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

2: %

3: %  Very Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Models

4: %

5: %  April 2K+4

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/0405110}

190: \rightline{CERN--TH/2004-069, UMN--TH--2307/04, FTPI--MINN--04/18}

191: \vskip 0.2in

192: \begin{center}

193: {\large {\bf Very Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Models}}

194: \end{center}

195: \begin{center}

196: \vskip 0.2in

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

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

199: \vskip 0.1in

200: {\it

201: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

202: $^2${William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\

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

204: \vskip 0.2in

205: {\bf Abstract}

206: \end{center}

207: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

209: 

210: We consider very constrained versions of the minimal supersymmetric

211: extension of the Standard Model (VCMSSMs) which, in addition to

212: constraining the scalar masses $m_0$ and gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ to be

213: universal at some input scale, impose relations between the trilinear and

214: bilinear soft supersymmetry breaking parameters $A_0$ and $B_0$. These

215: relations may be linear, as in simple minimal supergravity models, or

216: nonlinear, as in the Giudice-Masiero mechanism for generating the

217: Higgs-mixing $\mu$ term. We discuss the application of the electroweak

218: vacuum conditions in VCMSSMs, which may be used to make a prediction for

219: $\tan \beta$ as a function of $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ that is usually unique.

220: We baseline the discussion of the parameter spaces allowed in VCMSSMs by

221: updating the parameter space allowed in the CMSSM for fixed values of

222: $\tan \beta$ with no relation between $A_0$ and $B_0$ assumed {\it a

223: priori}, displaying contours of $B_0$ for a fixed input value of $A_0$,

224: incorporating the latest CDF/D0 measurement of $m_t$ and the latest BNL

225: measurement of $g_\mu - 2$. We emphasize that phenomenological studies of

226: the CMSSM are frequently not applicable to specific VCMSSMs, notably those

227: based on minimal supergravity, which require $m_0 = m_{3/2}$ as well as

228: $A_0 = B_0 + m_0$. We then display $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for selected

229: VCMSSMs, treating in a unified way the parameter regions where either a

230: neutralino or the gravitino is the LSP. In particular, we examine in

231: detail the allowed parameter space for the Giudice-Masiero model.

232: 

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

234: \vfill

235: \leftline{CERN--TH/2004-069}

236: \leftline{May 2004}

237: \end{titlepage}

238: \baselineskip=18pt

239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

240: 

241: \section{Introduction}

242: 

243: Supersymmetry is one of the most appealing extensions of the Standard

244: Model (SM), for many reasons including the hierarchy problem, its

245: necessity in string theory, unification of the SM gauge couplings, the

246: suggestion of a light Higgs boson, the possibility that the astrophysical

247: cold dark matter might be provided by the lightest supersymmetric particle

248: (LSP) and (just possibly)  the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,

249: $g_\mu - 2$. However, supersymmetry is a general framework that

250: accommodates many new degrees of freedom. The simplest possible

251: realization of supersymmetry is the minimal supersymmetric extension of

252: the SM (MSSM). Four types of supersymmetry-breaking parameters appear in

253: the MSSM: scalar masses $m_0$, gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$, trilinear

254: couplings $A$ and a bilinear coupling $B$ in the Higgs sector. In the MSSM

255: alone, the number of free parameters associated with soft supersymmetry

256: breaking exceeds 100, unless one assumes some degree of universality for

257: the sparticles with different quantum numbers and flavours. In

258: phenomenological studies of supersymmetry, the values of $m_0$ for the

259: different sflavours are often constrained to be universal at some input

260: GUT scale, as are the values of $m_{1/2}$ for the different SM gauge group

261: factors, and the $A$ parameters corresponding to different SM Yukawa

262: couplings, a framework often called the CMSSM.

263: 

264: One may go even further, and assume some relation(s) between the

265: parameters $m_0, m_{1/2}$, $A$, $B$ and the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$. In 

266: particular, many very constrained

267: versions of the MSSM (VCMSSMs) derive or postulate relations between the

268: $A$ and $B$ parameters, which we parametrize as $A \equiv {\hat A} m_0, B

269: \equiv {\hat B} m_0$. These relations may be linear: for example, generic

270: minimal supergravity models predict that ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 

271: 1$~\cite{BIM,mark} as well as $m_0 = m_{3/2}$, and

272: the simplest Polonyi model \cite{pol} of supersymmetry breaking further 

273: predicts that

274: $\vert {\hat A} \vert = 3 - \sqrt{3}$~\cite{bfs}. On the other hand, a 

275: prominent example of a nonlinear relation is 

276: \beq

277: \hat{B} = \frac{2 \hat{A} - 3}{\hat{A} - 3},

278: \label{GMrelation}

279: \eeq

280: which appears in the Giudice-Masiero mechanism~\cite{gm} for generating 

281: the $\mu$ term.

282: 

283: In the CMSSM, one may regard $m_0, m_{1/2}$ and $A$ as independent

284: parameters, and use the two electroweak vacuum conditions resulting from

285: the specification of $m_Z$ and the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation

286: values, $\tan \beta$, to fix $|\mu|$ and the pseudoscalar Higgs mass

287: $m_A$, which is equivalent to fixing ${\hat B}$. As we show in this paper

288: with some explicit examples, the value of ${\hat B}$ that results for any

289: given choice of $m_0, m_{1/2}$ and ${\hat A}$ may not correspond to any

290: plausible theoretical model. Conversely, in a VCMSSM where ${\hat B}$ is 

291: fixed in terms of ${\hat A}$, one can use the electroweak vacuum

292: conditions to predict $\tan \beta$ as a function of $m_0, m_{1/2}$ and

293: ${\hat A}$. In a previous paper~\cite{AB1}, we demonstrated this type of 

294: prediction

295: for a few specific VCMSSMs with linear relations between ${\hat A}$ and

296: ${\hat B}$, including minimal supergravity, with the simplest Polonyi

297: model as a special case.

298: 

299: In this paper, we extend the previous discussion to include the 

300: Giudice-Masiero model. In this case, in addition to the relation

301: (\ref{GMrelation}) between $\hat B$ and $\hat A$, 

302: the value of $\mu$ is in principle 

303: also predicted as

304: \beq

305: \left| \frac{\mu}{m_0} \right| = \left| \lambda \frac{\hat{A} - 

306: 3}{\sqrt{3}}  

307: \right|

308: \label{GMlambda}

309: \eeq

310: where $\lambda/M_{Pl}$ is the coupling between a hidden sector superfield and

311: the two Higgs superfields. The value of $\lambda$ is presumably not completely

312: arbitrary: for example, one should probably require $|\lambda| \lappeq

313: O(1)$. This bound on $|\lambda|$ in turn imposes a range on the ratio $\mu

314: / m_0$ for a given $\hat A$.  Since the value of $|\mu|$ is an output quantity

315: in our approach

316: to VCMSSMs, one must check that $|\lambda|$ is not very large,

317: which could in principle restrict the ranges of the input parameters.

318: 

319: The first step in this paper is to discuss the application of the

320: electroweak vacuum conditions. In principle, more than one value of $\tan

321: \beta$ might be consistent with a given VCMSSM for some specific choice of

322: $(m_0, m_{1/2})$ \cite{dn1}. In practice, over large regions of the $(m_0,

323: m_{1/2})$ we find only one solution for $\tan \beta$, as we explain in

324: some detail.  We also discuss the renormalization of the input relation

325: between $A$ and $B$ in a generic VCMSSM, including the relation between

326: the input and electroweak-scale values of $B$ and the one-loop threshold

327: corrections at the electroweak scale.

328: 

329: The second step is to update previous analyses of the CMSSM, including

330: some updates in calculations of the supersymmetric particle spectrum, as well

331: as the latest information on $m_t$, $g_\mu - 2$, $b \to s \gamma$ and $B_s

332: \to \mu^+ \mu^-$. We demonstrate that the values of ${\hat B}$ required

333: in the CMSSM for generic values of $\tan \beta$ and ${\hat A}$ do not fit

334: within favoured VCMSSM frameworks, such as those based on minimal 

335: supergravity or the Giudice-Masiero model.

336: 

337: We then discuss the $(m_0, m_{1/2})$ planes for some specific VCMSSMs, 

338: taking into account the fact that

339: minimal supergravity models predict that $m_0 = m_{3/2}$ before 

340: renormalization, which is not necessarily the case 

341: in a

342: generic CMSSM. This relation enables one to delineate the regions where

343: the LSP is the lightest neutralino $\chi$, the lighter ${\tilde \tau}$ or

344: the gravitino ${\tilde G}$. We present unified descriptions of the $\chi$

345: and ${\tilde G}$ LSP regions for some specific VCMSSMs, incorporating the

346: constraints on decays of the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle

347: (NSP) into a gravitino LSP that are imposed by concordance between the

348: Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and cosmological microwave background (CMB)

349: determinations of the baryon-to-entropy ratio~\cite{GDM,feng,CEFO,had}. 

350: Finally, we discuss the

351: Giudice-Masiero model in more detail, finding that the implied values of

352: $|\lambda|$ in allowed regions of parameter space are generally $\gappeq

353: O(1)$, particularly in the gravitino LSP region.

354: 

355: \section{Summary of Models of Supersymmetry Breaking}

356: 

357: As discussed in~\cite{AB1}, we assume an $N = 1$ supergravity framework,

358: interpreted as a low-energy effective field theory. In minimal

359: supergravity models, the K{\"a}hler function $K$ that describes the

360: kinetic terms for the chiral supermultiplets $\Phi \equiv (\zeta, \phi)$,

361: where the $\zeta$ represent hidden-sector fields and the $\phi^i$

362: observable-sector fields, has the form $K = \Sigma_i |\Phi^i|^2$. We 

363: denote derivatives of $K$ with respect to the chiral superfields by $K_i 

364: \equiv \partial K / \partial \phi^i$, etc. In the minimal supergravity

365: case, we have $K^i = {\phi^i}^* + {W^i}/W$, $K_i = \phi_i + W_i^*/W^*$,

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

367: (in units where the Planck mass is unity)

368: \beq

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

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

371: \label{msgpot}

372: \eeq

373: It is then apparent that the soft supersymmetry-breaking

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

375: \beq

376: m_0^2 \; = \; m_{3/2}^2,

377: \label{msugra}

378: \eeq

379: where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass and we assume that the tree-level

380: cosmological constant vanishes. If we further assume that the

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

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

383: fields $\zeta$, respectively, then the soft supersymmetry-breaking

384: trilinear terms $A_0$ and bilinear terms $B_0$ are also universal, and are

385: related by~\cite{BIM}

386: \beq

387: B_0 \; = \; A_0 - m_{3/2},

388: \label{BA}

389: \eeq

390: so that

391: \beq

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

393: \label{BAhat}

394: \eeq

395: which is one of the principal options we studied in~\cite{AB1} and 

396: discuss further below.

397: 

398: The simplest model for local supersymmetry breaking in minimal

399: supergravity~\cite{pol} has just one additional chiral multiplet $\zeta$

400: in addition to the observable matter fields $\phi_i$, with a

401: superpotential that is separable in this so-called Polonyi field and the

402: observable fields $\phi_i$: $W = f(\phi) + g(\zeta)$. It takes the simple 

403: form

404: \beq

405: g(\zeta) \; = \; \nu(\zeta + \beta),

406: \label{polonyi}

407: \eeq

408: where we impose $\vert \beta \vert = 2 - \sqrt{3}$ to ensure that the

409: cosmological constant vanishes. Assuming $\beta$ to be positive, and using

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

411: soft trilinear supersymmetry-breaking terms

412: \beq

413: \hat{A} \; = \; (3 - \sqrt{3}) m_{3/2},

414: \label{PolonyiA}

415: \eeq

416: and universal bilinear soft supersymmetry-breaking terms

417: \beq

418: \hat{B} \; = \; (2 - \sqrt{3}) m_{3/2},

419: \label{PolonyiB}

420: \eeq

421: whose consequences we explored in~\cite{AB1} and discuss further below.

422: 

423: In the simplest version of the Giudice-Masiero (GM) mechanism \cite{gm}, in addition to 

424: minimal supergravity kinetic terms in the observable and hidden 

425: sectors, and a separable superpotential $W = f + g$, one postulates a 

426: coupling

427: \beq

428: K(\phi, \zeta) \; \ni \; \lambda \zeta^\dagger H_1 H_2,

429: \label{GMcoupling}

430: \eeq

431: where $H_{1,2}$ are the two Higgs supermultiplets in the MSSM. Assuming 

432: that the cosmological constant vanishes, the term (\ref{GMcoupling}) 

433: generates a Higgs mixing term (\ref{GMlambda}).

434: This mechanism also yields the 

435: nonlinear relation between $\hat{B}$ and $\hat{A}$ given in (\ref{GMrelation}),

436: whose consequences we explore below.

437: 

438: As already remarked, minimal supergravity models predict a relation

439: (\ref{msugra}) between $m_0$ and the gravitino mass, which is not

440: necessarily true in the generic CMSSM. This relation enables us to

441: delineate the regions of VCMSSM parameter space where the LSP is a

442: neutralino, the lighter ${\tilde \tau}$ or the gravitino. The

443: astrophysical and cosmological constraints on gravitino dark matter have

444: been recently re-examined~\cite{GDM,feng}, taking also into account the

445: constraints on decays of the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle

446: (NSP) arising from comparing the BBN and CMB constraints on the

447: baryon-to-entropy ratio~\cite{CEFO,had}. In our later discussions of

448: VCMSSMs, we give unified treatments of the parts of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$

449: planes where the LSP is a neutralino, the lighter ${\tilde \tau}$ and the

450: gravitino.

451: 

452: \section{The Electroweak Vacuum in VCMSSMs}

453: 

454: In the general CMSSM, we start with the following set of input parameters

455: defined at the GUT scale: $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, $A_0$, $B_0$ and the Higgs

456: mixing parameter $\mu_0$.  At tree level, the electroweak vacuum is

457: specified by the following two conditions:

458: \ba

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

460: (\tan^2 \beta -1)} , \\ 

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

462: \label{treerel}

463: \ea

464: and the pseudoscalar neutral Higgs mass $m_A$ is determined by

465: \beq

466: m_A^2 \; = \; m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2,

467: \label{mA}

468: \eeq

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

470: two Higgs doublets at the electroweak scale. These as well as $\mu$ and 

471: $B$ are assumed to be evaluated by renormalization-group equation (RGE) 

472: running from the input values. One 

473: may, alternatively, solve for $\mu$ and $B$ in terms of $m_Z$ and $\tan \beta$:

474: \ba

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

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

477: \nonumber \\

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

479: \label{onelooprel}

480: \ea

481: where we have now included the loop corrections $\Delta_B$ and

482: $\Delta_\mu^{(1,2)}$ required to relate the RGE values to the 

483: corresponding

484: quantities evaluated at

485: $m_Z$~\cite{Barger:1993gh,deBoer:1994he,Carena:2001fw}, and here $m_{1,2}

486: \equiv m_{1,2}(m_Z)$~\footnote{As observed in~\cite{AB1},

487: comparisons~\cite{bench} with {\tt ISASUGRA}~\cite{isa} show that our

488: procedure of minimizing the Higgs potential at the weak scale gives very

489: similar spectra, also at large $\tan \beta$ and in the focus-point

490: region.}. In most treatments of the CMSSM, $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, $A_0$ and

491: $\tan \beta$ are taken as inputs, and the conditions (\ref{onelooprel})

492: are used to determine $\mu$, $B$ and the CP-odd Higgs mass $m_A$.

493: 

494: As discussed in~\cite{AB1}, in a VCMSSM where $B$ is determined in advance

495: in terms of $A$, it is convenient to use the electroweak vacuum conditions

496: (\ref{onelooprel}) to determine $\tan \beta$ as a function of $m_0$ and

497: $m_{1/2}$ for some input value of $A$. However, since $\Delta_\mu$ depends

498: on $\tan \beta$, and $\Delta_B$ depends on both $\mu$ and $\tan \beta$ in 

499: a

500: nonlinear way, it is not possible to write down an analytical solution for

501: $\tan \beta$. Moreover, it was shown in~\cite{dn1} using an RGE-improved

502: tree-level calculation for $\tan \beta$ in the minimal supergravity model

503: that there may be up to three possible solutions for $\tan \beta$ for any

504: given choices of $m_{1/2}, m_0$, and $A_0$. We remarked

505: previously~\cite{AB1} that we typically find just one solution with a

506: moderately low value of $\tan \beta$, that multiple solutions exist only

507: for $m_t < 153$ GeV, and that $B$ always increases monotonically with

508: $\tan \beta$ over the range $5 < \tan \beta < 55$ in our calculations.

509: Thus, a given value of $m_{1/2}$, $m_0$, $A_0$ and $sgn(\mu)$ always

510: corresponds, in our analysis, to a definite value for $\tan \beta$. Since 

511: this is important for our treatment of VCMSSMs, we now illustrate this 

512: point in more detail.

513: 

514: We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmup} some examples of the necessary input

515: values of $B_0$ as functions of $\tan \beta$, for four representative

516: choices of $(m_0, m_{1/2})$ and $\mu > 0$. We use $m_t = 178$~GeV as suggested

517: by the latest CDF and D0 results~\cite{mtop}. We see that $B_0$ generally

518: increases monotonically for all positive values of $A_0$, and also for

519: some negative values of $A_0$. This is also true for $\mu < 0$, as seen in

520: Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmun}. These observations immediately imply that, in any

521: VCMSSM that predicts a unique value of $B_0$ for a given value of $A_0$,

522: there will be (at most) a unique value of $\tan \beta$ where the VCMSSM

523: relation is obeyed. 

524: 

525: \begin{figure}

526: \begin{center}

527: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_p_178_200_1000.eps,height=7.5cm}}

528: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_p_178_1000_1000.eps,height=7.5cm}}

529: \end{center}

530: \begin{center}

531: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_p_178_200_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

532: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_p_178_1000_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

533: \end{center}

534: \caption{\label{fig:Btbmup}\it

535: Values of $B_0$ as functions of $\tan \beta$ for $\mu >0$ and 

536: $(m_{1/2}, m_0) =$ (a) $(200, 1000)$~GeV, (b) $(1000, 1000)$~GeV, (c) 

537: $(200, 200)$~GeV and (d) $(1000, 200)$~GeV. Solutions for ${\hat B} = {\hat A} -

538: 1$ case are denoted by small circles, which are connected by dashed lines. 

539: Solutions in the case of the Giudice-Masiero mechanism are denoted by 

540: small squares, connected by dot-dashed lines when possible.}

541: \end{figure}

542: 

543: \begin{figure}

544: \begin{center}

545: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_n_178_200_1000.eps,height=7.5cm}}

546: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_n_178_1000_1000.eps,height=7.5cm}}

547: \end{center}

548: \begin{center}

549: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_n_178_200_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

550: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Btb_n_178_1000_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

551: \end{center}

552: \caption{\label{fig:Btbmun}\it

553: As in Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmup}, but for $\mu < 0$.

554: }

555: \end{figure}

556: 

557: We note, however, that there are some particular negative values of $A_0$

558: for which the required value of $B_0$, after rising when $\tan \beta$ is

559: small, decreases slightly at large $\tan \beta$. This raises the

560: possibility that there might be two allowed values of $\tan \beta$ in some

561: restricted set of VCMSSMs. One example is when $m_{1/2} = 200$~GeV, $m_0 =

562: 1000$~GeV, $\mu > 0$, ${\hat A} \simeq -2$ and ${\hat B} \simeq -1.5$, as

563: seen in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmup}, and there are some other

564: examples in other panels of Figs.~\ref{fig:Btbmup} and \ref{fig:Btbmun}.

565: However, in practice, such multiple solutions do not exist in the specific

566: VCMSSMs that we study in this paper.

567: 

568: To illustrate this more explicitly, we indicate by small circles in

569: Figs.~\ref{fig:Btbmup} and \ref{fig:Btbmun} the values of $\tan \beta$

570: where the minimal supergravity condition ${\hat B} = {\hat A} -1$ is

571: satisfied, for a few specific values of ${\hat A}$, and we join these

572: points by dashed lines. For each value of ${\hat A}$ there is clearly only

573: one consistent choice of $\tan \beta$ for any given choice of $(m_{1/2},

574: m_0)$. We also show solutions for the Giudice-Masiero mechanism case, indicated

575: by small squares. 

576: 

577: Note that we do not obtain solutions for $\hat B$ for all choices of $\hat A$.

578: For example,  in Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmup}a, we show solutions only for $\hat 

579: A = 0, 1$ and 2 for $\hat B = \hat A - 1$ and $\hat A = 1$ for the 

580: Giudice-Masiero model. In the minimal

581: supergravity case, when $\hat A$ is reduced, $\hat B$ is also reduced driving the solution

582: to smaller values of $\tan \beta$.  Very quickly these solutions drop below

583: $\tan \beta = 2$ and, below $\tan \beta \sim 1.7$, the RGEs do not provide

584: solutions to the sparticle spectra due to a divergence in the top quark Yukawa

585: coupling at the unification scale. Similarly when $\hat A$ is large, the solution is driven to very large

586: values of $\tan \beta$ where again no solutions to the RGEs are found.

587: In the case of the GM model, the slope of $B_0$ vs $\tan \beta$ is very small,

588: and small changes in $\hat A$ lead to large changes in $\tan \beta$. 

589: Note also that in the GM model,  there are often two branches of solutions

590: which are disconnected.  This is seen for example in Figs.~\ref{fig:Btbmup}d and \ref{fig:Btbmun}d.

591: This is due to the relation (\ref{GMrelation}) which separates solutions at $\hat A = 3$. 

592: 

593: In order to have an analytical feel for the solutions for $B_0$ shown in

594: Fig.~\ref{fig:Btbmup} and \ref{fig:Btbmun}, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:BBB} 

595: the values of $B_0$ at the input GUT 

596: scale, the tree-level values at the electroweak scale

597: and the full values of $B(M_W)$ as functions of $\tan \beta$, (a) for $\mu 

598: > 0$ and (b) for $\mu < 0$, in both cases for $(m_{1/2},m_0) = 

599: (200, 200)$~GeV. The tree-level value of $B$ at the electroweak 

600: scale is defined as

601: \beq

602: B_{tree} \; \equiv \; \frac{(m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2 \mu^2) \sin 2 \beta}{ - 2 \mu},

603: \label{Btree}

604: \eeq

605: and as one can see $B_{tree}$ tends to 0 as $\tan \beta $ is increased.

606: The `full' values are calculated including one-loop electroweak 

607: threshold corrections, and $B_0$ is then the result of running the RGEs 

608: from the weak scale to the unification scale.

609: In the $\mu > 0$ case, we see in Fig.~\ref{fig:BBB} that $B_0$ is 

610: systematically larger than the 

611: tree-level value of $B(M_W)$, which is in turn larger than its full value. 

612: However, even in this case $B(M_W)$ increases monotonically with $\tan 

613: \beta$. The situation is rather different for $\mu < 0$, where we see 

614: that the sign of the loop correction depends on the value

615: of $\tan \beta$, vanishing for $\tan \beta \simeq 21$. As a result, 

616: the full value of $B(M_W)$ and hence $B_0$ increase monotonically with $\tan \beta$.

617: Had we neglected the 1-loop corrections to $B$ and ran the RGEs up to the unification 

618: scale, we could obtain a non-monotonic solution for $B_0$ with respect to

619: $\tan \beta$ (for example, a solution with a minimum value of $B_0$) leading

620: to multiple solutions of $\tan \beta$ for a fixed value of $\hat A$~\cite{th}.  Thus,

621: Fig.~\ref{fig:BBB} indicates the importance of the loop correction in

622: determining the number of solutions. 

623: 

624: \begin{figure}

625: \begin{center}

626: \mbox{\epsfig{file=BBB_1_p_178_200_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

627: \mbox{\epsfig{file=BBB_1_n_178_200_200.eps,height=7.5cm}}

628: \end{center}

629: \caption{\label{fig:BBB}\it

630: The values of $B_0$, the electroweak tree-level and full $B(M_W)$, as 

631: functions of $\tan

632: \beta$ for (a) $\mu > 0$ and (b) $\mu < 0$, both for $(m_{1/2},m_0) =

633: (200,200)$~GeV and ${\hat A} = 1$. 

634: }

635: \end{figure}

636: 

637: \section{Updated Constraints on the CMSSM}

638: 

639: The standard LEP constraints and cosmological constraints on the CMSSM

640: have been discussed previously in many places~\cite{eoss,wmapothers}, so we do

641: not discuss them

642: further here, except to recall that we use the WMAP range $0.094 <

643: \Omega_\chi h^2 < 0.129$ \cite{wmap} for the relic density of the LSP, assumed to be

644: the lightest neutralino $\chi$. However, there are three new experimental

645: developments that we should like to mention. One is the new value $m_t =

646: 178.0 \pm 4.3$~GeV recently reported by the CDF and D0

647: collaborations~\cite{mtop},

648: another is the evolution in the possible discrepancy between the

649: experimental measurement of $g_\mu - 2$ and the value calculated in the

650: SM, and the other is a recent improved upper limit on the branching ratio

651: for $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$.

652: 

653: The new value of $m_t$ affects the CMSSM parameter space in three

654: important ways. One is to alter the calculation of the lightest MSSM Higgs

655: boson mass $m_h$, and hence the lower limit on $m_{1/2}$ inferred from the

656: LEP lower limit $m_h > 114.4$~GeV. For example, in panel (a) of

657: Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$, the lower limit

658: on $m_{1/2}$ is reduced by about 50~GeV when one increases $m_t$ from

659: 175~GeV to the value of 178~GeV shown here. A second effect is to alter the 

660: calculation of the rapid-annihilation funnels shown in panels (c) and (d) 

661: of Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} for $\tan \beta = 35$ and $\mu < 0$ and for 

662: $\tan \beta = 50$ and $\mu > 0$, respectively. The sensitivity of these

663: regions to $m_t$ and large $\tan \beta$ was discussed earlier \cite{sven}

664: in the context of the observability of the Higgs boson at hadron colliders.

665: Finally, the larger value 

666: of $m_t$ increases significantly the value of $m_0$ where the focus-point 

667: region may be found \cite{fp}. For example, for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$, we 

668: now find a focus-point region only for $m_0 \gappeq 7$~TeV for $m_{1/2} 

669: \gappeq 250$~GeV. We do not discuss focus points further in this paper.

670: 

671: The BNL $g_\mu - 2$ experiment recently announced a new determination 

672: using $\mu^-$ and a final combined value using all their $\mu^\pm$ 

673: data~\cite{newg2Co}. 

674: Comparing with the SM calculations of Davier {\it et al.}~\cite{davier}, 

675: they quote a 

676: discrepancy of $a_\mu \equiv (g_\mu - 2)/2$ with the SM amounting to

677: \begin{eqnarray}

678: \delta a_\mu & = & (27 \pm 10) \times 10^{-10} \; (e^+ e^- {\rm ~data}) 

679: \nonumber \\

680: & = & (12 \pm 9) \times 10^{-10} \; (\tau {\rm ~data}).

681: \label{BNL}

682: \end{eqnarray}

683: Another calculation of the SM contribution to $(g_\mu - 2)$ using just the 

684: $e^+ e^-$ data~\cite{Hag04} yielded a slightly larger discrepancy:

685: \begin{eqnarray}

686: \delta a_\mu & = & (32 \pm 10) \times 10^{-10} \; (e^+ e^- {\rm ~data})

687: \label{Hag}

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: There has subsequently been a new SM calculation of the hadronic vacuum 

690: polarization contribution by de Troc\'oniz and Yndur\'ain~\cite{deTY}, 

691: who 

692: quote

693: \begin{eqnarray}

694: \delta a_\mu & = & (27 \pm 8) \times 10^{-10} \; (e^+ e^- {\rm ~data}) 

695: \nonumber \\

696: & = & (19 \pm 8) \times 10^{-10} \; (\tau {\rm ~and~} e^+ e^- {\rm 

697: ~data}).

698: \label{TY}

699: \end{eqnarray}

700: However, neither of these evaluations include the recent

701: re-evaluation of the light-by-light contribution to $a_\mu$ by Melnikov 

702: and Vainshtein~\cite{mv}, which decreases the discrepancy with the SM by about 

703: $4 \times 10^{-10}$ compared with (\ref{TY}). Therefore, for the purposes of 

704: the subsequent discussion, we show contours corresponding to

705: \beq

706: \delta a_\mu \; = \; (15 \pm 8) \times 10^{-10}.

707: \label{final}

708: \eeq

709: We exhibit this constraint at the 2-$\sigma$ level, in which case its

710: effect is essentially to exclude the option $\mu < 0$ but allow most of the

711: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for $\mu > 0$, apart from a region of small

712: $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$. However, we are well aware that the range

713: (\ref{final}) is open to question, particularly in view of the discrepancy

714: between the estimates of the SM contribution based on $e^+ e^-$ and $\tau$

715: data, and, to a lesser extent, the uncertainty in the light-by-light

716: contribution. Therefore, we use (\ref{final})  only as an indication, and

717: by no means a rigid constraint on the parameter space of the CMSSM or any

718: VCMSSM. In particular, we do not discard the option $\mu < 0$.

719: 

720: Finally, we note that the CDF Collaboration have recently published an

721: improved experimental upper limit on the branching ratio for $B_s \to

722: \mu^+ \mu^-$~\cite{bmumu}, namely $5.8 \times 10^{-7}$. Since the branching

723: ratio

724: for this decay $\propto \tan^6 \beta$ in the CMSSM, this constraint is

725: potentially important at large $\tan \beta$. We find that this constraint

726: is currently still `covered' by the constraints from $b \to s \gamma$,

727: $m_h$ and $g_\mu - 2$, but this situation may change in the near future.

728: 

729: In preparing the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} and the

730: subsequent figures, we have updated our code by making improvements that

731: have impacts principally in the rapid-annihilation funnels and focus-point

732: regions~\footnote{Specifically, we now include the full one-loop

733: corrections to $m_b$ and $m_t$ instead of approximate

734: expressions~\cite{pbmz}, and we correct a minor coding error.}. Their

735: effects are smaller than the other effects mentioned above.

736: 

737: \begin{figure}

738: \begin{center}

739: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm10_p_178.eps,height=8cm}}

740: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm10_n_178.eps,height=8cm}}

741: \end{center}

742: \begin{center}

743: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm35_n_178.eps,height=8cm}}

744: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm50_p_178.eps,height=8cm}}

745: \end{center}

746: \caption{\label{fig:CMSSM}\it

747: The $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in the CMSSM for (a) $\tan\beta = 10, \mu > 0$, (b)

748: $\tan\beta = 10, \mu < 0$, (c) $\tan\beta = 35, \mu < 0$, and (d)

749: $\tan\beta = 50, \mu > 0$, all for $\hat{A} = 0$. In each panel, the

750: region allowed by the WMAP cosmological constraint $0.094 \le \Omega_\chi 

751: h^2 \le 0.129$ has pale (turquoise) shading. The disallowed region where 

752: $m_{\tilde \tau_1} < m_\chi$ has dark (red) shading.

753: The regions excluded by $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ have medium

754: (green) shading, and those in panels (a,d) that are disfavoured by $g_\mu 

755: - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ 

756: level have very light (yellow) shading with a thin (black) border. 

757: The contours $m_{\chi^\pm} = 104$~GeV ($m_h = 114$~GeV) are shown

758: as near-vertical black dashed (red dot-dashed) lines.

759: In addition, we show several contours of $\hat{B}$ as (blue) 

760: dashed lines. There is no allowed point compatible with the minimal 

761: supergravity condition ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 1$ or the Giudice-Masiero 

762: model in these plots.}

763: \end{figure}

764: 

765: We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for a popular

766: set of CMSSM cases, namely (a) $\tan\beta = 10, \mu > 0$, (b) $\tan\beta =

767: 10, \mu < 0$, (c) $\tan\beta = 35, \mu < 0$, and (d) $\tan\beta = 50, \mu

768: > 0$, all for $\hat{A} = 0$~\footnote{We note in panels (c) and (d) the 

769: appearance of allowed bands above the $\chi - {\tilde \tau}_1$ 

770: coannihilation 

771: strips, which are due to rapid ${\tilde {\bar\tau}}_1 {\tilde \tau}_1 \to 

772: H$ 

773: annihilation.}. In each panel, as well as the `standard'

774: experimental and cosmological constraints, we have indicated some

775: representative contours of $\hat{B}$ by (blue) dashed lines. We see that

776: ${\hat B} \gappeq 0$ in almost all the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes exhibited,

777: which is clearly incompatible with the minimal supergravity condition

778: ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 1$. This exemplifies the point that parameter 

779: choices allowed in the `standard'

780: CMSSM are often not allowed in favoured VCMSSMs. {\it Specifically, 

781: the

782: CMSSM cases shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM} could not be realized in minimal

783: supergravity}: one needs to choose smaller values of $\tan \beta$. A 

784: similar

785: conclusion applies to the Giudice-Masiero model, 

786: which would require ${\hat B} = 1$ for the case ${\hat A} = 0$ considered 

787: here, 

788: although GM solutions are possible for $\mu < 0$ if one discards the $g_\mu - 2$ 

789: constraint and chooses $\tan \beta$ somewhat above 10.

790: 

791: Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM2} shows the corresponding $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for 

792: the same choices of $\tan\beta$ and the sign of $\mu$, but for $\hat{A}

793: = + 0.75$. In this case, the laboratory and cosmological constraints are 

794: not greatly different, even in the rapid-annihilation funnel 

795: regions~\footnote{We note again the rapid ${\tilde \tau}_1 {\tilde {\bar 

796: \tau}}_1 \to H$ 

797: annihilation strips in panels (c) and (d).}. 

798: Now, however, there are some points where the minimal supergravity 

799: condition ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 1$ is satisfied, as shown by the 

800: intersection of the $\hat B = -0.25$ line with the WMAP coannihilation 

801: region in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM2}a. For this choice of ${\hat A}$, 

802: the Giudice-Masiero model is also satisfied at a limited number of 

803: points, exemplified by the intersection of the $\hat B = 2/3$ line with 

804: the WMAP funnel region in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM2}d.

805: 

806: \begin{figure}

807: \begin{center}

808: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm10_0.75_p_178.eps,height=8cm}}

809: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm10_0.75_n_178.eps,height=8cm}}

810: \end{center}

811: \begin{center}

812: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm35_0.75_n_178.eps,height=8cm}}

813: \mbox{\epsfig{file=cmssm50_0.75_p_178.eps,height=8cm}}

814: \end{center}

815: \caption{\label{fig:CMSSM2}\it

816: The $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in the CMSSM for the same values of 

817: $\tan\beta$ and the sign of $\mu$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM}, but here for 

818: $\hat{A} = + 0.75$. }

819: \end{figure}

820: 

821: 

822: 

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

824: 

825: We now discuss the impacts of the above constraints on some specific

826: VCMSSMs within the general framework of minimal supergravity, in which

827: ${\hat B} = {\hat A} - 1$. As usual, we display these constraints in

828: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes. For the reasons discussed earlier, we regard

829: $\tan \beta$ as a dependent quantity that varies across these planes,

830: rather than being a fixed quantity as in most CMSSM analyses. Another

831: difference from most CMSSM analyses is that the latter generally consider only

832: the possibility that the LSP is the lightest neutralino $\chi$, assuming

833: implicitly that the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ is sufficiently large that

834: the gravitino LSP possibility can be neglected. However, in minimal

835: supergravity, one has $m_{3/2} = m_0$ (\ref{msugra}) if the cosmological 

836: constant 

837: $\Lambda = 0$, and the identity of the LSP varies over  the $(m_{1/2}, 

838: m_0)$ plane. We have

839: recently published an analysis which includes the possibility that the gravitino

840: is the LSP possibility~\cite{GDM}, taking

841: into account the constraints imposed by Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN)  

842: and the cosmic microwave background (CMB) data on decays of the

843: next-to-lightest sparticle (NSP) into the gravitino, as well as the relic

844: gravitino dark matter density itself. In this paper, we incorporate this

845: analysis into a unified treatment of the neutralino and gravitino LSP

846: regions of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in VCMSSMs.

847: 

848: 

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

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

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

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

853: 114$~GeV (diagonal red dash-dotted lines). The regions excluded by $b \to

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

855: of neutralinos lies within the WMAP range $0.094 \le \Omega_\chi h^2 \le

856: 0.129$ have light (turquoise) shading. 

857: The

858: gravitino LSP and the neutralino LSP regions are separated by dark (chocolate)

859: solid lines, and the WMAP relic-density strip for neutralinos is shown only above

860: these lines.

861: The regions disfavoured by $g_\mu -

862: 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level are very light (yellow) shaded. 

863: 

864: \begin{figure}

865: \begin{center}

866: \mbox{\epsfig{file=An1.5_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

867: \mbox{\epsfig{file=A0.75_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

868: \end{center}

869: \begin{center}

870: \mbox{\epsfig{file=A3m3s_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

871: \mbox{\epsfig{file=A2_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

872: \end{center}

873: \caption{\it

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

875: superposed, for $\mu > 0$ and (a) ${\hat A} = - 1.5$, (b) ${\hat A} = 0.75$, 

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

877: \sqrt{3}$,  and (d) ${\hat A} = 2.0$, all with $ {\hat B} =

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

879: the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles and those ruled out by $b

880: \to s \gamma$ decay~\protect\cite{bsg} (medium green shading): the regions 

881: disfavoured by $g_\mu - 2$ are very light (yellow) shaded, bordered by a thin

882: (black) line.

883: The dark (chocolate) solid lines in panels (a, b, c) separate the 

884: gravitino LSP regions (below). Panel (d) exhibits a dark (red) wedge 

885: where the LSP is the rapid ${\tilde \tau}_1$. The regions favoured 

886: by WMAP in the neutralino LSP case have light (turquoise)

887: shading. The dashed (pink) line corresponds to the maximum relic density 

888: for the gravitino LSP, and regions allowed by BBN/CMB constraint on NSP 

889: decay are light (yellow) shaded.}

890: \label{fig:Polonyi}

891: \end{figure}

892: 

893: If ${\hat A}$ has a large negative value, we do not find any consistent

894: solutions to the electroweak vacuum conditions. This is reflected in panel

895: (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, for $\mu > 0$ and ${\hat A} = -1.5$, 

896: where there are no solutions above the

897: topmost solid (black) line. The solid (blue) contours of $\tan \beta$ rise

898: diagonally from low values of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ to higher values, with

899: higher values of $\tan \beta$ having lower values of $m_0$ for a given

900: value of $m_{1/2}$. The dash-dotted (red) $m_h = 114$~GeV contour rises in

901: a similar way, and regions above and to the left of this contour have $m_h

902: < 114$ GeV and are excluded. In particular, a neutralino LSP is excluded

903: in this case. We exhibit in this and the other panels a gravitino LSP

904: region, which was not studied in our previous exploration of

905: VCMSSMs~\cite{AB1}. The relic density is acceptably low only below the

906: dashed (pink) line. This excludes a supplementary domain of the $(m_{1/2},

907: m_0)$ plane, but the strongest constraint is provided by the BBN/CMB decay

908: constraint (light, yellow shading), which requires $\tan \beta \gappeq 4.5$.

909: In panels (b, c, d), the $m_h$ contour rises more vertically, but only in

910: panel (d) is there any allowed neutralino LSP region. Panel (d) features

911: an excluded dark (red) shaded wedge where the LSP is the ${\tilde

912: \tau}_1$.  

913: 

914: 

915: When ${\hat A}$ is increased to 0.75, as seen in panel (b) of

916: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, both the $\tan \beta$ and $m_h$ contours rise more

917: rapidly with $m_{1/2}$.  Again, there is no allowed neutralino LSP region.

918: Within the gravitino LSP region, the $m_h$ and relic density constraints

919: would both be compatible with $\tan \beta \gappeq 7.5$, but the BBN/CMB

920: decay constraint imposes the stronger constraint that $\tan \beta \gappeq

921: 13$. It is instructive to compare this figure with Fig.~\ref{fig:CMSSM2}a,

922: which both assume that $\hat A = 0.75$. The most notable difference is

923: that, here, fixing the gravitino mass to equal $m_0$ excludes the

924: neutralino coannihilation region with $\hat B = - 0.25$ and allows a

925: region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane that would previously have been

926: excluded because the LSP would have been the ${\tilde \tau}_1$.

927: 

928: An analogous pattern is seen in the simplest Polonyi model with ${\hat A}

929: = 3 - \sqrt{3}$ shown in panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}, where we

930: note that the $\tan \beta$ contours have noticeable curvature.  Once

931: again, the neutralino LSP region is excluded, now by a combination of the

932: Higgs and chargino mass bounds.  At low $m_0$ in the gravitino LSP region,

933: the $m_h$ and relic gravitino density constraints impose $\tan \beta

934: \gappeq 10$ and the BBN/CMB decay constraint imposes $\tan \beta \gappeq

935: 14$~\footnote{There is also a negative Polonyi solution with ${\hat A}

936: = - 3 + \sqrt{3}$, whose $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane is qualitatively similar 

937: to panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}.}.

938: 

939: We consider finally the case ${\hat A} = 2.0$ shown in panel (d) of

940: Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyi}. In this case, there is a neutralino LSP region in

941: the $\chi - {\tilde \tau}$ coannihilation strip. Without the $g_\mu - 2$

942: constraint, the most severe

943: constraint on this region is imposed by $b \to s \gamma$, requiring $\tan

944: \beta \gappeq 25$, the $m_h$ constraint being much weaker. 

945: Imposing the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint requires $\tan

946: \beta \gappeq 27$. 

947: There is an

948: excluded dark (red) shaded wedge where the LSP is the ${\tilde \tau}_1$.

949: Below this appears a gravitino LSP region with acceptable relic density.

950: Within this region, the $m_h$ and BBN/CMB decay constraints impose $\tan

951: \beta \gappeq 15$, which would be strengthened to $\tan \beta \gappeq 20$

952: if one took the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint at face value. This is the shaded region in

953: the lower right of panel (d).

954: 

955: 

956: We find no consistent solutions for values of ${\hat A}$ substantially

957: greater than 3 (4) when $\mu > 0$ ($\mu < 0$), and negative values of

958: ${\hat A}$ are

959: not allowed when $\mu < 0$.  These restrictions arise from the behavior of

960: the relation between $\tan \beta$ and $B_0$ discussed earlier.  Therefore

961: as $\hat A$ increases, so does the solution for $\tan \beta$ when $\hat B

962: = \hat A - 1$.  At very large $\tan \beta$, there are no solutions to the

963: RGEs due to a divergence in the bottom-quark Yukawa coupling.  For small $\hat 

964: A$ and $\mu < 0$,

965: the solution is driven to excessively small values of $\tan \beta$, where

966: again there are no solutions, now due to the divergence in the top Yukawa 

967: coupling mentioned earlier. The same is true when $\hat A$ is large and negative and

968: $\mu > 0$, i.e. for $\hat A < -2.5$, $m_0 \lappeq 500$~GeV for $m_{1/2} \leq

969: 1000$~GeV.

970: 

971: As we see in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin}, only a small area

972: of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane in the gravitino LSP region is allowed by

973: the $m_h$ constraint in the positive Polonyi case ${\hat A} = 3 -

974: \sqrt{3}$~\footnote{The negative Polonyi case

975: is not allowed for $\mu < 0$.}.

976: This area would be further restricted if one took the $g_\mu -

977: 2$ constraint at face value. At larger values of ${\hat A}$, the allowed

978: region is extended, as exemplified in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:Polonyin}

979: for the case ${\hat A} = 2$, where the $m_h$ constraint is somewhat

980: weaker.  However, in this case the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint would have a

981: much more drastic effect.

982: 

983: \begin{figure}

984: \begin{center}

985: \mbox{\epsfig{file=A3m3s_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

986: \mbox{\epsfig{file=A2_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

987: \end{center}

988: \caption{\it

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

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

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

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

993: }

994: \label{fig:Polonyin}

995: \end{figure}

996: 

997: \section{The $\mu$ Problem and the Giudice-Masiero Mechanism}

998: 

999: One of the primary motivations in building supersymmetric model is to

1000: avoid the the gauge hierarchy problem, namely that the Higgs mass is of

1001: order $m_Z$ and much less than the Planck mass, though not protected by 

1002: any symmetry of the Standard Model

1003: between the GUT scale and the weak scale. Supersymmetry alleviates this

1004: problem via cancellations between contributions to the Higgs mass from

1005: fermions and bosons in the same supermultiplet. However, this scenario

1006: begs the question why supersymmetry is broken by soft terms which are

1007: assumed to be $~O(1~{\rm TeV})$. Moreover, there is one other,

1008: supersymmetric, parameter which is required to be small, namely the Higgs

1009: mixing parameter $\mu$. One of the most interesting attempts to explain

1010: the smallness of $\mu$ is the Giudice-Masiero mechanism~\cite{gm}, in

1011: which it is related to a coupling between observable and hidden sectors,

1012: and is of the same order of magnitude as the soft supersymmetry-breaking

1013: parameters. In the simplest realization of the Giudice-Masiero mechanism

1014: with only one hidden superfield, one has the following relation between

1015: ${\hat A}$ and ${\hat B}$, as already mentioned:

1016: \beq

1017: \hat{B} = \frac{2 \hat{A} - 3}{\hat{A} - 3},

1018: \eeq

1019: and

1020: \beq

1021: \left| \frac{\mu}{m_0} \right| = \left| \lambda \frac{\hat{A} - 

1022: 3}{\sqrt{3}} \right|

1023: \eeq

1024: where $\lambda$ is the coupling constant between the hidden superfield

1025: and the two Higgs supermultiplets. One should require that $\lambda \sim 

1026: O(1)$ for $\mu$ to be the same order of $m_0$.

1027: 

1028: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:GMp} some typical $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in

1029: the Giudice-Masiero model for positive $\mu$. As in the previous minimal

1030: supergravity VCMSSMs, we find no consistent electroweak solutions for

1031: values of ${\hat A}$ much outside the range of values exhibited. In the

1032: examples shown, there are no solutions above the topmost solid lines in

1033: panels (a) for ${\hat A} = 0.6$ and (d) for ${\hat A} = 1.8$. For $\hat A <

1034: -0.6$, $m_0 \lappeq 150$~GeV for $m_{1/2} \leq 1000$~GeV. Similarly for $\hat A

1035: \gappeq 2.6$ only a small corner of the plane admits solutions. 

1036: 

1037: In panel (a) for ${\hat A} = 0.6$, corresponding to ${\hat B} = 0.75$,

1038: there is no allowed region above the solid (chocolate) gravitino LSP line. 

1039: Below this line,

1040: we see an allowed region for $\tan \beta \gappeq 22$. However, we also

1041: note that the corresponding values of $\lambda$ are quite large, $\lambda

1042: \gappeq 5$. The situation is somewhat different for the case ${\hat A} =

1043: 0.8$, corresponding to ${\hat B} \simeq 0.64$, shown in panel (b) of

1044: Fig.~\ref{fig:GMp}. In this case, we see that there is a narrow allowed

1045: region along the $\chi - {\tilde \tau}$ coannihilation strip in the

1046: neutralino LSP region for $\tan \beta \gappeq 33.5$, or $\gappeq 35$ if the

1047: $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is taken into account. This region requires

1048: $\lambda \gappeq 2$, which is relatively palatable. At lower $m_0$, there

1049: is a disallowed dark (red) wedge where the ${\tilde \tau}_1$ is the 

1050: LSP, and

1051: below that a region where the gravitino is the LSP. The latter contains a

1052: domain allowed by the BBN/CMB decay constraint, that appears for $\tan

1053: \beta \gappeq 18$, or $\gappeq 20$ if one includes the 

1054: $g_\mu - 2$ constraint. However, this region again has $\lambda \gappeq 5$.

1055: Turning now to the Polonyi case ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$ shown in panel

1056: (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:GMp}, corresponding to ${\hat B} \simeq 0.27$, we see

1057: that there is no allowed area in the neutralino LSP region above the 

1058: dark solid (chocolate) line, and that the

1059: allowed region in the gravitino LSP region requires $\tan \beta \gappeq

1060: 13.5$ and again $\lambda \gappeq 5$.  Similar features are seen in panel (d)

1061: for ${\hat A} = 1.8$, corresponding to ${\hat B} = - 0.5$, where the only

1062: allowed area - in the gravitino LSP region - requires even larger values

1063: of $\lambda$ than the previous cases.

1064: 

1065: \begin{figure}

1066: \begin{center}

1067: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM0.6_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

1068: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM0.8_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

1069: \end{center}

1070: \begin{center}

1071: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM3m3s_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

1072: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM1.8_p178.eps,height=8cm}}

1073: \end{center}

1074: \caption{\it

1075: Examples of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes in the Giudice-Masiero model, with 

1076: contours of $\tan \beta$ 

1077: superposed, for $\mu > 0$ and (a) ${\hat A} = 0.6$, (b) ${\hat A} = 0.8$, 

1078: (c) ${\hat A} = 3-\sqrt{3}$ and (d) ${\hat A} = 1.8$.

1079: In each panel, we show the regions excluded by 

1080: the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles, those ruled out by $b

1081: \to s \gamma$ decay~\protect\cite{bsg} (medium, green shading), and those 

1082: disfavoured by $g_\mu - 2$ (very light, yellow shading). As before, a 

1083: dotted 

1084: (red) line shows where $m_\chi = m_{\tilde \tau}$ and the 

1085: gravitino LSP region is bounded by a solid (chocolate) line in panels (a, 

1086: c, d). The dark (red) wedge in panel (b) has a ${\tilde \tau}_1$ LSP 

1087: and hence is disallowed. Within 

1088: the gravitino LSP region, the relic density constraint is indicated by a 

1089: dashed (pink) line and the BBN/CMB constraint on NSP decay by light 

1090: (yellow) 

1091: shading. The dashed black lines are contours of the Giudice-Masiero 

1092: parameter $\lambda$.} 

1093: \label{fig:GMp} 

1094: \end{figure}

1095: 

1096: Fig.~\ref{fig:GMn} shows some analogous cases for $\mu < 0$. As before,

1097: there are no consistent electroweak vacuum solutions for values of ${\hat

1098: A}$ substantially outside the range of values shown, and none above the

1099: topmost solid lines in panels (a) and (b). Panel (a) is for ${\hat A} =

1100: -0.2$, corresponding to ${\hat B} \simeq 1.06$. It has two narrow strips

1101: in the neutralino LSP region that are allowed if one discards the $g_\mu -

1102: 2$ constraint, appearing for $m_{1/2} \gappeq 800$~GeV and $m_0 \gappeq

1103: 500$~GeV for $\tan \beta > 38$ and $\lambda < 1.5$. Down in the gravitino

1104: LSP area, there is a second allowed region with $\tan \beta \lappeq 13$

1105: and $\lambda \gappeq 3$. For smaller values of $\hat A$, the allowed parameter

1106: space is further squeezed. For example, for $\hat A = -1$ we find $m_0 

1107: \lappeq

1108: 500$~GeV for $m_{1/2} \leq 1000$~GeV. In panel (b) for ${\hat A} = 0.6$,

1109: corresponding

1110: to ${\hat B} = 0.75$, the allowed neutralino LSP region has disappeared,

1111: but a gravitino LSP region remains. Similar features are seen in panels

1112: (c) and (d) for ${\hat A} = 1$ (${\hat B} = 0.5$) and ${\hat A} =

1113: 3-\sqrt{3}$ (${\hat B} \simeq 0.27$), respectively. For $\hat A \gappeq 2$,

1114: solutions exist only in a small portion of the plane.

1115: 

1116: \begin{figure}

1117: \begin{center}

1118: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GMn0.2_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

1119: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM0.6_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

1120: \end{center}

1121: \begin{center}

1122: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM1_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

1123: \mbox{\epsfig{file=GM3m3s_n178.eps,height=8cm}}

1124: \end{center}

1125: \caption{\it

1126: Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:GMp}, but for $\mu < 0$ and (a) ${\hat A} = -0.2$, 

1127: (b)

1128: ${\hat A} = 0.6$, (c) ${\hat A} = 1$, and (d) ${\hat A} = 3 - \sqrt{3}$.}

1129: \label{fig:GMn}

1130: \end{figure}

1131: 

1132: \section{Conclusions}

1133: 

1134: We have discussed in this paper the impacts of the theoretical,

1135: experimental and cosmological constraints on some classes of VCMSSMs,

1136: including minimal supergravity models and the Giudice-Masiero model. We

1137: have presented unified treatments of the regions of parameter space in

1138: these models where the LSP is a neutralino or the gravitino.

1139: 

1140: We have emphasized that the predictions of these models differ

1141: significantly from those of the CMSSM. In particular, the CMSSM is

1142: distinct from minimal supergravity: the former does not necessarily

1143: require a fixed relation between the trilinear and bilinear soft

1144: supersymmetry-breaking parameters $A, B$, nor equality between $m_0$ and

1145: $m_{3/2}$, as required in minimal supergravity models. The values of $B$

1146: required in generic realizations of the CMSSM generally bear no relation

1147: to the values that would be derived in minimal supergravity models.

1148: 

1149: In addition to minimal supergravity models, we have discussed the simplest 

1150: variant of the Giudice-Masiero model, which makes a brave attempt to 

1151: provide a framework for calculating the Higgs-mixing superpotential 

1152: term $\mu$.

1153: 

1154: There are a couple of striking features of these specific analyses that we 

1155: note. One is that the range of $A$ is often very restricted: beyond this 

1156: range, it is impossible to find consistent solutions to the electroweak 

1157: vacuum conditions. 

1158: 

1159: A second observation is that, in both minimal supergravity and the

1160: Giudice-Masiero model, a neutralino LSP is completely

1161: excluded in many instances, and

1162: the gravitino LSP regions are generally much more

1163: extensive than the neutralino LSP regions. 

1164: To some extent, this was to be

1165: expected, since we impose the cosmological dark matter density and NSP

1166: decay constraints on gravitino dark matter as one-sided upper limits,

1167: rather than as narrow WMAP ranges as for the dark matter density 

1168: constraint on

1169: neutralino dark matter. This is because, in the case of gravitino dark

1170: matter, the narrow range could be reached by postulating thermal gravitino

1171: production with a suitable reheating temperature~\cite{buchmuller}. Of course,

1172: in either the

1173: neutralino or gravitino case, one could always postulate a supplementary

1174: source of cold dark matter. In the case of neutralino dark matter, this 

1175: possibility would broaden the WMAP density strip down to the $m_\chi = 

1176: m_{\tilde \tau}$ boundary. However, the gravitino dark matter region would 

1177: still, for many choices of the other supersymmetric parameters, occupy a 

1178: larger area of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane.

1179: 

1180: In any complete supersymmetric theory, one expects some relations between

1181: supersymmetry breaking parameters, perhaps of the type discussed here. In

1182: this case, some VCMSSM should be responsible for the low-energy sparticle

1183: spectrum. However, we do not yet know what specific constraints are handed

1184: down from the unification or string scales.  As we have emphasized in this

1185: paper, the predictions in such models may differ greatly from those of the

1186: more relaxed CMSSM and, {\it a priori}, those of a more general MSSM.

1187: Analogous differences are also to be expected in the predicted cross

1188: sections for direct and indirect searches for supersymmetric dark matter,

1189: a topic we will consider elsewhere.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: \vskip 0.5in

1194: \vbox{

1195: \noindent{ {\bf Acknowledgments} } \\

1196: \noindent  The work of K.A.O., Y.S., and V.C.S. was supported in part

1197: by DOE grant DE--FG02--94ER--40823. Y.S. would like to thank D.A. Demir 

1198: for asking about the Giudice-Maisero mechanism in this context, and for 

1199: helpful conversations.}

1200: 

1201: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1202: 

1203: \bibitem{BIM}

1204: For reviews, see:

1205: H.~P.~Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110} (1984) 1;

1206: A.~Brignole, L.~E.~Ibanez and C.~Munoz,

1207: arXiv:hep-ph/9707209,

1208: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707209;%%

1209: published in {\it Perspectives on Supersymmetry}, ed.

1210: G.~L.~Kane, pp. 125-148.

1211: 

1212: \bibitem{mark} 

1213: H.-P. Nilles, M. Srednicki and D. Wyler, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 120B} (1983) 345.

1214: 

1215: 

1216: \bibitem{pol} 

1217: J. Polonyi, Budapest preprint KFKI-1977-93 (1977).

1218: 

1219: \bibitem{bfs} 

1220: R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C.A. Savoy, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 119B} (1982) 343.

1221: 

1222: \bibitem{gm}

1223: G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Masiero,

1224: %``A Natural Solution To The Mu Problem In Supergravity Theories,''

1225: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 206} (1988) 480.

1226: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B206,480;%%

1227: 

1228: %\cite{Ellis:2003pz}

1229: \bibitem{AB1}

1230: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1231: %``Phenomenological constraints on patterns of supersymmetry breaking,''

1232: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573} (2003) 162

1233: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305212].

1234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305212;%%

1235: 

1236: \bibitem{dn1}

1237: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1238: %``Radiative symmetry breaking in minimal N=1 supergravity with large Yukawa couplings,''

1239: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 369} (1992) 54.

1240: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B369,54;%%

1241: 

1242: 

1243: %\cite{Ellis:2003dn}

1244: \bibitem{GDM}

1245: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1246: %``Gravitino dark matter in the CMSSM,''

1247: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 588} (2004) 7

1248: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312262].

1249: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312262;%%

1250: 

1251: \bibitem{feng}

1252: J.~L.~Feng, S.~Su and F.~Takayama,

1253: %``Supergravity with a gravitino LSP,''

1254: arXiv:hep-ph/0404231;

1255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404231;%%

1256: %J.~L.~Feng, S.~f.~Su and F.~Takayama,

1257: %``SuperWIMP gravitino dark matter from slepton and sneutrino decays,''

1258: arXiv:hep-ph/0404198;

1259: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404198;%%

1260: J.~L.~Feng, A.~Rajaraman and F.~Takayama,

1261: %``Superweakly-interacting massive particles,''

1262: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 011302

1263: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302215].

1264: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302215;%%

1265: 

1266: 

1267: \bibitem{CEFO}

1268: R.~H.~Cyburt, J.~R.~Ellis, B.~D.~Fields and K.~A.~Olive,

1269: %``Updated nucleosynthesis constraints on unstable relic particles,''

1270: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 103521

1271: [arXiv:astro-ph/0211258].

1272: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0211258;%%

1273: 

1274: \bibitem{had}

1275: K.~Jedamzik,

1276: %``Did something decay, evaporate, or annihilate during big bang

1277: %nucleosynthesis?,''

1278: arXiv:astro-ph/0402344;

1279: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402344;%%

1280: M.~Kawasaki, K.~Kohri and T.~Moroi,

1281: %``Hadronic decay of late-decaying particles and big-bang nucleosynthesis,''

1282: arXiv:astro-ph/0402490.

1283: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402490;%%

1284: 

1285: 

1286: \bibitem{Barger:1993gh}

1287: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

1288: %``Loop Corrections To Radiative Breaking Of Electroweak 

1289: %Symmetry In Supersymmetry,''

1290: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}  (1992) 3981;

1291: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,3981;%%

1292: V.~D.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger and P.~Ohmann,

1293: %``The Supersymmetric particle spectrum,''

1294: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 4908

1295: [arXiv:hep-ph/9311269].

1296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311269;%%

1297: 

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{deBoer:1994he}

1300: W.~de Boer, R.~Ehret and D.~I.~Kazakov,

1301: %``Predictions of SUSY masses in the minimal supersymmetric grand unified theory,''

1302: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 647

1303: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405342];

1304: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405342;%%

1305: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~T.~Matchev and R.~J.~Zhang,

1306: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1307: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 491} (1997) 3

1308: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606211].

1309: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%

1310: 

1311: 

1312: \bibitem{Carena:2001fw}

1313: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~Wagner,

1314: %``Higgs-boson pole masses in the MSSM with explicit CP violation,''

1315: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625} (2002) 345

1316: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111245].

1317: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111245;%%

1318: 

1319: 

1320: %\cite{Group:2004rc}

1321: \bibitem{mtop}

1322: CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration and Tevatron Electroweak Working Group

1323: arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.

1324: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%

1325: 

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{bench}

1328: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.},

1329: %``Proposed post-LEP benchmarks for supersymmetry,''

1330: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22} (2001) 535

1331: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].

1332: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%

1333: 

1334: \bibitem{isa}

1335: H.~Baer, F.~E.~Paige, S.~D.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,

1336: {\it ISAJET 7.48: A Monte Carlo event generator for $p p$, ${\bar p} p$,

1337: and $e^+ e^-$ reactions}, hep-ph/0001086. The latest update is

1338: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001086;%%

1339: available from {\tt http://paige.home.cern.ch/paige/}.

1340: 

1341: \bibitem{th}

1342: J.~Tabei and H.~Hotta,

1343: %``Constraints on trilinear coupling constant A(0) and tan beta in minimal  supergravity model,''

1344: arXiv:hep-ph/0208039.

1345: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208039;%%

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{eoss}

1348: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1349: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in light of WMAP,''

1350: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 176

1351: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303043].

1352: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303043;%%

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{wmapothers}

1355: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1356: %``WMAP constraints, SUSY dark matter and implications for the direct  detection

1357: %of SUSY,''

1358: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 035005

1359: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303201];

1360: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303201;%%

1361: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs,

1362: %``Chi**2 analysis of the minimal supergravity model including WMAP,  g(mu)-2

1363: %and b $\to$ s gamma constraints,''

1364: JCAP {\bf 0305}, 006 (2003)

1365: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303114];

1366: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303114;%%

1367: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1368: %``WMAPing out supersymmetric dark matter and phenomenology,''

1369: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 568}, 55 (2003)

1370: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303130];

1371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303130;%%

1372: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and B.~Hu,

1373: %``Dark matter, muon g-2 and other SUSY constraints,''

1374: arXiv:hep-ph/0310103.

1375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310103;%%

1376: 

1377: \bibitem{wmap}

1378: C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

1379: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1380: %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

1381: arXiv:astro-ph/0302207;

1382: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

1383: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1384: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1385: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1386: arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.

1387: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

1388: 

1389: \bibitem{sven}

1390: J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1391: %``Observability of the lightest CMSSM Higgs boson at hadron colliders,''

1392: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515} (2001) 348

1393: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105061].

1394: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105061;%%

1395: 

1396: 

1397: \bibitem{fp}

1398: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1399: %``Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,''

1400: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 075005

1401: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334];

1402: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%%

1403: A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,

1404: %``Are heavy scalars natural in minimal supergravity?,''

1405: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 487} (2000) 165

1406: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912301].

1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912301;%%

1408: 

1409: 

1410: %\cite{Bennett:2004pv}

1411: \bibitem{newg2Co}

1412: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1413: %``Measurement of the negative muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''

1414: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92} (2004) 161802

1415: [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008].

1416: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%

1417: 

1418: 

1419: %\cite{Davier:2003pw}

1420: \bibitem{davier}

1421: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,

1422: %``Updated estimate of the muon magnetic moment using revised results from e+ e-

1423: %annihilation,''

1424: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 31} (2003) 503

1425: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308213].

1426: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308213;%%

1427: 

1428: \bibitem{Hag04}

1429: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

1430: arXiv:hep-ph/0312250.

1431: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312250;%%

1432: 

1433: %\cite{Troconiz:2004tr}

1434: \bibitem{deTY}

1435: J.~F.~de Troc\'oniz and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain,

1436: %``The hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,''

1437: arXiv:hep-ph/0402285.

1438: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402285;%%

1439: 

1440: %\cite{Melnikov:2003xd}

1441: \bibitem{mv}

1442: K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,

1443: %``Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon anomalous

1444: %magnetic moment revisited,''

1445: arXiv:hep-ph/0312226.

1446: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312226;%%

1447: 

1448: %\cite{Acosta:2004xj}

1449: \bibitem{bmumu}

1450: D.~Acosta {\it et al.}  [CDF Collaboration],

1451: %``Search for B/s0 $\to$ mu+ mu- and B/d0 $\to$ mu+ mu- decays in p anti-p

1452: %collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.96-TeV,''

1453: arXiv:hep-ex/0403032.

1454: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403032;%%

1455: 

1456: %\cite{Pierce:1996zz}

1457: \bibitem{pbmz}

1458: D.~M.~Pierce, J.~A.~Bagger, K.~T.~Matchev and R.~j.~Zhang,

1459: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1460: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 491} (1997) 3

1461: [arXiv:hep-ph/9606211].

1462: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606211;%%

1463: 

1464: \bibitem{bsg}

1465: M.S. Alam et al., [CLEO Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} 

1466: (1995) 2885 as updated in

1467: S.~Ahmed et al., {CLEO CONF 99-10};

1468: BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0003, contribution to the 30th 

1469: International conference on High-Energy Physics, Osaka, 2000.

1470: See also

1471: K.~Abe {\it et al.},  [Belle Collaboration],

1472: [arXiv:hep-ex/0107065];

1473: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107065;%%

1474: L.~Lista  [BaBar Collaboration],

1475: [arXiv:hep-ex/0110010];

1476: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110010;%%

1477: C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

1478: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

1479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1480: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1481: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

1482: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003];

1483: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1484: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,

1485: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338; 

1486: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%

1487: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,

1488: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''

1489: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007

1490: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];

1491: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%

1492: T.~Hurth, arXiv:hep-ph/0212304. 

1493: 

1494: \bibitem{buchmuller}

1495: M.~Bolz, A.~Brandenburg and W.~Buchmuller,

1496: %``Thermal production of gravitinos,''

1497: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 518

1498: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012052];

1499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012052;%%

1500: W.~Buchmuller, K.~Hamaguchi and M.~Ratz,

1501: %``Gauge couplings at high temperature and the relic gravitino abundance,''

1502: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 574} (2003) 156

1503: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307181].

1504: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307181;%%

1505: 

1506: \end{thebibliography}

1507: 

1508: \end{document}

1509: 

1510: 

1511: 

1512: 

1513: 

1514: 

1515: 

1516: 

1517: 

1518:  

1519: 

1520: