1: %JULY 11 post dij typos

2: %July 12 includes fig 1, acknowledgements

3: %july 13 sum rule revision

4: %post GGR

5: %july 15 changed textlength command from 48 to 44

6: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

7: \input epsf

8: \newcommand{\mydate}{9/02/2005}

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{400pt}

10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{20pt}

11: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{20pt}

12: \setlength{\textheight}{44\baselineskip}

13: %revtex 

14: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf,graphicx,eqsecnum,preprint]{revtex}

15: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{  -5mm}

16: \setlength{\topmargin}    { -12mm}

17: %\setlength{\textheight}   { 220mm}

18: %\setlength{\textwidth}    { 160mm}

19: %\setlength{\parskip}      {  6   pt}  % make paragraphs look less ugly

20: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.15}

21: %\newcommand{\ewxy}[2]{\setlength{\epsfxsize}{#2}\epsfbox[30 30 640 640]{#1}}

22: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

23: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

24: %\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

25: %\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

26: \def \in{\leftskip = 40 pt\rightskip = 40pt}

27: \def \inn{\leftskip = 70 pt\rightskip = 70pt}

28: \def \out{\leftskip = 0 pt\rightskip = 0pt}

29: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #4 (#3)}

30: % Some useful journal names

31: \def\CMP{\em Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.}

32: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

33: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}

34: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}

35: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}

36: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}

37: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} 

38: \def\PRP{\em Phys. Rep.} 

39: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}

40: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}

41: \def\JLT{\em JETP\ Lett.}

42: \def\APP{\em Acta\ Phys.\ Pol.}

43: \def\ANP{\em Ann.\ Phys.\ }

44: \def\ijmpa{{\em Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ } A}

45: % Some other macros used in the sample text

46: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

47: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

48: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

49: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

50: \def\vep{\varepsilon} 

51: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

52: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}

53: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

54: \def\ko{K^0}

55: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}

56: \def\al{\alpha}

57: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}

58: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

59: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

60: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

61: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

62: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}%temp replacement due to no font

63: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr }}

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

65: %                                                %

66: %    BEGINNING OF TEXT                           %

67: %                                                %

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: %timdefs

70: \def\mbar{{\overline{m}}}

71: \def\mhat{{\hat m }}

72: \def\frak#1#2{{\textstyle{{#1}\over{#2}}}}

73: \def\Atil{\tilde A}

74: \def\btil{\tilde b}  

75: \def\ctil{\tilde c}  

76: \def\dtil{\tilde d}  

77: \def\etil{\tilde e}   

78: \def\gtil{\tilde g}

79: \def\mtil{\tilde m}

80: \def\stil{\tilde s}

81: \def\ttil{\tilde t}

82: \def\util{\tilde u}

83: \def\ytil{\tilde y}

84: \def\tautil{\tilde \tau}

85: \def\mtilde{\tilde m{}}

86: \def\mutil{\tilde \mu}

87: \def\nutil{\tilde \nu}

88: \def\chitil{\tilde \chi}

89: \def\phitil{\tilde \phi}

90: \def\psitil{\tilde \psi}

91: \def\MeV{\hbox{MeV}}

92: \def\GeV{\hbox{GeV}}

93: \def\TeV{\hbox{TeV}}

94: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

95: \def\lf{16\pi^2}

96: \def\llf{(16\pi^2)^2}

97: \def\lllf{(16\pi^2)^3}

98: \def\llllf{(16\pi^2)^4}

99: \def\vev#1{\mathopen\langle #1\mathclose\rangle }

100: \def\nn{\nonumber\\}

101: \def\DRED{\ifmmode{{\rm DRED}} \else{{DRED}} \fi}

102: \def\DREDD{\ifmmode{{\rm DRED}'} \else{${\rm DRED}'$} \fi}

103: \def\NSVZ{\ifmmode{{\rm NSVZ}} \else{{NSVZ}} \fi}

104: 

105: \def \qq{\qquad}  

106: \def\pa{\partial}

107: \def\ga{\gamma}  

108: \def\de{\delta}  

109: \def\ep{\epsilon}

110: \def \la{\lambda}

111: \def \La{\Lambda}

112: \def \th{\theta}

113: \def\sic{supersymmetric}

114: \def\bbar{{\overline{b}}}

115: \def\dbar{{\overline{d}}}

116: \def\ebar{{\overline{e}}}

117: \def\fbar{{\overline{f}}}

118: \def\gbar{{\overline{g}}}

119: \def\jbar{{\overline{j}}}

120: \def\qbar{{\overline{q}}}

121: \def\tbar{{\overline{t}}}

122: \def\ubar{{\overline{u}}}

123: \def\ybar{{\overline{y}}}

124: \def\Bbar{{\overline{B}}}

125: \def\Dbar{{\overline{D}}}

126: \def\Ebar{{\overline{E}}}

127: \def\Hbar{{\overline{H}}}

128: \def\Jbar{{\overline{J}}} 

129: \def\Qbar{{\overline{Q}}}

130: \def\Qb{\overline{Q}}

131: \def\Ubar{{\overline{U}}}

132: \def\Wbar{{\overline{W}}}

133: \def\Zbar{{\overline{Z}}}

134: \def\alphadot{\dot\alpha}

135: \def\betadot{\dot\beta}     

136: \def\thdot{\dot\theta}

137: \def\thddot{\ddot\theta}

138: \def\omegadot{\dot\omega}

139: \def\onedot{\dot 1}

140: \def\twodot{\dot 2}

141: \def\pdot{\dot p}

142: \def\pddot{\ddot p}

143: \def\qdot{\dot q}

144: \def\qddot{\ddot q}

145: \def\rdot{\dot r}

146: \def\rddot{\ddot r}

147: \def\bfrdot{{\bf{\dot r}}}  

148: \def\bfrddot{{\bf{\ddot r}}}

149: \def\xdot{\dot x}

150: \def\xddot{\ddot x}

151: \def\ydot{\dot y}

152: \def\yddot{\ddot y}

153: 

154: \def\Dslash{D\!\!\!\! /} 

155: \def\dslash{\pa \!\!\! /}

156: \def\kslash{k\!\!\! /}

157: \def\pslash{p\!\!\! /}

158: \def\gahat{\hat{\gamma}} 

159: \def\lahat{\hat{\lambda}}

160: \def\ephat{\hat{\epsilon}}

161: \def\ghat{\hat{g}}   

162: \def\Bhat{\hat{B}}

163: \def\Khat{\hat{K}}

164: \def\sy{supersymmetry}

165: \def\sic{supersymmetric} 

166: \def\ssm{supersymmetric standard model}

167: \def\psib{\overline{\psi}}

168: \def\betab{\overline{\beta}}

169: \def\epb{\overline{\epsilon}}

170: \def\lab{\overline{\lambda}}

171: \def\thb{\overline{\theta}}

172: \def\chib{\overline{\chi}}

173: \def\taub{{\overline{\tau}}}

174: \def\phib{\overline{\phi}}

175: \def\Phib{\overline\Phi}

176: \def\Pib{\overline\Pi}

177: \def\sigmat{\sigma^{\mu}_{\alpha\alphadot}}

178: \def\sigmab{\overline{\sigma}}

179: \def\sigmad{\sigmab^{\mu\alphadot\alpha}}

180: \def\xib{\overline{\xi}}

181: \def\nub{\overline{\nu}}

182: \def\semi{;\hfil\break}

183: \def\mtilde{{\tilde m}}

184: \begin{document}

185: \begin{titlepage}

186: \begin{flushright}

187: LTH 655\\

188: hep-ph/0507193\\

189: \end{flushright}

190: 

191: \vspace*{3mm}

192: 

193: \begin{center}

194: {\Huge

195: Anomaly Mediation, Fayet-Iliopoulos $D$-terms 

196: and precision sparticle spectra}\\[12mm]

197: 

198: {\bf R.~Hodgson, I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones}\\

199: %\end{center}   

200: 

201: \vspace{5mm} 

202: Dept. of Mathematical Sciences,

203: University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK\\

204: \vspace{8mm}

205: {\bf and G.G.~Ross}

206: 

207: \vspace{5mm}

208: The Rudolf Peierls Centre for 

209: Theoretical Physics,

210: Oxford University, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK\\

211: \end{center}

212: \vspace{3mm}

213: 

214: 

215: 

216: 

217: 

218: \begin{abstract}

219: We consider the sparticle spectra that arise when 

220: anomaly mediation is the source of \sy-breaking and 

221: the tachyonic slepton problem is solved by a Fayet-Iliopoulos $D$-term. 

222: We also show how this can lead to a minimal viable extension of anomaly 

223: mediation, in which the gauge symmetry associated with this 

224: $D$-term is  broken at very high energies, leaving as 

225: its footprint in the low energy theory only the required $D$-terms and 

226: seesaw neutrino masses. 

227: \end{abstract}

228: 

229: \vfill

230: 

231: 

232: \end{titlepage}

233: 

234: 

235: 

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

237: \section{Introduction}

238: 

239: Increasing precision of sparticle spectrum calculations is an important

240: part of theoretical preparation for the LHC and the ILC. Much of this

241: work has concentrated on the MSUGRA   scenario, where it is

242: assumed that the unification of gauge couplings at high energies  is

243: accompanied by a corresponding unification in both the soft

244: \sy-breaking  scalar masses and the gaugino masses; and also that the

245: cubic scalar interactions  are of the same form as  the Yukawa couplings

246: and related to them by a common constant  of proportionality, the

247: $A$-parameter. This paradigm is not, however, founded on  a compelling

248: underlying theory and therefore it is worthwhile exploring other 

249: possibilities.

250: 

251: 

252: In this paper we focus on Anomaly Mediation (AM)~\cite{lrrs}-\cite{Ibe:2004gh}. 

253: This is a framework in 

254: which  a single mass parameter determines the $\phi^*\phi$, $\phi^3$ and

255: $\lambda\lambda$ \sy-breaking terms  in terms of calculable and

256: moreover renormalisation group (RG) invariant functions of the 

257: dimensionless couplings, in an elegant and predictive way; too

258: predictive, in fact,  in that the theory in its simplest form leads to

259: tachyonic sleptons and  fails to accommodate the usual

260: electroweak vacuum state. There is a natural  solution to this, however,

261: which restores the correct vacuum while retaining  the RG invariance

262: (and hence the ultra-violet insensitivity) of the  predictions. This is

263: achieved simply (and without introducing another source of explicit 

264: \sy-breaking) by the introduction of a Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) $D$-term  or

265: terms. 

266: 

267: This possibility was first explored in

268: detail in  Ref.~\cite{jja}, and subsequently by a number of 

269: authors~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000xj}-\cite{Ibe:2004gh}. The

270: main purpose of this paper  is to present the most precise spectrum

271: calculations to date in the  AMSB scenario. We also show how the low

272: energy theory employed  can arise in a natural way from a theory with an

273: additional anomaly-free $U_1$ broken  at a high scale. 

274: We examine the decoupling in this case and show how only the soft mass 

275: contributions from the $D$-terms remain, which can naturally 

276: eliminate the tachyonic slepton problem. This provides a minimal extension of 

277: anomaly mediation.

278: 

279: In the original scenario of Ref.~\cite{jja}, FI  terms corresponding to two

280: distinct $U_1$ groups were  introduced, one being the standard model

281: $U_1$, and the other  the second mixed-anomaly-free (or completely

282: anomaly-free if right-handed neutrinos are included) $U_1$ admitted by

283: the  MSSM. This $U_1$ may be chosen to be $B-L$~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000xj}, 

284: or some linear combination of it and  

285: the MSSM $U_1$~\cite{jja}. Or, as emphasised in

286: Ref.~\cite{mwells}, a single new $U_1$ may be employed if the charges are 

287: chosen appropriately. If these FI terms are added to the masses 

288: with constant coefficients 

289: (as in Eq.~\ref{eq:AE} below) rather than as genuine gauge linear  $D$-terms, 

290: then as discussed  in Ref.~\cite{jja} and at more length in 

291: Ref~\cite{mwells}, the choices made in Refs~\cite{jja}-\cite{mwells} are 

292: simply reparametrisations of each other. As indicated above, we will see how 

293: this scenario can emerge naturally at low energies in a specific theory 

294: with an additional gauged  anomaly-free $U_1$.

295: 

296: 

297: 

298: 

299: \section{The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard

300: Model}

301: 

302: The MSSM is defined by the superpotential:

303: \be

304: W =  H_2 Q Y_t t^c + H_1 Q Y_b b^c  + 

305: H_1 L Y_{\tau} \tau^c + \mu H_1 H_2 

306: \ee

307: with soft breaking terms:

308: \bea

309: L_{\rm SOFT} & = & \sum_{\phi}

310: m_{\phi}^2\phi^*\phi + \left[m_3^2 H_1

311: H_2 + \sum_{i=1}^3\half M_i\lambda_i\lambda_i  + {\rm h.c. }\right]\nn

312: & + & \left[H_2 Q h_t  t^c  +

313: H_1 Q h_b b^c  + H_1 L h_{\tau}\tau^c

314: + {\rm h.c. }\right]

315: \eea

316: where in general $Y_{t,b,\tau}$ and $h_{t,b,\tau}$ are 

317: $3\times 3$ matrices. We work throughout in the approximation that the Yukawa 

318: matrices are diagonal, and neglect the Yukawa couplings of the 

319: first two generations. 

320: 

321: 

322: \section{The AMSB Solution}

323: 

324: Remarkably the following results are RG invariant:

325: 

326: \bea

327: M_i & = & m_0 \beta_{g_i}/{g_i}\nn

328: h_{t,b,\tau} & = & -m_0\beta_{Y_{t,b,\tau}}\nn

329: (m^2)^i{}_j & = & \frac{1}{2}m_0^2\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\gamma^i{}_j\nn

330: m_3^2 & = & \kappa m_0 \mu - m_0 \beta_{\mu}

331: \label{eq:AD}

332: \eea

333: Here $ \beta_{g_i}$ are the  gauge $\beta$-functions, $\gamma$ the  

334: chiral supermultiplet anomalous dimension, and $\beta_{Y_{t,b,\tau}}$ 

335: are the  Yukawa 

336: $\beta$-functions. Moreover, the RG invariance is preserved if we replace 

337: $(m^2)^i{}_j$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:AD} by 

338: \be 

339: (\mbar^2)^i{}_j =  \frac{1}{2}m_0^2\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\gamma^i{}_j,

340: +kY_i\delta^i{}_j,

341: \label{eq:AE}

342: \ee

343: where $k$ is a constant and $Y_i$ are charges corresponding 

344: to a $U_1$ symmetry of the theory with no mixed anomalies 

345: with the gauge group. Of course the $kY$ term corresponds in form to 

346: a FI $D$-term.       

347: The expressions 

348: for $M$, $h$ and $m^2$ given in  Eq.~\ref{eq:AD} 

349: are  obtained if the only source

350: of breaking is a vev in the supergravity

351: multiplet itself: the AMSB scenario 

352: ($m_0$ is then the gravitino mass).  Note the  

353: parameter $\kappa$ in the solution for $m_3^2$; some treatments 

354: in the literature omit this term (based on top-down considerations). 

355: However, Eq.~\ref{eq:AD} is RG invariant for arbitrary $\kappa$ 

356: and so we retain it. This means that $m_3^2$ will be determined in the 

357: usual way by the electroweak minimisation. In the following two sections we 

358: will show how Eq.~\ref{eq:AE} can arise via spontaneous breaking 

359: of a $U'_1$ symmetry. 

360: 

361: 

362: 

363: 

364: 

365: \section{Anomaly-free $U_1$ symmetries}

366: The MSSM (including right-handed neutrinos) admits 

367: two independent generation-blind anomaly-free $U_1$ symmetries. 

368: The possible charge assignments are shown in Table~1. 

369: \begin{table}

370: \begin{center}

371: \begin{tabular}{|c c c c c c|} \hline

372: $Q$ & $u^c$ & $d^c $ 

373: & $H_1$ & $H_2$ & $\nu^c$ \\ \hline

374: & & & & & \\ %\hline

375: $-\frac{1}{3}L$ & $-e-\frac{2}{3}L$  & $e+\frac{4}{3}L$ 

376: & $-e-L$ & $e+L$ & $-2L-e$ \\ %\hline

377: & & & & & \\ \hline

378: %$m_{\util_{L,R}}$ & $930$ & $851$ & & \\ %\hline 

379: %$m_{\dtil_{L,R}}$ & $935$ & $1045$ & & \\ %\hline

380: %$m_{\etil_{L,R}}$ & $139$ & $339$ & &\\ %\hline

381: %$m_{\ttil_{1,2}}$ & $575$ & $861$ & &\\ %\hline

382: %$m_{\btil_{1,2}}$ & $825$ & $1040$ & &\\ %\hline

383: %$m_{\gtil}$ & $1007$ & & &  \\ \hline

384: \end{tabular}

385: \caption{\label{anomfree}Anomaly free $U_1$ symmetry for arbitrary 

386: lepton doublet and singlet charges $L$ and $e$ respectively.}

387: \end{center}

388: \end{table}

389: 

390: Note that an anomaly-free, flavour-blind $U_1$ necessarily 

391: corresponds to equal and opposite charges for $H_{1,2}$ and hence 

392: an allowed Higgs $\mu$-term; for an attempt at a 

393: Froggatt-Nielsen style origin for the Higgs $\mu$-term

394: using a {\it flavour dependent\/} $U_1$, see for example 

395: Ref.~\cite{jjw}. One of the attractive features of 

396: anomaly mediation is that squark/slepton mediated flavour changing neutral 

397: currents are naturally small; this feature is preserved 

398: by a  generation-blind $U_1$ but not by a flavour dependent $U_1$, so 

399: we stick to the former here. 

400: 

401: The SM gauged  $U^{SM}_1$  is  $L=1, e = -2$; this $U_1$ is of 

402: course anomaly free even 

403: in the absence of $\nu^c$.  $U_1^{B-L}$  is 

404:  $L = -e = 1$; in the absence of $\nu^c$ this would have $U_1^3$ and

405: $U_1$-gravitational  anomalies, but no mixed anomalies with the SM gauge

406: group, which would suffice to maintain  the RG invariance of the AMSB

407: solutions.  We can introduce  FI  terms for both $U^{SM}_1$ and 

408: $U_1^{B-L}$,   or for $U^{SM}_1$ and a linear   

409: combination of them\cite{jja}, or indeed simply have a single  $U'_1$ 

410: with the same sign for $L$  and  $e$~\cite{mwells}. We will follow

411: Ref.~\cite{mwells} here; however  in the decoupling scenario described

412: in the next section, the low energy theories  corresponding to the

413: single $U'_1$ case and and the double   $U_1$ case

414: of Ref.~\cite{jja} are simply reparametrisations of each

415: other. 

416: 

417: \section{Spontaneously broken  $U'_1$}\label{sec:amsb}

418: 

419: With the MSSM augmented by an additional $U'_1$, it is natural 

420: to ask at what scale this $U'_1$ is broken. It is possible that this scale 

421: is at around $1\TeV$~\cite{Erler:1999nx}; here, however, we concentrate on the 

422: idea that it is broken at very high energies and that the only 

423: low energy remnant of it is the set of FI-type terms that we require.

424: 

425: It would be natural to think that if a $U'_1$ is broken at some high

426: scale $M$ then,  by the decoupling theorem, all effects of the $U'_1$

427: would be suppressed at energies  $E << M$ by powers of $1/M$. We shall

428: see that with a FI term this is not the case  and it is quite natural

429: for there to be $O(M_{\hbox{SUSY}})$ scalar mass contributions arising 

430: from the presence of the FI term. 

431: 

432: It is straightforward to construct a  model with an  

433: additional gauged  $U'_1$  in such a way that the only effect

434: on the low-energy theory is the appearance of the  FI  terms we require.

435: 

436: 

437: We introduce a pair of MSSM singlet fields  $\phi, \phib$  with $U'_1$ charges 

438:  $q_{\phi, \phib} = \pm (4L+2e)$ and a gauge singlet  $s$, 

439: with a superpotential

440:  \be

441: W = \lambda_1 \phi\phib s + \half\lambda_2 \nu^c \nu^c \phi.

442: \ee 

443: The choice of charges is essentially determined by the requirement that the 

444: $\phi,\phib$ fields decouple 

445: from the MSSM while  generating a large mass for $\nu^c$. 

446: 

447: The scalar potential takes the form:

448: \bea

449: V &=& 

450: m_{\phi}^2\phi^*\phi + m_{\phib}^2\phib^*\phib+ \cdots \nn

451: &+& \frac{1}{2}\left[\xi - q_{\phi}(\phi^*\phi- \phib^*\phib)

452: - \sum_{\hbox{matter}}e_i \chi^*_i\chi_i\right]^2 + \cdots..

453: \label{eq:sp}

454: \eea 

455: where $\chi_i$ stands for all the MSSM scalars, and $e_i$ their $U'_1$ charges, 

456: and we have introduced a  FI  term for  $U'_1$. We will 

457: take $\xi > 0$, $q_{\phi} > 0$ and 

458: $\xi >> m_0^2$, and assume  that the scalar masses in 

459: Eq.~\ref{eq:sp} (apart from the Higgs $\mu$-term) and other 

460: \sy-breaking terms in the theory are the anomaly-mediation contributions. 

461: We now proceed to minimise the scalar potential. As we shall see, this will 

462: result in a vev for $\phi$ of order $\sqrt{\xi}$; this means that 

463: the appropriate scale at which we should minimise the potential 

464: is also around $\sqrt{\xi}$. As a consequence, 

465: we of course include at this stage the $U_1'$ contributions in the 

466: anomalous dimensions of the fields.

467: It therefore follows that as long as $\lambda_{1,2}$  are

468: somewhat smaller than  the $U'_1$ coupling $g'$ then we will have 

469: $m_{\phi}^2 < 0$, which we will assume in the following analysis.

470: 

471: If we look for an extremum with only  $\vev \phi$  nonzero we find 

472: \be

473: \vev{\phi^*\phi} \equiv \half v_{\phi}^2 = \frac{q_{\phi}\xi-m^2_{\phi}}{q^2_{\phi}}

474: \ee 

475: so  $\vev{\phi} = O(\sqrt{\xi})$  for large  $\xi$  and 

476:  $V \approx m_{\phi}^2\xi/q_{\phi}$ . Note that since as indicated 

477: above we have chosen parameters so that  $m_{\phi}^2 < 0$  

478: we have $V < 0$ at the minimum. Expanding about the minimum, ie with 

479: $\phi = (v_{\phi} + H(x))/\sqrt{2}$, where $H$ is the (real) physical 

480: $U'_1$ Higgs, we find 

481: \bea

482: V &=&  \frac{m_{\phi}^2\xi}{q_{\phi}}-\frac{m_{\phi}^4}{2q_{\phi}^2}

483: + (m_{\phi}^2 + m_{\phib}^2+\half v_{\phi}^2\lambda_1^2)\phib^*\phib

484: -\frac{e_i}{q_{\phi}}m_{\phi}^2 \chi^*_i\chi_i\nn

485: &+&\half v_{\phi}^2\lambda_1^2s^* s  + \half v_{\phi}^2\lambda_2^2 (\nu^c)^*\nu^c\nn

486: &+& \frac{1}{2}\left(v_{\phi}q_{\phi}H 

487: -q_{\phi}\phib^*\phib+e_i \chi^*_i\chi_i\right)^2 

488: \cdots

489: \label{eq:vquad}

490: \eea 

491: For large  $\xi$  (i.e. large  $v_{\phi}$ ) 

492: all trace of the  $U'_1$  in the effective low energy lagrangian 

493: disappears, except for 

494: contributions to the masses of the matter fields 

495: which are naturally of the same 

496: order as the AMSB ones. We can see this 

497: either by treating the heavy $H$-field as non-propagating and 

498: eliminating it via its equation of motion, or by noting that the 

499: quartic $(\chi^*\chi)^2$ $D$-term still present in Eq.~\ref{eq:vquad}

500: is cancelled (at low energies) 

501: by the $H$-exchange graph using two $H\chi^*\chi$ 

502: vertices. In the large $\xi$ limit the 

503: breaking of $U'_1$ preserves supersymmetry; 

504: thus the $U'_1$ gauge boson, its gaugino, 

505: $\psi_H$ and $H$ form a massive supermultiplet 

506: which decouples from the theory. The fact that supersymmetry 

507: is good at large $\xi$ protects the light $\chi$ fields from 

508: obtaining masses of $O(\sqrt{\xi})$ from loop corrections.  

509: Moreover  $v_{\phi}$  via the superpotential gives 

510: large \sic\ masses to  $\phib, s$  

511: and also  $\nu^c$ , thus naturally implementing 

512: the see-saw mechanism. The low energy theory contains just the 

513: MSSM  fields with the only modification being the FI -type mass contributions 

514: proportional to  $m^2_{\phi}$ . This is simply another manifestation of the 

515: non-decoupling of soft mass corrections from $D$-terms\cite{mur}.

516: 

517: We now need only choose the charges  $L,e$  for the 

518: lepton doublet and singlet so that the contributions to their 

519: slepton masses are positive; that is, we choose $L,e > 0$ since 

520: $m_{\phi}^2 < 0$.  It is easy to show that (modulo electroweak 

521: breaking) this represents the absolute minimum of the potential 

522: (note that $\lambda_1$ plays a crucial role here in that 

523: for $\lambda_1 = 0$ the $D$-flat direction 

524: $\vev\phi = \vev\phib  >> \sqrt{\xi}$

525: would lead to an potential unbounded from below). 

526: 

527: The model constructed here is similar in spirit to 

528: those of Harnik et al~\cite{Harnik:2002et}, 

529: in that the $U'_1$ breaking is at a high scale so that only the

530: D-term contributions survive in the low energy theory. 

531: Like \cite{Harnik:2002et} we

532: assume that the anomaly mediated contribution to  SUSY breaking is

533: dominant, something that can be justified in the conformal sequestered

534: scheme of Luty et al~\cite{Luty:2001zv}. The main difference is that we

535: use a FI term to trigger the $U'_1$ breaking rather than an F-term. Here

536: we have just assumed the existence of the FI term as one of the terms

537: allowed by the symmetries of the theory. We will return elsewhere to a

538: discussion of how such a term may be generated in an underlying theory.

539: 

540: 

541: 

542: 

543: In the next section we will explore the   

544: region of the  $(e,L)$  

545: parameter space such 

546: that electroweak-breaking via the Higgses is obtained as usual. 

547: 

548: 

549: \section{The sparticle spectrum}

550: 

551: We turn now to the effective low energy theory. 

552: Evidently in the scenario described in section~\ref{sec:amsb}, 

553: we have decoupling of the $U'_1$ at low energies 

554: so that the anomalous dimensions of the fields are as in the MSSM; 

555: thus for the Higgses and 3rd generation matter fields we have

556: (at one loop):

557: \bea

558: \lf\gamma_{H_1} & = & 3\lambda_b^2+\lambda_{\tau}^2-\frak{3}{2}g_2^2

559: -\frak{3}{10}g_1^2

560: ,\nn

561: \lf\gamma_{H_2} & = & 3\lambda_t^2-\frak32g_2^2-\frak{3}{10}g_1^2

562: ,\nn

563: \lf\gamma_{L} & = & \lambda_{\tau}^2-\frak32g_2^2-\frak{3}{10}g_1^2

564: ,\nn

565: \lf\gamma_{Q} & = & \lambda_b^2+\lambda_t^2-\frak83g_3^2-\frak32g_2^2

566: -\frak{1}{30}g_1^2,\nn

567: \lf\gamma_{t^c} & = & 2\lambda_t^2-\frak83g_3^2-\frak{8}{15}g_1^2,\nn

568: \lf\gamma_{b^c} & = & 2\lambda_b^2-\frak83g_3^2-\frak{2}{15}g_1^2,\nn

569: \lf\gamma_{\tau^c} & = & 2\lambda_{\tau}^2-\frak65g_1^2,

570: \eea

571: where $\lambda_{t,b,\tau}$ are the third generation Yukawa couplings. 

572: For the first two generations we use the same expressions 

573: but without the Yukawa contributions.  

574: 

575: 

576: 

577: 

578: The soft scalar masses are given by 

579: \bea

580: \mbar^2_Q & = & m^2_Q -\frak{1}{3}L\xi'\quad

581: \mbar^2_{t^c} = m^2_{t^c} -(\frak{2}{3}L +e)\xi',\nn

582: \mbar^2_{b^c} & = & m^2_{b^c} +(\frak{4}{3}L+e)\xi',\quad

583: \mbar^2_L =  m^2_L +L\xi',\nn

584: \mbar^2_{\tau^c} & = & m^2_{\tau^c} +e\xi',

585: \quad \mbar^2_{H_{1,2}}   =  m^2_{H_{1,2}} \mp (e+L)\xi',  

586: \label{eq:smasses}

587: \eea

588: where

589: \be

590: m_Q^2=\frak{1}{2}m_0^2\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\gamma_Q 

591: = \frak{1}{2}m_0^2 \beta_i \frac{\pa}{\pa\lambda_i} \gamma_Q 

592: \label{eq:squarks}

593: \ee

594: (where $\lambda_i$ includes all gauge and Yukawa couplings) and so on, 

595: and we have written the effective FI parameter as

596: \be

597: \xi' = -\frac{m_{\phi}^2}{q_{\phi}}. 

598: \ee

599: The 3rd generation $A$-parameters are given by 

600: \bea

601: A_t &=-m_0(\gamma_Q+\gamma_{t^c}+\gamma_{H_2}),\nn

602: A_b &=-m_0(\gamma_Q+\gamma_{b^c}+\gamma_{H_1}), \nn

603: A_{\tau} &=-m_0(\gamma_L+\gamma_{\tau^c}+\gamma_{H_1})

604: \label{eq:apams}

605: \eea

606: and we set the corresponding first and second generation quantities to zero. 

607: The gaugino masses are given by 

608: \be

609: M_i = m_0 |\frac{\beta_{g_i}}{g_i}|.

610: \label{eq:inos}

611: \ee

612: The scale of the FI contributions is set by the AMSB contribution to the 

613: $\phi$-mass, and hence is naturally expected to be the same order as the 

614: other AMSB contributions. In the examples considered below this is indeed the case. 

615: Clearly these FI contributions depend on two parameters, $L\xi'$ and $e\xi'$. 

616: For notational simplicity we will 

617: set $\xi' = 1(\TeV)^2$ from now on. 

618: 

619: We begin by choosing input values for $m_0$, $\tan\beta$, $L$, $e$ 

620: and $\hbox{sign}\mu$, and then we calculate the appropriate

621: dimensionless coupling input  values  at the scale $M_Z$ 

622: by an iterative procedure involving the sparticle spectrum, 

623: and the loop corrections to $\alpha_{1\cdots 3}$, $m_t$, $m_b$ and $m_{\tau}$, 

624: as described in Ref.~\cite{bpmz}. We then determine a given sparticle 

625: pole mass 

626: by running the dimensionless couplings up to a certain scale chosen 

627: (by iteration) to be equal to the pole mass itself, 

628: and then using Eqs.~\ref{eq:squarks}, 

629: \ref{eq:apams}, \ref{eq:inos} and including full one-loop corrections from

630: Ref.~\cite{bpmz}, and two-loop corrections 

631: to the top quark mass~\cite{Bednyakov:2002sf}.

632: As in Ref.~\cite{jjk}, 

633: we have compared the effect of using one, two and three-loop anomalous 

634: dimensions and $\beta$-functions in the calculations. Note that

635: when doing the three-loop calculation, we 

636: use in Eq.~\ref{eq:squarks}, for example, the three loop approximation 

637: for both $\beta_i$ and $\gamma_Q$, thus including some higher order 

638: effects. 

639: 

640: We will present results for $\mu > 0$ and  $m_0 = 40\TeV$, for which 

641: value the gluino mass is around $900\GeV$. 

642: 

643: The allowed region in $(e,L)$ space corresponding to an acceptable vacuum 

644: is shown in Fig.~1. To define the allowed region, 

645: we have imposed 

646: $m_{\tautil} > 82\GeV$, $m_{\nutil_{\tau}} > 49\GeV$ and $m_A > 90\GeV$. 

647: The region is to a good approximation triangular, with one 

648: side of the triangle corresponding to $m_A$ becoming too light 

649: (and quickly imaginary just beyond the boundary, with breakdown of 

650: the electroweak vacuum) and the other two sides to one of the sleptons 

651: (usually a stau) becoming too

652: light. (Note that Ref.~\cite{mwells} sets $e=1$ rather than $\xi'=1$, 

653: which is why the allowed region in their Figure~1 has a different 

654: shape; the figures are in fact (roughly) equivalent).     

655: 

656: 

657: 

658: \epsfysize= 4in

659: \centerline{\epsfbox{region.eps}}

660: \in

661: {\it \noindent Fig.~1:

662: The region of $(e,L)$ space corresponding to an acceptable 

663: electroweak vacuum, for $m_0 = 40\TeV$  

664: and $\tan\beta = 10$.}

665: \medskip

666: \out

667: 

668: Certain features of the spectrum are apparent from Eq.~\ref{eq:smasses}.

669: Since to avoid tachyonic sleptons 

670: we must choose $L,e > 0$ we can see that the heaviest squark 

671: (especially at low $\tan\beta$) is likely to be the mainly right 

672: handed sbottom. 

673: 

674: As an example of an acceptable spectrum, we give 

675: the results for $m_0 = 40\TeV, \tan\beta = 10, L = 1/25, e=1/10, 

676: \hbox{sign}\mu = +$

677: as derived using the one, two and three loop approximations 

678: for the anomalous dimensions and $\beta$-functions.  

679: In Table~\ref{spectrumA} we have used $m_t = 178\GeV$, 

680: while in Table~\ref{spectrumAb} we have used~\cite{cdf} 

681: $m_t = 172.7\GeV$. The spectrum is not very much affected by this choice,

682: the most noticeable alteration being in the mass of the light top squark.

683: The rest of the results we present will be for  $m_t = 178\GeV$. 

684: This point in $(e,L)$ space is near the boundary of the allowed region 

685: (see Fig~1) and is characterised by a light stau. 

686: The notation in Table~\ref{spectrumA} etc. is fairly standard, 

687: see for example 

688: Ref.~\cite{bpmz}; note in particular 

689: that in all our examples $\ttil_1, \btil_1, \tautil_1$ 

690: refer to the mainly lefthanded particles. 

691: 

692: \begin{table}

693: \begin{center}

694: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |} \hline

695:  {\rm mass (GeV)}  &  1{\rm loop}   & 2{\rm loops} &  3{\rm loops}

696:  \\ \hline 

697: $ {\tilde g}$  &  914  &  891  & 888  \\ \hline

698: $ \ttil_1$  &  770 &  761 &  751 \\ \hline

699: $ \ttil_2$  &  543 &  540 &  529 \\ \hline

700: $ \util_L $  &  834 &  820 &  809 \\ \hline

701: $ \util_R $  &  767 &  756 &  744 \\ \hline

702: $ \btil_1$  &  738  & 728  &  718 \\ \hline   

703: $\btil_2$  & 928 & 920  & 910  \\ \hline

704: $ \dtil_L$  &  838  &  824 & 813\\ \hline

705: $\dtil_R$  &  937  & 929 & 919  \\ \hline

706: $\tautil_1$  & 124   & 109  &  110  \\ \hline

707: $\tautil_2$  & 284   & 284  & 284   \\ \hline

708: $ \etil_L$  &  132  & 118 & 119 \\ \hline

709: $\etil_R$  &  285 & 285  & 285 \\ \hline

710: $\nutil_e $  & 104  &  86  & 86  \\ \hline

711: $\nutil_{\tau} $  & {99}  & {79}  & {80}  \\ \hline

712: $\chi_1      $  &  105  & 129 & 129  \\ \hline

713: $\chi_2      $  & 354  &  362 &  361  \\ \hline

714: $\chi_3      $  &  540 &  563  &  555  \\ \hline

715: $\chi_4      $  &  552 &  575  & 566  \\ \hline

716: $\chi^{\pm}_1$  & 106 & 129  &  129  \\ \hline

717: $\chi^{\pm}_2$   & 549  &  572  &563 \\ \hline

718: $h      $  & 117  & 117   &  117  \\ \hline  

719: $H      $  & 315  & 351   &  336  \\ \hline

720: $A      $  & 314  & 351   & 336  \\ \hline

721: $H^{\pm}$ & 324 & 360  & 345  \\ \hline

722: $\chi^{\pm}_1-\chi_1$ (MeV)  &  {230}  & {240} & {240} \\ \hline

723: \end{tabular}

724: \caption{\label{spectrumA}

725: Mass spectrum for $m_t = 178\GeV$, $m_0 = 40\TeV$, $\tan\beta = 10$,

726: $L =  1/25$,  $e = 1/10$}

727: \end{center}

728: \end{table}

729: 

730: 

731: \begin{table}

732: \begin{center}

733: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |} \hline

734:  {\rm mass (GeV)}  &  1{\rm loop}   & 2{\rm loops} &  3{\rm loops}

735:  \\ \hline 

736: $ {\tilde g}$  &  914  &  890  & 888  \\ \hline

737: $ \ttil_1$  &  767 &  758 &  748 \\ \hline

738: $ \ttil_2$  &  519 &  516 &  505 \\ \hline

739: $\util_L$  &  835 &  820 &  809 \\ \hline

740: $ \util_R $  & 767  &  756  &  744 \\ \hline

741: $ \btil_1$  &  732  & 723  &  713 \\ \hline   

742: $\btil_2$  & 928 & 920  & 910  \\ \hline

743: $ \dtil_L$  &  838  &  824 & 813\\ \hline

744: $\dtil_R$  &  937  & 929 & 919  \\ \hline

745: $\tautil_1$  & 123   & 108  &  109  \\ \hline

746: $\tautil_2$  & 284   & 284  & 284   \\ \hline

747: $ \etil_L$  &  132  & 118 & 119 \\ \hline

748: $\etil_R$  &  285 & 285  & 285 \\ \hline

749: $\nutil_e $  & 104  &  85  & 86  \\ \hline

750: $\nutil_{\tau} $  & 99  & 79  & 80  \\ \hline

751: $\chi_1      $  &  106  & 129 & 130 \\ \hline

752: $\chi_2      $  & 355  &  362 &  362  \\ \hline

753: $\chi_3      $  &  563 &  584  &  576  \\ \hline

754: $\chi_4      $  &  574 &  595  & 587 \\ \hline

755: $\chi^{\pm}_1$  & 106 & 130  &  130  \\ \hline

756: $\chi^{\pm}_2$   & 571  &  592  &584 \\ \hline

757: $h      $  & 116  & 115   &  115  \\ \hline  

758: $H      $  & 354  & 385   &  372  \\ \hline

759: $A      $  & 353  & 384   & 372 \\ \hline

760: $H^{\pm}$ & 362 & 393  & 381  \\ \hline

761: $\chi^{\pm}_1-\chi_1$ (MeV)  &  {220}  & {230} & {230} \\ \hline

762: \end{tabular}

763: \caption{\label{spectrumAb}

764: Mass spectrum for $m_t = 172.7\GeV$, $m_0 = 40\TeV$, $\tan\beta = 10$,

765: $L =  1/25$, $e = 1/10$}

766: \end{center}

767: \end{table}

768: 

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: The results exhibit the same feature as found for the Snowmass Benchmark 

773: (SPS) points in Ref.~\cite{jjk}; that is, the effect of using 3-loop 

774: $\beta$-functions has a surprisingly large effect on the squark spectrum. 

775: This effect was most marked in the SPS case when the  

776: gluino mass was significantly larger than the squark masses, 

777: which is not the case here; nevertheless, for the light top squark, 

778: for example,  it is still noticeable. 

779: 

780: A characteristic feature of AMSB distinguishing it from MSUGRA is that

781: $M_2 < M_1$, where $M_{1,2}$ are the bino and wino masses respectively.

782: As a result the lightest neutralino (often the LSP) is predominantly 

783: the neutral wino  and the lighter chargino (often the NLSP) is almost 

784: degenerate with it. In Table~\ref{spectrumA} we have given all results for masses 

785: to the nearest $\GeV$; however we have calculated the 

786: $\chi^{\pm}$, $\chi$ masses using the full one-loop results and 

787: expect our results for $\chi^{\pm}_1- \chi_1$ to be good to $10\MeV$ as quoted. 

788: A clear account of the dominant contribution 

789: to wino mass splitting and the associated 

790: phenomenology appears in Ref.~\cite{ggw}.  Our splitting 

791: of around $240\MeV$ 

792: %(or $250\MeV$ with 3 loop running) 

793: is consistent with their results.  

794: 

795: %We plot the mass difference between the lighter chargino and the lightest 

796: %neutralino   

797: %against $\tan\beta$ in Fig.~? 

798: 

799: %Note the interesting effect in Table~\ref{spectrumA} whereby two loop 

800: %corrections change the LSP from being the wino to being a sneutrino. 

801: 

802:  

803: %In Ref.~\cite{jjk}, we in fact used the approximation form from  the main text

804: %of Ref.~\cite{bpmz} to  calculate the neutralino, chargino masses; although a

805: %good approximation this does not suffice  in the AM case since it does

806: %not lift the wino mass degeneracy.   

807: 

808: 

809: Note that in Table~\ref{spectrumA} the $\tau$-sneutrino is the LSP; 

810: it is interesting 

811: that the argument of Ref.~\cite{hebb}, which excluded the possibility 

812: of a sneutrino LSP in the MSUGRA scenario, does not apply here. 

813: The claim was~\cite{hebb} that with 

814: MSUGRA boundary conditions, a sneutrino LSP would 

815: necessarily have a mass less than half the $Z$-mass and so contribute to 

816: the invisible $Z$ width. Evidently that is not the case here. 

817: For a recent discussion of sneutrinos as dark matter see~\cite{hmrw}.

818: 

819: 

820: An interesting feature of the results is that for low $\tan\beta$ 

821: we find that the light CP-even Higgs mass, $m_h$, is less than the 

822: experimental (standard model) lower bound of $114\GeV$. 

823: %(see for example Table~\ref{spectrumA}. 

824: Although the generally quoted \sic\ bound is significantly lower, 

825: we  must take seriously the SM bound here, 

826: since we find generally that for us $\sin(\beta-\alpha) \sim 1$, so that 

827: $h$ couples to the $Z$-boson like the SM Higgs. However as 

828: $\tan\beta$ is increased, $m_h$ increases above this bound.

829: The allowed range of $\tan\beta$ depends on the choice of $L,e$. 

830: In Fig~2,3  we plot $m_h$ and the CP-odd Higgs mass $m_A$ against 

831: $\tan\beta$ for $L = 1/25, e=1/10$. The electroweak vacuum fails 

832: for $\tan\beta > 25$ in this case. We also plot the lighter stau mass 

833: (Fig.~4) and the tau sneutrino mass (Fig.~5) 

834: against $\tan\beta$. We see that acceptable values of 

835: $m_h$ are obtained for $7 < \tan\beta < 25$, and of the stau mass 

836: for  $\tan\beta < 19$. 

837: As can be seen 

838: from Table~\ref{spectrumA}, $m_h$ is actually 

839: essentially unchanged by whether we use two or three-loop 

840: $\beta$-functions; in fact we have used the two-loop $\beta$-functions 

841: to generate Figs.~2,3. 

842: 

843: In Table~\ref{spectrumB}, we give the results for another 

844: point in $(e,L)$-space, chosen to be in the centre of the allowed region, 

845: where this time the lightest neutralino is the LSP. 

846:  

847: 

848: %\begin{table}

849: %\begin{center}

850: %\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |} \hline

851: % {\rm mass (GeV)}  &  1{\rm loop}   & 2{\rm loops} &  3{\rm loops}

852: % \\ \hline 

853: %$ {\tilde g}$  &  914  &  891  & 888  \\ \hline

854: %$ \ttil_1$  &  529 &  526 &  515 \\ \hline

855: %$ \ttil_2$  &  769 & 759 &  749 \\ \hline

856: %$ \util_L $  & 757  &  747  &  734 \\ \hline

857: %$\util_R$  &  830&  816 &  805 \\ \hline

858: %$\btil_1$  & 942 & 934  & 924  \\ \hline

859: %$ \btil_2$  &  732  & 723  &  713 \\ \hline

860: %$\dtil_L$  &  951  & 943 & 933  \\ \hline

861: %$ \dtil_R$  &  834  &  820 & 809  \\ \hline

862: %$\tautil_1$  & 285   & 285  & 473    \\ \hline

863: %$\tautil_2$  & 188   & 179  &  166  \\ \hline

864: %$\etil_L$  &  286 & 286  & 286 \\ \hline

865: %$ \etil_R$  &  194  & 186 & 186 \\ \hline

866: %$\nutil_e $  & 176  &  167  &  167  \\ \hline

867: %$\nutil_{\tau} $  & 173  & 164  & 164  \\ \hline

868: %$\chi_1      $  &  105  &  129& 129  \\ \hline

869: %$\chi_2      $  & 353  &  361 &  360  \\ \hline

870: %$\chi_3      $  &  521 &  544  &  535  \\ \hline

871: %$\chi_4      $  &  534 &  558  & 549 \\ \hline

872: %$\chi^{\pm}_1$  & 105.6 & 129.4 &  129.5  \\ \hline

873: %$\chi^{\pm}_2$   & 530 & 554  & 545 \\ \hline

874: %$h      $  & 116  & 116   &  116  \\ \hline  

875: %$H      $  & 232  & 282   &  263  \\ \hline

876: %$A      $  & 231  & 282   & 263  \\ \hline

877: %$H^{\pm}$ & 246 & 294 & 276  \\ \hline

878: %$\chi^{\pm}_1-\chi_1$ (MeV)  & 240   & 250 & 260  \\ \hline

879: %\end{tabular}

880: %\caption{\label{spectrumB}

881: %Mass spectrum for $m_0 = 40\TeV$, $\tan\beta = 10$,

882: %$L =  0.06, e = 0.1$

883: %}

884: %\end{center}

885: %\end{table}

886: 

887: 

888: \begin{table}

889: \begin{center}

890: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |} \hline

891:  {\rm mass (GeV)}  &  1{\rm loop}   & 2{\rm loops} &  3{\rm loops}

892:  \\ \hline 

893: $ {\tilde g}$  &  914  &  890  & 888  \\ \hline

894: $ \ttil_1$  &  762 & 753 &  743 \\ \hline

895: $ \ttil_2$  &  554 &  541 &  530 \\ \hline

896: $\util_L$  &  826&  812 &  801 \\ \hline

897: $ \util_R $  & 769  &  758  &  746 \\ \hline

898: $\btil_1$  &  728  & 719  &  709 \\ \hline

899: $ \btil_2$  & 940 & 932 & 923  \\ \hline

900: $\dtil_L$  &  830  &  816 & 805  \\ \hline

901: $ \dtil_R$  &  949  & 941 & 932  \\ \hline

902: $\tautil_1$  & 212   & 208  &  208  \\ \hline

903: $\tautil_2$  & 250   & 247  & 247    \\ \hline

904: $\etil_L$  &  228  & 228 & 228 \\ \hline

905: $ \etil_R$  &  241 & 234  & 235 \\ \hline

906: $\nutil_e $  & 227  &  220  &  220  \\ \hline

907: $\nutil_{\tau} $  & 225  & 218  & 218  \\ \hline

908: $\chi_1      $  &  106  &  130& 130  \\ \hline

909: $\chi_2      $  & 353  &  361 &  361  \\ \hline

910: $\chi_3      $  &  530 &  554  &  545  \\ \hline

911: $\chi_4      $  &  543 &  566  & 557 \\ \hline

912: $\chi^{\pm}_1$  & 106 & 130 &  130  \\ \hline

913: $\chi^{\pm}_2$   & 539 & 562  & 553 \\ \hline

914: $h      $  & 117  & 117   &  117  \\ \hline  

915: $H      $  & 277  & 319   &  303  \\ \hline

916: $A      $  & 277  & 319   & 302  \\ \hline

917: $H^{\pm}$ & 288 & 329 & 313  \\ \hline

918: $\chi^{\pm}_1-\chi_1$ (MeV)  & 240   & 250 & 250  \\ \hline

919: \end{tabular}

920: \caption{\label{spectrumB}

921: Mass spectrum for $m_0 = 40\TeV$, $\tan\beta = 10$,

922: $L =  0.08$, $e = 0.07$

923: }

924: \end{center}

925: \end{table}

926: 

927: Finally in Table~\ref{spectrumC} 

928: we give results for $(e,L) = (0.05,0.05)$, a point again 

929: near the boundary in $(e,L)$ space, with 

930: light sleptons and heavy squarks, and also a 

931: large charged Higgs mass of over $400\GeV$. This point is interesting because 

932: of the fact that previous authors have noted 

933: that the fact that $M_3$ and $M_2$ have opposite signs 

934: disfavours at first sight

935: a \sic\ explanation of the well-known discrepancy

936: between theory and experiment for  the anomalous magnetic moment

937: of the muon, $a_{\mu}$. This is

938: because if sign ($\mu M_2$) is chosen so as to create

939: a positive $a_{\mu}^{\rm{SUSY}}$ then sign ($\mu M_3$) leads to

940: constructive interference between various \sic\ contributions to

941: $B(b \to s\gamma)$, and consequent restrictions on the allowed

942: parameter space. However, with light sleptons (to generate 

943: a contribution to $a_{\mu}$) and heavy squarks and charged Higgs 

944: (to suppress contributions to $B(b \to s\gamma)$) 

945: this conclusion can be evaded (as was already argued in Ref.~\cite{jjyt}).

946: 

947: There has been a considerable amount of work in recent years on  two

948: loop corrections to $m_h$~\cite{sven}-\cite{martin}. For some regions of

949: the MSSM parameter space these can be substantial; therefore since we

950: have presented  predictions of around $115-118\GeV$ we have to worry

951: about them since  they generally reduce $m_h$. Using the useful web

952: resource from  Ref.~\cite{sven}, we obtain, for the input parameters of 

953: Table~\ref{spectrumC}, the result $m_h = 116.2\pm 1.4\GeV$,  in

954: excellent agreement with our results,  which suggests that the two-loop

955: corrections are in fact  not very large in our scenario.  Other points

956: in $(e,L)$ space give similar results.  Thus for $m_0 = 40\TeV$ we 

957: predict that $m_h$ is less than about $118.4\GeV$ (see Fig.~2). If we 

958: increase $m_0$ then this bound does increase somewhat (to around $125\GeV$

959: at $m_0 =100\TeV$, for example) but at the price of considerable 

960: electroweak fine-tuning. 

961: 

962: 

963: 

964: 

965: \begin{table}

966: \begin{center}

967: \begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |} \hline

968:  {\rm mass (GeV)}  &  1{\rm loop}   & 2{\rm loops} &  3{\rm loops}

969:  \\ \hline 

970: $ {\tilde g}$  &  914  &  890  & 888  \\ \hline

971: $ \ttil_1$  &  772 & 763 &  753 \\ \hline

972: $ \ttil_2$  &  579 &  576 &  566 \\ \hline

973: $ \util_L $  & 832&  818 &  807 \\ \hline

974: $\util_R$  &  795  &  785  &  773 \\ \hline 

975: $\btil_1$  & 737 & 727 & 718  \\ \hline

976: $ \btil_2$  &  909  & 900  & 890 \\ \hline

977: $\dtil_L$  &  836  & 822 & 811 \\ \hline

978: $ \dtil_R$  &  917  &  909 & 899  \\ \hline

979: $\tautil_1$  & 140   & 130  & 131    \\ \hline

980: $\tautil_2$  & 194   & 191  & 191   \\ \hline

981: $\etil_L$  &  168 & 158  & 158 \\ \hline

982: $ \etil_R$  &  178  & 177 & 177 \\ \hline

983: $\nutil_e $  & 148  &  137  &  137  \\ \hline

984: $\nutil_{\tau} $  & 144  & 133  & 133  \\ \hline

985: $\chi_1      $  &  106  &  130 & 130  \\ \hline

986: $\chi_2      $  & 355  &  362 &  362  \\ \hline

987: $\chi_3      $  &  577 &  599  &  590  \\ \hline

988: $\chi_4      $  &  587 &  609  & 601 \\ \hline

989: $\chi^{\pm}_1$  & 106 & 130 &  130 \\ \hline

990: $\chi^{\pm}_2$   & 585 & 606  & 598 \\ \hline

991: $h      $  & 117  & 117   &  117  \\ \hline  

992: $H      $  & 429 & 455   &  444  \\ \hline

993: $A      $  & 428  & 454   & 443  \\ \hline

994: $H^{\pm}$ & 436 & 462 & 451  \\ \hline

995: $\chi^{\pm}_1-\chi_1$ (MeV)  & 220   & 230 & 230  \\ \hline

996: \end{tabular}

997: \caption{\label{spectrumC}

998: Mass spectrum for $m_0 = 40\TeV$, $\tan\beta = 10$,

999: $L =  0.05$, $e = 0.05$

1000: }

1001: \end{center}

1002: \end{table}

1003: 

1004: \epsfysize= 4in

1005: \centerline{\epsfbox{higgs.eps}}

1006: %\in

1007: {\it \noindent Fig.~2:

1008: The light CP-even Higgs mass $m_h$ as a function of $\tan\beta$, 

1009: for $L=1/25, e=1/10$. 

1010: The dotted line is the SM lower limit $(114\GeV)$.

1011: }\medskip

1012: %\out

1013: 

1014: \epsfysize= 4in

1015: \centerline{\epsfbox{mA.eps}}

1016: %\in

1017: \label{fig:higgs2}

1018: {\it \noindent Fig.~3:

1019: The CP-odd Higgs mass $m_A$ as a function of $\tan\beta$, 

1020: for $L=1/25, e=1/10$.

1021: }

1022: \medskip

1023: %\out  

1024: 

1025: \epsfysize= 4in

1026: \centerline{\epsfbox{Stau.eps}}

1027: %\in

1028: {\it \noindent Fig.~4:

1029: The light stau mass as a function of $\tan\beta$,

1030: for $L=1/25, e=1/10$.

1031: The dotted line is the lower limit $(82\GeV)$.

1032: }\medskip

1033: %\out

1034: 

1035: \epsfysize= 4in

1036: \centerline{\epsfbox{snutau.eps}}

1037: %\in

1038: {\it \noindent Fig.~5:

1039: The $\tau$-sneutrino mass as a function of $\tan\beta$,

1040: for $L=1/25, e=1/10$.

1041: }\medskip

1042: %\out

1043: 

1044: 

1045: 

1046: \section{Mass sum rules}

1047: 

1048: By taking appropriate linear combinations of masses it is straightforward 

1049: to derive a set of interesting sum rules~\cite{jja}.

1050: 

1051: In the following equations, if we substitute the tree values for the various 

1052: masses on the left hand side,  the $(e,L)$ dependent terms and the 

1053: electroweak breaking contributions to the masses  cancel. We have calculated the 

1054: numerical coefficients on the right hand side from Table~2, using the 

1055: two-loop sparticle mass predictions; it is easy to then check that to the indicated 

1056: accuracy the same equations hold for the results in Tables~4, 5.

1057: Thus these sum rules are to an excellent approximation independent 

1058: of $(e,L)$, and also in fact of $m_0$; 

1059: the numerical coefficients are  slowly varying functions of $\tan\beta$ and the input 

1060: top pole mass. 

1061:  

1062: 

1063: %\Red{Third Generation}

1064: 

1065: \bea

1066: m_{\ttil_1}^2+m_{\ttil_2}^2+m_{\btil_1}^2+m_{\btil_2}^2

1067: - 2m_t^2 & = &

1068: 2.76\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2  \nn

1069: m_{\tautil_1}^2+m_{\tautil_2}^2+m_{\ttil_1}^2+m_{\ttil_2}^2

1070: - 2m_t^2 & = & 1.14\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2.

1071: \label{eq:suma}

1072: \eea

1073: 

1074: \bea

1075: m_{\etil_L}^2+2m_{\util_L}^2+m_{\dtil_L}^2 & = &

1076: 2.60\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2,\nn

1077: m_{\util_R}^2+m_{\dtil_R}^2+m_{\util_L}^2+m_{\dtil_L}^2 & = &

1078: 3.51\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2,\nn

1079: m_{\util_L}^2+m_{\dtil_L}^2-m_{\util_R}^2-m_{\etil_R}^2 & = &

1080: 0.88\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2.

1081: \label{eq:sumb}

1082: \eea

1083: 

1084: \bea

1085: m_A^2 - 2\sec 2\beta\left (m_{\etil_L}^2 +m_{\etil_R}^2\right) & = &

1086: 0.40\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2,\nn

1087: m_A^2 - 2\sec 2\beta\left (m_{\tautil_1}^2 + m_{\tautil_2}^2 

1088: -2m_{\tau}^2\right) & = &

1089: 0.39\left(m_{\gtil}\right)^2.

1090: \label{eq:sumc}

1091: \eea

1092: 

1093: The existence of these sum rules will be a useful distinguishing feature 

1094: of the AMSB scenario. 

1095: 

1096: \section{Conclusions}

1097: 

1098: Despite remarkable advances in the understanding of string theory, 

1099: a coherent high energy theory spawning the MSSM as an effective low 

1100: energy theory remains elusive. This has led to exploration of such 

1101: outr\'e possibilities as little higgs models and split supersymmetry.

1102: Remaining within the conservative world of low energy \sy, the AMSB 

1103: scenario is an attractive alternative to (and easily 

1104: distinguished from) MSUGRA. We have shown how a $U'_1$ gauge symmetry 

1105: broken at high energies can lead in a natural way to the 

1106: FI-solution to the tachyonic slepton problem in the context 

1107: of anomaly mediation. The result is a sparticle spectrum 

1108: described by the parameter set $m_0,e,L, \tan\beta, \hbox{sign}(\mu)$;

1109: and it is only for a comparatively restricted set of $(e,L)$ 

1110: that an acceptable spectrum is obtained. 

1111: Moreover we have presented a set of sum rules which are independent 

1112: of $m_0$, $L$ and $e$.

1113: At the very least, the scenario we describe 

1114: has the merit of being immediately testable should sparticles 

1115: be discovered in experiments at the LHC. 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: \section*{\large Acknowledgements}

1119: 

1120: 

1121: DRTJ was supported by a PPARC Senior Fellowship, and a CERN Research

1122: Associateship, and both he and GGR were 

1123: visiting CERN while part of this work was done.

1124: DRTJ thanks Howie Haber for correspondence, Sabine Kraml for 

1125: conversations and Sven Heinemeyer for 

1126: a patient introduction to the simplicities of {\it FeynHiggs\/}.

1127: This work was partially supported by the EC 6th Framework Programme

1128: MRTN-CT-2004-503369.

1129: 

1130: 

1131: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1132: % references

1133: \bibitem{lrrs}

1134: L. Randall and R. Sundrum,  \NPB 557 (1999) 79

1135: \bibitem{glmr}G.F. Giudice et al,

1136: {\it JHEP\/} 9812 (1998) 27

1137: \bibitem{aprr}A. Pomarol and  R. Rattazzi, {\it JHEP \/} 9905 (1999) 013

1138: \bibitem{ggw} 

1139: T. Gherghetta, G.F. Giudice and  J.D. Wells, \NPB 559 (1999) 27

1140: \bibitem{mlrr}

1141: M.A. Luty and R. Rattazzi, {\it JHEP \/} 9911 (1999) 001

1142: \bibitem{clmp}

1143: Z. Chacko, M.A. Luty, I. Maksymyk and E. Ponton, {\it JHEP \/} 0004 (2000) 001

1144: \bibitem{kss}E. Katz, Y. Shadmi and Y. Shirman, {\it JHEP \/} 9908 (1999) 015  

1145: \bibitem{jjb}I. Jack and D.R.T.~Jones, \PLB 465 (1999) 148

1146: \bibitem{jftm}J.L.~Feng and T.~Moroi, \PRD 61 (2000) 095004

1147: \bibitem{gdk}G.D.~Kribs, \PRD 62 (2000) 015008

1148: \bibitem{ssu}S.~Su, \NPB 573 (2000) 87

1149: \bibitem{bmp} J.A.~Bagger, T. Moroi and E. Poppitz, {\it JHEP \/} 

1150: 0004 (2000) 009

1151: \bibitem{rretal}R. Rattazzi et al, \NPB 576 (2000) 3

1152: \bibitem{fpjw}F.E.~Paige and J. Wells, hep-ph/0001249%

1153: \bibitem{okada}N.~Okada, \PRD 65 (2002) 115009

1154: \bibitem{Luty:2001zv}M.~Luty and R.~Sundrum,

1155: \PRD 67 (2003) 045007

1156: \bibitem{jja}I.~Jack and D.R.T.~Jones, \PLB 482 (2000) 167

1157: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000xj}

1158: N.~Arkani-Hamed, D.~E.~Kaplan, H.~Murayama and Y.~Nomura,

1159: %``Viable ultraviolet-insensitive supersymmetry breaking,''

1160: {\it JHEP \/} 0102 (2001) 041

1161: \bibitem{Harnik:2002et}

1162: R.~Harnik, H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,

1163: %``Purely four-dimensional viable anomaly mediation,''

1164: {\it JHEP} 0208 (2002) 034

1165: \bibitem{mwells}

1166: B.~Murakami and J.~D.~Wells,

1167: %``Abelian D-terms and the superpartner spectrum of anomaly-mediated

1168: %supersymmetry breaking,''

1169: \PRD 68 (2003) 035006 

1170: \bibitem{Kitano:2004zd}

1171: R.~Kitano, G.~D.~Kribs and H.~Murayama,

1172: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking via UV insensitive anomaly mediation,''

1173: \PRD 70  (2004) 035001

1174: \bibitem{Ibe:2004gh}

1175: M.~Ibe, R.~Kitano and H.~Murayama,

1176: %``A viable supersymmetric model with UV insensitive anomaly mediation,''

1177: \PRD {71} (2005) 075003

1178: \bibitem{jjw}I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones and R.~Wild, \PLB 580 (2004) 72

1179: \bibitem{Erler:1999nx}

1180: J.~Erler and P.~Langacker, {\em Phys. Rev, Lett.} 84 (2000) 212\semi

1181: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910315;%%

1182: D.A.~Demir, G.L.~Kane and T.T.~Wang,

1183: %``The minimal U(1)' extension of the MSSM,''

1184: hep-ph/0503290.

1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503290;%%

1186: \bibitem{mur}

1187: Y. Kawamura, H. Murayama and M. Yamaguchi,

1188: \PRD 51 (1995) 1337\semi

1189: H. Murayama, hep-ph/9503392

1190: 

1191: 

1192: 

1193: \bibitem{Bednyakov:2002sf}

1194: A.~Bednyakov et al, 

1195: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ } C{29} (2003) 87

1196: \bibitem{bpmz}D.M.~Pierce, J.A.~Bagger, K.T.~Matchev and R.J.~Zhang,

1197: %``Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,''

1198: \NPB 491 (1997) 3

1199: \bibitem{cdf}The CDF  Collaboration, the D0 Collaboration and the TEVEWWWG, 

1200: hep-ex/0507091

1201: \bibitem{hebb}T.~Hebbeker, \PLB 470 (1999) 259

1202: \bibitem{hmrw} D.~Hooper, J.~March-Russell and S.M.~West,

1203: \PLB 605 (2005) 228

1204: \bibitem{jjk} I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, A.F. Kord, 

1205: {\it Ann. Phys.\/} 316 (2005) 213

1206: \bibitem{jjyt} I. Jack and D.R.T. Jones \NPB 662 (2003) 63

1207: \bibitem{sven} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1208:                     {\em Eur. Phys. Jour.} { C 9} (1999) 343, 

1209:                     {\em Comp. Phys. Comm.} { 124} 2000 76\semi

1210:                     The code is accessible via

1211:                     {\tt www.feynhiggs.de} 

1212: \bibitem{Espinosa:2000df}

1213: J.~R.~Espinosa and R.~J.~Zhang,

1214: \NPB 586  (2000) 3;

1215: {\it JHEP} 0003 2000  026 

1216: \bibitem{Brignole:2002bz}

1217: A.~Brignole et al,

1218: \NPB 631 (2002) 195; {\it ibid\/} B643 (2002) 79

1219: \bibitem{martin}

1220: S.~P.~Martin, \PRD 67 (2003) 095012; {\it ibid\/} 67 (2003) 095012

1221: 

1222: 

1223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1224: \end{thebibliography}

1225: \end{document}

1226: 

1227: 

1228: 

1229: