1: %The Editor,
2: %Physical Review D.
3: %
4: %Please find attached our paper titled, "Neutralino Cold Dark Matter in a
5: %One Parameter Extension of the Minimal Supergravity Model" by H. Baer et
6: %al. which we are submitting for publication as a Rapid Communication in
7: %Physical Review D. This paper is being transferred from PRL
8: %(Ref. No. LZ8996) whose Editors found it unsuitable for publication,
9: %based on the reports of three referees, A-C. While Referee B recommended
10: %the paper for publication in PRL (after some changes that we have
11: %already implemented) Referees A and C felt that-- though this work was
12: %technically sound-- it was not of general enough interest to warrant
13: %publication in PRL.
14: %
15: %As far as we could ascertain, Referee A felt that a more general model
16: %(what we call the NUHM2 model in the text) had been discussed in the
17: %literature, so that discussion of a "particular case" of this was
18: %unsuitable for PRL. While we agree that the two parameter extension had
19: %been discussed in the literature, our point was that even in the
20: %simplest one parameter extension of the minimal supergravity model
21: %(which has been the framework for hundreds of analyses of SUSY), it is
22: %possible to obtain consistency with all low energy data *and* the WMAP
23: %data for wide ranges of mSUGRA parameters. This is in sharp contrast to
24: %the mSUGRA framework where agreement with WMAP is possible only if
25: %tan\beta is very large, many sparticles are very heavy (arguably in
26: %conflict with fine tuning considerations), or if the LSP is
27: %coincidentally close in mass to a coloured or charged sparticle
28: %(coannihilation). Thus even in the simplest extension of the paradigm
29: %mSUGRA framework, a much wider range of phenomena become available
30: %in collider experiments than thought possible.
31: %
32: %Referee C also agrees that this paper is technically sound, but deems it
33: %unsuitable for publication in PRL because he found the one parameter
34: %extension to be "not a compelling framework". He argued this because in
35: %SO(10) SUSY theories, he pointed out that a splitting between the soft
36: %susy breaking masses of the two MSSM Higgs doublets (which is zero in
37: %the NUHM1 framework) is necessary. We agree with this Referee that this
38: %splitting is necessary in SO(10) models with unification of Yukawa
39: %couplings. In our analysis, we use SO(10) only as a guide as to why the
40: %type of scenario we consider might be of interest, but since we do not
41: %adopt any particular SO(10) model we have no Yukawa coupling
42: %unification, and hence do not need the splitting that he refers to!
43: %Indeed, the reader can see that we find that electroweak symmetry can be
44: %properly broken and realistic spectra in agreement with all observations
45: %can be obtained. While this was implicit in our letter, space
46: %considerations had precluded us from stating this explicitly. Since this
47: %is no longer a limitation, we have augmented the third paragraph of the
48: %paper to make this clearer.
49: %
50: %We continue to believe that it is interesting and important to
51: %communicate the fact that while the WMAP data force us into particular
52: %corners of mSUGRA model parameter space (sometimes thought unnatural),
53: %this is no longer true if we extend the
54: %framework by allowing for just one additional parameter.
55: %We, therefore, request that you consider this paper for
56: %publication in the Rapid Communications section of Physical Review D.
57: %
58: % Yours Sincerely,
59: %
60: % H. Baer, A.~Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A.~Belyaev and X. Tata
61:
62: % Uses LaTeX with ReVTeX 4\epsfig{file=dmdet.eps,height=6.2cm,width=18cm}
63: % journal style:
64: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,preprintnumbers,%
65: showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
66: \newcommand{\PRE}[1]{} % Use if journal style
67: % preprint style:
68: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,superscriptaddress,tightenlines,%
69: % nofootinbib]{revtex4}
70: %\newcommand{\PRE}[1]{{#1}} % Use if preprint style
71: %\special{papersize=8.5in,11in}
72: % Other options:
73: %\documentclass[aps,prd,amsmath,tightenlines,amsfonts,amssymb]{revtex4}
74: %\documentclass[aps,prd,draft,showkeys,floatfix]{revtex4}
75:
76: \usepackage{bm}
77: \usepackage{epsfig}
78: %\input epsf.tex
79: %\usepackage{graphicx}
80:
81: %\setlength{\textheight}{8.9in}
82: %\setlength{\textwidth}{16.1cm}
83: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5cm}
84: %\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.5cm}
85: %\setlength{\topmargin}{1cm}
86: %\setlength{\footskip}{1cm}
87:
88: \newcommand{\postscript}[2]{\setlength{\epsfxsize}{#2\hsize}
89: \centerline{\epsfbox{#1}}}
90:
91: \def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
92: \def\to{\rightarrow}
93: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}
94: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
95: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
96: \def\te{\tilde e}
97: \def\tl{\tilde l}
98: \def\tu{\tilde u}
99: \def\ts{\tilde s}
100: \def\tb{\tilde b}
101: \def\tf{\tilde f}
102: \def\td{\tilde d}
103: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}
104: \def\tL{\tilde L}
105: \def\tH{\tilde H}
106: \def\tst{\tilde t}
107: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}
108: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
109: \def\tg{\tilde g}
110: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}
111: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}
112: \def\tq{\tilde q}
113: \def\tw{\widetilde W}
114: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}
115: %\def\tw{\widetilde\chi^{\pm}}
116: %\def\tz{\widetilde\chi^0}
117: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
118: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
119: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
120: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
121:
122: \topmargin-1.0cm
123:
124: \begin{document}
125:
126: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
127: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}
128:
129: \preprint{FSU-HEP-041201}
130: \preprint{MSU-HEP-041201}
131: \preprint{UH-511-1062-04}
132:
133: \title{
134: \PRE{\vspace*{1.5in}}
135: Neutralino Cold Dark Matter in a One Parameter Extension\\
136: of the Minimal Supergravity Model
137: \PRE{\vspace*{0.3in}}
138: }
139:
140: \author{Howard Baer}\author{Azar Mustafayev}\author{Stefano Profumo}
141: \affiliation{Dept. of Physics,
142: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
143: \PRE{\vspace*{.1in}}
144: }
145: \author{Alexander Belyaev}
146: \affiliation{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
147: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
148: \PRE{\vspace*{.1in}}
149: }
150: \author{Xerxes Tata}
151: \affiliation{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
152: University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
153: \PRE{\vspace*{.2in}}
154: }
155:
156: %\date{November 24, 2004}
157:
158: \begin{abstract}
159: \PRE{\vspace*{.1in}}
160: Within the minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA) framework, the
161: expectation for the relic density of neutralinos exceeds the WMAP
162: determination, unless neutralinos {\it a})~have a significant higgsino
163: component, {\it b})~have a mass close to half that of a heavy Higgs
164: boson, or {\it c})~can efficiently co-annihilate with a charged or
165: colored particle. Within a 1-parameter extension of the mSUGRA model
166: which includes non-universal Higgs masses, we
167: show that agreement with the WMAP data can be obtained over a wide range
168: of mSUGRA parameters for scenarios {\it a}) and {\it b}), so that the
169: phenomenological implications may be much more diverse than in mSUGRA.
170: We show that direct and/or indirect detection of neutralino dark matter
171: should be possible at various current and planned facilities.
172:
173: \end{abstract}
174:
175: \pacs{12.60.-i, 95.35.+d, 14.80.Ly, 11.30.Pb}
176: %12.60.-i Models beyond the standard model
177: %95.35.+d Dark matter
178:
179: \maketitle
180:
181: Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a novel spacetime symmetry between bosons and fermions.
182: %Supersymmetric models of particle physics include a broken supersymmetry
183: %which yields superpartners of each Standard Model (SM) particle with mass
184: %expected in the range $\sim 100-1000$ GeV.
185: In realistic models, SUSY is broken at the weak scale
186: implying that all Standard Model (SM) particles must have superpartners
187: with masses in the range $\sim 100-1000$ GeV that will be accessible to
188: colliders.
189: The lightest neutralino $\tz_1$ of $R$-parity conserving SUSY models
190: is an especially attractive and well-motivated candidate
191: for cold dark matter (CDM) in the universe\cite{goldberg}.
192: The WMAP collaboration\cite{Spergel:2003cb} has
193: recently determined the relic density of CDM in the universe to be
194: $\Omega_{CDM}h^2=0.113\pm 0.009$ ($1\sigma$); this measurement,
195: especially its implied {\it upper limit}, provides a powerful constraint
196: for any model of particle physics that includes a candidate for CDM.
197:
198: %In supersymmetric models of particle physics,
199: The present neutralino relic density can be
200: determined by solving the Boltzmann equation for neutralinos in a
201: Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. The central aspect of the calculation
202: involves a computation of the thermally averaged neutralino
203: annihilation and co-annihilation cross sections.
204: Many analyses of SUSY CDM have been carried out within the
205: paradigm minimal supergravity (mSUGRA)
206: model\cite{msugra}. The free parameters of the mSUGRA model consist of
207: $m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ {\rm and}\ sign(\mu )$,
208: where $m_0$ is the common scalar mass, $m_{1/2}$ is the common
209: gaugino mass, and $A_0$ is a common trilinear soft SUSY breaking
210: parameter all defined at the scale $Q=M_{GUT}\simeq 2\times 10^{16}$ GeV.
211: The parameter $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of weak scale Higgs field
212: vacuum expectation values, and
213: $\mu$ is a superpotential parameter whose magnitude is constrained
214: by the requirement of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB).
215: Once these model parameters are specified, then all
216: sparticle masses and mixings are determined, and scattering cross
217: sections, decay rates, relic density and dark matter detection rates
218: may all be reliably calculated.
219:
220: It has been increasingly recognized that
221: the typical value of $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ as given by the mSUGRA model
222: significantly exceeds its WMAP upper limit.
223: Only specific regions of the mSUGRA model parameter space where
224: neutralinos can efficiently annihilate are in accord with the WMAP data.
225: These include: {\it i})~The bulk annihilation region at low values of
226: $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$, where neutralino pair annihilation occurs at a
227: large rate via $t$-channel slepton exchange. {\it ii})~The stau (stop)
228: co-annihilation region at low $m_0$\cite{ellis_stau} (for special values
229: of $A_0$\cite{drees}) where $m_{\tz_1}\simeq m_{\ttau_1}$
230: ($m_{\tz_1}\simeq m_{\tst_1}$) so that $\tz_1$s may co-annihilate with
231: $\ttau_1$s ($\tst_1$) in the early universe. {\it iii})~The hyperbolic
232: branch/focus point (HB/FP) region at large $m_0\sim 3-7$ TeV (depending
233: sensitively on the assumed value of $m_t$) near the boundary of the
234: REWSB excluded region where $|\mu |$ becomes small, and the neutralinos
235: have a significant higgsino component, which facilitates annihilations
236: to $WW$ and $ZZ$ pairs\cite{ccn_fmm}. {\it iv}). The $A$-annihilation
237: funnel, which occurs at very large $\tan\beta\sim 45-60$. In this case,
238: the value of $m_A\sim 2m_{\tz_1}$, so that neutralino annihilation in
239: the early universe is enhanced by the $A$ (and also $H$) $s$-channel
240: poles\cite{Afunnel}.
241: These allowed regions frequently occur either at edges
242: of parameter space, or for extreme values of mSUGRA parameters. In
243: this paper, we show that mSUGRA parameter choices that were previously
244: disallowed by WMAP can in fact be brought into accord with the relic density
245: measurement via two possible solutions, in a well motivated one parameter
246: extension of the model. Thus, parameter choices thought to be irrelevant
247: for collider and other SUSY searches are in fact now allowed.
248: %Thus, what were previously considered as special situations for SUSY
249: %phenomenology are really quite generic.
250:
251: The assumption of a universal soft SUSY breaking scalar mass $m_0$ is
252: phenomenologically motivated for matter scalars, since universality
253: guarantees in a super-GIM mechanism which suppresses dangerous flavor
254: changing neutral current processes\cite{georgi}. Within the framework
255: of gravity-mediated SUSY breaking, universality for {\it all} scalars is
256: realized by assuming a flat K\"ahler potential, though non-universal
257: scalar masses are certainly possible\cite{soniweldon}. While universal
258: masses for matter scalars is phenomenologically motivated, there is, no
259: motivation for assuming that the Higgs field scalars also have a common
260: GUT scale mass $m_0$. Indeed, in supersymmetric $SO(10)$ grand unified
261: theories, which are highly motivated by recent data on neutrino masses,
262: the matter multiplets of each generation belong to the 16 dimensional
263: spinorial representation of $SO(10)$, while the Higgs multiplets inhabit
264: a single 10 dimensional fundamental representation, and would have an
265: unrelated mass, assuming that the SUSY breaking mechanism is not
266: completely blind to gauge quantum numbers. In the simplest case, we may
267: naively expect the Higgs soft SUSY breaking squared masses to obey
268: $m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2\ne m_0^2$ so that this one parameter extension is
269: characterized by, \be m_0,\ m_\phi ,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ {\rm
270: and}\ sign(\mu ), \ee where $m_\phi=
271: sign(m_{H_{u,d}}^2)\cdot\sqrt{|m_{H_{u,d}}^2|}$.\footnote{We stress that
272: we are using $SO(10)$ considerations only to guide our thinking, and do
273: not commit to any particular $SO(10)$ framework. As a result, many of
274: the usual consequences such as the unification of Yukawa couplings that
275: follow in the minimal $SO(10)$ model, no longer obtain in our
276: case. In particular, as we will see below, it is possible to break
277: electroweak symmetry radiatively even if the MSSM Higgs scalar doublets
278: have equal mass parameters at $Q=M_{GUT}$.}
279: We dub this the {\it non-universal} Higgs mass (NUHM1) model, to
280: distinguish it from the more general NUHM2 model\cite{an,bdqt} where
281: each Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) Higgs scalar has an
282: independent mass parameter at $Q=M_{GUT}$.
283: The NUHM2 model has recently been
284: investigated by Ellis et al.\cite{ellis_nuhm}, and is motivated instead
285: by $SU(5)$ SUSY grand unification. These NUHM2 models have also
286: been investigated recently within the context of Yukawa unified SUSY
287: models\cite{so10}.
288:
289:
290:
291: %In this Letter, we report on the implications of the NUHM1 model,
292: %with emphasis on its predictions for neutralino cold dark matter.
293: We begin our analysis of the NUHM1 model
294: by noting that the parameter range for
295: $m_\phi$ need not be limited to positive values.
296: Some authors have invoked the so-called GUT stability bound,
297: $sm_{\phi}^2+\mu^2(M_{GUT}) >0$ (with $s=sign(m_\phi )$),
298: to avoid EWSB at too high a scale; see Ref.~\cite{gutstab} where the
299: applicability of these bounds is discussed. Except to note
300: that these are hardly constraining for the cases that we present
301: here, we do not consider them any further.
302:
303: We generate
304: sparticle mass spectra using ISAJET v7.72\cite{isajet} upgraded to allow
305: the input of negative Higgs squared masses. ISAJET includes
306: full one-loop radiative corrections
307: to all sparticle masses and Yukawa couplings,
308: and minimizes the scalar potential using the
309: renormalization group improved effective potential
310: renormalized at an optimized scale choice to account for leading two
311: loop terms. We evaluate the relic density using the IsaReD\cite{isared}
312: program, and to
313: evaluate the indirect CDM signals expected from the NUHM1
314: model, we adopt the DarkSUSY\cite{darksusy} package interfaced to
315: ISAJET.
316:
317: As a first example, in Fig. \ref{fig:1} we show one of the
318: critical aspects of the NUHM1 model, where we plot in {\it a}) the values of
319: $\mu$, $m_A$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ versus
320: $m_\phi/m_0$, while
321: fixing other parameters as listed.
322: One can see that $\mu$ becomes
323: much larger for $m_\phi\le -m_0$, and much smaller for $m_\phi > m_0$
324: compared to the case of $m_\phi=m_0$.
325: The region of small $\mu$ is of particular interest since in
326: that case the lightest neutralino becomes more higgsino-like, and gives
327: rise to a relic density which can be in accord with
328: the WMAP determination\cite{drees_susy2004}.
329: In the mSUGRA model, the higgsino-like $\tz_1$ region occurs in the HB/FP
330: region mentioned above, with $m_0\sim 3-7$ TeV.
331: We immediately see one important virtue of the NUHM1 model: the higgsino
332: annihilation region may be reached even with relatively low values of
333: $m_0$ and $m_{\phi}$. Thus, unlike the mSUGRA model case,
334: the low $|\mu|$ region of the NUHM1 model can occur for small
335: values of $m_0$, $m_{\phi}$ and $m_{1/2}$, and so need not suffer from
336: fine tuning\cite{finetune}.
337: %
338: \begin{figure}[tbp]
339: \postscript{prl_fig1.eps}{0.95}
340: \caption{The values of {\it a}). $\mu$, $m_A$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ versus
341: $m_\phi /m_0$ for two cases in the NUHM1 model. We also show
342: {\it b}). $\Omega_{CDM}h^2$, {\it c}). $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ and
343: {\it d}). $\Delta a_\mu$. The curves terminate on the left (right)
344: because $m_A^2<0$ ($\mu^2 <0$) so that REWSB is not obtained.
345: \label{fig:1}}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348: We also see from Fig. \ref{fig:1} that the value of $m_A$ can range
349: beyond its mSUGRA value for large values of $m_\phi$, to quite small values
350: when $m_\phi$ becomes less than zero\cite{javier}. In particular, when $m_A\sim
351: 2m_{\tz_1}$, then neutralinos in the early universe may annihilate
352: efficiently through the $A$ and $H$ Higgs resonances, so that again
353: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2$ may be brought into accord with the WMAP
354: determination. In the mSUGRA model, the $A$-annihilation funnel occurs
355: only at large $\tan\beta\gtrsim 45$ (55) for $\mu <0$ ($\mu >0$). However,
356: in the NUHM1 model, the $A$-funnel region may be reached even for low
357: $\tan\beta$ values, if $m_\phi$ is taken to have negative values. At low
358: $\tan\beta$, the $A$ and $H$ widths are much narrower than the large
359: $\tan\beta$ case. We also show in frames {\it b}) the relic density
360: $\Omega h^2$, {\it c}) the branching fraction $BF(b\to s\gamma )$
361: (allowed range conservatively taken to be $\sim (2.6-4.5)\times 10^{-4}$),
362: and {\it d}) the SUSY
363: contribution to the muon magnetic moment $\Delta a_\mu$.
364: We have also checked that the branching ratio $B(B_s \to \mu^+\mu^-) <
365: 10^{-8}$ even for the smallest values of $m_A$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}.
366:
367: To understand the behavior of the $\mu$ parameter and $m_A$ in the NUHM1
368: model, we define $\Delta m_{H_{u,d}}^2 \equiv m_{H_{u,d}}^2({\rm
369: NUHM1})-m_{H_{u,d}}^2({\rm mSUGRA})$, and obtain the one loop
370: renormalization group equation
371: %
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: \frac{d\Delta m_{H_u}^2}{dt} &\simeq \frac{2}{16\pi^2}\times
374: 3f_t^2[X_t({\rm NUHM1})-X_t({\rm mSUGRA})]\nonumber\\
375: &\simeq
376: \frac{3}{8\pi^2}f_t^2\Delta m_{H_u}^2,
377: \label{Dmhurge}
378: \end{eqnarray}
379: %
380: where $t=\log (Q)$, $f_{t}$ is the top quark Yukawa
381: coupling, and $X_t=m_{Q_3}^2+m_{\tst_R}^2+m_{H_u}^2+A_t^2$.
382: Eq.~(\ref{Dmhurge}) can be readily integrated to obtain,
383: $$\Delta m_{H_u}^2(weak)=\Delta m_{H_u}^2(GUT) \times e^{-J_t}\;,$$
384: where $J_t=\frac{3}{8\pi^2}\int dt f_t^2 > 0$. We see that $\Delta
385: m_{H_u}^2$ maintains its sign under RG evolution, and furthermore,
386: reduces in magnitude in the evolution from high to low scales. The same
387: considerations also apply to $\Delta m_{H_d}^2$, except that the effect is
388: much smaller because for the modest values of $\tan\beta$ that we
389: consider, $f_{b,\tau}\ll f_t$ so that $J_b$ and $J_{\tau}$ are both
390: $\ll 1$ and $\Delta m_{H_d}^2(GUT) \simeq \Delta m_{H_d}^2(weak)$.
391: From the tree level minimization condition for EWSB in the MSSM
392: %
393: \begin{displaymath}
394: \mu^2 =\frac{m_{H_d}^2-m_{H_u}^2\tan^2\beta}{(\tan^2\beta -1)}-
395: {M_Z^2\over 2} ,
396: \end{displaymath}
397: %
398: we see that
399: for moderate to large values of $\tan\beta$ (as favored by LEP2 Higgs boson
400: mass constraints), and $|m_{H_u}^2|\gg M_Z^2$, $\mu^2\sim -m_{H_u}^2$.
401: We thus see that a large value of $\mu^2$ is expected if $m_{\phi}$ is
402: large and negative. In contrast, for $m_\phi > m_0$, we expect a
403: smaller weak scale magnitude of $m_{H_u}^2$, and hence of $\mu^2$.
404:
405: The tree level pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$ is given by
406: %
407: \begin{displaymath}
408: m_A^2=m_{H_u}^2+m_{H_d}^2+ 2\mu^2 \simeq m_{H_d}^2-m_{H_u}^2,
409: \end{displaymath}
410: %
411: where the last equality holds in the approximation $\mu^2 \sim - m_{H_u}^2$.
412: For values of $\tan\beta$ such that $J_b$ and $J_{\tau}$ can be
413: neglected compared to $J_t$, it is easy to see that
414: $$m_A^2({\rm NUHM1})-m_A^2({\rm
415: mSUGRA})=(sm_{\phi}^2-m_0^2)(1-e^{-J_t}) \; $$
416: thereby accounting for the $m_A$ dependence in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a.
417:
418: Most other sparticle masses are relatively
419: invariant to changes in $m_\phi$ (justifying our approximation in the
420: last step of (\ref{Dmhurge})). An obvious exception occurs for the
421: chargino $\tw_1$ and neutralino $\tz_{1,2}$ masses,
422: which become small when $\mu\alt M_{1,2}$,
423: and the $\tz_1$ becomes increasingly higgsino-like. The other exception
424: occurs for third generation squark masses.
425: In this case, the
426: $(\tst_L,\tb_L )$ and $\tst_R$ running masses depend on $m_{\phi}$
427: via the $f_t^2 X_t$ terms in the RG equations, and can be somewhat
428: suppressed for large positive values of $m_{\phi}^2$.
429: %. Thus, when $X_t$ is small
430: %(for $m_H\ll 0$), the top and bottom squarks receive little RG
431: %suppression,
432: %and when $m_H$ is large, so that $X_t$ is large, those soft masses should
433: %receive large suppression, and so we find lighter third generation squarks.
434:
435: In order to estimate the dark matter detection rates for the NUHM1 model,
436: we adopt a cored halo model
437: (the Burkert profile, \cite{burkert}) which has been tested against a
438: large sample of rotation curves in spiral galaxies \cite{salucci-burkert},
439: and whose density profile reads
440: \begin{equation}
441: \rho_B(r)=\frac{\rho_B^0}{(1+r/a)\left(1+(r/a)^2\right)},
442: \end{equation}
443: with $a=11.7\ {\rm kpc}$ and $\rho_B^0=0.34\ {\rm GeV}\ {\rm cm}^{-3}$.
444: The particular configuration we use has been found after implementing
445: all available dynamical constraints and numerical simulation
446: indications on the halo mass-concentration correlation \cite{piero}.
447: The corresponding velocity distribution has been self-consistently
448: computed (see Ref.~\cite{piero} for details), thus allowing for a
449: reliable comparison among direct and indirect
450: detection techniques \cite{Profumo:2004ty}.
451: %Other consistent halo model choices would typically yield
452: %larger detection rates\cite{howiepap}, particularly as far as
453: %indirect detection is concerned: in this respect our results
454: %can be regarded as conservative {\em lower limits}.
455:
456: \begin{figure*}[tb]
457: \epsfig{file=prl_fig2.eps,
458: height=5.2cm
459: %,width=18cm
460: }
461: \caption{Dark matter detection Visibility Ratios ({\em i.e.}
462: signal-to-projected-sensitivity ratios) for various direct and
463: indirect techniques, as a function of the GUT-scale non-universal
464: Higgs mass parameter $m_\phi$. A Visibility Ratio larger than 1 implies
465: that the model will be detectable. The dark (red)
466: shadings to the left (right)
467: of the plot indicate regions ruled out by the LEP2 bounds on
468: $m_A$ ($m_{\tw_1}$). Within the lighter shaded
469: (green) regions
470: a thermal neutralino relic abundance compatible with the WMAP
471: upper bound \cite{Spergel:2003cb} is produced.
472: \label{fig:3}}
473: \end{figure*}
474:
475:
476: Following Ref.~\cite{Profumo:2004ty,Profumo:2004at},
477: we adopt here {\em Visibility Ratios} (VR), {\em i.e.} ratios of the
478: expected signals from a given supersymmetric model over the
479: projected future sensitivities in the particular detection technique,
480: and for the corresponding neutralino mass. Direct detection refers to
481: the spin-independent (SI) neutralino-proton scattering cross section,
482: compared to the sensitivity of CDMS-II\cite{cdms} and of
483: future ton-size experiments,
484: such as XENON \cite{Aprile:2004ey}.
485: We compute the flux of neutrino-induced muons produced by neutralino pair
486: annihilations in the sun, and compare
487: the flux against the projected sensitivity of the ${\rm km}^2$-size
488: detector IceCube (computed for an energy threshold of 1 GeV),
489: taking into account the energy threshold mismatch and the
490: dependence of the detector sensitivity on the soft ({\em e.g.} $b\bar b$,
491: in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:3}) and hard ({\em e.g.} $W^+W^-$, in the
492: right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:3}) neutrino production channels, following
493: Ref.~\cite{esu}.
494: As regards antideuterons, we compute the solar-modulated flux, at solar
495: maximum, in the low energy range $0.1<T_{\overline{D}}<0.4$ GeV, where the
496: background is strongly suppressed \cite{dbar}. The VR is then defined as
497: the ratio of the computed $\overline D$ flux over the sensitivity of a GAPS
498: \cite{Mori:2001dv} detector placed on a satellite orbiting around the
499: Earth, and tuned to look for antideuterons in the mentioned very low
500: kinetic energy interval, corresponding to a $\overline D$ flux of
501: $2.6\times 10^{-9} {\rm m}^{-2}{\rm sr}^{-1} {\rm GeV}^{-1} {\rm s}^{-1}$
502: \cite{Mori:2001dv}.
503: Regarding antiprotons and positrons, we adopt the quantity $I_\phi$,
504: defined in Ref.~\cite{Profumo:2004ty}, and examine the sensitivity of the
505: PAMELA experiment after 3 years of data-taking.
506: Finally, the gamma ray flux from the galactic center (GC) refers to the
507: sensitivity of the GLAST experiment to the integral photon flux
508: above a 1 GeV threshold \cite{Morselli:2003xw}.
509:
510: While only large values of $m_\phi$ will be probed via CDM detection at
511: CDMS-II, all the
512: parameter space will be probed by future
513: experiments such as XENON. Interestingly enough,
514: we obtain observable rates for
515: indirect detection experiments only in those regions where a
516: neutralino relic abundance compatible with the WMAP upper
517: bound \cite{Spergel:2003cb} is produced.
518: The first cosmologically allowed parameter space region,
519: lying in the range $-2.57<m_\phi/m_0<-2.45$, features a large neutralino
520: annihilation cross section, due to the proximity of heavy Higgs
521: resonances\cite{bo}. This yields detectable rates in all experiments
522: apart from IceCube, where the rate of neutralino capture inside the sun
523: depends critically on the spin-dependent neutralino-nucleon
524: coupling, which is suppressed in this large $|\mu|$ region:
525: %by a large value of the $\mu$ parameter:
526: see Fig.~\ref{fig:3}. In the second viable parameter
527: space region ($1.83<m_\phi/m_0<1.93$), a large higgsino fraction implies
528: instead detectability at IceCube, as well as at future antiprotons
529: and antideuterons searches. Though positrons and gamma rays rates
530: are enhanced in this region, they will still be slightly below
531: the respective planned experimental sensitivities. We note, however, that
532: detection rates from halo annihilations are very sensitive to the
533: CDM halo profile which is assumed.
534: More quantitatively, we find that with an extremely cuspy profile (such as
535: the adiabatically contracted NFW profile of Ref.~\cite{piero}), the direct
536: detection and neutrino telescope rates increase only by around 20\%, the
537: $\overline D$ flux by $\sim 10^1$, positrons and
538: antiprotons VR's by $\sim 10^2$, and the gamma ray flux from the
539: GC by more than $10^4$ (see also the discussions in Ref.~\cite{bo} and
540: \cite{Profumo:2004ty}).
541:
542: {\it Summary:}
543: The mSUGRA model prediction of the CDM relic density can
544: be brought into accord with the WMAP measured value only if
545: the neutralino annihilation cross section is enhanced, usually
546: due to $A$ and $H$ boson resonances, or by increasing
547: the higgsino content of the neutralino. Within the mSUGRA framework, these
548: possibilities occur only if $\tan\beta$ is very large or
549: scalar masses are in the HB/FP region at very large $m_0$.
550: We have shown that in the NUHM1 model,
551: a well motivated 1-parameter extension of mSUGRA, neutralino
552: annihilation via heavy Higgs resonances can occur even for
553: low values of $\tan\beta$, and neutralino annihilation via higgsino
554: components can occur at low values of $m_0$.
555: Thus, a much wider range of collider
556: signals and low energy phenomenology is possible compared to
557: expectations from the mSUGRA model.
558:
559: This research was supported in part by grants from
560: the United States Department of Energy.
561:
562: %For most choices of mSUGRA model parameters, the
563: %neutralino relic density may be brought into accord with the WMAP value
564: %by either {\it i}) decreasing $m_\phi$ to large negative values, where
565: %the $A$-resonance occurs, or {\it ii}) by increasing $m_\phi$ until the
566: %neutralino becomes sufficiently higgsino-like to yield again a relic
567: %density in accord with WMAP. It is well-known that this situation occurs
568: %in the NUHM2 model, where the parameters $m_{H_u}^2$ and $m_{H_d}^2$ may
569: %be traded for $m_A$ and $\mu$. That it also occurs in the $SO(10)$
570: %inspired NUHM1 model is gratifying in that many mSUGRA model parameter
571: %choices which were thought to be excluded are in fact allowed in this
572: %well-motivated one-parameter extension of the model.
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
579: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
581:
582: \bibitem{goldberg}H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50}, 1419 (1983);
583: J. Ellis {\it et al.},
584: %J. Hagelin, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
585: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238}, 453 (1984)
586: %
587: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}
588: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],
589: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
590: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''
591: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).
592: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].
593: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%
594: %
595: \bibitem{msugra}
596: %A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
597: %Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 970 (1982);
598: %R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy,
599: %Phys. Lett. B{\bf 119}, 343 (1982);
600: %L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D27}, 2359 (1983);
601: For a review, see {\it e.g.} P. Nath, hep-ph/0307123.
602: %
603: \bibitem{ellis_stau} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. Olive,
604: Phys. Lett. {\bf B444}, 367 (1998);
605: %J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
606: %\app{13}{2000}{181};
607: M.E. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis,
608: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 61}, 123512 (2000);
609: R.~Arnowitt {\it et al.},
610: %B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,
611: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 606}, 59 (2001).
612: %
613: \bibitem{drees} C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,
614: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 62}, 035012 (2000);
615: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, Astro. Part. Phys. {\bf 18},
616: 395 (2003).
617: %
618: \bibitem{ccn_fmm} K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath,
619: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 096004 (1998); J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,
620: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2322 (2000) and
621: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 075005 (2000);
622: H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata,
623: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 52}, 2746 (1995) and Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}, 6241 (1996).
624: %
625: \bibitem{Afunnel} M. Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 47}, 376 (1993);
626: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 57}, 567 (1998);
627: H. Baer {\it et al.},
628: %M. Brhlik, M. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante, P. Quintana and X. Tata,
629: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 63}, 015007 (2001);
630: J. Ellis {\it et al.},
631: %T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
632: Phys. Lett. {\bf B510}, 236 (2001);
633: L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and T. Nihei,
634: JHEP{\bf 0108}, 024 (2001).
635: %
636: \bibitem{georgi} S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi,
637: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B193}, 150 (1981).
638: %
639: \bibitem{soniweldon} S.~Soni and H.~A.~Weldon, Phys. Lett. {\bf B126},
640: 215 (1983).
641: %
642: \bibitem{an} See {\it e.g.}
643: V. Berezinsky {\it et al.}, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5}, 1 (1996);
644: P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56}, 2820 (1997).
645: %
646: \bibitem{bdqt} See H. Baer {\it et al.},
647: %, M. Diaz, P. Quintana and X. Tata,
648: JHEP{\bf 0004}, 016 (2000).
649: %
650: \bibitem{ellis_nuhm} J. Ellis {\it et al.},
651: %T. Falk, K. Olive and Y. Santoso,
652: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B652}, 259 (2003).
653: %
654: \bibitem{so10} H. Baer and J. Ferrandis,
655: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 211803 (2001);
656: T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 111804 (2002).
657: %
658: \bibitem{gutstab} T. Falk {\it et al.},
659: %K. Olive, L. Roszkowski, A. Singh and M. Srednicki,
660: Phys. Lett. {\bf B396}, 50 (1997).
661: %
662: \bibitem{isajet} F. Paige {\it et al.},
663: %S. Protopopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata,
664: hep-ph/0312045.
665: %
666: \bibitem{isared} H. Baer {\it et al.},
667: %, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev,
668: JHEP{\bf 0203}, 042 (2002).
669: %
670: \bibitem{darksusy} P.~Gondolo {\it et al.},
671: %J.~Edsjo, P.~Ullio, L.~Bergstrom, M.~Schelke and E.~A.~Baltz,
672: JCAP{\bf 0407}, 008 (2004).
673: %
674: \bibitem{drees_susy2004} M. Drees, hep-ph/0410113.
675: %
676: \bibitem{finetune} J. Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y. Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,
677: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 69}, 095004 (2004).
678: %
679: \bibitem{javier} See also J. Ferrandis, Phys. Rev. {\bf D68}, 015001 (2003).
680: %
681: \bibitem{burkert} A.~Burkert, Astrophys. J. {\bf 447} (1995) L25
682:
683: \bibitem{salucci-burkert} P.~Salucci and A.~Burkert,
684: Astrophys. J. {\bf 537} (2000) L9
685:
686: \bibitem{piero} P.~Ullio, Proc. {\em Frontier Science 04},
687: Frascati, Italy.
688:
689: %\cite{Profumo:2004ty}
690: \bibitem{Profumo:2004ty}
691: S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
692: %``The role of antimatter searches in the hunt for supersymmetric dark
693: %matter,''
694: JCAP {\bf 0407}, 006 (2004).
695: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0406018].
696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406018;%%
697:
698: %\cite{Profumo:2004at}
699: \bibitem{Profumo:2004at}
700: S.~Profumo and C.~E.~Yaguna,
701: %``A statistical analysis of supersymmetric dark matter in the MSSM after
702: %WMAP,''
703: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D70}, 095004 (2004).
704: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0407036].
705: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407036;%%
706: %
707: \bibitem{cdms} T.~A.~Perera {\it et al.},
708: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 605}, 485 (2002).
709: %
710: %\cite{Aprile:2004ey}
711: \bibitem{Aprile:2004ey}
712: E.~Aprile {\it et al.},
713: %``The XENON Dark Matter Search Experiment,''
714: astro-ph/0407575.
715: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407575;%%
716:
717: \bibitem{esu}
718: J.~Edsj\"o, M. Schelke and P. Ullio, astro-ph/0405414 (2004).
719:
720: \bibitem{dbar}
721: F. Donato, N. Fornengo and P. Salati,
722: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 043003 (2000).
723:
724: \bibitem{Mori:2001dv}
725: K.~Mori {\it et al.},
726: %C.~J.~Hailey, E.~A.~Baltz, W.~W.~Craig, M.~Kamionkowski, W.~T.~Serber and P.~Ullio,
727: %``A novel antimatter detector based on X-ray deexcitation of exotic atoms,''
728: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 566}, 604 (2002).
729: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0109463].
730: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0109463;%%
731:
732: %\cite{Morselli:2003xw}
733: \bibitem{Morselli:2003xw}
734: A.~Morselli,
735: %``Search for supersymmetric dark matter with GLAST'',
736: Proceedings of ICATPP Conf.
737: %2003, Como, Italy, 6-10 Oct 2003
738: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=6024459}{SPIRES entry}
739: %{\it Prepared for 8th International Conference on Advanced Technology and Particle Physics (ICATPP 2003): Astroparticle, Particle, Space Physics,
740: %Detectors and Medical Physics Applications, Como, Italy, 6-10 Oct 2003}
741: %
742: \bibitem{bo} H. Baer and J. O'Farrill, JCAP{\bf 0404}, 005 (2004);
743: %H. Baer, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and J. O'Farrill,
744: %JCAP{\bf 0408}, 005 (2004).
745: %H.~Baer {\it et al.} Ref.\cite{howiepap}.
746: H.~Baer {\it et al.},
747: %A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and J.~O'Farrill,
748: JCAP {\bf 0408}, 005 (2004).
749:
750:
751:
752:
753:
754:
755:
756:
757: \end{thebibliography}
758:
759: \end{document}
760:
761:
762: