1: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn]{revtex4}

2: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

3: %\usepackage{multicol}

4: \usepackage[dvips]{epsfig,graphics}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: 

7: %%%%%%%%%%% Chris' macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: \usepackage{subfigure}

9: \usepackage{amsmath}

10: \newcommand\etc{{\em etc}}

11: \newcommand\ie{{\bf i.e.}}

12: 

13: \newcommand\ringfinder{{\tt ring-finder}}

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: 

16: %% %%%%%%%%% Graphics macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

17:  \newlength{\wth}

18:  \setlength{\wth}{10cm}

19:  \newcommand{\twographs}[2]{%

20:  \unitlength=1.1in

21:  \begin{picture}(5.8,2.6)(-0.3,0)

22:  \put(0,0){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=9cm}}

23:  \put(2.7,0){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=9cm}}

24:  \put(0.2,2.1){(a)}

25:  \put(2.7,2.1){(b)}

26:  \end{picture}

27: }

28: 

29: \newcommand{\twographsg}[2]{%

30:  \unitlength=1.1in

31:  \begin{picture}(6.,2.6)

32:  \put(-0.2,0){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=\wth}}

33:  \put(3.,0){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=\wth}}

34:  \put(0,2.1){(a)}

35:  \put(3.0,2.1){(b)}

36:  \end{picture}

37: }

38: 

39: \newcommand{\twographschris}[2]{%

40:  \unitlength=1.1in

41:  \begin{picture}(6.,2.3)

42:  \put(0.2,0){\epsfig{file=#1, width=0.7\wth}}

43:  \put(3.2,0){\epsfig{file=#2, width=0.7\wth}}

44:  \put(0,2.0){(a)}

45:  \put(3.0,2.0){(b)}

46:  \end{picture}

47: }

48: 

49: \newcommand{\twographst}[2]{%

50:  \unitlength=1.1in

51:  \begin{picture}(5.8,2.6)(0.5,0)

52:  \put(0,0){\epsfig{file=#1, width=\wth}}

53:  \put(0.9,0.46){\epsfig{file=#12, width=0.678 \wth}}

54:  \put(2.7,0){\epsfig{file=#2, width=\wth}}

55:  \put(3.6,0.46){\epsfig{file=#22, width=0.678 \wth}}

56:  \put(0.5,2.1){(a)}

57:  \put(3.2,2.1){(b)}

58:  \end{picture}

59: }

60: 

61: \newcommand{\fourgraphs}[4]{%

62: \unitlength=1in

63: \begin{picture}(8.7,4.7)(-0.4,0.3)

64: \put(2.7,2.4){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=\wth}}

65: \put(3.69,2.905){\epsfig{file=#22.eps, width=0.678 \wth}}

66: \put(-0.5,0.1){\epsfig{file=#3.eps, width=\wth}}

67: \put(0.49,0.605){\epsfig{file=#32.eps, width=0.678 \wth}}

68: \put(0.1,4.7){(a)}

69: \put(-0.5,2.4){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=\wth}}

70: \put(0.49,2.905){\epsfig{file=#12.eps, width=0.678 \wth}}

71: \put(3.3,4.7){(b)}

72: \put(0.1,2.3){(c)}

73: \put(3.3,2.3){(d)}

74: \put(2.7,0.1){\epsfig{file=#4.eps, width=\wth}}

75: \put(3.69,0.605){\epsfig{file=#42.eps, width=0.678 \wth}}

76: %% \put(0,0){\epsfig{file=#3.eps, width=\wth}}

77: %% \put(2.7,0){\epsfig{file=#4.eps, width=\wth}}

78: %% \put(0,2.6){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=\wth}}

79: %% \put(2.7,2.6){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=\wth}}

80: %% \put(0.1,2.3){(c)}

81: %% \put(0.1,4.9){(a)}

82: %% \put(3.0,2.3){(d)}

83: %% \put(3.0,4.9){(b)}

84: \end{picture}}

85: 

86: \newcommand{\threegraphs}[3]{%

87: \unitlength=1in

88: \begin{picture}(5.8,4.6)(0.15,0)

89: \put(1.35,0){\epsfig{file=#3.eps, width=\wth}}

90: \put(-0.5,2.3){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=\wth}}

91: \put(2.7,2.3){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=\wth}}

92: \put(1.55,2.2){(c)}

93: \put(0.1,4.5){(a)}

94: \put(3.0,4.5){(b)}

95: \end{picture}}

96: 

97: \newcommand{\sixgraphs}[6]{%

98: \unitlength=1in

99: %\begin{picture}(8.7,6.9)(0.15,0.3)

100: \begin{picture}(8.7,6.9)(-0.4,0.3)

101: \put(0.1,6.9){(a)}

102: \put(-0.5,4.8){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=10cm}}

103: \put(3.3,6.9){(b)}

104: \put(2.7,4.8){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=10cm}}

105: \put(0.1,4.5){(c)}

106: \put(-0.5,2.3){\epsfig{file=#3.eps, width=10cm}}

107: \put(3.3,4.5){(d)}

108: \put(2.7,2.3){\epsfig{file=#4.eps, width=10cm}}

109: \put(0.1,2.2){(e)}

110: \put(-0.5,0.){\epsfig{file=#5.eps, width=10cm}}

111: \put(3.3,2.2){(f)}

112: \put(2.7,0.){\epsfig{file=#6.eps, width=10cm}}

113: \end{picture}}

114: 

115: \newcommand{\sixgraphsmod}[6]{%

116: \unitlength=1in

117: %\begin{picture}(8.7,6.9)(0.15,0.3)

118: \begin{picture}(8.7,6.9)(-0.4,0.3)

119: \put(-0.5,0.){\epsfig{file=#5.eps, width=10cm}}

120: \put(0.49,0.5){\epsfig{file=#52.eps, width=6.8cm}}

121: \put(-0.5,4.78){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=10cm}}

122: \put(0.49,5.3){\epsfig{file=#12.eps, width=6.8cm}}

123: \put(0.1,6.9){(a)}

124: \put(2.7,4.8){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=10cm}}

125: \put(3.69,5.3){\epsfig{file=#22.eps, width=6.8cm}}

126: \put(0.1,4.5){(c)}

127: \put(-0.5,2.3){\epsfig{file=#3.eps, width=10cm}}

128: \put(0.49,2.8){\epsfig{file=#32.eps, width=6.8cm}}

129: \put(3.3,4.5){(d)}

130: \put(2.7,2.3){\epsfig{file=#4.eps, width=10cm}}

131: \put(3.69,2.8){\epsfig{file=#42.eps, width=6.8cm}}

132: \put(0.1,2.2){(e)}

133: \put(3.3,2.2){(f)}

134: \put(2.7,0.){\epsfig{file=#6.eps, width=10cm}}

135: \put(3.69,0.5){\epsfig{file=#62.eps, width=6.8cm}}

136: \put(3.3,6.9){(b)}

137: \end{picture}}

138: 

139: %\keywords{Dark Matter, Beyond Standard Model, Cosmology, MSSM, CMSSM, universality}

140: 

141: %\preprint{DAMTP-2005-64\\ hep-ph/0507283}

142: 

143: \begin{document}

144: 

145: \title{Multi-Dimensional mSUGRA Likelihood Maps\footnote{Preprint number: DAMTP-2005-64}}

146: 

147: \author{B.C. Allanach}

148: \affiliation{DAMTP, CMS, Wilberforce Road,

149: Cambridge, CB3 0WA, United Kingdom}

150: 

151: \author{C.G. Lester}

152: \affiliation{Cavendish Laboratory. Madingley Road.

153: Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom}

154: 

155: \begin{abstract}

156:   We calculate the likelihood map in the full 7 dimensional parameter

157:   space  of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) assuming universal

158:   boundary conditions on the supersymmetry breaking terms. Simultaneous

159:   variations of $m_0$, $A_0$, $M_{1/2}$, $\tan \beta$, $m_t$, $m_b$ and

160:   $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ are applied using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm.

161:   We use measurements of $b \rightarrow s \gamma$, $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and

162:   $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ in order to constrain the model. We present likelihood

163:   distributions for some of the sparticle 

164:   masses, for the branching ratio of

165:   $B_s^0 \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ and for $m_{\tilde \tau}-m_{\chi_1^0}$. 

166:   An upper limit of 2$\times 10^{-8}$ on this branching ratio might be achieved

167:   at the Tevatron, and would rule out 29$\%$ of the currently allowed

168:   likelihood. If one allows for non thermal-neutralino components of dark

169:   matter, this fraction becomes 35$\%$. 

170:   The mass ordering allows the important cascade decay

171:   ${\tilde q}_L \rightarrow {\chi_2^0} \rightarrow {\tilde l}_R

172:   \rightarrow {\chi_1^0}$ with a likelihood of 24$\pm 4\%$. The stop

173:   coannihilation region is highly disfavoured, whereas the light Higgs region 

174:   is marginally disfavoured.

175: \end{abstract}

176: 

177: \maketitle

178: 

179: \section{Introduction}

180: Weak-scale supersymmetry provides a well-documented solution to the technical

181: hierarchy problem~\cite{Martin:1997ns}, which is particularly difficult to

182: solve in a perturbatively calculable model. 

183: Specialising to a minimal extension of the Standard Model, the MSSM, one can

184: provide a weakly interacting massive particle dark matter candidate,

185: provided $R-$parity is respected by the model. 

186: Examples of dark matter candidates are the

187: gravitino~\cite{Ellis:2003dn,Roszkowski:2004jd}, the axino~\cite{Covi:2004rb}

188: and the lightest neutralino~\cite{Ellis:1983ew}, the subject of much

189: recent investigation~\cite{Baer:2002gm,Ellis:2003cw,Battaglia:2003ab,Ellis:2003si,Gomez:2004ek,Ellis:2004tc}. 

190: The general MSSM is rather complicated due to the large number of free

191: parameters in the supersymmetric (SUSY) breaking sector. 

192: However, the observed rareness of flavour changing neutral currents (FCNCs)

193: suggests  

194: that the vast majority of parameter space for general SUSY breaking terms is

195: ruled out. 

196: Particular patterns of SUSY breaking parameters can postdict small enough

197: FCNCs: for instance flavour universality. 

198: One highly studied subset of such terms is that of mSUGRA, often called

199: the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM).

200: In mSUGRA, at some high energy scale (typically taken to be the scale of

201: unification of electroweak gauge couplings), all of the SUSY breaking scalar

202: mass terms are assumed to be equal to $m_0$, the scalar trilinear terms 

203: are set to $A_0$ and the gaugino masses are set equal ($M_{1/2}$). 

204: These are indeed strong assumptions, but they have several advantages for

205: phenomenological analysis as the number of independent SUSY breaking

206: parameters is much 

207: reduced. Indeed, assuming that the MSSM is the correct model, the initial

208: data from the Tevatron or Large Hadron Collider are likely to contain only a

209: few relevant 

210: observables and so one may be able to fit against a simple SUSY breaking model 

211: as an example~\cite{Armstrong:1994it}. As the data become more accurate and

212: additional 

213: relevant observables are measured, the lack of a good fit would propel 

214: extensions 

215: of the simple model. One may then start to consider

216: patterns of non-universality, for instance. 

217: For the rest of this paper though, given the lack of data to the contrary,

218: we will assume mSUGRA\@.

219: Aside from the universal soft terms $m_0, A_0, M_{1/2}$,

220: other non-standard model mSUGRA input parameters are taken to be $\tan

221: \beta$, the ratio of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values, and

222: the sign of $\mu$ (a parameter that appears in the Higgs potential of the

223: MSSM).  

224: 

225: When combined with large scale structure data,

226: the Wilkinson microwave ani\-sot\-ropy probe (WMAP)~\cite{Spergel:2003cb,Bennett:2003bz} has placed 

227: stringent constraints upon the dark matter relic density $\Omega_{DM} h^2$.

228: A common assumption, which we will adhere to here, is

229: that the neutralino makes up the entire cold dark matter relic density.

230: The prediction of the relic density of dark matter in the MSSM depends

231: crucially upon annihilation cross-sections, since in the early universe 

232: SUSY particles will annihilate in the thermal bath.\ 

233: Regions of 

234: mSUGRA that are compatible with the WMAP constraint often predict some of the

235: following annihilation channels ~\cite{Allanach:2004xn}:

236: \begin{itemize}

237: \item

238: Stau (${\tilde \tau}$) co-annihilation~\cite{Griest:1990kh} at small $m_0$

239: where the lightest stau is quasi-degener\-ate with the lightest neutralino

240: ($\chi_1^0$).  

241: \item

242: Pseudoscalar Higgs ($A^0$) funnel region at large $\tan \beta > 45$ where

243: two neutralinos annihilate through an $s$-channel $A^0$

244: resonance~\cite{Drees:1992am,Arnowitt:1993mg}. 

245: \item

246: Light CP-even Higgs ($h^0$) region at low $M_{1/2}$ where

247: two neutralinos annihilate through an $s$-channel $h^0$

248: resonance~\cite{Drees:1992am,Djouadi:2005dz}. 

249: \item

250: Focus point~\cite{Feng:1999mn,Feng:1999zg,Feng:2000gh} at large $m_0$ where a

251: significant 

252: Higgsino component leads to efficient neutralino annihilation into gauge boson

253: pairs.

254: \item

255: Stop co-annihilation~\cite{Boehm:9911,arnie,Ellis:2001nx} at large $(-A_0)$,

256: where the lightest 

257: stop is close in mass to the lightest neutralino.

258: \end{itemize}

259: Many pre-WMAP analyses focused on the so-called bulk

260: region~\cite{Drees:1992am}. The 

261: bulk region is continuously connected to the

262: stau co-annihilation region at low $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$.

263: There are two reasons why the bulk region has shrunk in size when

264: one takes the current constraints into account: 

265: the WMAP constraint upon the relic density has ruled much of the region out,

266: and the new low value of the top mass mean that the MSSM Higgs mass

267: predictions are sometimes too low for low $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$

268: and are ruled out by LEP2 constraints. 

269: The (now reduced) bulk region will make an implicit appearance in our

270: results, and we will comment upon this fact later.

271: 

272: Several

273: authors~\cite{Brhlik:2000dm,Drees:2000he,Polesello:2004qy,Bambade:2004tq,Battaglia:2003ab,Allanach:2004jh,Moroi:2005nc}

274: have asked how the annihilation cross-section can be 

275: constrained 

276: by collider measurements in order to provide a more solid prediction of the

277: relic density. This would then be fed into a cosmological model in

278: order to predict  $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ for comparison

279: with the value derived from cosmological observation, allowing a test of

280: cosmological assumptions (and the assumption that there is only one component

281: of cold dark matter). Of course, colliders could not unambiguously identify

282: the lightest 

283: observed SUSY particle as the dark matter since it could always decay

284: unobserved outside the detector. 

285: It would therefore be interesting to combine collider

286: information with  that derived from a possible future direct

287: detection~\cite{Bourjaily:2005ax} of dark matter, providing corroboration and additional

288: empirical information. 

289: Before such observations are made, however, we may  ask how well current data

290: constrain models of new physics. 

291: 

292: This question has been addressed many times for mSUGRA by using the dark

293: matter constraint. Most of the analyses (see, for

294: example~\cite{Roszkowski:2001sb,Baer:2002gm,Baer:2002fv,Baer:2003yh,Ellis:2003cw,Chattopadhyay:2003xi,Lahanas:2003yz,Belanger:2004hk})   

295: fix all but two parameters and examine constraints upon the remaining 2

296: dimensional (2d) 

297: slice of parameter space. The dark matter relic density constraint is the most

298: limiting, but the branching ratio of the decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ 

299: and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $(g-2)_\mu$ also rule part of

300: the parameter space out. Recent upper bounds from the Tevatron

301:   experiments on the branching ratio $B_s 

302: \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$~\cite{Herndon:2004tk} have the potential to 

303: restrict mSUGRA in the future, but the analysis of ref.~\cite{Ellis:2005sc}

304: shows that the resulting constraints currently subsumed within other

305: constraints. In the above analyses,

306: limits are typically imposed separately, each to some 

307: prescribed confidence level. Such analyses have the advantage of being

308: quite transparent: it is fairly easy to see which constraint rules out which

309: part of parameter space. However, they have the disadvantages of not properly

310: describing the combination of likelihoods coming from different experimental

311: constraints and of having to assume {\em ad hoc}\/ values for several input

312: parameters. In particular, as well as the soft SUSY breaking input parameters,

313: the bottom mass $m_b$, the strong structure

314: constant $\alpha_S(M_Z)$ and the top mass $m_t$ can all have a strong effect on 

315: mSUGRA predictions.

316: A large random scan of flavour diagonal MSSM space involving $10^5$ points

317: that pass various prescribed constraints was presented in

318: ref.\cite{Profumo:2004at}, 

319: however the sampling of the 20d parameter space was necessarily

320: sparse. The analysis is also subject to the limitation that likelihoods have

321: not been combined; instead the measurements have been used as cuts to discard

322: points. 

323: In ref.~\cite{Ellis:2003si}, the likelihood from the observables is

324: calculated, properly combining different constraints, but again 1d and 2d

325: slices through parameter space were taken.

326: Of course the time taken to efficiently sample from a likelihood distribution

327: using the naive method (a scan) scales like a power law with respect to

328: the number of parameters, meaning that in practice even a high

329: resolution 3d scan is difficult. By parameterising lines in 2d that are

330: consistent with 

331: the WMAP dark matter constraint and scanning in two other parameters, the

332: analysis of 

333: ref.~\cite{Ellis:2004tc} 

334: calculates the $\chi^2$ statistic

335: for the 2d part of a 3d parameter space which is

336: consistent with the WMAP constraint on the dark matter relic density.

337: The predicted value of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ is not combined in the

338:   $\chi^2$ with the other observables

339: for this analysis, and the parameter $\tan \beta$ must be fixed. 

340: As the authors note~\cite{Ellis:2004tc}, parts of the scan were

341: sparse. In Ref.~\cite{Stark:2005mp}, a scan was performed which included

342: variations of $A_0$ and $\tan \beta$ as well as other mSUGRA parameters. It is

343: clear from this paper that the WMAP allowed region 

344: (expressed in the $M_{1/2}$-$m_0$ plane) becomes much larger from the $A_0$

345: variations. No likelihood distribution was given. 

346: 

347: Baltz and Gondolo~\cite{Baltz:2004aw} demonstrated that a Markov chain Monte

348: Carlo (MCMC) algorithm efficiently samples from the mSUGRA parameter space,

349: rendering 4d scans in $m_0, A_0, M_{1/2}, \tan \beta$

350: feasible. However, they were interested in  

351: which parts of parameter space are compatible with the WMAP measurement of

352: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ and what the prospects are for direct detection there, not

353: in the likelihood distribution. In order

354: to increase the efficiency of their parameter sampling, they changed

355: the simple ``Metropolis-Hastings'' MCMC algorithm in order to achieve a better

356: efficiency. As the authors state in their

357: conclusions, this has the consequence that

358: caution must be exercised when trying to interpret their

359: results as a likelihood distribution.

360: Indeed, we will show in a toy model that changes to the MCMC algorithm like

361: the ones that Baltz and Gondolo made can alter the sampling

362: from a distribution. 

363: 

364: It is our purpose here to utilise the MCMC algorithm in such a way as to

365: reliably calculate the combined likelihood of mSUGRA in the full

366: dimensionality of its parameter space, thereby extending the previous

367: studies. We will then be 

368: able to infer what is known about the multi-dimensional

369: parameter space, including important variations of the SM quantities.

370: These results will have implications for collider searches and  rare decays.

371: 

372: In section~\ref{sec:mcmc}, we briefly review the MCMC algorithm. 

373: We present the implementation used in the present paper to 

374: calculate the likelihood maps of mSUGRA parameter space and then demonstrate

375: that the results are convergent using a particular statistical test.

376: In section~\ref{sec:Lmaps}, we present the likelihood distributions and

377: derived quantities of the 7d

378: mSUGRA parameter space. In section~\ref{sec:uncertainties}, we illustrate the

379: effects of theoretical uncertainties in the sparticle spectrum calculation and

380: in section~\ref{sec:other}, possible effects from allowing an additional non

381: thermal-neutralino component to the relic density are explored.

382: A summary and conclusions are presented in  section~\ref{sec:conc}.

383: In appendix~\ref{sec:badsampling}, we 

384: demonstrate with two different toy models that the algorithm

385: used by Baltz and Gondolo may not provide a sampling proportional to the

386: likelihood of the parameter space.

387: 

388: \section{Implementation of the MCMC Algorithm\label{sec:mcmc}}

389: 

390: \subsection{Likelihoods}

391: Some readers might be unfamiliar with the use of statistics in this paper, and

392: so we include some comments on how to interpret them. The 

393: likelihood is {\em not}

394: dependent upon any priors. 

395: The likelihood ${\mathcal L} \equiv p(d|m)$ is the probability density

396: function (pdf) of reproducing

397: data $d$ 

398: assuming some mSUGRA model $m$. In $p(d|m)$, the model $m$ is specified by the

399: mSUGRA input parameters and so $p(d|m)$ has a dependence upon them.

400: $p(d|m)$ is related to the pdf of the model being the one chosen by nature,

401: given the data, by an application of Bayes' theorem:

402: \begin{equation}

403: p(m|d) = p(d|m) \frac{ p(m) }{ p(d) }, \label{bayes}

404: \end{equation}

405: where $p(m)$ is the probability of the model being correct (the {\em prior})

406: and $p(d)$ is the total probability of the data being reproduced, integrating

407: over all possible models. $p(d)$ is

408: practically impossible to estimate, so we cannot get the quantity that one

409: really wishes to estimate, $p(m|d)$. 

410: However, we may compare the relative probabilities of two different models

411: $m_1$ and $m_2$ (corresponding here to different points of mSUGRA space) by

412: applying 

413: Eq.~\ref{bayes} for each model, implying that

414: \begin{equation}

415: \frac{p(m_1|d)}{p(m_2|d)} = \frac{ p(d|m_1) p(m_1) }{p(d|m_2) p(m_2)}.

416: \end{equation}

417: We note here the appearance of the infamous prior distributions $p(m_1),

418: p(m_2)$. If one assumes that the ratio of these two priors is one (that no

419: region of parameter space is more likely than any other), one may interpret

420: the likelihood ratio of two different points in mSUGRA space as the ratio of

421: probabilities of the models, given the data. 

422: In this paper however, we provide likelihood distributions. If the reader

423: prefers a different ratio of priors to one, they must convolute the likelihood

424: density we give with their preferred ratio of pdfs. 

425: 

426: \subsection{The MCMC Algorithm}

427: 

428: We now briefly review the Metropolis MCMC algorithm, but for a more

429: thorough explanation, see refs.~\cite{Baltz:2004aw,MacKay}.

430: Other adaptive scanning algorithms have recently been

431: suggested in the context of high energy

432: physics~\cite{Allanach:2004my,Brein:2004kh} but (although they can be very

433: useful for 

434: other purposes) they do not yield a likelihood distribution. 

435: A Markov chain consists of a list of parameter points (${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$)

436: and associated 

437: likelihoods (${\mathcal L}^{(t)} \equiv {\mathcal L}({\mathbf x}^{(t)})$). Here

438: $t$ labels 

439: the link number in the chain.

440: Given some point at the end of the Markov chain (${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$),

441: the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm involves randomly picking another potential

442: point (${\mathbf x}^{(t+1)}$) (typically in the vicinity of ${\mathbf

443:   x}^{(t)}$)

444:  using

445: some proposal pdf $Q({\mathbf x};{\mathbf x}^{(t)})$. In this paper we will

446: specialise to the case of symmetric proposal functions, i.e.\ $Q({\mathbf

447:   x_b}; {\mathbf x_a})=Q({\mathbf x_a}; {\mathbf x_b})$. 

448: If ${\mathcal L}^{(t+1)}>{\mathcal L}^{(t)}$, the new point is appended onto

449: the 

450: chain. Otherwise, the proposed point is accepted with probability

451: ${\mathcal L}^{(t+1)} / {\mathcal L}^{(t)}$ and, if accepted, added to the end

452: of the   chain. If 

453: the point ${\mathbf x}^{(t+1)}$ is not accepted, the point ${\mathbf

454:   x}^{(t)}$ is copied on to the end of the chain instead.

455: 

456: Providing ``detailed balance'' is satisfied, it can be shown~\cite{MacKay}

457: that the sampling density of points in the chain is proportional to 

458: the target distribution (in this case, the likelihood) 

459: as the number of links goes to infinity. 

460: In the context of this analysis, detailed balance states that for any two

461: points  ${\mathbf x_a}, {\mathbf x_b}$

462: \begin{equation}

463: T({\mathbf x_a} ; {\mathbf x_b}) {\mathcal L}({\mathbf x_b}) = T({\mathbf x_b}

464: ; {\mathbf x_a}) {\mathcal L}({\mathbf x_a}),

465: \end{equation}

466: where $T({\mathbf x_b}; {\mathbf x_a}) \equiv Q({\mathbf x_b}; {\mathbf x_a})

467: \times \mbox{min}(1, {\mathcal L}({\mathbf x_b})/{\mathcal L}({\mathbf x_a}))$ is the probability of

468:  making a transition from ${\mathbf x_a}$ to ${\mathbf x_b}$ in the case where

469:  the proposal function 

470:  is symmetric. 

471: Thus, the probability of sampling a point ${\mathbf x_a}$ from the likelihood

472: distribution and then making a 

473: transition to ${\mathbf x_b}$ 

474: be equal to the probability of sampling ${\mathbf x_b}$ and making a

475: transition to ${\mathbf x_a}$.

476: 

477: The Metropolis-Hastings MCMC algorithm is typically much more efficient than a 

478: straightforward scan for $D>3$; the number of required steps scales roughly

479: linearly 

480: with $D$ rather than as a power law. The sampling is in principle independent

481: of the form of $Q$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$ as long as it is bigger than zero

482: everywhere. However,

483: $Q$ must be chosen with some care: since in practice we can only sample a

484: finite number of points, the choice of the form of $Q$ can determine whether 

485: the entire parameter space is sampled and how quickly convergence is reached. 

486: 

487: Baltz and Gondolo used a geometrical model for $Q$: choosing a random distance

488: from the point ${\mathbf x^{(t)}}$ and using a direction that was calculated

489:   from the positions of previous 

490: points in the chain. The width of the random radius pdf was calculated

491: depending upon previous points in the chain in order to increase the

492: efficiency of the 

493: calculation, aiming to accept roughly 25$\%$ of potential points. Either of

494: these changes upset detailed balance and may spoil the sampling. We

495: demonstrate in Appendix~\ref{sec:badsampling} with toy models

496: that the width changing modification gives a sampling that is not proportional

497: to the target density. 

498: 

499: \subsection{Parameter Ranges \label{sec:imp}}

500: 

501: \begin{table}

502: \caption{Parameter ranges considered. \label{tab:prior}}

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

504: \hline

505: parameter & range \\ \hline

506: {sign}$(\mu)$ & +1\ \\

507: $A_0$ & -2 TeV$-$2 TeV \\

508: $m_0$ & 60 GeV$-$2 TeV \\

509: $M_{1/2}$ & 60 GeV$-$2 TeV \\

510: $\tan \beta$ & 2$-$60 \\ \hline

511: \end{tabular}

512: \end{table}

513: On general naturalness grounds\footnote{That

514:   is, to avoid a large cancellation between weak scale SUSY breaking terms in

515:   order to get a small value of $\mu$.}, we expect $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ to not

516: be too large: less than say, 2 TeV. 

517: mSUGRA is ruled out by negative results in sparticle searches for

518: $m_0<60$ GeV or $M_{1/2}<60$ GeV. $\mu>0$ is favoured by the measurement of

519: the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

520: $\tan \beta$ is bounded from below by

521: negative searches at LEP2 for $h^0$ (and perturbativity of the top Yukawa

522: coupling) and from above by perturbativity of the Yukawa couplings up to the

523: unification scale. 

524: 

525: Upper bounds upon $m_0$ can 

526: exclude the focus point region, which, in our calculation,

527: is at much higher values of $m_0\sim O(8)$ TeV.

528: It has been

529: argued that a quantitative measure of fine-tuning in the focus point region is

530: not too large~\cite{Feng:1999mn,Feng:1999zg}, however the

531: fine-tuning of the top quark Yukawa coupling is

532: enormous~\cite{Allanach:2000ii}. 

533: This makes the focus-point regime practically impossible to reliably

534: calculate starting from mSUGRA inputs. Tiny higher order effects in

535: the top Yukawa coupling strongly

536: change the position of the focus point regime in mSUGRA parameter space.

537: In ref.~\cite{Allanach:2000ii}, it is demonstrated that the focus point

538: regime 

539: moves in the $m_0$ direction by several TeV depending on how exactly the

540: highest order top-quark Yukawa radiative corrections are calculated.

541: Because the calculation cannot be controlled with the current state-of-the-art

542: calculations of the top Yukawa coupling, we will

543: exclude the focus point regime from this analysis by placing an appropriate

544: upper bound upon $m_0$.

545: Here, we restrict the parameter space to that shown in Table~\ref{tab:prior}.

546: 

547: \subsection{Observables and constraints}

548: %% The add\-ed volume of parameter space necessary to include the focus point

549: %% region means that convergence is difficult to achieve with the CPU power

550: %% available to us. Also, focus point region points take much more time to

551: %% accurately calculate the spectra for than other viable mSUGRA 

552: %% points. 

553: %% For now, we will simply neglect the focus point region for convenience. 

554: 

555: \begin{table}

556: \caption{Lower bounds applied to sparticle mass predictions in GeV.\label{tab:constraints}}

557: \begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|cc|cc|}

558: \hline

559: $m_{\chi_1^0}$ & 37  & $m_{\chi^\pm_1}$ & 67.7 & 

560: $m_{\tilde g}$ & 195 &

561: $m_{{\tilde \tau}_1}$ & 76 \\ $m_{{\tilde l}_R}$ & 88 & $m_{{\tilde t}_1}$ &

562:   86.4 &

563: $m_{{\tilde b}_1}$ & 91 & $m_{{\tilde q}_R}$ & 250 \\

564: $m_{{\tilde \nu}_{e,\mu}}$ & 43.1 & & & & & & \\

565: \hline

566: \end{tabular}

567: \end{table}

568: We calculate the MSSM spectrum from mSUGRA

569: parameters, by using the program {\tt SOFTSUSY1.9.2}~\cite{Allanach:2001kg}.

570: Ideally we would like to include data from negative search results from

571: collider data within a combined likelihood. 

572: Unfortunately it is difficult to obtain the data in such a form and so

573: instead, we assign a 

574: zero likelihood to any point for which at least one of the

575: constraints~\cite{PDBook} in Table~\ref{tab:constraints} is not satisfied.

576: We also implement a parameterisation\footnote{Developed by P Slavich for

577:   Ref.~\protect\cite{Allanach:2004rh}.} of the 95$\%$

578: confidence level 

579: limits~\cite{Barate:2003sz} on $m_h(g_{hZZ}/g_{hZZ}^{SM})$, where

580: $g_{hZZ}/g_{hZZ}^{SM}$ is the ratio of the MSSM higgs coupling to two $Z^0$

581: bosons to the equivalent Standard Model coupling. In order to take a 3 GeV

582: uncertainty on  

583: the mSUGRA prediction of $m_h$ into account, we

584: add 3 GeV~\cite{Degrassi:2002fi,Allanach:2004rh}

585: to the $m_{h^0}$ value that is used in the parameterisation. In the MSSM,

586: $g_{hZZ}/g_{hZZ}^{SM}=\sin(\beta - \alpha)$ and

587: in practice, it

588: is easier to apply limits in terms of the {\em inverse} \/parameterisation

589: $\sin^2 (\beta - \alpha)(m_{h^0})$ as shown in Table~\ref{tab:par}.

590: 

591: \begin{table*}

592: \caption{Parameterisation of 95$\%$ condidence level LEP2 Higgs limits on the

593:   $m_{h^0}$-$\sin^2(\beta-\alpha)$ plane. All points with $m_{h^0}<90$ GeV are

594:   ruled out. \label{tab:par}}

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

596: \hline $m_{h^0}/$GeV range & upper bound on $\sin^2 (\beta -

597:   \alpha)$ \\ \hline

598: 90-99 & -6.1979 + 0.12313 $m_{h^0}/$GeV - 0.00058411 $(m_{h^0}/$GeV$)^2$\\

599: 99-104 & 35.73 - 0.69747 $m_{h^0}/$GeV + 0.0034266 $(m_{h^0}/$GeV$)^2$\\

600: 104-109.5 & 21.379 - 0.403 $m_{h^0}/$GeV + 0.0019211 $(m_{h^0}/GeV)^2$ \\

601: 109.5-114.4 & 1/(60.081 - 0.51624 $m_{h^0}/$GeV) \\ \hline

602: \end{tabular}

603: \end{table*} 

604: The spectrum is transferred via the SUSY Les 

605: Houches Accord~\cite{Skands:2003cj} to the computer program {\tt

606:   micrOMEGAs1.3.5}~\cite{Belanger:2001fz,Belanger:2004yn} in order to

607: calculate several quantities used to calculate the likelihood of a

608: parameter point. 

609: We will use six measurements in order to construct the final likelihood of any

610: given point of parameter space. As mentioned in the introduction, we make the 

611: assumption that the neutralino makes up the entire cold dark matter relic

612: density as constrained by WMAP:

613: \begin{equation}

614: \Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.1126^{+0.0081}_{-0.0091}. \label{omConst}

615: \end{equation}

616: The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon has been

617:  measured~\cite{Bennett:2004pv} to be higher than the Standard Model

618:  prediction~\cite{Passera:2004bj,deTroconiz:2004tr}. The experimental

619:  measurement is so precise that the comparison is limited by theoretical

620:  uncertainties in the Standard Model prediction. Following

621:  Ref.~\cite{Allanach:2005yq}, we constrain any new physics contribution to 

622:  be

623: \begin{equation}

624: \delta \frac{(g-2)_\mu}{2} = 19.0 \pm 8.4 \times 10^{-10}. 

625: \end{equation}

626: Adding theoretical errors~\cite{Gambino:2004mv} to measurement

627: errors~\cite{hfag} in quadrature 

628: for the branching ratio for the decay $b \rightarrow s \gamma$,

629: one obtains the empirically derived constraint

630: \begin{equation}

631: BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma) = 3.52 \pm 0.42 \times 10^{-4}.

632: \end{equation}

633: 

634: The Standard Model inputs' measurements also contribute to the

635: likelihood. We take these to be~\cite{PDBook}, for the running bottom quark

636: mass in the modified minimal subtraction scheme,

637: \begin{equation}

638: m_b (m_b)^{\overline{MS}} = 4.2 \pm 0.2 \mbox{~GeV},

639: \end{equation}

640: for the pole mass of the top quark\footnote{For an analysis with 

641: $m_t=174.3 \pm 3.4$ GeV, see the original version of this paper on the

642:   hep-ph/ electronic archive.}~\cite{Group:2005cc},  

643: \begin{equation}

644: m_t = 172.7 \pm 2.9 \mbox{~GeV},

645: \end{equation}

646: and for the strong coupling constant in the modified minimal subtraction

647: scheme at $M_Z$

648: \begin{equation}

649: \alpha_s (M_Z)^{\overline{MS}} = 0.1187 \pm 0.002.

650: \end{equation}

651: A prediction $p_i$ of one of these quantities, where

652: \begin{eqnarray}

653: i&\equiv& \{

654: \alpha_s(M_Z)^{\overline{MS}}, m_t, m_b(m_b)^{\overline{MS}},

655: (g-2)_\mu/2, \nonumber \\

656: && \mbox{BR}(b \rightarrow s \gamma), \Omega_{DM} h^2\}

657: \end{eqnarray}

658:  with

659: measurement $m_i\pm s_i$  yields a log likelihood 

660: \begin{equation}

661: \ln {\mathcal L}_{i} = - \frac{(m_i-p_i)^2}{2s^2_i} - \frac{1}{2} \ln (2 \pi) -

662: \ln s_i, 

663: \label{lnL}

664: \end{equation}

665: assuming the usual Gaussian errors. 

666: Note that since Eq.~\ref{omConst}

667: has asymmetric errors, $s_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}=0.0081(0.0091)$ if our prediction

668: is higher (lower) than the observed central value. 

669: To form the combined likelihood, one 

670: takes $\ln {\mathcal L}^{tot} = \sum_{i=1} \ln {\mathcal L}_i$,

671: corresponding to the combination of independent Gaussian likelihoods.

672: In practice, we will ignore the normalisation

673: constants $-\frac{1}{2}\ln(2 \pi) - \ln s_i$, since the likelihood

674: distribution has an arbitrary normalisation anyway. 

675: 

676: We take 

677: the proposal function to be the product of Gaussian distributions along

678: each dimension $k=1,2,\ldots,D$ centred on the location of the current point 

679: along that dimension, i.e.\ $x^{(t)}_k$: 

680: \begin{equation}

681: Q({\mathbf x}^{(t+1)}; {\mathbf x}^{(t)}) = 

682:   \prod_{k=1}^D \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} l_k} e^{-(x_k^{(t+1)} -x_k^{(t)} )^2

683:   / 2 l_k^2},

684: \end{equation}

685: where $l_k$ denotes the width of the distribution along direction $k$. 

686: By trial and error we find that using values of $l_k$ that are equal to the

687: parameter range of dimension $k$ given in Table~\ref{tab:prior}

688: divided by 25 works well. 

689: For the Standard Model inputs, we choose $l_k = 8 \sigma_k / 25$. 

690: 

691: In order to start the chain we follow the following procedure, which finds a

692: point at random in parameter space that is not a terrible fit to the data.

693: We pick some ${\mathbf y}^{(0)}$ at random in the mSUGRA parameter

694: space using a flat distribution for its pdf. 

695: The Markov chain for ${\mathbf y}$ is evolved a sufficient number of steps

696: ($t$) such that $\ln{\mathcal L }({\mathbf y}^{(t)}) > -5$, i.e.\ the initial

697: chain 

698: has found a reasonable fit. We then set ${\mathbf x}^{(0)}={\mathbf y}^{(t)}$,

699: continuing the Markov chain in ${\mathbf x}$ and discarding the ``burn-in''

700: chain ${\mathbf y}$. The reasonable-fit point is typically found long before

701: 2000 iterations of the Markov chain.

702: 

703: 

704: \subsection{Convergence}

705: 

706: In order that likelihood distributions calculated in this paper be considered

707: reliable, it is important to check convergence of the MCMC\@. This is done by

708: running 9 independent Markov chains, each with random starting positions as

709: described above.  

710: The starting positions are chosen in the ranges presented in

711: Table~\ref{tab:prior} 

712: with a flat pdf, since it is important for the convergence measure that the

713: initial values be over distributed compared to the likelihood function one

714: samples from. By examining the variance and means of input parameters within the chains

715: and between the 9 different chains, we will construct a

716: quantity~\cite{stat}

717: $\hat R$. $\hat R$ will provide an upper bound on the factor of expected

718: decrease of 

719: variance of 1d likelihood distributions

720: if  the chain were iterated to an infinite number of steps. 

721: An ${\hat R}$ value can be constructed for scalar quantities that are

722: associated with a point ${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$. 

723: 

724: The analysis of the $\hat R$ convergence statistic follows Ref.~\cite{stat}

725: closely. 

726: We consider $c=1,\ldots,M$ chains ($M=9$ here), each with $N=10^6$ steps. Then

727: we may define the  average input parameter along direction $k$ for the chain

728: $c$ and the average amongst the ensemble of chains 

729: \begin{equation}

730: [\bar{x}_k]_c = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=1}^{N} [{x_k^{(t)}}]_c, \qquad

731: \bar{x}_k = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{c=1}^{M} [\bar{x}_k]_c,

732: \end{equation}

733: respectively.

734: The variance of chain $c$ along direction $k$ is

735: \begin{equation}

736: [V_k]_c = \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{t=1}^N ([x^{(t)}_k]_c - [\bar{x}_k]_c)^2,

737: \end{equation}

738: so that we have the average of the variances within a chain

739: \begin{equation}

740: w_k = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{c=1}^M [V_k]_c

741: \end{equation}

742: and the variance between chains' averages

743: \begin{equation}

744: B_k/N = \frac{1}{M-1} \sum_{c=1}^M ([\bar{x}_k]_c - \bar{x}_k)^2.

745: \end{equation}

746: The basic ratio constructed corresponds to

747: \begin{equation}

748: R_k = \frac{\frac{N-1}{N} w_k + B_k/N(1 + \frac{1}{M})}{w_k}.

749: \end{equation}

750: As long as the initial seed parameters of the Markov chain are

751: over-distributed, i.e.\ they have larger variance than the likelihood, 

752: this ratio will be larger than one~\cite{stat} if the chains have not

753: converged or if they have not had time to explore the entirety of the

754: parameter space. It tends to one only if both of these conditions are met.

755: In order to construct $\hat R$, we must take into account the sampling

756: variability of $[\bar{x}_k]_c$ and $[V_k]_c$.

757: The variance of chain variances along direction $k$ is estimated to be

758: \begin{equation}

759: v_k = \frac{1}{M-1} \sum_{c=1}^M ([V_k]_c - w_k)^2,

760: \end{equation}

761: and we must take into account the following estimates of

762: co-variances between the values of

763: $[\bar{x}_k]_c$ and $[V_k]_c$:

764: \begin{eqnarray}

765: (\sigma_k)_1 &=& - w_k \bar{x}_k^2 + \frac{1}{M}\sum_{c=1}^M [V_k]_c

766:   [\bar{x}_k]_c^2 , \nonumber \\

767: (\sigma_k)_2 &=& - w_k

768:   \bar{x}_k + \frac{1}{M} \sum_{c=1}^M [V_k]_c [\bar{x}_k]_c.

769: \end{eqnarray}

770: Defining the total estimated variance of the target distribution along

771: direction $k$ 

772: \begin{eqnarray}

773: {\mathcal V_k} &=& \frac{1}{M}(1 - \frac{1}{N})^2 v_k +

774: \frac{2(M+1)^2}{M^2(M-1)} 

775: (B_k/N)^2 +\nonumber \\

776: && 

777: 2 \frac{(N-1)(M+1)}{M^2 N} \left( (\sigma_k)_1 - 2 \bar{x}_k 

778: (\sigma_k)_2

779: \right),

780: \end{eqnarray}

781: where we have degrees of freedom

782: \begin{equation}

783: df_k = 2 \frac{\left(R_k w_k + B_k / (NM)\right)^2}{{\mathcal V}_k},

784: \end{equation}

785: leading us to the final equation for the estimated reduction in the sampled

786: variance as $t \rightarrow \infty$:

787: \begin{equation}

788: \hat{R}_k = R_k \frac{df_k}{df_k - 2}.

789: \end{equation}

790: %% saved correct version

791: \begin{figure}

792:   \epsfig{figure=scan7conv.eps,width=10cm}

793:   \caption{Estimate of potential scale reduction shown as a function of the

794:     number of Markov

795:     chain Monte Carlo steps. The upper bound we require for convergence is shown

796:     as a horizontal line. \label{fig:conv}}

797: \end{figure}

798:  

799: %% \begin{figure}

800: %%  \unitlength=1cm

801: %% \begin{picture}(10,6)

802: %%  \put(0,0){\epsfig{figure=scan7m0A0.eps,width=10cm}}

803: %%    \put(2.51,1.28){\epsfig{figure=scan7m0A02.eps,width=6.8cm}}

804: %%  \end{picture}

805: %%    \caption{Estimate of potential scale reduction shown as a function of the

806: %%      number of Markov

807: %%      chain Monte Carlo steps. The upper bound we require for convergence is

808: %%      shown as a horizontal line. \label{fig:conv}}

809: %%  \end{figure}

810: 

811: Here,

812: we define $r \equiv$max$_k \{ \sqrt{\hat R_k}\}$.

813: Values of

814: $r<1.05$ are considered to signify convergence and compatibility of the

815: chains, since we could only hope to decrease the scale of any of the input

816: parameter distributions by at most $5\%$ by performing further Markov Chain

817: steps.  

818: In Fig.~\ref{fig:conv}, we show the quantity $r$ as a function of step

819: number. $r<1.05$ is met already for 600 000 steps indicating adequate

820:   convergence, although for the 

821:   results we present below we we always use the full 9$\times$1 000 000

822:   sample.

823: 

824: \section{Likelihood Maps\label{sec:Lmaps}}

825: 

826: The number of input parameters exceeds the number of data and

827: the likelihood shows a rough degeneracy along

828: directions 

829: which give iso-lines of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$. The parameters of the best-fit

830: point of the MCMC do not 

831: therefore supply us with much information, but the value of the likelihood at

832: that point is interesting: a very small value would indicate a high $\chi^2$

833: and therefore a bad fit. 

834: The best-fit point sampled by the MCMC with 7d input parameter space was 

835: \begin{eqnarray}

836: &&m_0=964 \mbox{~GeV},\ M_{1/2}=341 \mbox{~GeV},\ A_0=1394 \mbox{~GeV},

837: \nonumber \\

838: &&

839: m_b(m_b)=4.18 \mbox{~GeV},\ m_t=173.0 \mbox{~GeV},\ \nonumber \\

840: && \alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1185,\

841: \tan \beta = 57.9, 

842: \end{eqnarray}

843: leading to predictions of $\delta (g-2)_\mu/2=1.8 \times 10^{-9}$, $BR(b

844: \rightarrow s 

845: \gamma)=3.63 \times 10^{-4}$ and $\Omega_{DM} h^2=0.1124$ and corresponding to

846: a 

847: combined likelihood (ignoring normalisation constants, as stated above) 

848: of ${\mathcal L}=0.95$. 

849: The point is within the $A^0-$pole region, and the centrality of predicted

850: observables 

851: gives us confidence that mSUGRA can fit well to current data.

852: The efficiency of the MCMC algorithm is quite small: only 4.1$\%$. This

853: reflects the fact that the thickness of WMAP-allowed volume is small, making

854: it difficult to sample efficiently. 

855: 

856: We display binned sampled likelihood distributions in

857: Figs.~\ref{fig:like7}a-\ref{fig:like7}f for the full $m_t$, $m_b(m_b)$,

858: $\alpha_s(M_Z)^{\overline{MS}}$, $m_0$, $A_0$, $\tan \beta$ and $M_{1/2}$ parameter space. 

859: The unseen dimensions in each figure have been marginalised with flat priors. 

860: All 2-d or 1-d marginalisations in this paper assume a flat prior (within the

861: ranges of parameters considered in Table~\ref{tab:prior})

862: in all unseen dimensions (or in other words, the likelihood is integrated over

863: them with equal weight). One can view the marginalisation probabilistically,

864: or just as a means of viewing the higher dimensional parameter space. 

865: \begin{figure*}

866: \begin{center}

867: \sixgraphsmod{scan7m0m12}{scan7m0tb}{scan7m0A0}{scan7m12tb}{scan7A0tb}{scan7m12A0}

868: \end{center}

869: \caption{Likelihood maps of mSUGRA parameter space.

870: The graphs show the

871: likelihood distributions sampled from

872:   7d parameter space and marginalised down to two.

873: The likelihood (relative to the likelihood in the highest bin) 

874: is displayed by reference to the bar on the right hand side of each plot.

875: The contours show the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence level limits.

876: \label{fig:like7}}

877: \end{figure*}

878: We have used 75$\times$75 bins, normalising the likelihood in each bin to the

879: maximum likelihood in any bin in each 2d plane.

880: 

881: In each plot, the $h^0$ pole $s$-channel resonant annihilation region

882: is present close to the lowest values of $M_{1/2}$. It can be seen as a

883: vertical sliver in the 

884: top-left hand corner of the $m_0-M_{1/2}$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a

885: and the 

886: slim band ranging across the bottom of

887: Figs.~\ref{fig:like7}d,\ref{fig:like7}f.

888: The bright region in Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a at low values of $m_0$ is

889: primarily a co-annihilation 

890: region where slepton-neutralino annihilation contributes significantly to the

891: depletion of the neutralino relic density in the early universe. However, at

892: the lowest values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ values visible on the graph, 

893: the bulk region resides, being continuously connected to the co-annihilation

894: tail, as shown in Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2003cw}.

895: The pseudoscalar Higgs ($A^0$) $s$-channel annihilation channel occurs at high

896: $\tan \beta=50-60$ and in the intermediate areas of $m_0=500-1600$ GeV,

897: $M_{1/2}=250-1400$ GeV. 

898: In the literature, the most common way to display mSUGRA results is to 

899: present them in 2d in the $m_0$-$M_{1/2}$ plane, where thin strips are

900: observed (see for example Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2004tc}) that are consistent with

901: the WMAP constraint upon $\Omega_{DM} h^2$. 

902: Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a demonstrates (in corroboration with Refs.~\cite{Baltz:2004aw,Stark:2005mp})

903: that the strips are truly a result of

904: picking a 2d hyper-surface in parameter space: if one performs a full

905: multi-dimensional scan, there is a large region in the $m_0$-$M_{1/2}$ plane

906: that is 

907: consistent with the data. The bottom right hand side corner of

908: Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a is ruled out primarily by the fact that the lightest

909: supersymmetric particle (LSP) is

910: charged. Large $M_{1/2}$ is disfavoured by the $(g-2)_\mu$ result. The bottom

911: left-hand corner of Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a is ruled out by a combination of

912: dark matter and direct search constraints. We see an interesting correlation

913: between $m_0$ and $\tan \beta$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}b: the region extending

914: to low $\tan \beta$ and low $m_0$ is essentially the stau co-annihilation/bulk

915: region.  

916: 

917: \begin{figure*}[t]

918: \begin{center}

919: \fourgraphs{scan7mAmchi}{scan7mhmchi}{scan7mstaumchi}{scan7mchimslep}

920: \end{center}

921: \caption{Likelihood distributions of masses in mSUGRA\@. The graphs show the

922: likelihood distributions marginalised down to 2d.

923: The likelihood (relative to the likelihood in the highest bin) 

924: is displayed by reference to the bar on the right hand side of each plot.

925: The contours show the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence level limits.

926: \label{fig:likeMass7}}

927: \end{figure*}

928: We display some binned likelihood distributions of MSSM particle masses

929: in

930: Figs.~\ref{fig:likeMass7}a-\ref{fig:likeMass7}c that are relevant for dark

931: matter annihilation. In 

932: Fig.~\ref{fig:likeMass7}a, the $A^0$-pole resonance region is clearly

933: discernable: at just above a line $2m_{\chi_1^0}=M_{A^0}$ and just below it,

934: there is 

935: just enough annihilation to produce the observed relic density. Throughout much

936: of the parameter space ($M_A<1$ TeV), the exact resonance condition depletes

937: the relic density

938: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ to be too small. At around $M_A \sim 1$ TeV, exact resonance is

939: required in order to sufficiently deplete the relic dark matter density. 

940: The rest of the likelihood density is spread over the dark part of

941: the plot and is mostly too diffuse to be visible. 

942: In Fig.~\ref{fig:likeMass7}b, there are two detectable regions: the small one

943: with the maximum 2d binned likelihood at the lowest possible values

944: of $m_{\chi_1^0}$ corresponds to the $h^0$-pole region. The larger upper high

945: likelihood region

946: is an amalgam of the co-annihilation and $A^0$-pole regions.

947: As a by-product we see that values of $m_h>126$ GeV are disfavoured in the

948: mSUGRA model. 

949: In

950: Fig.~\ref{fig:likeMass7}c, the stau co-annihilation region is visible as the

951: diagonal dark line and the $h^0$-pole region as the lower likelihood horizontal

952: dark line. The rest of the likelihood density is diffusely distributed in

953: between these two extremes. 

954: We have shown the likelihood distribution for lightest chargino and slepton

955: masses in Fig.~\ref{fig:likeMass7}d. Unfortunately, most of the likelihood 

956: is in a region where the well-known tri-lepton search

957: channel~\cite{Abazov:2005ku} at the Tevatron 

958: is rather difficult. With 8 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity,

959: this search channel requires

960: $m_{\chi_1^\pm} < m_{\tilde l}$, $m_{\chi_1^\pm}<250$ 

961: for a discovery~\cite{future}. 

962: 

963: \begin{figure*}

964: \unitlength=1.1in

965: \begin{center}

966: \begin{picture}(5.8,6.0)(0,0.2)%4.8 high normally with 2x2

967: \put(0,4.4){\epsfig{file=scan7ms, width=3.4in}}

968: \put(2.9,4.4){\epsfig{file=scan7dmBig, width=3.4in}}

969: \put(3.69,5.1){\epsfig{file=scan7dm, width=0.59\wth}}

970: \put(0,2.1){\epsfig{file=scan7Bsmumu, width=3.4in}}

971: \put(2.4,2.0){\epsfig{file=scan7m12bsmm, width=3.9in}}

972: \put(3.28,2.45){\epsfig{file=scan7m12bsmm2, width=2.66in}}

973: \put(-0.5,-0.2){\epsfig{file=scan7gmuBsmumu, width=3.9in}}

974: \put(0.38,0.25){\epsfig{file=scan7gmuBsmumu2, width=2.66in}}

975: \put(2.4,-0.2){\epsfig{file=scan7mAtanb, width=3.9in}}

976: \put(3.28,0.25){\epsfig{file=scan7mAtanb2, width=2.66in}}

977: \put(0,6.4){(a)}

978: \put(2.9,6.4){(b)}

979: \put(0,4.1){(c)}

980: \put(2.9,4.1){(d)}

981: \put(0,1.8){(e)}

982: \put(2.9,1.8){(f)}

983: \end{picture}

984: \end{center}

985: \caption{(a) Selected sparticle mass likelihood distributions in mSUGRA, 

986: (b) stau-neutralino mass difference likelihood distribution 

987: where the insert

988:   shows a blow-up of the quasi mass-degenerate region.

989: (c) branching ratio for the decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$. 

990: The Tevatron upper bound is displayed by a vertical line.

991: (d) Likelihood density marginalised to the 2d plane

992: $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ versus $M_{1/2}$. (e)

993: Correlation between $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $(g-2)_\mu$.

994: (f) Likelihood marginalised to the $\tan \beta$-$M_A$ plane.

995: The contours show the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence level limits.

996: \label{fig:hists}}

997: \end{figure*}

998: 

999: We show the sampled likelihood distribution for $m_{{\tilde l}_R}$,

1000: $m_{\tilde g}$, $m_{{\tilde t}_1}$ and $m_{{\tilde q}_L}$ in

1001: Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}a. The 

1002: likelihood distributions have been placed into 75 bins of 

1003: widths that are equal for the  

1004: different types of sparticles. They are each normalised to an integrated

1005: likelihood of 1. The spike at low values of the gluino mass corresponds to the 

1006: $h^0$-pole region of mSUGRA\@. This spike has a good chance of being covered

1007: at the Tevatron experiments before the LHC starts running~\cite{future}.

1008: It should be noted that upper limits 

1009: upon the scalar sparticle masses inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}a

1010: are due largely to the definition of the range of

1011: the initial parameters ($m_0$ being less than 2

1012: TeV). Nevertheless, it is clear that there is already some preference from the

1013: combined data for various ranges of sparticle masses and upper bounds upon the

1014: gaugino masses. For example, values of $m_{\tilde g} > 3.5$ TeV and

1015: $m_{\tilde g}=400-800$ GeV are disfavoured, as well as $m_{{\tilde

1016:     q}_L}<800$ GeV. In Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}b, the mass splitting between the

1017: lightest stau and lightest neutralino is shown. The insert in the figure

1018: displays the quasi-degenerate co-annihilation region at low mass splittings. 

1019: The peaked region at $m_{{\tilde \tau}_1} - m_{\chi_1^0}<$10 GeV is likely to

1020: be difficult to discern at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). 

1021: One would wish to

1022: measure decays of the 

1023: lightest staus in order to check the co-annihilation region, but reconstructing

1024: a relevant soft $\tau$ resulting from such a decay is likely to prove

1025: problematic. On the other hand, a linear collider with

1026: sufficient energy to produce sparticles could provide the necessary

1027: information~\cite{Nojiri:1996fp,Bambade:2004tq}. 

1028: The predicted likelihood distribution of the $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ branching

1029: ratio is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}c. Possible values for this 

1030: observable were 

1031: found with a random scan of unconstrained MSSM parameter space in

1032: Ref.~\cite{Dedes:2004yc} (no likelihood distribution was given).

1033: The region to the right hand side of

1034: the vertical line is ruled out from the combined

1035: CDF/D0 95$\%$C.L. exclusion~\cite{Acosta:2004xj,Abazov:2004dj}\footnote{There

1036:   are newer CDF/D0 bounds~\cite{Dagu}, for example CDF(D0) have non-combined

1037:   95$\%$ C.L. limits of 2.0(3.0)$\times 10^{-7}$ respectively.}

1038: limit $BR(B_s^0 \rightarrow \mu^+

1039: \mu^-) < 3.4 \times 10^{-7}$. 

1040: We have not cut points violating this

1041: constraint, but this has negligible effect

1042: since there are

1043: only a small number of them. The 2d marginalisation of

1044: the branching ratio versus $M_{1/2}$ shows a peak at very low $M_{1/2}$

1045: values, as Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}d displays.

1046: This indicates that the spike in Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}c at branching ratios

1047: of about $10^{-8.6}$ is due to the $h^0$-pole region. 

1048: Lowering the empirical

1049: upper bound on the $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ branching ratio will

1050: significantly cut into the allowed mSUGRA parameter space. 

1051: A significant lowering of the bound upon this branching ratio is expected 

1052: in the coming years from the Tevatron experiments and from LHCb.

1053: For example, it is estimated~\cite{future} that the Tevatron could exclude 

1054: a branching ratio of more than $2 \times 10^{-8}$ with 8 fb$^{-1}$ of

1055: integrated luminosity. This corresponds to ruling out 29$\%$ of the

1056: currently allowed likelihood density. 

1057: Predictions for $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ were correlated

1058: with those for $(g-2)_\mu$ in Ref.~\cite{Dedes:2001fv} in mSUGRA\@. For a given

1059: mSUGRA 

1060: parameter point, a correlation was shown when $\tan \beta$ was varied. 

1061: The authors conclude that for high $\tan \beta$, 

1062: an enhancement of 

1063: $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$

1064: is implied by the $(g-2)_\mu$ measurements. We re-examine this statement in view

1065: of the full dimensionality of the mSUGRA parameter space in

1066: Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}e. The correlation is seen to be far from perfect, the

1067: likelihood distribution being highly smeared in terms of the two measurements.

1068: Nevertheless, there is a mild correlation between $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+

1069: \mu^-)$ and the SUSY contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ 

1070: at the highest likelihoods, as evidenced by the bright

1071: oblique stripe in Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}e.

1072: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}f, we show the likelihood distribution in the $\tan

1073: \beta$-$m_A$ plane. There is a significant amount of likelihood density

1074: towards the top left-hand side of the plot, where the Tevatron is expected to

1075: have sensitivity~\cite{future} (covering $\tan \beta>40$ for $m_A<240$ GeV for

1076: 8fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity). LHC experiments should be able to 

1077: observe the $A^0$ for

1078: the entire high likelihood range~\cite{Armstrong:1994it}.

1079: 

1080: We now ask what are the likelihoods of the 

1081: different regions of relic density depletion in mSUGRA parameter

1082: space. In order to sharply delineate the

1083: regions, 

1084: we define them as follows: 

1085: the co-annihilation region is defined such that $m_{\chi_1^0}$ is within $10\%$

1086: of $m_{{\tilde \tau}_1}$.

1087: The $h^0/A^0$-pole regions have $2m_{\chi_1^0}$ within $10\%$ of $m_{h^0}$,

1088: $m_{A^0}$ respectively.

1089: Stop co-annihilation requires a broader definition: it is defined such that 

1090: $m_{\chi_1^0}$ is within 30$\%$ of $m_{{\tilde t}_1}$, since the

1091: annihilation is so much

1092: more efficient~\cite{Boehm:9911,arnie,Ellis:2001nx} than in the other regions.

1093: A better defined procedure might perhaps be to determine regions on the basis

1094: of the {\em dominant}\/ annihilation mechanism, but since we are only looking

1095: for a rough indication of the region involved, the procedure adopted here

1096: will suffice. 

1097: Points that fall in between any of the sharp definitions are either 

1098: from the bulk region or in the smaller tails of the likelihood distribution.

1099: 

1100: \begin{table}

1101: \caption{Likelihood of being in a certain region of mSUGRA parameter

1102:   space. \label{tab:regions}}

1103: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1104: \hline Region & likelihood \\ \hline

1105: $h^0$ pole & 0.02$\pm$0.01 \\

1106: $A^0$ pole & 0.41$\pm$0.03 \\

1107: $\tilde \tau$

1108: co-annihilation & 0.27$\pm$0.04 \\ 

1109: $\tilde t$ co-annihilation & $(2.1\pm4.8)\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline

1110: \end{tabular}

1111: \end{table}

1112: The likelihoods of these regions are shown in Table~\ref{tab:regions}.

1113: We estimate the uncertainty by calculating the standard deviation on the 9

1114: independent Markov chain samples. The quoted error thus reflects an

1115: uncertainty due not to experimental errors, but to a to finite

1116: simulation time of the Markov chain.

1117: We see that the $h^0$-pole region has a relatively low likelihood whereas for

1118: the $A^0$-pole and $\tau$ co-annihilation regions the likelihood is larger. 

1119: %These likelihoods do not have add to a total of one for several

1120: %reasons. Firstly, some of the points 

1121: %sampled will be a few sigma away from the $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ constraint and may

1122: %fall 

1123: %outside of our definitions of the individual regions. Also, since 

1124: %the full 7d parameter space does not provide a sharp distinction

1125: %between the various regions, there will be some points for which several

1126: %mechanisms significantly contribute to the relic density annihilation

1127: %mechanism, but for which none of the criteria that we have set in order to

1128: %pigeon-hole the point are quite satisfied. 

1129: From the table, we see that the $\tilde t$-co-annihilation region, although

1130: uncertain due to the low statistics, is

1131: negligible, and we now investigate why this is the case.

1132: 

1133: The suppression of the stop-co-annihilation region comes from essentially two

1134: effects: firstly, as already apparent from Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2001nx}, finding a

1135: suitable stop co-annihilation region which is compatible with {\em both} the

1136: $(g-2)_\mu$ and $BR[b   \rightarrow s \gamma]$ measurements is problematic. 

1137: Secondly, the central value of $m_t$ has come down since

1138: ref.~\cite{Ellis:2001nx}. The dominant radiative corrections to $m_{h^0}$ are 

1139: highly correlated with $m_t$~\cite{Allanach:2004rh}, 

1140: with the consequence that the lower predicted Higgs mass 

1141: now rules out more of the stop co-annihilation region. 

1142: We illustrate these points in Fig.~\ref{fig:stopCoan} along the $m_0$

1143: direction for given values of the other mSUGRA parameters (stated in the

1144: caption). 

1145: \begin{figure*}

1146: \unitlength=1.1in

1147:  \begin{picture}(5.8,2.6)(0.5,0)

1148:  \put(0.2,0){\epsfig{file=mt172a.eps, width=0.9\wth}}

1149:  \put(3.2,0){\epsfig{file=mt172b.eps, width=0.9\wth}}

1150:  \put(0.2,2.1){(a)}

1151:  \put(3.1,2.1){(b)}

1152:  \end{picture}

1153: \caption{A line through the stop co-annihilation region in mSUGRA: $\tan

1154:   \beta=10$,  $M_{1/2}=350$ GeV, $A_0=-2000$ GeV and central Standard Model

1155:   inputs. (a) dark matter relic density, fractional stop-neutralino mass

1156:   splitting $\Delta \equiv (m_{{\tilde t}_1} - m_{\chi_1^0}) / m_{\chi_1^0}$ 

1157:   and light Higgs mass. The horizontal lines show the 1$\sigma$ WMAP-derived

1158:   limits upon $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ derived from Eq.~\protect\ref{omConst}, (b)

1159:   muon magnetic moment and $BR[b \rightarrow s \gamma]$ predictions. 

1160: \label{fig:stopCoan}}

1161: \end{figure*}

1162: In Fig.~\ref{fig:stopCoan}a, we plot the fractional stop-neutralino

1163: mass splitting $\Delta$ 

1164: alongside the neutralino relic density $\Omega_{DM} h^2$. 

1165: We see that the fractional mass splitting takes values between 0.1 and 0.23 in

1166: the range of $m_0$ shown. This is the stop-co-annihilation regime, and we see

1167: that around $m_0 \sim 786$ GeV, $\Delta \sim 0.2$ corresponding to

1168: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ roughly compatible with the WMAP constraint. Unfortunately,

1169: we also see that the lightest CP-even Higgs mass is predicted to be 110.3

1170: GeV here and is ruled out by the LEP2 Higgs limits shown in Table~\ref{tab:par}

1171: ($\sin^2 (\beta-\alpha) =1.0$) for this range of parameters). This problem is

1172: remedied by going to higher values of $m_t$, since $m_{h^0}$ then goes up, but

1173: of course this comes with an associated penalty in the likelihood from being

1174: away from the empirically central values of $m_t$. 

1175: In Fig.~\ref{fig:stopCoan}b, we display predictions for $BR[b\rightarrow s

1176:   \gamma]$ and $\delta (g-2)_\mu/2$ along the chosen range for $m_0$. 

1177: These predictions are both lower than the empirically derived constraints in

1178: the region where the dark matter relic density is in accordance with the WMAP

1179: constraint: including errors in the theoretical prediction as described in the

1180: previous section, 

1181: $BR[b \rightarrow s \gamma]$ is 1.95$\sigma$ lower than the

1182: central value and $\delta (g-2)_\mu/2$ is 1.6$\sigma$ lower. It turns out that

1183: these predictions

1184: are {\em not} very sensitive to changes in $m_t$ and so their likelihood

1185: penalty tends to apply for the higher values.

1186: However, lower values of $(-A_0)$

1187: require lower $m_0$ in order to fit the dark matter constraint and pick up 

1188: a bigger likelihood constraint from the egregious prediction of

1189: $BR[b\rightarrow s \gamma]$.  

1190: These findings are in rough agreement with those of Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2001nx}

1191: except for the more restrictive Higgs bounds, which are a consequence of the

1192: lower experimental value of $m_t$. Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2001nx} only applies

1193: 2$\sigma$ bounds on both $(g-2)_\mu$ and $BR[b \rightarrow s \gamma]$, whereas

1194: our results take into account the likelihood penalty paid by the fact that

1195: neither prediction is close to its central value near the stop co-annihilation

1196: region, which then becomes disfavoured compared to the other regions (where

1197: an almost perfect fit is possible). 

1198: There is also a volume effect: in Table~\ref{tab:regions}, the likelihoods we 

1199: calculate are {\em integrated} over the relevant region. Thus regions that are

1200: very small, such as the stop co-annihilation region, will tend to have a smaller

1201: likelihood than other, larger regions. 

1202: In analyses in following sections, stop 

1203: co-annihilation also turns out to have negligible likelihood and so we will 

1204: neglect it from the results. 

1205: 

1206: As an aside, we note that the decay chain ${{\tilde q}_L} \rightarrow

1207: {\chi_2^0} \rightarrow {\tilde l}_R \rightarrow \chi_1^0$ exists with a

1208: likelihood  

1209: of $0.24\pm0.04$ (this number is just based upon the mass ordering and does

1210: not take into account the branching ratio for the chain). The existence of

1211: such a chain 

1212: allows the extraction of several functions of sparticle masses from kinematic

1213: end-points and they have been used in many LHC analyses,

1214: for example Refs.~\cite{Armstrong:1994it,Allanach:2000kt,Weiglein:2004hn}. 

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \section{Theoretical Uncertainty \label{sec:uncertainties}}

1218: 

1219: \begin{table}

1220: \caption{Likelihood of being in a certain region of mSUGRA parameter

1221:   space including theoretical uncertainties in the sparticle spectrum

1222:   calculation. \label{tab:regions2}} 

1223: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1224:   \hline Region & likelihood \\ \hline

1225: $h^0$ pole & 0.03$\pm$0.01 \\

1226: $A^0$ pole & 0.41$\pm$0.05 \\

1227: co-annihilation & 0.26$\pm$0.08 \\ \hline

1228: \end{tabular}

1229: \end{table}

1230: Theoretical uncertainties in the sparticle mass predictions have been shown to

1231: produce non-negligible effects in fits to data~\cite{Allanach:2003jw},

1232: including fits to the relic

1233: density~\cite{Allanach:2004jh,Allanach:2004xn,Belanger:2005jk}. 

1234: In this section, we perform a second MCMC analysis taking theoretical

1235: uncertainty into account in order to estimate the size of its effect.

1236: {\tt SOFTSUSY} performs the Higgs potential minimisation then 

1237: calculates sparticle pole masses at a scale $M_{SUSY}=\sqrt{m_{{\tilde t}_1}

1238:   m_{{\tilde t}_2}}$. This scale is chosen because it is hoped that loop

1239: corrections to the pole mass corrections that are not yet taken into account

1240: (typically two-loop corrections) are small at this scale. 

1241: In order to estimate the size of theoretical uncertainties, we vary this

1242: scale by a factor of two in either direction (but it is always constrained 

1243: to be greater than $M_Z$)\footnote{A more complete estimate would be to 

1244:  calculate the Higgs

1245: potential minimisation conditions and the sparticle

1246: masses all at different scales, varying each independently by a factor of

1247: two. However, such a prescription is impractical here due to CPU time

1248: constraints.}. 

1249: Implementation of the uncertainty in the MCMC algorithm is

1250: simple: we simply add an input

1251: parameter $x$ which is bounded between 0.5 and 2, giving the factor by which

1252: $M_{SUSY}$ is to be multiplied. The MCMC is then re-run as before and explores

1253: the  full 8d parameter space (including $x$) accordingly. 

1254: 

1255: Such a

1256: procedure automatically takes into account the correlations in predictions due

1257: to correlated theoretical uncertainties in the sparticle mass predictions.

1258: The likelihoods of the three mSUGRA regions are shown in

1259: Table~\ref{tab:regions2}. The likelihoods are approximately equal to those for

1260: the 7d case, as a comparison to Table~\ref{tab:regions} indicates.

1261: In fact, comparing

1262: results and plots produced with and without theoretical uncertainties, 

1263: the results are generally very similar. 

1264: This indicates that the theoretical uncertainties don't

1265: make a huge difference to the 1d and 2d marginalisations

1266: compared to those coming from the data.

1267: The decay chain ${{\tilde q}_L} \rightarrow

1268: {\chi_2^0} \rightarrow {\tilde l}_R \rightarrow {\chi_1^0}$ has a likelihood

1269: of $0.22 \pm 0.08$, not significantly 

1270: different to the case when theoretical uncertainties were not taken into

1271: account. 

1272: 

1273: We show

1274: two of 

1275: the  2d marginalised likelihoods in

1276: Figs.~\ref{fig:uncer}a,\ref{fig:uncer}b. 

1277: Comparing with Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}, we see that Fig.~\ref{fig:uncer} shows no

1278: significant effects deriving from theoretical errors.

1279: %% two main effects: the Higgs pole region at $m_0 \sim M_{1/2}$ becomes somewhat

1280: %% reduced in importance and the co-annihilation region dominates the likelihood

1281: %% over the Higgs pole region more. 

1282: %% Fig.~\ref{fig:uncer}b also displays the 

1283: %% enhanced low $m_0$ co-annihilation region when compared to

1284: %% Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}c.  

1285: Marginalising mass likelihood distributions down to 1d (as in

1286: Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}a for example), one obtains distributions that are

1287: identical to  the 7d case except for small statistical fluctuations. 

1288: \begin{figure*}

1289: \twographst{scan8m0m12mod}{scan8m0A0}

1290: \caption{Likelihood maps of mSUGRA parameter space including theoretical

1291:   uncertainty. 

1292: The graphs show the

1293: likelihood distributions sampled from

1294:   8d parameter space and marginalised down to two.

1295: The likelihood (relative to the likelihood in the highest bin) 

1296: is displayed by reference to the bar on the right hand side of each plot.

1297: The contours show the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence level limits.

1298: \label{fig:uncer}}

1299: \end{figure*}

1300: 

1301: \section{Other Sources of Dark Matter\label{sec:other}}

1302: For completeness, we may ask how robust our results are with respect to the

1303: assumption that non thermal-neutralino contributions to $\Omega_{DM}$ are

1304: negligible.  

1305: Thus, we allow the predicted amount of thermal neutralino relic density

1306: $p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}$ (assuming some mSUGRA point $s$) to be some fraction of

1307: the total relic predicted relic density $\Omega_{DM}^{tot} h^2$:

1308: \begin{equation}

1309: \lambda = \frac{p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}}{\Omega_{DM}^{tot} h^2}, \qquad 0 \leq

1310: \lambda \leq 1.

1311: \end{equation}

1312: Thus, the total amount of dark matter predicted is 

1313: $p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} / \lambda$ and,

1314: assuming a flat pdf for $\lambda$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:prior}a,

1315: we obtain the likelihood penalty for a given SUSY dark matter prediction

1316: \begin{widetext}

1317: \begin{equation}

1318: {\mathcal L}_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} = 

1319: \int^1_0d \lambda \ 

1320: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} s_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}(\lambda)}

1321: \exp \left[ \frac{-(m_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} - 

1322: p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} / \lambda)^2}{2 s_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}(\lambda)^2}

1323: \right], \label{lowOm}

1324: \end{equation}

1325: \end{widetext}

1326: where 

1327: \begin{eqnarray}

1328: s_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}(\lambda) &\equiv& 

1329: 0.0081\ \theta(p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} /

1330: \lambda - m_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}) +\nonumber \\

1331: &&

1332: 0.0091\ \theta(-p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2} /

1333: \lambda + m_{\Omega_{DM} h^2})

1334: \end{eqnarray}

1335: in accordance with the asymmetric errors in Eq.~\ref{omConst}.

1336: $\theta(x)$ is the Heavisde step function, $\theta(x)=1$ for all $x\geq 0$,

1337: $\theta(x)=0$ for all $x<0$.

1338: We calculate Eq.~\ref{lowOm} numerically and display it in

1339: Fig.~\ref{fig:prior}b, where it is contrasted with the old dark matter

1340: likelihood penalty that assumes that all dark matter is of thermal neutralino

1341: origin. 

1342: \begin{figure*}

1343: \twographs{prior}{l}

1344: \caption{(a) $p(\lambda | m_{\Omega_{DM} h^2})$, the probability distribution

1345:   assumed for $\lambda$,  

1346: the ratio of predicted SUSY

1347: dark matter to total dark matter, 

1348: given some measured value $m_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}$. 

1349: (b) Comparison of the likelihood     penalty 

1350:   ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}$

1351:     paid for a prediction of SUSY dark matter $p_{\Omega_{DM} h^2}$ with 

1352: (``extra DM allowed'') and

1353:       without (``no extra DM allowed'') 

1354:       the allowance of non thermal-neutralino dark matter. \label

1355:     {fig:prior}}

1356: \end{figure*}

1357: The figure shows that if the relic density is too {\em high}, a severe

1358: likelihood penalty applies (similar to the ``no extra DM allowed'' case)

1359: but a much less severe penalty applies

1360: if the prediction is below the central value

1361: of the observed WMAP value in Eq.~\ref{omConst}. 

1362: The additional contribution to $\Omega h^2$ is assumed 

1363: to be provided by some non thermal-neutralino source (late decays or hidden

1364:     sector dark matter for example)~\cite{leszek}. 

1365: The rest of the analysis proceeds exactly as in section~\ref{sec:Lmaps} (i.e.\

1366: without simultaneously taking theoretical uncertainty into account). 

1367: \begin{table}

1368: \caption{Likelihood of being in a certain region of mSUGRA parameter

1369:   space including possible an additional contribution from

1370:   non thermal-neutralino dark matter. \label{tab:regions3}}  

1371: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}

1372: \hline Region & likelihood \\ \hline

1373: $h^0$ pole & 0.04$\pm$0.01 \\

1374: $A^0$ pole & 0.52$\pm$0.02 \\

1375: co-annihilation & 0.14$\pm$0.02 \\ \hline

1376: \end{tabular}

1377: \end{table}

1378: 

1379: The MCMC algorithm turns out to be much more efficient once we drop the

1380: assumption that the cold dark matter consist only of neutralinos:

1381: 19.9$\%$ efficiency was achieved compared to 4.1$\%$. One consequence of this

1382: is that statistical fluctuations in the results are smaller. 

1383: The likelihoods in each region are shown in Table~\ref{tab:regions3}. 

1384: A comparison of Tables~\ref{tab:regions},\ref{tab:regions3} shows that

1385: annihilation through $A^0$ pole has acquired a significantly larger likelihood

1386: through allowing for other forms of dark matter. The higgs-pole and

1387: co-annihilation regions are still, within statistics, compatible with their

1388: previous likelihoods. All of the listed uncertainties have decreased, due to

1389: the additional efficiency.

1390: 

1391: \begin{figure*}

1392: \twographst{scan7lm0m12}{scan7lm0A0}

1393: \caption{Likelihood maps of mSUGRA parameter space allowing for non

1394:   thermal-neutralino contributions to the dark matter relic density. 

1395: The graphs show the

1396: likelihood distributions sampled from

1397:   7d parameter space and marginalised down to two.

1398: The likelihood (relative to the likelihood in the highest bin) 

1399: is displayed by reference to the bar on the right hand side of each plot.

1400: The contours show the 68$\%$ and $95\%$ confidence level limits.

1401: \label{fig:noLow}}

1402: \end{figure*}

1403: Fig.~\ref{fig:noLow}a shows the likelihood map marginalised to the

1404: $M_{1/2}-m_0$ plane. Comparing it to Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a, we see a very

1405: similar picture except for the fact that the higher volume of likelihood in

1406: the $A^0$-pole region is evident. The same comment can be made of all of the

1407: plots analogous to the ones in to Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}: we show the

1408: likelihood marginalised to the $m_0-A_0$ plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:noLow} as an

1409: example.  There are no other qualitative changes in any of the plots, and

1410: indeed the 

1411: likelihood distributions marginalised to the $A_0-\tan \beta$ and

1412: $M_{1/2}-A_0$ planes (analogous to Figs.~\ref{fig:like7}e,f) 

1413: are identical by eye, except for being smoother due to

1414: the increased efficiency. Likelihoods of sparticle masses also look the same,

1415: except for the spike in the gluino mass, which has twice as much

1416: likelihood. As mentioned before, this spike is due mainly 

1417: to the light $h^0$-pole

1418: region which is subject to relatively large fluctuations, as

1419: Tables~\ref{tab:regions},\ref{tab:regions3} illustrate. We cannot conclude

1420: that the $h^0$-pole region obtains more integrated

1421: likelihood by admitting non thermal-neutralino components to the relic

1422: density because the statistics in the MCMC algorithm are not high enough. 

1423: 

1424: One distribution that does significantly change shape is that of $BR(B_s

1425: \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$. We show its marginalised distribution after

1426: dropping the lower likelihood penalties on $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ from the MCMC

1427: algorithm procedure in Fig.~\ref{fig:BsmumuNo} as the histogram

1428:  marked ``extra DM allowed''. 

1429: For the purpose of comparison, the default calculation where we assume all

1430: dark matter to be thermal neutralinos from 

1431: Fig.~\ref{fig:hists}c is also displayed, being marked ``no extra DM allowed''.

1432: Comparing the two distributions, 

1433: we see a broader distribution due to the enhanced

1434: $A^0$-pole  annihilation region when additional components are allowed in the

1435: fit. The $A^0$-pole region has higher $\tan \beta$, and therefore higher

1436: values for the branching ratio.

1437: \begin{figure}

1438: \epsfig{file=BsmumuNo, width=\wth}

1439: \caption{Investigation on the effects of allowing for a non

1440:   thermal-neutralino component of dark matter in the 

1441:   branching ratios for the decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+

1442:   \mu^-$ in mSUGRA. The current

1443:   Tevatron upper limit is displayed by a vertical line.

1444: \label{fig:BsmumuNo}} 

1445: \end{figure}

1446: The estimated amount of likelihood that could be covered by Tevatron

1447: measurements with 8 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity increases by 6$\%$ to 

1448: 35$\%$ of the currently allowed density due to the presence of non

1449: thermal-neutralino dark matter contributions. 

1450: 

1451: \section{Conclusions \label{sec:conc}}

1452: 

1453: Previous studies of mSUGRA in the context of dark matter and particle physics

1454: constraints have tended to not use the full dimensionality of the parameter

1455: space, and to have put hard 95$\%$  (C.L.) limits on

1456: predictions. Here, in the full dimensionality of parameter space, we include

1457: all of the information in a likelihood fit, so that violating one constraint

1458: slightly might be traded against fitting another one better in a consistent

1459: manner. 

1460: Although there is plenty of qualitative information about possible dark matter

1461: annihilation regions in mSUGRA in 

1462: the literature, this paper gives a quantitative calculation of the

1463: likelihood distributions in the full dimensionality of the parameter

1464: space. However, the 

1465: most important contribution of this paper lies in the implications of the

1466: results to particle physics. 

1467: 

1468: We have successfully employed an MCMC algorithm to provide 

1469: likelihood maps of the full 7d input parameter space of mSUGRA\@. 

1470: By using a statistical test, we have shown that the likelihood distributions

1471: have achieved good convergence before a total of 9$\times 10^6$ samplings of

1472: the likelihood. 

1473: We have presented the likelihood marginalised down to each 2d mSUGRA parameter

1474: pair. Such plots provide the totality of the

1475: current information we have about the model given the experimental

1476: constraints and are quantitative results. Theoretical

1477: uncertainties in the  

1478: sparticle spectrum calculation broaden a couple of the distributions a little

1479: but do not change them radically. 

1480: 

1481: The main new contribution of this paper is to our knowledge of what current

1482: constraints on mSUGRA mean for particle physics in a quantitative sense. 

1483: Marginalised 1d likelihood distributions of quantities such as sparticle

1484: masses (or mass differences) 

1485: already show some significant structure from the data, providing

1486: interesting information for future collider searches. In particular, the

1487: likelihood of the ``golden cascade'' 

1488: ${\tilde q}_L \rightarrow \chi_2^0 \rightarrow {\tilde l}_R

1489: \rightarrow \chi_1^0$ being kinematically allowed is

1490:   24$\pm 4\%$. $m_{{\tilde \tau}_1} - m_{\chi_1^0}$ is peaked below 10 GeV,

1491: implying that stau reconstruction at hadron colliders could be

1492: problematic at the LHC\@. Integrating the likelihood density, we find the

1493: likelihood of $m_{{\tilde \tau}_1} - m_{\chi_1^0}<10$ GeV is 19.9$\%$.

1494: Our likelihood distributions for $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ corroborate

1495: the 

1496: conclusions of ref.~\cite{Ellis:2005sc}: that current bounds upon the

1497: branching ratio do not yet place significant constraints upon mSUGRA once

1498: other constraints have been taken into account, but any improvement on the

1499: upper bounds constrain the currently available parameter space.  

1500: The quantitative results on $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ are particularly

1501: important: if the Tevatron experiments can reach down to 2$\times 10^{-8}$,

1502: they will cover 29$\%$ of the mSUGRA likelihood, or 35$\%$ if we allow the

1503: possibility of additional contributions to the relic density other than 

1504: thermal neutralinos.

1505: 

1506: We have shown that the correlation between $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$

1507: and $\delta 

1508: (g-2)_\mu$ noticed in Ref.~\cite{Dedes:2001fv} is much diluted once

1509: simultaneous variations

1510: of all mSUGRA parameters are taken into account. 

1511: The $A^0$-pole annihilation region

1512: and the stau co-annihilation region each have approximately

1513: an order of magnitude more likelihood than the $h^0$-pole region.

1514: Stop co-annihilation is highly 

1515: disfavoured compared to these other regions due to

1516: more restrictive Higgs mass constraints coming from a lower value of $m_t$, 

1517: as well as the $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ and $\delta 

1518: (g-2)_\mu$ predictions. 

1519:   The light $h^0-$pole region just survives the LEP2 Higgs

1520:   mass constraints despite the new reduced 

1521:   top mass value albeit with a reduced likelihood (in the usual frequentist

1522:   language, it's outside the 95$\%$ confidence level but not the 99$\%$ one).

1523:   The light $h^0$-pole region has more likelihood if one allows additional

1524:   non thermal-neutralino components of dark matter. 

1525: 

1526: The analysis of

1527:   Ref.~\protect\cite{Ellis:2004tc} 

1528: includes $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{eff}^l$ in the $\chi^2$ statistic, excluding

1529: $M_{1/2}>1500(600)$ GeV at the 90$\%$ confidence level for $m_t=178$ GeV and

1530:   $\tan \beta=50(10)$ respectively. These numbers are not exactly reproduced

1531:   in the present analysis for several reasons: we use a more up-to-date value

1532:   of $m_t$, we vary $m_t$, $m_b$, $\alpha_s (M_Z)$ and $\tan \beta$

1533:   simultaneously with the other mSUGRA parameters and we do {\em not}\/ include

1534:   $M_W$, $\sin^2 \theta_{eff}^l$ in 

1535:   the fit. Indeed, one may wonder about introducing a posteriori bias as a result

1536:   of only picking these two precision electroweak observables, since they are

1537:   the two that show a preference for a SUSY contribution. Other observables

1538:   would presumably prefer heavier SUSY particles. 

1539:   However, $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_{eff}^l$ do show a preference for lower

1540:   $M_{1/2}$ for $m_t=178$ GeV. Having said that, our results are not wildly

1541:   different, as an examination of Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a shows. 

1542: 

1543: We suspect that the MCMC techniques exemplified here could be found 

1544: extremely useful in SUSY fitting programs such as {\tt

1545:   FITTINO}~\cite{Bechtle:2004pc} and {\tt SFITTER}~\cite{Lafaye:2004cn} in

1546: order to provide a likelihood profile of the 

1547: parameter space, including secondary local minima. These programs are designed

1548: to fit more general MSSM models than mSUGRA to data, with an associated

1549: increase in the number of free input parameters, so the linear calculating

1550: time of MCMCs ought to be very useful.

1551: 

1552: While our results presented for mSUGRA  are in themselves interesting, it is

1553: obvious that the method will be applicable in a much wider range of

1554: circumstances. Once new observables become relevant, such as some LHC

1555: end-points, for example, it would be trivial to include them into the

1556: likelihood and re-perform the MCMC~\cite{whitey}. 

1557: The method should be equally applicable to

1558: other models, and provided enough CPU power is to hand, could provide

1559: likelihood maps for models with even more parameters and/or detailed

1560: electroweak fits.

1561: 

1562: \acknowledgments

1563: We would like to thank other members of the Cambridge SUSY Working Group,

1564: W de Boer, 

1565: P Gondolo, P H\"afliger, B Heinemann, S Heinemeyer, G Manca, A Peel, M Rauch

1566: and T Plehn 

1567: for helpful conversations. This work has been partially supported by PPARC. 

1568: 

1569: \appendix

1570: \section{Toy Models and Sampling}

1571: \label{sec:badsampling}

1572: 

1573: By definition, a sampler able to sample correctly from a pdf

1574: $p({\mathbf x})$ must generate a list of ${\mathbf x}$ values

1575: whose local  

1576: density, at large step-numbers, is proportional to the probability density

1577: $p({\mathbf x})$ at each part of the space (in the preceding parts of the

1578: paper we have set this pdf to be the likelihood).

1579: The value of the constant of proportionality between the probability

1580: density and the local density of ${\mathbf x}$ values is unimportant, but the

1581: key point is that it is {\em constant}\/ across the whole space.

1582: 

1583: It can sometimes be hard to implement a good sampler for a given

1584: probability distribution.  In fact it is often easier to invent an

1585: algorithm which generates a sequence of ${\mathbf x}$ values, and which may

1586: superficially resemble a sampler, {\em but which lacks constancy of

1587: proportionality over the space}.  We might call such algorithms

1588: pseudo-samplers as their output can sometimes resemble that of a

1589: true sampler, provided that the variation in proportionality is not

1590: too great across the space considered.  Pseudo-samplers are sometimes

1591: useful (e.g.\ as a means of exploring a multidimensional space

1592: in which case sample density may be neither interesting nor the

1593: end product of the analysis).

1594: 

1595: In the present and in many other papers, however, sample density represents

1596: confidence in some particular part of parameter space, and {\em is}\/

1597: the final product of the analysis.  Extreme care, then, must be taken

1598: to ensure that any creative modifications to established Markov

1599: Chain sampling techniques do not break the principle of

1600: detailed balance -- the test which ensures that the algorithm remains a

1601: true sampler rather than a pseudo-sampler.

1602: 

1603: It is often desirable for Metropolis-Hastings type samplers to have an

1604: efficiency of about 25\% for the acceptance of newly proposed points.

1605: Efficiencies much smaller than this may suggest that the proposal

1606: distribution is too wide and is too often proposing jumps to

1607: undesirable locations far away from the present point, leading to large

1608: statistical fluctuations in the result.  Efficiencies

1609: much larger than this can be indicative of proposal distributions

1610: which are too narrow and may take too many steps to be practical

1611: to random-walk 

1612: from one side of a region of high probability to the other.

1613: It is tempting, therefore, to adapt the present step size

1614: (i.e.\ proposal distribution width) on the basis of recent efficiency.

1615: With a couple of toy examples, however, we will illustrate that 

1616: this is a dangerous path to follow, and we will demonstrate that it break the

1617: principle of detailed balance, and thus turns the Markov Chain algorithm from a

1618: sampler into a pseudo-sampler.

1619:  

1620: We take as our example the method used by Baltz and

1621:   Gondolo~\cite{Baltz:2004aw} which is 

1622:   designed to keep the target efficiency of the authors' Markov Chain

1623:   close to 25\%:

1624: \begin{enumerate}

1625: \item

1626: Double the current step size if the last

1627: three proposed points were all accepted

1628: \item

1629: Halve the current step size of the last seven proposed points were all rejected.\end{enumerate}

1630: We will refer the the above method as ``the adaptive algorithm'' and show

1631: that it fails to sample correctly from some simple distributions, a signature

1632: of detailed balance being broken.

1633: 

1634: %% \FIGURE{

1635: %% \twographschris{goodPathology}{badPathology}

1636: %% \caption{Part (a) and (b) show two different attempts to sample two

1637: %%   million points from the ``double top hat'' $p_{dTH}(x)$ of

1638: %%   equation~(\ref{eq:blocdist}).  The sampling in part (a) is done

1639: %%   correctly.  The sampling in part (b) is incorrect and shows what can

1640: %%   go wrong when a property of the proposal distribution (in this case

1641: %%   its width) is varied on the basis of the rejection/acceptance

1642: %%   history of the Markov Chain.  See also figure~\ref{fig:cauchy} for

1643: %%   an alternative example.

1644: %% \label{fig:discrete}

1645: %% }}

1646: \begin{figure*}

1647: \twographschris{doubGau_1.0_0.5_good.eps}{doubGau_1.0_0.5_bad.eps}

1648: \caption{Binned samples of the double Gaussian distribution $p_{dGau}(x)$. The

1649:   normalisation is arbitrary and has no relevance   here. 

1650:   (a) uses a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm and yields a good approximation

1651:   whereas (b) uses the adaptive algorithm. 

1652: %%   $p_{dGau}(x)$ defined in equation~(\ref{eq:dGau}).  The sampling in

1653: %%   part (a) is done correctly.  The sampling in part (b) is incorrect

1654: %%   and shows what can go wrong when a property of the proposal

1655: %%   distribution (in this case its width) is varied on the basis of the

1656: %%   rejection/acceptance history of the Markov Chain.

1657: \label{fig:dGau}}

1658: \end{figure*}

1659: Take, for example, the 1-dimensional double Gaussian probability distribution

1660: $p_{dGau}(x)$ 

1661: defined by

1662: \begin{equation}

1663: p_{dGau}(x) \propto g(x, 0, 1) + g(x, 10, 1/2),\label{eq:dGau}

1664: \end{equation}

1665: where $g(x, m, \sigma)=\exp(-(x-m)^2/(2\sigma^2))$ is a Gaussian distribution

1666: of unit height and width $\sigma$ centred on $x=m$.

1667: %\begin{cases}

1668: %1/3 & \mbox {if }x>0 \mbox{ and } x<2, \\

1669: %1/3 & \mbox {if }x>9\mbox{ and }x<10, \\

1670: %0 & \mbox{otherwise}.

1671: %\end{cases}

1672: %\label{eq:blocdist}

1673: %\end{eqnarray}

1674: Note that the Gaussian near the origin is wider than the

1675: Gaussian near $x=10$.  This pdf mocks up the approximate situation along the

1676: $M_{1/2}$ direction in mSUGRA for large $m_0$, as Fig.~\ref{fig:like7}a

1677: shows. The narrow Gaussian would then correspond to the light $h^0$-pole

1678: region, which is quite disconnected from the wider $A^0$-pole

1679: region. 

1680: A Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (see section~\ref{sec:mcmc})

1681: with a fixed Gaussian proposal pdf $Q(x)$ of width 5 was

1682: run for 2 000 000 steps and the binned result is shown in

1683: Figure~\ref{fig:dGau}a. It reproduces the target distribution very well.

1684: In contrast, Figure~\ref{fig:dGau}b shows what happens when

1685: the adaptive algorithm is run on $p_{dGau}(x)$.  Clearly the result

1686: is very different to that in Figure~\ref{fig:dGau}a and is thus

1687: very wrong.  The narrow Gaussian has been sampled many times more frequently

1688: than it should have been relative to the wider one near the origin.

1689: 

1690: The adaptive algorithm ensures that whenever the current

1691: point is in one of the two Gaussian regions, the step size is adjusted

1692: to be proportional to the width of that region.  This adaptation is

1693: not immediate (seven successive rejections must occur before the step

1694: size is halved) but suppose for the moment that adaptation were to

1695: take place almost immediately. For the moment, let us also neglect 

1696: random fluctuations of the step size.

1697: In such a limit, when the current

1698: point is in the left-hand Gaussian region, the step size is double what

1699: it is when the current point is in the right-hand region.  Making a

1700: proposal for a jump from the region on the left to the region on the

1701: right, therefore, is something like a $10$-sigma event.  In contrast,

1702: making the reverse proposal (from right to left) is more like a

1703: $20$-sigma event.

1704: %\footnote{In the left-hand top-hat region the adaptive

1705: %algorithm usually selected a step size of 2, but opted for the larger

1706: %4 about 20\% of the time.  This larger step size of 4 has the largest

1707: %effect on the flow of traffic from the left region to the right

1708: %region.  Similarly, in the right-hand top-hat region the adaptive

1709: %algorithm tended to select a step size of 1, but about 20\% of the

1710: %time chose the larger value of 2, and this larger value determines the

1711: %rate of flow of traffic from the right-hand to the left-hand region.}

1712: In this limit, it is thus $e^{((20)^2 - (10)^2)/2}=e^{150}$

1713: times more likely that 

1714: jumps to the right get proposed than 

1715: jumps to the left.  

1716: This is a vast overestimate of the bias toward

1717: the narrow region for two reasons.  Firstly, step size adaptation is

1718: not immediate (even when the step size is half of what it should be,

1719: quite a few steps occur before

1720: seven successive rejections).  Secondly and more importantly,

1721: even when settled in one of the two regions, the adaptive step size

1722: makes excursions about its mean value.  Excursions to very high step

1723: sizes (double or quadruple the average step size) are infrequent

1724: but still occur.  When they do, they elevate the chance of proposing a

1725: jump from one region to another, and help to equilibrate between the

1726: two regions.  Both of these effects reduce the bias favouring the narrow

1727: region, but still break detailed balance, and overall the right hand

1728: Gaussian is still sampled about 10 times more frequently than it

1729: should be.

1730: 

1731: %The fact that the regions are completely disconnected is not a

1732: %necessary part of the example, though it helps to highlight the

1733: %effect.  As an example of the effect in connected regions, consider

1734: %the double gaussian distribution defined by:

1735: %\begin{eqnarray}

1736: %p_{dGau}(x) \propto g(x, 0, 1) + g(x, 10, 1/2),\label{eq:dGau}

1737: %\end{eqnarray}

1738: %where $g(x, m, \sigma)=\exp(-(x-m)^2/(2\sigma^2))$ is a gaussian distribution

1739: %of unit height and width $\sigma$ centred on $x=m$.

1740: 

1741: %Good and bad samplings from $p_{dGau}(x)$ are shown in

1742: %figure~\ref{fig:dGau}.  Once again the exponential suppression of

1743: %the broad regions is seen relative to the narrow region.

1744: 

1745: %In general, broad regions are vacated and undersampled (relative to

1746: %narrow regions) by the adaptive sampler.  The effect is made more

1747: %pronounced as the separation of the regions increases, or as the ratio

1748: %of their widths increases.  In both cases the bias toward oversampling

1749: %the narrow region grows exponentially.

1750: 

1751: \begin{figure*}

1752: \twographschris{goodCauchy}{badCauchy}

1753: \caption{Binned sampling of a Cauchy distribution $1/(1+x^2)$ (shown in solid

1754:   red line) truncated at   $x=\pm   500$.

1755:   (a) shows the result of direct sampling and yields a good

1756:   approximation whereas (b) uses the adaptive algorithm. 

1757: %is incorrect

1758: %  and shows what can go wrong when a property of the proposal

1759: %  distribution (in this case its width) is varied on the basis of the

1760: %  rejection/acceptance history of the Markov Chain.  

1761: \label{fig:cauchy}}

1762: \end{figure*}

1763: For quite a different example, consider the truncated Cauchy

1764: distribution defined by

1765: \begin{eqnarray}

1766: p_{cauchy}(x)\propto

1767: \begin{cases}

1768: 1/(1+x^2)& \mbox {if~}x>-500 \mbox{~and~} x<500, \\

1769: 0 & \mbox{otherwise}.

1770: \end{cases}

1771: \label{eq:cauchydist}

1772: \end{eqnarray}

1773: A faithful sampling from this distribution is shown in

1774: Figure~\ref{fig:cauchy}(a), and a mis-sampling using the adaptive

1775:   algorithm is shown for comparison in Figure~\ref{fig:cauchy}(b).

1776: Although there is better correspondence between the samples

1777: generated by the two methods than was the case earlier, it is

1778: nevertheless evident that there are large differences between the

1779: degrees to which the two methods have sampled the tails of the

1780: distribution.  As a consequence, samples from the adaptive method

1781: have a root-mean-squared value of 7.6 compared to the value of 17.9 obtained

1782: by the true 

1783: sampling.  The cause of the discrepancy is again due to the very

1784: different scales in the cauchy distribution.  Its core is very narrow

1785: with a width of order 1, but there are significant parts of probability also

1786: lodged in the tails many orders of magnitude away.  The adaptive

1787: method has to raise and lower the step size frequently to sample from

1788: the whole dynamic range, and in doing so it has to break detailed

1789: balance many times, resulting in the cumulative effect of an overall

1790: order of magnitude bias in the tails.

1791: 

1792: 

1793: 

1794: 

1795: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}

1796: 

1797: \bibitem{Martin:1997ns}

1798: S.~P. Martin, 

1799: {\tt hep-ph/9709356}.

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{Ellis:2003dn}

1802: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive, Y.~Santoso, and V.~C. Spanos, {Phys.\ Lett.\ } {\bf

1803:   B588} (2004) 7--16, 

1804:  {\tt hep-ph/0312262}.

1805: 

1806: %\cite{Roszkowski:2004jd}

1807: \bibitem{Roszkowski:2004jd}

1808: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and K.-Y.~Choi,

1809: JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 080

1810: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408227];

1811: D.G.~Cerdeno {\em et al}, {\tt hep-ph/0509275}.

1812: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408227;%%

1813: 

1814: %\cite{Covi:2004rb}

1815: \bibitem{Covi:2004rb}

1816: L.~Covi, J.~E.~Kim, L.~Roszkowski

1817: { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82} (1999) 4180-4183, {\tt hep-ph/9905212};

1818: L.~Covi, H.~ B.~ Kim, J.~E.~ Kim, L.~ Roszkowski

1819: { JHEP} {\bf 0105} (2001) 033, {\tt hep-ph/0101009};

1820: L.~Covi, L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and M.~Small,

1821: JHEP {\bf 0406} (2004) 003

1822: {\tt hep-ph/0402240}.

1823: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402240;%%

1824: 

1825: \bibitem{Ellis:1983ew}

1826: J.~R. Ellis, J.~S. Hagelin, D.~V. Nanopoulos, K.~A. Olive, and M.~Srednicki,

1827:     { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B238}

1828:   (1984) 453--476.

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{Baer:2002gm}

1831: H.~Baer {\em et.~al.},   { JHEP} {\bf 07} (2002) 050,

1832:   {\tt hep-ph/0205325}.

1833: 

1834: \bibitem{Ellis:2003cw}

1835: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive, Y.~Santoso, and V.~C. Spanos,   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B565} (2003) 176--182,

1836:   {\tt hep-ph/0303043}.

1837: 

1838: \bibitem{Battaglia:2003ab}

1839: M.~Battaglia {\em et.~al.},   { Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C33} (2004) 273--296,

1840:   {\tt hep-ph/0306219}.

1841: 

1842: \bibitem{Ellis:2003si}

1843: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive, Y.~Santoso, and V.~C. Spanos,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D69} (2004)

1844:   095004, {\tt

1845:   hep-ph/0310356}.

1846: 

1847: %\cite{Gomez:2004ek}

1848: \bibitem{Gomez:2004ek}

1849: M.~E.~Gomez, T.~Ibrahim, P.~Nath and S.~Skadhauge,

1850: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 035014 (2004)

1851: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404025].

1852: 

1853: \bibitem{Ellis:2004tc}

1854: J.~R. Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A. Olive, and G.~Weiglein,   { JHEP} {\bf 02} (2005)

1855:   013, {\tt hep-ph/0411216}.

1856: 

1857: \bibitem{Armstrong:1994it}

1858: {\bf ATLAS} Collaboration, W.~W. Armstrong {\em et.~al.},  CERN-LHCC-94-43.

1859: 

1860: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}

1861: D.~N. Spergel {\em et.~al.},   {

1862:   Astrophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 148} (2003) 175,

1863:   {\tt astro-ph/0302209}.

1864: 

1865: \bibitem{Bennett:2003bz}

1866: C.~L. Bennett {\em et.~al.},   {

1867:   Astrophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 148} (2003) 1,

1868:   {\tt astro-ph/0302207}.

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{Allanach:2004xn}

1871: B.~C. Allanach, G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, and A.~Pukhov, 

1872:   { JHEP} {\bf 12} (2004) 020,

1873:   {\tt hep-ph/0410091}.

1874: 

1875: \bibitem{Griest:1990kh}

1876: K.~Griest and D.~Seckel,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D43} (1991) 3191--3203.

1877: 

1878: \bibitem{Drees:1992am}

1879: M.~Drees and M.~M. Nojiri,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D47} (1993) 376--408,

1880:   {\tt hep-ph/9207234}.

1881: 

1882: \bibitem{Arnowitt:1993mg}

1883: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B299} (1993) 58--63,

1884:   {\tt hep-ph/9302317}.

1885: 

1886: \bibitem{Djouadi:2005dz}

1887: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees, and J.-L. Kneur, 

1888: {\tt hep-ph/0504090}.

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{Feng:1999mn}

1891: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and T.~Moroi,   { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84} (2000) 2322--2325,

1892:   {\tt hep-ph/9908309}.

1893: 

1894: \bibitem{Feng:1999zg}

1895: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and T.~Moroi,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61} (2000) 075005,

1896:   {\tt hep-ph/9909334}.

1897: 

1898: \bibitem{Feng:2000gh}

1899: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and F.~Wilczek,   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B482} (2000) 388--399,

1900:   {\tt hep-ph/0004043}.

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{Boehm:9911}

1903: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,  { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 035012

1904:   {\tt hep-ph/9911496}.

1905: 

1906: \bibitem{arnie}

1907:  R.~Arnowitt, B.~ Dutta and Y.~Santoso,  { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B606} (2001) 59

1908:   {\tt hep-ph/0102181}.

1909: 

1910: \bibitem{Ellis:2001nx}

1911: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive and Y.~Santoso,  { Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 18} (2003) 395,

1912:   {\tt hep-ph/0112113}.

1913: 

1914: \bibitem{Brhlik:2000dm}

1915: M.~Brhlik, D.~J.~H. Chung, and G.~L. Kane,   { Int. J. Mod. Phys.} {\bf D10} (2001) 367,

1916:   {\tt hep-ph/0005158}.

1917: 

1918: \bibitem{Drees:2000he}

1919: M.~Drees { et.~al.},   {

1920:   Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63} (2001) 035008,

1921:   {\tt hep-ph/0007202}.

1922: 

1923: \bibitem{Polesello:2004qy}

1924: G.~Polesello and D.~R. Tovey,   { JHEP} {\bf 05} (2004) 071,

1925:   {\tt hep-ph/0403047}.

1926: 

1927: \bibitem{Bambade:2004tq}

1928: P.~Bambade, M.~Berggren, F.~Richard, and Z.~Zhang, 

1929: {\tt hep-ph/0406010}.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{Allanach:2004jh}

1932: B.~C. Allanach, G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov, and W.~Porod, 

1933: {\tt hep-ph/0402161}.

1934: 

1935: \bibitem{Moroi:2005nc}

1936: T.~Moroi, Y.~Shimizu, and A.~Yotsuyanagi, 

1937: {\tt hep-ph/0505252}.

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{Bourjaily:2005ax}

1940: J.~L. Bourjaily and G.~L. Kane, 

1941: {\tt hep-ph/0501262}.

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{Roszkowski:2001sb}

1944: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz~de Austri, and T.~Nihei,   { JHEP} {\bf 08} (2001) 024,

1945:   {\tt hep-ph/0106334}.

1946: 

1947: \bibitem{Baer:2002fv}

1948: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, and A.~Belyaev,   { JHEP} {\bf 03} (2002) 042,

1949:   {\tt hep-ph/0202076}.

1950: 

1951: \bibitem{Baer:2003yh}

1952: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs,   {

1953:   JCAP} {\bf 0305} (2003) 006,

1954:   {\tt hep-ph/0303114}.

1955: 

1956: \bibitem{Chattopadhyay:2003xi}

1957: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti, and P.~Nath,   { Phys. Rev.}

1958:   {\bf D68} (2003) 035005, {\tt

1959:   hep-ph/0303201}.

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{Lahanas:2003yz}

1962: A.~B. Lahanas and D.~V. Nanopoulos,   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B568} (2003) 55--62,

1963:   {\tt hep-ph/0303130}.

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{Belanger:2004hk}

1966: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Cottrant, A.~Pukhov, and A.~Semenov, 

1967: {\tt hep-ph/0412309}.

1968: 

1969: %\cite{Roszkowski:2004jc}

1970: \bibitem{leszek}

1971: L.~Roszkowski,

1972: Pramana {\bf 62} (2004) 389

1973: {\em hep-ph/0404052}.

1974: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404052;%%

1975: 

1976: \bibitem{Herndon:2004tk}

1977: {\bf CDF and D0} Collaboration, M.~Herndon,  To appear in the proceedings of 32nd

1978:   International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 04), Beijing, China,

1979:   16-22 Aug 2004.

1980: 

1981: \bibitem{Ellis:2005sc}

1982: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive, and V.~C. Spanos, 

1983: {\tt hep-ph/0504196}.

1984: 

1985: \bibitem{Profumo:2004at}

1986: S.~Profumo and C.~E. Yaguna,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D70} (2004) 095004,

1987:   {\tt hep-ph/0407036}.

1988: 

1989: \bibitem{Stark:2005mp}

1990: L.~S. Stark, P.~Hafliger, A.~Biland, and F.~Pauss, 

1991: {\tt hep-ph/0502197}.

1992: 

1993: \bibitem{Baltz:2004aw}

1994: E.~A. Baltz and P.~Gondolo,   { JHEP} {\bf 10}

1995:   (2004) 052, {\tt

1996:   hep-ph/0407039}.

1997: 

1998: \bibitem{MacKay}

1999: D.~MacKay, {\em Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms}.

2000: \newblock Cambridge University Press, 2003.

2001: 

2002: \bibitem{Allanach:2004my}

2003: B.~C. Allanach, D.~Grellscheid, and F.~Quevedo,   {JHEP} {\bf 07} (2004) 069,

2004:   {\tt hep-ph/0406277}.

2005: 

2006: \bibitem{Brein:2004kh}

2007: O.~Brein, 

2008: {\tt hep-ph/0407340}.

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{Allanach:2000ii}

2011: B.~C. Allanach, J.~P.~J. Hetherington, M.~A. Parker, and B.~R. Webber, 

2012:   { JHEP} {\bf 08} (2000) 017,

2013:   {\tt hep-ph/0005186}.

2014: 

2015: \bibitem{Allanach:2001kg}

2016: B.~C. Allanach,   { Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 143} (2002) 305--331,

2017:   {\tt hep-ph/0104145}.

2018: 

2019: \bibitem{PDBook}

2020: S.~{Eidelman} {\em et.~al.},   { Phys.

2021:   Lett. B} {\bf 592} (2004) 1--end.

2022: 

2023: \bibitem{Allanach:2004rh}

2024: B.~C. Allanach, A.~Djouadi, J.~L. Kneur, W.~Porod, and P.~Slavich,   { JHEP}

2025:   {\bf 09} (2004) 044, {\tt

2026:   hep-ph/0406166}.

2027: 

2028: \bibitem{Barate:2003sz}

2029: {\bf ALEPH} Collaboration, R.~Barate {\em et.~al.},   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B565} (2003)

2030:   61--75, {\tt

2031:   hep-ex/0306033}.

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{Degrassi:2002fi}

2034: G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P.~Slavich, and G.~Weiglein,   { Eur.

2035:   Phys. J.} {\bf C28} (2003) 133--143,

2036:   {\tt hep-ph/0212020}.

2037: 

2038: \bibitem{Skands:2003cj}

2039: P.~Skands {\em et.~al.},   { JHEP} {\bf

2040:   07} (2004) 036, {\tt

2041:   hep-ph/0311123}.

2042: 

2043: \bibitem{Belanger:2001fz}

2044: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov, and A.~Semenov,   { Comput. Phys. Commun.}

2045:   {\bf 149} (2002) 103--120,

2046:   {\tt hep-ph/0112278}.

2047: 

2048: \bibitem{Belanger:2004yn}

2049: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Pukhov, and A.~Semenov,   {\tt hep-ph/0405253}.

2050: 

2051: \bibitem{Bennett:2004pv}

2052: {\bf Muon g-2} Collaboration, G.~W. Bennett {\em et.~al.},   { Phys. Rev.

2053:   Lett.} {\bf 92} (2004) 161802,

2054:   {\tt hep-ex/0401008}.

2055: 

2056: \bibitem{Passera:2004bj}

2057: M.~Passera,   { J. Phys.} {\bf G31} (2005) R75--R94,

2058:   {\tt hep-ph/0411168}.

2059: 

2060: \bibitem{deTroconiz:2004tr}

2061: J.~F. de~Troconiz and F.~J. Yndurain,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D71} (2005)

2062:   073008, {\tt

2063:   hep-ph/0402285}.

2064: 

2065: \bibitem{Allanach:2005yq}

2066: B.~C. Allanach, A.~Brignole, and L.~E. Ibanez,   { JHEP} {\bf 05} (2005) 030,

2067:   {\tt hep-ph/0502151}.

2068: 

2069: \bibitem{Gambino:2004mv}

2070: P.~Gambino, U.~Haisch, and M.~Misiak,   { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 94} (2005)

2071:   061803, {\tt

2072:   hep-ph/0410155}.

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{hfag}

2075: {\bf Heavy Flavour Averaging Group} Collaboration.\

2076:   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.

2077: 

2078: \bibitem{Group:2005cc}

2079: {\bf CDF and D0} Collaboration,  the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, 

2080: {\tt hep-ex/0507091}.

2081: 

2082: \bibitem{stat}

2083: A.~Gelman and D.~Rubin,   { Stat. Sci.} {\bf 7} (1992) 457--472.

2084: 

2085: \bibitem{Abazov:2005ku}

2086: {\bf D0} Collaboration, V.~M. Abazov {\em et.~al.}, 

2087: {\tt hep-ex/0504032}.

2088: 

2089: \bibitem{future}

2090: {\bf CDF and D0} Collaboration. See URL

2091:   http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/projections/.

2092: 

2093: \bibitem{Nojiri:1996fp}

2094: M.~M. Nojiri, K.~Fujii, and T.~Tsukamoto,   { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D54} (1996) 6756--6776,

2095:   {\tt hep-ph/9606370}.

2096: 

2097: \bibitem{Dedes:2004yc}

2098: A.~Dedes and B.~T. Huffman,   { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B600}

2099:   (2004) 261--269, {\tt

2100:   hep-ph/0407285}.

2101: 

2102: \bibitem{Acosta:2004xj}

2103: {\bf CDF} Collaboration, D.~Acosta {\em et.~al.},   { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}

2104:   (2004) 032001, {\tt

2105:   hep-ex/0403032}.

2106: 

2107: \bibitem{Abazov:2004dj}

2108: {\bf D0} Collaboration, V.~M. Abazov {\em et.~al.},  { Phys.

2109:   Rev. Lett.} {\bf 94} (2005) 071802,

2110:   {\tt hep-ex/0410039}.

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{Dagu}

2113: {\bf CDF and D0} Collaboration, S.~Dugad,  To

2114:   appear in the proceedings of the Hadron Collider Physics Symposium, Les

2115:   Diablerets, Switzerland, 3-9 Jul 2005.

2116: 

2117: \bibitem{Dedes:2001fv}

2118: A.~Dedes, H.~K. Dreiner, and U.~Nierste,   { Phys. Rev.

2119:   Lett.} {\bf 87} (2001) 251804,

2120:   {\tt hep-ph/0108037}.

2121: 

2122: \bibitem{Allanach:2000kt}

2123: B.~C. Allanach, C.~G. Lester, M.~A. Parker, and B.~R. Webber,   {

2124:   JHEP} {\bf 09} (2000) 004,

2125:   {\tt hep-ph/0007009}.

2126: 

2127: \bibitem{Weiglein:2004hn}

2128: {\bf LHC/LC Study Group} Collaboration, G.~Weiglein {\em et.~al.}, 

2129: {\tt hep-ph/0410364}.

2130: 

2131: \bibitem{Allanach:2003jw}

2132: B.~C. Allanach, S.~Kraml, and W.~Porod,   { JHEP} {\bf 03}

2133:   (2003) 016, {\tt

2134:   hep-ph/0302102}.

2135: 

2136: \bibitem{Belanger:2005jk}

2137: G.~Belanger, S.~Kraml, and A.~Pukhov, 

2138: {\tt hep-ph/0502079}.

2139: 

2140: \bibitem{Bechtle:2004pc}

2141: P.~Bechtle, K.~Desch, and P.~Wienemann, 

2142: {\tt hep-ph/0412012}.

2143: 

2144: \bibitem{Lafaye:2004cn}

2145: R.~Lafaye, T.~Plehn, and D.~Zerwas,   {\tt

2146:   hep-ph/0404282}.

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{whitey}

2149: M.~White, C.~Lester, and A.~Parker,   {\tt hep-ph/0508143}.

2150: 

2151: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup

2152: 

2153: %\bibliography{map}

2154: 

2155: \end{document}

2156: