu < 0$ does

527: not provide a solution of the RGEs with radiative electroweak symmetry

528: breaking.

529: 

530: The likelihood function in the CMSSM can be considered as a function of

531: two variables, ${\cal L}_{tot}(m_{1/2},m_0)$, where $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$

532: are the unified GUT-scale gaugino and scalar masses respectively. When

533: plotting confidence levels as iso-likelihood contours in the corresponding

534: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes, we normalize likelihood function by setting the

535: volume integral

536: \beq

537:  \int  {\cal L}_{tot} \, dm_0 \, dm_{1/2} \; = \; 1

538: \eeq

539: for each value of $\tan \beta$, combining where appropriate both signs of 

540: $\mu$. We also compare the 

541: integrals of the likelihood function over the coannihilation and 

542: focus-point regions, and for different values of $\tan \beta$.

543: 

544: For most of the results presented below, we perform the analysis over the

545: range $m_{1/2} = 100$~GeV up to 1000~GeV for $\tan \beta = 10$ and up to 2

546: TeV for $\tan \beta$ = 35 and 50.  The upper limit on $m_0$ is taken to be

547: the limit where solutions for radiative electroweak symmetry breaking are

548: possible and the range includes the focus-point region at large $m_0$. We

549: discuss below the sensitivity of our results to the choice of the upper

550: limit on $m_{1/2}$.

551: 

552: \section{Widths of Allowed Strips in the CMSSM Parameter Space}

553: \label{sec:strips}

554: 

555: We begin by first presenting the global likelihood function along cuts

556: through the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane, for different choices of $\tan \beta$,

557: the sign of $\mu$ and $m_{1/2}$. These exhibit the relative importance of

558: experimental errors and other uncertainties, as well as the potential

559: impact of the $g_\mu - 2$ measurement.

560: 

561: We first display in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP} the likelihood along slices

562: through the CMSSM parameter space for $\tan \beta = 10, A_0 = 0, \mu > 0,$

563: and $m_{1/2} = 300$ and 800~GeV in the left and right panels,

564: respectively, plotting the likelihood as a function of $m_0$ in the

565: neighborhood of the coannihilation region \cite{coann}. The solid red curves show the

566: total likelihood function calculated including the uncertainties which

567: stem from the experimental errors in $m_t$ and $m_b$.  The green dashed

568: curves show the likelihood calculated without these uncertainties, i.e.,

569: we set $\Delta m_t = \Delta m_b = 0$. We see that these errors have

570: significant effects on the likelihood function.  In each panel, the

571: horizontal lines correspond to the 68\% confidence level of the respective

572: likelihood function.  The likelihood functions shown here include ${\cal

573: L}_{a_\mu}$ calculated using $e^+ e^-$ data. 

574: For these values of $m_{1/2}$

575: and $m_0$ with $\mu > 0$, the constraint from $g_\mu - 2$ is not very

576: significant. 

577: For reference, we present in Table~\ref{table:cl} and \ref{table:cl2}

578: the values of the likelihood functions corresponding to the 68\%, 90\%,

579: and 95\% CLs for each choice of $\tan \beta$ and $\Delta m_t$.

580: 

581: \begin{figure}

582: \begin{center}

583: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutC_300_p.eps,height=6cm}}

584: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutC_800_p.eps,height=6cm}}

585: \end{center} 

586: \caption{\it

587: The likelihood function along slices in $m_0$ through the CMSSM parameter

588: space for $\tan \beta = 10, A_0 = 0, \mu> 0$ and $m_{1/2} = 300, 800$~GeV in the

589: left and right panels, respectively. The solid red curves show

590: the total likelihood function and the green dashed curve is the likelihood 

591: function with $\Delta m_t = \Delta m_b = 0$. Both analyses include the $g_\mu - 

592: 2$ likelihood calculated using $e^+ e^-$ data. The horizontal  

593: lines show the 68\% confidence level of the likelihood function for each case.}

594: \label{fig:WMAP}

595: \end{figure}

596: 

597: \begin{table}

598: \begin{center}

599: \caption{\it Likelihood values ($\times 10^3$), including $g_\mu -2$, for the

600: 68\%, 90\%, 

601: and 95\% CLs for different choices of $\tan \beta$ and the uncertainty 

602: in $m_t$.}

603: \vspace*{3mm}

604: \label{table:cl}

605: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

606: \hline \hline

607: $\tan\beta$ & CL  & $\Delta m_t =  5$ GeV   &    $\Delta m_t =  1$ GeV 

608:                      & $\Delta m_t =  0.5$ GeV & $\Delta m_t = 0$ GeV \\ 

609: \hline

610:    & 68\%  & 0.14                 & 0.13                  & 0.087                 & 0.046 \\ 

611: 10 & 90\%  & 3.0 $\times 10^{-3}$ & 1.4 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 2.5 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 0.021 \\

612:    & 95\%  & 2.9 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 6.2 $\times 10^{-5}$  &  1.1 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 0.011 \\

613: \hline

614:    & 68\%  & 2.2 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 2.0 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 2.7 $\times 10^{-4}$ 

615:                                                                      & 1.1$\times 10^{-3}$   \\ 

616: 35 & 90\%  & 2.8 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 5.0 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 7.5 $\times 10^{-5}$ 

617:                                                                      & 1.8$\times 10^{-4}$  \\

618:    & 95\%  & 1.1 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.7 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 3.9 $\times 10^{-5}$  

619:                                                                      & 6.8$\times 10^{-5}$  \\

620: \hline

621:    & 68\%  & 5.3 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 5.7 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 5.4 $\times 10^{-4}$  

622:                                                                      & 7.0  $\times 10^{-4}$\\ 

623: 50 & 90\%  & 8.7 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 7.7 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 1.0 $\times 10^{-4}$  

624:                                                                      & 1.9  $\times 10^{-4}$ \\

625:    & 95\%  & 2.3 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 3.2 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 4.6 $\times 10^{-5}$  

626:                                                                      & 8.2 $\times 10^{-5}$ \\

627: \hline

628: \hline

629: \end{tabular}

630: \end{center}

631: \end{table}

632: 

633: \begin{table}

634: \begin{center}

635: \caption{\it Likelihood values ($\times 10^3$), excluding $g_\mu -2$, for the

636: 68\%, 90\%, 

637: and 95\% CLs for different choices of $\tan \beta$ and the uncertainty 

638: in $m_t$.}

639: \vspace*{3mm}

640: \label{table:cl2}

641: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

642: \hline \hline

643: $\tan\beta$ & CL  & $\Delta m_t =  5$ GeV   &    $\Delta m_t =  1$ GeV 

644:                      & $\Delta m_t =  0.5$ GeV & $\Delta m_t = 0$ GeV \\ 

645: \hline

646:    & 68\%  & 0.059                & 1.6 $\times 10^{-3}$  & 9.6 $\times 10^{-4}$  

647:                                                                               & 0.052   \\ 

648: 10 & 90\%  & 5.6 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 1.3 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 2.4 $\times 10^{-4}$  

649:                                                                               & 0.024   \\

650:    & 95\%  & 4.0 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 7.9 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 1.3 $\times 10^{-4}$  

651:                                                                               & 0.011  \\

652: \hline

653:    & 68\%  & 2.4 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 1.9 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 2.4 $\times 10^{-4}$  

654:                                                               & 7.8$\times 10^{-4}$   \\ 

655: 35 & 90\%  & 2.3 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 5.0 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 7.7 $\times 10^{-5}$  

656:                                                               & 1.6$\times 10^{-4}$  \\

657:    & 95\%  & 1.2 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 2.8 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 4.0 $\times 10^{-5}$  

658:                                                               & 7.5$\times 10^{-5}$  \\

659: \hline

660:    & 68\%  & 3.3 $\times 10^{-4}$ & 3.5 $\times 10^{-4}$  & 4.3 $\times 10^{-4}$  

661:                                                               & 6.4  $\times 10^{-4}$\\ 

662: 50 & 90\%  & 4.2 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 6.4 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 1.0 $\times 10^{-4}$  

663:                                                               & 1.8  $\times 10^{-4}$ \\

664:    & 95\%  & 2.0 $\times 10^{-5}$ & 3.4 $\times 10^{-5}$  & 5.0 $\times 10^{-5}$  

665:                                                                & 8.5 $\times 10^{-5}$ \\

666: \hline

667: \hline

668: \end{tabular}

669: \end{center}

670: \end{table}

671: 

672: 

673: 

674: 

675: When $\mu < 0$, the $g_\mu-2$ information plays a more important role, as

676: exemplified in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPn}, where we show the likelihood in the

677: coannihilation region for $m_{1/2} = 800$ GeV. For $m_{1/2} = 300$ GeV,

678: the likelihood is severely suppressed (see the discussion below) and we do

679: not show it here.

680: 

681: \begin{figure}

682: \begin{center}

683: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutC_800_n.eps,height=6cm}}

684: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutCg_800_n.eps,height=6cm}}

685: \end{center} 

686: \caption{\it

687: As in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:WMAP} for $\tan \beta = 10, A_0 = 0, \mu< 0$

688: and $m_{1/2} = 800$~GeV. The $g_\mu-2$ constraint is included (excluded) in the

689: left (right) panels. In the right panel the 68\% CLs for both cases are

690: incidentally closed to each other. }

691: \label{fig:WMAPn}

692: \end{figure}

693: 

694: We now discuss the components of the likelihood function which affect the

695: relative heights along the peaks shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP}. In the case

696: $m_{1/2} = 300$~GeV, the likelihood increases when the errors in $m_t$ and

697: $m_b$ are included, due to two dominant effects.  1) The total integrated

698: likelihood is decreased when the errors are turned on (by a factor of $\sim 2$

699: when $g_\mu-2$ is included and by a factor of $\sim 3$ when it is omitted, 

700: for $\tan

701: \beta = 10$), 

702: so the normalization constant, ${\cal N}$, becomes larger, and 2) since $m_{1/2}

703: = 300$~GeV corresponds to the lower limit on $m_{1/2}$ due to the

704: experimental bound on the Higgs mass, the Higgs contribution to the

705: likelihood increases when the uncertainties in the heavy quark masses are

706: included. When $m_{1/2} = 800$~GeV, 

707: it is primarily the normalization effect which results in

708: an overall increase. The Higgs mass contribution at this value of $m_{1/2}$ is

709: essentially ${\cal L}_{h_{exp}} = 1$.

710: We remind the reader that the value of the

711: likelihood itself has no meaning.  Only the relative likelihoods (for a

712: given normalization) carry any statistical information, which is

713: conveyed here partially by the comparison to the respective 68\% CL

714: likelihood values.

715: 

716: 

717: In Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}, we extend the previous slices through the CMSSM

718: parameter space to the focus-point region at large $m_0$.  The solid (red)

719: curve corresponds to the same likelihood function shown by the solid (red)

720: curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP}, and the peak at low $m_0$ is due to the

721: coannihilation region. The peak at $m_0 \simeq 2500 (4500)$ GeV for

722: $m_{1/2} = 300 (800)$ GeV is due to the focus-point region~\footnote{We

723: should, in

724: addition, point out that different locations for the focus-point region

725: are found in different theoretical codes, pointing to further systematic

726: errors that are currently not quantifiable.}.  The $g_\mu -

727: 2$ constraint is not taken into account in the upper two figures of this

728: panel. Also shown in Fig. \ref{fig:WMAPFP} are the 68\%, 90\%, and 95\% CL

729: lines, corresponding to the iso-likelihood values of the fully integrated

730: likelihood function corresponding to the solid (red) curve. As one can

731: see, one of the effects of the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint (even at its

732: recently reduced significance) is a suppression of the likelihood function

733: in the focus-point region. 

734: 

735: \begin{figure}

736: \begin{center}

737: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFPg_300_p.eps,height=6cm}}

738: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFPg_800_p.eps,height=6cm}}

739: \end{center}   

740: \begin{center}

741: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFP_300_p.eps,height=6cm}}

742: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFP_800_p.eps,height=6cm}}

743: \end{center} 

744: \caption{\it

745: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP}, but for slices at fixed $m_{1/2}$ that 

746: include also the focus-point region at large $m_0$.

747: The red (solid) curves are calculated using the current errors in 

748: $m_t$ and $m_b$, the green dashed curve with no error in $m_t$,

749: the violet dotted lines with $\Delta m_t = 0.5$~GeV, and

750: the blue dashed-dotted lines with $\Delta m_t = 1$~GeV. 

751: In the upper two figures, the $g_\mu-2$ constraint has not been applied.

752: }

753: \label{fig:WMAPFP}

754: \end{figure}

755: 

756: The focus-point peak is suppressed relative to the coannihilation peak at

757: low $m_0$ because of the theoretical sensitivity to the experimental

758: uncertainty in the top mass.  We recall that the likelihood function is

759: proportional to $\sigma^{-1}$, and that $\sigma$ which scales with

760: $\partial (\Omega_\chi h^2 )/ \partial m_t$,  is very large at large

761: $m_0$~\cite{ftuning}. This sensitivity is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:oh2sig},

762: which plots both $\Omega_\chi h^2$ and $\partial (\Omega_\chi h^2 )/

763: \partial m_t$ for the cut corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}c. Notice

764: that, for the two values of $m_0$ with $\Omega_\chi h^2 \sim 0.1$,

765: corresponding to the coannihilation and focus-point regions, the error due

766: to the uncertainty in $m_t$ is far greater in the focus-point region than

767: in the coannihilation region.  Thus, even though the exponential in ${\cal

768: L}_{\Omega_\chi h^2}$ is of order unity near the focus-point region when

769: $\Omega_\chi h^2 \simeq 0.1$, the prefactor is very small due the large

770: uncertainty in the top mass. This accounts for the factor of $\ga 1000$ suppression

771: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP} when comparing the two peaks of the solid red 

772: curves.

773: 

774: 

775: \begin{figure}

776: \begin{center}

777: \mbox{\epsfig{file=omegasigma.eps,height=6cm}}

778: \end{center} 

779: \caption{\it

780: The value of $\Omega_\chi h^2$ (solid) and $\partial \Omega h^2/\partial m_t$ 

781: (dashed) as functions of $m_0$ for $\tan \beta = 10, A_0 = 0, \mu> 0$ and 

782: $m_{1/2} = 300$~GeV, corresponding to the slice shown in 

783: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:WMAPFP}c.  } 

784: \label{fig:oh2sig}

785: \end{figure}

786: 

787: We note also that there is another broad, low-lying peak at intermediate

788: values of $m_0$. This is due to a combination of the effects of $\sigma$

789: in the prefactor and the exponential.  We expect a bump to occur when the

790: Gaussian exponential is of order unity, i.e., $\Omega_\chi h^2 \sim

791: \sqrt{2}\Delta m_t \, \partial \Omega_\chi h^2/\partial m_t$.  From the solid

792: curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:oh2sig}, we see that $\Omega_\chi h^2 \sim 10$ at

793: large $m_0$ for our nominal value $m_t$ = 175 GeV, but it varies 

794: significantly as one samples the favoured range of $m_t$ within its 

795: present uncertainty.

796: The competition between the exponential and the prefactor

797: would require a large theoretical uncertainty in $\Omega_\chi h^2$: 

798: $\partial \Omega_\chi h^2/\partial m_t \sim 2$ for $\Delta m_t =

799: 5$ GeV.  From the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:oh2sig}, we see that this

800: occurs when $m_0 \sim 1000$ GeV, which is the position of the broad

801: secondary peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}a. At higher $m_0$, $\sigma$

802: continues to grow, and the prefactor suppresses the likelihood function

803: until $\Omega_\chi h^2$ drops to $\sim 0.1$ in the focus-point region.

804: 

805: 

806: As is clear from the above discussion, the impact of the present

807: experimental error in $m_t$ is particularly important in this region. This

808: point is further demonstrated by the differences between the curves in

809: each panel, where we decrease {\it ad hoc} the experimental uncertainty in

810: $m_t$.  As $\Delta m_t$ is decreased, the intermediate bump blends into

811: the broad focus-point peak.  

812: Once again, this can be understood from Fig.~\ref{fig:oh2sig}, where 

813: we see that as $\Delta m_t$  is decreased, we require a

814: large sensitivity to $m_t$ in order to get an increase in ${\cal L}$.

815: This happens at higher $m_0$, and thus explains the shift in the

816: intermediate bump to higher $m_0$ as $\Delta m_t$ decreases.

817: When the uncertainties in $m_t$ and $m_b$ are

818: set to 0, we obtain a narrow peak in the focus-point region. This is

819: suppressed relative to the coannihilation peak, due to the effect of the

820: $g_\mu - 2$ contribution to the likelihood.  

821: 

822: We can now understand better Tables~\ref{table:cl} and

823: \ref{table:cl2} for $\tan \beta = 10$. For the cases with $\Delta

824: m_t \neq 0$ in Table~\ref{table:cl} and $\Delta m_t = 5$~GeV in

825: Table~\ref{table:cl2}, the coannihilation peak is much higher than the

826: focus-point peak, so that the 68\% CL (or even the 80\% CL) does not

827: include the focus point. To reach the 90\% CL, we need to include some

828: part of the focus point, and this explains why the 68\% CL is much higher

829: than the 90\% CL. The $\Delta m_t = 1$~GeV case in Table~\ref{table:cl2}

830: is a peculiar one in which the integral over the coannihilation peak is

831: already around 68\% of the total integral and, because the focus point

832: peak is flat and broad, we do not need to change the level much to get the

833: 90\% CL. In the cases with $\Delta m_t = 0$, and also $\Delta m_t =

834: 0.5$~GeV in Table~\ref{table:cl2}, the focus-point peak is also relatively

835: high and already contributes at the 68\% CL. Therefore we do not see an

836: order of magnitude change between the 68\% CL and the 90\%~CL.

837: 

838: 

839: As one would expect, the effect of the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is more

840: pronounced when $\mu < 0$.  This is seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFPn} for the

841: cut with $m_{1/2} = 300$ GeV.  The most startling feature is the absence

842: of the coannihilation peak at low $m_0$ when the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is

843: applied.  In this case, the focus-point region survives, because the

844: sparticle masses there are large enough for the supersymmetric

845: contribution to $g_\mu - 2$ to be acceptably small. The broad plateau at

846: intermediate $m_0$ is suppressed in this case, and the likelihood does not

847: reach the 95\% CL when $\Delta m_t = 5$ GeV. Another effect of the Higgs

848: mass likelihood can be seen by comparing the coannihilation regions for

849: the two signs of $\mu$ when $m_{1/2} = 300$ GeV and the $g_\mu - 2$

850: constraint is not applied. Because the Higgs mass constraint is stronger

851: when $\mu < 0$~\footnote{For the same Higgs mass $m_h$, one needs to go to

852: a higher value of $m_{1/2}$ when $\mu < 0$. For the choices $\tan \beta =

853: 10$ and $m_{1/2} = 300$ GeV, we find using {\tt FeynHiggs} nominal values 

854: $m_h = 114.1$ GeV for

855: $\mu > 0 $ and $m_h = 112.8$ GeV when $\mu < 0$.}, the coannihilation peak

856: is suppressed when $\mu < 0$ relative to its height when $\mu > 0$.  We

857: note that part of the suppression here is due to the $b \to s \gamma$

858: constraint, which also favours positive $\mu$.

859: 

860: \begin{figure}

861: \begin{center}

862: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFP_300_n.eps,height=6cm}}

863: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutFPg_300_n.eps,height=6cm}}

864: \end{center} 

865: \caption{\it

866: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}, but for $\mu < 0$ and $m_{1/2} = 300$~GeV, 

867: including (excluding) the $g_\mu - 2$ contribution to the global 

868: likelihood in the left (right) panel.

869: }

870: \label{fig:WMAPFPn}

871: \end{figure}

872: 

873: We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP35} the likelihood function along cuts in the

874: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for $\tan \beta = 35, A_0 = 0, \mu < 0$ and 

875: $m_{1/2} = 1000$~GeV (left panels) and $1500$~GeV (right panels). The 

876: $g_\mu - 2$ contribution to the likelihood is included in the bottom panels, 

877: but not in the top panels. The line styles are the same as in 

878: Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}, and we note that the behaviours in the focus-point 

879: regions are qualitatively similar. However, at $m_0 \sim 1000$~GeV the 

880: likelihood function exhibits double-peak structures reflecting the 

881: locations of the coannihilation strip and the rapid-annihilation funnels, 

882: whose widths depend on the assumed error in $m_t$, as can be seen by 

883: comparing the different line styles.

884: 

885: \begin{figure}

886: \begin{center}

887: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutg35_1000n.eps,height=6cm}}

888: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutg35_1500n.eps,height=6cm}}

889: \end{center}   

890: \begin{center}

891: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cut35_1000n.eps,height=6cm}}

892: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cut35_1500n.eps,height=6cm}}

893: \end{center} 

894: \caption{\it

895: As in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:WMAPFP} for $\tan \beta = 35, A_0 = 0, \mu< 0$ 

896: and $m_{1/2} = 1000, 1500$~GeV in the left and right panels.

897: The $g_\mu-2$ constraint is included (excluded) in the

898: bottom (top)  panels. }

899: \label{fig:WMAP35}

900: \end{figure}

901: 

902: Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAP50} displays the likelihood function along cuts in the

903: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for $\tan \beta = 50, A_0 = 0, \mu > 0$ and

904: $m_{1/2} = 800$~GeV (left panels) or $1600$~GeV (right panels). The $g_\mu

905: - 2$ contribution to the likelihood is included in the bottom panels, but not

906: in the top panels. The line styles are the same as in

907: Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}, and we note that the coannihilation and focus-point

908: regions even link up somewhat below the 95\% CL in the case of $m_0 =

909: 800$~GeV, if the present error in $m_t$ is assumed, but only if the

910: $g_\mu - 2$ contribution to the likelihood is discarded. In this case, we can

911: not resolve the difference between the coannihilation and funnel peaks.

912: 

913: \begin{figure}

914: \begin{center}

915: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutg50_800p.eps,height=6cm}}

916: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cutg50_1600p.eps,height=6cm}}

917: \end{center}   

918: \begin{center}

919: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cut50_800p.eps,height=6cm}}

920: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cut50_1600p.eps,height=6cm}}

921: \end{center} 

922: \caption{\it

923: As in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:WMAPFP} for $\tan \beta = 50, A_0 = 0, \mu > 0$ 

924: and $m_{1/2} =  800, 1600$~GeV in the left and right panels.

925: The $g_\mu-2$ constraint is included (excluded) in the

926: bottom (top) panels. }

927: \label{fig:WMAP50}

928: \end{figure}

929: 

930: \section{Likelihood Contours in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ Planes}

931: \label{sec:contours}

932: 

933: Using the fully normalized likelihood function ${\cal L}_{tot}$ obtained

934: by combining both signs of $\mu$ for each value of $\tan \beta$, we now

935: determine the regions in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes which correspond to

936: specific CLs. For a given CL, $x$, an iso-likelihood contour is determined

937: such that the integrated volume of ${\cal L}_{tot}$ within that contour is

938: equal to $x$, when the total volume is normalized to unity. The values of

939: the likelihood corresponding to the displayed contours are tabulated in

940: Table \ref{table:cl} (with $g_{\mu} - 2$) and Table \ref{table:cl2} (without $g_{\mu} - 2$).

941: 

942: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours} extends the previous analysis to the entire

943: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $A_0 = 0$, including both

944: signs of $\mu$. The darkest (blue), intermediate (red) and lightest

945: (green) shaded regions are, respectively, those where the likelihood is

946: above 68\%, above 90\%, and  above 95\%. 

947: Overall, the likelihood for $\mu < 0$ is less than that for 

948: $\mu > 0$, even without including any information about $g_\mu - 2$ 

949: due to the Higgs and $b \to s \gamma$ constraints. 

950: Only the bulk and coannihilation-tail regions appear above the 68\% level, 

951: but the focus-point region appears above the 90\% level, and so cannot be 

952: excluded. 

953: 

954: The

955: highly non-Gaussian behaviour of the likelihood shown in

956: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours} can be understood when comparing this figure to

957: Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}(a,b). At fixed $m_{1/2}$ and for a given CL,

958: portions of the likelihood function above the horizontal lines in

959: \ref{fig:WMAPFP}(a,b) correspond to shaded regions in

960: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours}. The broad low-lying bump or plateau in the

961: likelihood function at intermediate values of $m_0$ is now reflected in

962: the extended features seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours}. The extent of this

963: plateau is somewhat diminished for $\mu < 0$.

964: 

965: 

966: 

967: 

968: \begin{figure}

969: \begin{center}

970: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10g_p.eps,height=8cm}}

971: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10g_n.eps,height=8cm}}

972: \end{center}   

973: \caption{\it

974: Contours of the likelihood at the 68\%, 90\% and 95\% levels for $\tan 

975: \beta = 10$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$ (left panel) or $\mu < 0$ (right 

976: panel), calculated 

977: using information of $m_h$, $b \to s \gamma$ and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ and 

978: the current uncertainties in $m_t$ and $m_b$, but without using any 

979: information about $g_\mu - 2$.

980: }

981: \label{fig:contours}   

982: \end{figure}

983: 

984: 

985: The bulk region is more apparent in the left panel of

986: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours} for $\mu > 0$ than it would be if the experimental

987: error in $m_t$ and the theoretical error in $m_h$ were neglected. 

988: Fig.~\ref{fig:contourswithoutmt} complements the previous figures by 

989: showing the likelihood functions as they would appear if there were no 

990: uncertainty in $m_t$, keeping the other inputs the same and using no 

991: information about $g_\mu - 2$. We see that, in this case, both the 

992: coannihilation and focus-point strips rise above the 68\% CL.

993: 

994: 

995: 

996: 

997: \begin{figure}

998: \begin{center}

999: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tan10g_dmt0_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1000: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tan10g_dmt0_n.eps,height=8cm}}

1001: \end{center}   

1002: \caption{\it

1003: As in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:contours} but assuming zero uncertainty in 

1004: $m_t$.

1005: }

1006: \label{fig:contourswithoutmt}   

1007: \end{figure}

1008: 

1009: 

1010: Fig.~\ref{fig:contourswithmu} is also for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $A_0 = 0$,

1011: including both signs of $\mu$. This time, we include also the $g_\mu - 2$

1012: likelihood, calculated on the basis of the $e^+ e^-$ annihilation estimate

1013: of the Standard Model contribution. This figure represents an extension of

1014: Fig.~\ref{fig:WMAPFP}(c,d). In this case, very low values of $m_{1/2}$ and 

1015: $m_0$ are disfavoured when

1016: $\mu > 0$. Furthermore, for $\mu < 0$ the likelihood is suppressed and

1017: no part of the coannihilation tail is above the 68\% CL. In addition,

1018: none of the focus point region lies above the 90\% CL for either positive

1019: or negative $\mu$.  However, neither

1020: of these can be excluded completely, since there are $\mu < 0$ zones

1021: within the 90\% likelihood contour, and focus-point zones within the 95\%

1022: likelihood contour.

1023: 

1024: \begin{figure}

1025: \begin{center}

1026: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1027: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10_n.eps,height=8cm}}

1028: \end{center}   

1029: \caption{\it

1030: Likelihood contours as in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours}, but also including the 

1031: information obtained by 

1032: comparing the experimental measurement of $g_\mu - 2$ with the Standard 

1033: Model estimate based on $e^+ e^-$ data.} 

1034: \label{fig:contourswithmu}   

1035: \end{figure}

1036: 

1037: 

1038: 

1039: It is important to note that the results presented thus far are somewhat

1040: dependent on the range chosen for $m_{1/2}$, which has so far been

1041: restricted for $\tan \beta = 10$ to $\leq 1$ TeV. In

1042: Fig.~\ref{fig:highm12}, we show the the $\tan \beta = 10$ plane for $\mu >

1043: 0$ and $\mu < 0$ allowing $m_{1/2}$ up to 2 TeV, including the $g_\mu - 2$

1044: constraint. Comparing this figure with Fig.~\ref{fig:contourswithmu}, we

1045: see that a considerable portion of the focus-point region is now above the

1046: 90\% CL due to the enhanced volume contribution at large $m_{1/2}$.

1047: 

1048: \begin{figure}

1049: \begin{center}

1050: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10e_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1051: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx10e_n.eps,height=8cm}}

1052: \end{center}   

1053: \caption{\it

1054: Likelihood contours as in Fig.~\ref{fig:contourswithmu}, but extending the

1055: range for $m_{1/2}$ up to 2~TeV.} 

1056: \label{fig:highm12}   

1057: \end{figure}

1058: 

1059: 

1060: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours35} is for $\tan \beta = 35$, $A_0 = 0$  for both $\mu > 0 $ and 

1061: $\mu < 0$. 

1062: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours35withmu} includes the $g_\mu - 2$ likelihood, calculated on the

1063: basis of the $e^+ e^-$ annihilation estimate of the Standard Model

1064: contribution, which is not included in the previous figure.  In this case,

1065: regions at small $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ are disfavoured by the $b \to s

1066: \gamma$ constraint, as seen in both figures with $\mu < 0$. At larger $m_{1/2}$, the

1067: coannihilation region is broadened by a merger with the rapid-annihilation

1068: funnel that appears for large $\tan \beta$. The optional $g_\mu - 2$

1069: constraint would prefer $\mu > 0$, and in the $\mu < 0$ half-plane it

1070: favours larger $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, as seen when the left and right 

1071: panels are compared.

1072: 

1073: \begin{figure}

1074: \begin{center}

1075: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx35g_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1076: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx35g_n.eps,height=8cm}}

1077: \end{center}   

1078: \caption{\it

1079: Likelihood contours as in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours}, but for $\tan 

1080: \beta = 35$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu> 0$ ($\mu < 0$) in the left (right)

1081: panel, calculated 

1082: using information of $m_h$, $b \to s \gamma$ and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ and 

1083: the current uncertainties in $m_t$ and $m_b$, without 

1084: the indicative information from $g_\mu - 2$.

1085: }

1086: \label{fig:contours35}   

1087: \end{figure}

1088: 

1089: \begin{figure}

1090: \begin{center}

1091: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx35_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1092: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx35_n.eps,height=8cm}}

1093: \end{center}   

1094: \caption{\it

1095: Likelihood contours as in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours35}, including

1096: the indicative information from $g_\mu - 2$.

1097: }

1098: \label{fig:contours35withmu}   

1099: \end{figure}

1100: 

1101: 

1102: Fig.~\ref{fig:contours50} is for $\tan \beta = 50$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu >

1103: 0$. Again, the right panel includes the $g_\mu - 2$ likelihood, calculated

1104: on the basis of the $e^+ e^-$ annihilation estimate of the Standard Model

1105: contribution, which is not included in the left panel.  In this case, the

1106: disfavouring of regions at small $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ by the $b \to s

1107: \gamma$ constraint is less severe than in the case of $\tan \beta = 35$

1108: and $\mu < 0$, but is still visible in both panels.  The coannihilation

1109: region is again broadened by a merger with the rapid-annihilation funnel.

1110: In the absence of the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint, both the coannihilation and

1111: the focus-point regions feature strips allowed at the 68\% CL, and these

1112: are linked by a bridge at the 95\% CL. However, when the optional $g_\mu -

1113: 2$ constraint is applied, this bridge disappears, the 90\% and 95\% CL

1114: strips in the focus-point region becomes much thinner, and the 68\% strip

1115: disappears in this region.

1116: 

1117: \begin{figure}

1118: \begin{center}

1119: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx50g_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1120: \mbox{\epsfig{file=tanx50_p.eps,height=8cm}}

1121: \end{center}   

1122: \caption{\it

1123: Likelihood contours as in Fig.~\ref{fig:contours35}, but for $\tan 

1124: \beta = 50$, $A_0 = 0$ and $\mu > 0$, without (left panel) 

1125: and with (right panel) the indicative information from $g_\mu - 2$.

1126: }

1127: \label{fig:contours50}   

1128: \end{figure}

1129: 

1130: \section{Summary}

1131: \label{sec:summary}

1132: 

1133: We have presented in this paper a new global likelihood analysis of the

1134: CMSSM, incorporating the likelihoods contributed by $m_h$, $b \to s

1135: \gamma$, $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ and (optionally) $g_\mu - 2$. We have

1136: discussed extensively the impacts of the current experimental

1137: uncertainties in $m_t$ and $m_b$, which affect each of $m_h$, $b \to s

1138: \gamma$ and $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$. In particular, the widths of the

1139: coannihilation and focus-point strips are sensitive to the uncertainties

1140: in $m_t$ and $m_b$, and a low-lying plateau in the likelihood is found

1141: with the present uncertainty $\Delta m_t = 5$~GeV.

1142: 

1143: We recall that the absolute values of the likelihood integrals are not in

1144: themselves meaningful, but their relative values do carry some

1145: information.  Generally speaking, the global likelihood function reaches

1146: higher values in the coannihilation region than in the focus-point region,

1147: as can be seen by comparing the entries with and without parentheses in

1148: Table~\ref{table:like}. This tendency would have been reversed if the

1149: uncertainty in $m_t$ had been neglected, as seen in

1150: Table~\ref{table:like_dmt0}, but the preference for the coannihilation

1151: region is in any case not conclusive.

1152: 

1153: Table~\ref{table:like} also displays the integrated likelihood function

1154: for different values of $\tan \beta$ and the sign of $\mu$, exhibiting a

1155: weak general preference for $\mu > 0$ if the $g_\mu - 2$ information is

1156: used. If this information is not used, $\mu < 0$ is preferred for $\tan

1157: \beta = 35$, but $\mu > 0$ is still preferred for $\tan \beta = 10$. There

1158: is no significant preference for any value between $\tan \beta = 10$ and

1159: the upper limits $\gappeq 35$ and $\gappeq 50$ where electroweak symmetry

1160: breaking ceases to be possible in the CMSSM, though we do find a weak

1161: preference for $\tan \beta = 50$ and $\mu > 0$.

1162: 

1163: \begin{table}

1164: \begin{center}

1165: \caption{\it Integrals of the global likelihood function 

1166: integrated over  the $(m_{1/2},m_0)$ planes for various

1167: values of $\tan\beta$, in the coannihilation and funnel (focus-point) 

1168: region.

1169: We use the range $m_{1/2} \leq 2\, TeV$, except for the second row of 

1170: $\tan\beta =10$ 

1171: case, where the range $m_{1/2} \leq 1\, TeV$ is used.}

1172: \vspace*{3mm}

1173: \label{table:like}

1174: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|}

1175: \hline\hline

1176: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{incl. $g_\mu-2$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{without $g_\mu-2$}  \\ \cline{2-5}

1177: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\tan\beta$}  & $\mu>0$ & $\mu<0$ & $\mu>0$ & $\mu<0$  \\ \hline

1178: 10   &  41.7 (5.9)   & 2.1 (4.8)    &  2329 (1052)   & 1147 (984)      \\ 

1179:      &  41.7 (2.9)   & 2.1 (1.7)    &  2329 (476)    & 1147 (387)      \\ \hline

1180: 35   &  33.9 (11.6)  & 25.9 (5.5)   &  1428 (1596)   &  8690 (1270)    \\ \hline

1181: 50   &  231.9 (6.84) &              &  13096 (1117)  &                 \\ \hline

1182: \hline

1183: \end{tabular}

1184: \end{center}

1185: \end{table}

1186: 

1187: 

1188: 

1189: \begin{table}

1190: \begin{center}

1191: \caption{\it As in Table~\ref{table:like}, but assuming zero uncertainty in $m_t$.}

1192: \vspace*{3mm}

1193: \label{table:like_dmt0}

1194: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|}

1195: \hline\hline

1196: & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{incl. $g_\mu-2$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{without $g_\mu-2$}  \\ \cline{2-5}

1197: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\tan\beta$}  & $\mu>0$ & $\mu<0$ & $\mu>0$ & $\mu<0$  \\ \hline

1198: 10   &   44.9 (69.1)  &    2.6 (67.7)    &  2425 (12916)  &  1485 (13442)    \\ 

1199:      &   44.9 (21.4)  &    2.6 (20.2)    &  2425 (3922) &  1485 (4144)  \\ \hline

1200: 35   &   33.5 (90.9)  &   26.4 (58.3)    &  1451 (15377) &  8837 (12589) \\ \hline

1201: 50   &   195.0 (60.4) &                  &  13877 (10188)&              \\ \hline

1202: \hline

1203: \end{tabular}

1204: \end{center}

1205: \end{table}

1206: 

1207: 

1208: 

1209: 

1210: In the foreseeable future, the analysis in this paper could be refined

1211: with the aid of improved measurements of $m_t$ at the Fermilab Tevatron

1212: collider, by refined estimates of $m_b$, by better determinations of

1213: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ and more experimental and theoretical insight into

1214: $g_\mu - 2$, in particular. One could also consider supplementing our

1215: phenomenological analysis with arguments based on naturalness or

1216: fine-tuning, which would tend to disfavour larger values of $m_{1/2}$ and

1217: $m_0$.  However, in the absence of such theoretical arguments, our

1218: analysis shows that long strips in the coannihilation and focus-point

1219: regions cannot be excluded on the basis of present data. The preparations

1220: for searches for supersymmetry at future colliders should therefore not be

1221: restricted to low values of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$.

1222: 

1223: \vskip 0.5in

1224: \vbox{

1225: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

1226: \noindent 

1227: We thank Martin Gr\"unewald and Peter Igo-Kemenes for help with the Higgs 

1228: likelihood, and Geri Ganis for help with the $b \to s \gamma$ 

1229: likelihood. The work of K.A.O., Y.S., and V.C.S. was supported in part

1230: by DOE grant DE--FG02--94ER--40823.}

1231: 

1232: 

1233: 

1234: 

1235: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1236: 

1237: \bibitem{LEPHWG}

1238: LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collaboration,

1239: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

1240: Collaboration,

1241: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].

1242: {\it Searches for the neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM: Preliminary

1243: combined results using LEP data collected at energies up to 209 GeV},

1244: LHWG-NOTE-2001-04, ALEPH-2001-057, DELPHI-2001-114, L3-NOTE-2700,

1245: OPAL-TN-699, arXiv:hep-ex/0107030; LHWG Note/2002-01,\\

1246: {\tt 

1247: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/July2002{\_}SM/index.html}.

1248: 

1249: \bibitem{bsgex}

1250: S.~Chen {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1251: %``Branching fraction and photon energy spectrum for b $\to$ s gamma,''

1252: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 251807

1253: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108032];

1254: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108032;%%

1255: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0135.

1256: See also

1257: K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1258: %``A measurement of the branching fraction for 

1259: %the inclusive B $\to$ X/s  gamma decays with Belle,''

1260: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 151 [arXiv:hep-ex/0103042];

1261: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103042;%%

1262: B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BaBar Collaboration],

1263: %``Determination of the branching fraction for inclusive decays B $\to$ X/s gamma,''

1264: arXiv:hep-ex/0207076.

1265: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207076;%%

1266: 

1267: \bibitem{BNL}

1268: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1269: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 101804

1270: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 89} (2002) 129903]

1271: [arXiv:hep-ex/0208001].

1272: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208001;%%

1273: 

1274: \bibitem{newDavier}

1275: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,

1276: %``Updated estimate of the muon magnetic 

1277: %moment using revised results from e+ e- annihilation,''

1278: arXiv:hep-ph/0308213.

1279: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308213;%%

1280: 

1281: \bibitem{ganis}

1282: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1283: %``The CMSSM parameter space at large tan(beta),''

1284: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 236

1285: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098].

1286: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1287: 

1288: 

1289: 

1290: \bibitem{LS}

1291: A.~B.~Lahanas and V.~C.~Spanos,

1292: %``Implications of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson

1293: %in determining the  neutralino dark matter,''

1294: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 185

1295: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106345].

1296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106345;%%

1297: 

1298: \bibitem{eos2}

1299: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

1300: %``Constraining supersymmetry,''

1301: New J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (2002) 32

1302: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202110].

1303: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202110;%%

1304: 

1305: 

1306: 

1307: \bibitem{cmssm} Some additional recent papers include:

1308: V.~D.~Barger and C.~Kao,

1309: %``Implications of new CMB data for neutralino dark matter,''

1310: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 117

1311: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189];

1312: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106189;%%

1313: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,

1314: %``New cosmological and experimental constraints on the CMSSM,''

1315: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 024

1316: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334];

1317: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%

1318: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

1319: %``Constraints on the minimal supergravity model and prospects for SUSY  particle production at future linear e+ e- colliders,''

1320: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 055

1321: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107316];

1322: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%

1323: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1324: %``Supersymmetric dark matter and Yukawa unification,''

1325: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 035003

1326: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201001];

1327: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201001;%%

1328: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, J.~K.~Mizukoshi, X.~Tata and Y.~Wang,

1329: %``Updated constraints on the minimal supergravity model,''

1330: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 050

1331: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205325];

1332: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205325;%%

1333: R.~Arnowitt and B.~Dutta,

1334: arXiv:hep-ph/0211417;

1335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211417;%%

1336: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1337: %``High-energy constraints on the direct detection of MSSM neutralinos,''

1338: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573} (2003) 163

1339: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308075].

1340: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308075;%%

1341: 

1342: 

1343: 

1344: 

1345: 

1346: \bibitem{wmap}

1347: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

1348: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

1349: %Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

1350: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 1

1351: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207].

1352: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

1353: 

1354: 

1355: 

1356: \bibitem{reion}

1357: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1358: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1359: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1360: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 175

1361: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

1362: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

1363: 

1364: 

1365: \bibitem{EOSS}

1366: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1367: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in light of WMAP,''

1368: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 176

1369: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303043].

1370: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303043;%%

1371: 

1372: 

1373: \bibitem{LN}

1374: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1375: %``WMAPing out supersymmetric dark matter and phenomenology,''

1376: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 568} (2003) 55

1377: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303130].

1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303130;%%

1379: 

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{Baer}

1382: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs,

1383: %``Chi**2 analysis of the minimal supergravity model including WMAP, 

1384: % g(mu)-2 and b $\to$ s gamma constraints,''

1385: JCAP {\bf 0305} (2003) 006

1386: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303114].

1387: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303114;%%

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: \bibitem{Nath}

1392: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1393: %``WMAP constraints, SUSY dark matter and implications 

1394: %for the direct  detection of SUSY,''

1395: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 035005

1396: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303201].

1397: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303201;%%

1398: 

1399: 

1400: \bibitem{Arnowitt}

1401: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and B.~Hu,

1402: %``Dark matter, muon g-2 and other SUSY constraints,''

1403: arXiv:hep-ph/0310103.

1404: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310103;%%

1405: 

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{DeBoer}

1408: W.~de Boer, M.~Huber, C.~Sander and D.~I.~Kazakov,

1409: %``A gobal fit to the anomalous magnetic moment, b $\to$ X/s 

1410: %gamma and  Higgs limits in the constrained MSSM,''

1411: arXiv:hep-ph/0106311.

1412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106311;%%

1413: 

1414: \bibitem{benchmark}
M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, 

1415: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 535
[arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].
%%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%

1416: 

1417: 

1418: 

1419: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

1420: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1421: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 124} (2000) 76

1422: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];

1423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

1424: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1425: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 343

1426: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].

1427: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

1428: 

1429: 

1430: \bibitem{martin}

1431: S.~P.~Martin,

1432: %``Complete two-loop effective potential 

1433: %approximation to the lightest  Higgs scalar boson mass in supersymmetry,''

1434: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 095012

1435: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211366] and talk at SUSY03, Tucson, Arizona (2003).

1436: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211366;%%

1437: 

1438: 

1439: \bibitem{gam}

1440: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

1441: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337],

1442: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1443: as implemented by P. Gambino and G. Ganis.

1444: 

1445: \bibitem{bsgth}

1446: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1447: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

1448: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003]; 

1449: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1450: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,

1451: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''

1452: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007

1453: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];

1454: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%

1455: T.~Hurth,

1456: %``Inclusive rare B decays,''

1457: arXiv:hep-ph/0106050.

1458: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106050;%%

1459: 

1460: 

1461: 

1462: \bibitem{ftuning}

1463: J.~R.~Ellis and K.~A.~Olive,

1464: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 114

1465: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105004].

1466: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105004;%%

1467: 

1468: 

1469: \bibitem{focus}

1470: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1471: %``Multi-TeV scalars are natural in minimal supergravity,''

1472: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 2322

1473: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908309];

1474: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%

1475: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1476: %``Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,''

1477: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 075005

1478: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334];

1479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%

1480: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

1481: %``Neutralino dark matter in focus point supersymmetry,''

1482: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482} (2000) 388

1483: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004043].

1484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004043;%%

1485: 

1486: \bibitem{hbrsb}

1487: K.~L.~Chan, U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,

1488: %``Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the  

1489: %observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the LHC,''

1490: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 096004

1491: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710473].

1492: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710473;%%

1493: 

1494: \bibitem{rs}

1495: A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,

1496: %``Are heavy scalars natural in minimal supergravity?,''

1497: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487} (2000) 165

1498: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912301].

1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912301;%%

1500: 

1501: 

1502: 

1503: 

1504: \bibitem{LNM}

1505: A.~B.~Lahanas, N.~E.~Mavromatos and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1506: %``WMAPing the universe: Supersymmetry, dark matter, 

1507: %dark energy, proton decay and collider physics,''

1508: arXiv:hep-ph/0308251.

1509: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308251;%%

1510: 

1511: 

1512: \bibitem{coann}

1513: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive,

1514: %``Neutralino stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the  mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle,''

1515: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 444} (1998) 367

1516: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360];

1517: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810360;%%

1518: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1519: %``Calculations of neutralino stau coannihilation channels and the cosmologically relevant region of MSSM parameter space,''

1520: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 13} (2000) 181

1521: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 15} (2001) 413]

1522: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481].

1523: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905481;%%

1524: 

1525: 

1526: \end{thebibliography}

1527: 

1528: 

1529: 

1530: 

1531: 

1532: \end{document}

1533: 

1534: 

1535: 

1536: