1: %

2: %  The Higgs Mass in the CMSSM

3: %

4: %  September 2K+5

5: %

6: %  John Ellis

7: %  Dimitri Nanopoulos

8: %  Keith Olive

9: %  Yudi Santoso

10: %

11: %=============================================================================

12: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsf,epsfig]{article}

13: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

14: \textwidth6.5in

15: \textheight8.7in

16: \oddsidemargin0.0in

17: \topmargin-0.5in

18: \usepackage{epsfig,cite}

19: \usepackage {amsmath}

20: \usepackage{amssymb}

21: \include{epsf}

22: %\usepackage{pdfsync}

23: %%%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

24: %==================== time stamp and draft macros ======================

25: % \clock returns time in hours:minutes on a AM/PM  basis

26: % \fullclock returns time in hours:minutes on a 24 hour basis

27: % \let\rel@x=\relax

28: \newcount\timecount

29: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes  \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours

30: \hours = \time

31: \divide\hours by 60

32: \temp = \hours

33: \multiply\temp by 60

34: \minutes = \time

35: \advance\minutes by -\temp

36: \def\hour{\the\hours}

37: \def\minute{\ifnum\minutes<10 0\the\minutes

38:             \else\the\minutes\fi}

39: \def\clock{

40: \ifnum\hours=0 12:\minute\ AM

41: \else\ifnum\hours<12 \hour:\minute\ AM

42:       \else\ifnum\hours=12 12:\minute\ PM

43:             \else\ifnum\hours>12

44:                  \pmhours=\hours

45:                  \advance\pmhours by -12

46:                  \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM

47:                  \fi

48:             \fi

49:       \fi

50: \fi

51: }

52: \def\fullclock{\hour:\minute}

53: \def\monthname{\relax\ifcase\month 0/\or January\or February\or

54:    March\or April\or May\or June\or July\or August\or September\or

55:    October\or November\or December\else\number\month/\fi}

56: \def\today{\monthname~\number\day, \number\year}

57: 

58: % this gives you a boldface character in math mode.

59: \def\bold#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%

60:      \kern-.025em\copy0\kern-\wd0

61:      \kern.05em\copy0\kern-\wd0

62:      \kern-.025em\raise.0433em\box0 }

63: 

64: \def\draft{$\bold{

65: \hbox{\tt Draft: printed \clock, \today.}

66: }$\par\noindent}

67: %============= end of time stamp and draft macros ============

68: 

69: %%%%%%%%%%%% New Command %%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: \newcommand{\mycomm}[1]{\hfill\break{ \tt===$>$ \bf #1}\hfill\break}

71: \newcommand\f[1]{f_#1}

72: 

73: %%%%%%%%%%%% Environment Short Cuts %%%%%%%%%%%%

74: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

75: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

76: 

77: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fonts, Special symbols, etc %%%%%

78: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

79: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

111: %%%%%%%%%%%% Spartners %%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

120: \def\stop{\widetilde t}

121: \def\sbot{\widetilde b}

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

123: 

124: %%%%%%%%%% Masses %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

174: \def\mla{m_A}

175: \def\mlb{m_B}

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

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

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

179: 

180: \def\PL{{Phys.~Lett.} }

181: \def\PR{{Phys.~Rev.} }

182: \def\PRL{{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} }

183: \def\NP{{Nucl. Phys.} }

184: 

185: 

186: %%%%%%%%%%%%  NEW FROM VASSILIS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

187: \def\stau{\tilde{\tau}}

188: \def\mstau{m_{\tilde{\tau}}}

189: \def\mgrav{m_{3/2}}

190: \def\mpl{M_{P}}

191: \def\mchi{m_{\chi}}

192: \def\tanb{\tan \beta}

193: \def\cosw{\cos \theta_W}

194: \def\sinw{\sin \theta_W}

195: \def\cwsq{\cos^2 \theta_W}

196: \def\swsq{\sin^2 \theta_W}

197: 

198: \def\cthsq{\cos^2 \theta_{\tilde t}}

199: \def\sthsq{\sin^2 \theta_{\tilde t}}

200: 

201: 

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

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

204: \newcommand{\goto}{\rightarrow}

205: \newcommand{\bmm}{B_s \goto \mu^+ \, \mu^-}

206: \newcommand{\mbs}{M_{B_s}}

207: \newcommand{\fbs}{f_{B_s}}

208: \newcommand{\mchr}[1]{m_{\chi^+_{ #1}}}

209: \newcommand{\msup}[1]{m_{\tilde{u}_{ #1}}}

210: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}

211: 

212: 

213: %%%%%%%%%%%%  END OF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

214: 

215: \begin{document}

216: \begin{titlepage}

217: \pagestyle{empty}

218: \baselineskip=21pt

219: \rightline{CERN-PH-TH/2005-173, UMN--TH--2416/05, FTPI--MINN--05/43, ACT-09-05, MIFP-05-23}

220: \vskip 0.1in

221: \begin{center}

222: {\large{\bf On the Higgs Mass in the CMSSM}}

223: \end{center}

224: \begin{center}

225: \vskip 0.1in

226: {\bf John~Ellis}$^1$, 

227: {\bf Dimitri~Nanopoulos}$^2$, 

228: {\bf Keith~A.~Olive}$^3$

229: and {\bf Yudi~Santoso}$^4$

230: \vskip 0.1in

231: {\small {\it

232: $^1${TH Division, PH Department, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

233: $^2${George P. and Cynthia W. Mitchell Institute for Fundamental

234: Physics, \\ Texas A\&M

235: University, College Station, TX 77843, USA; \\

236: Astroparticle Physics Group, Houston

237: Advanced Research Center (HARC),

238: Mitchell Campus,

239: Woodlands, TX~77381, USA; \\

240: Academy of Athens,

241: Division of Natural Sciences, 28~Panepistimiou Avenue, Athens 10679,

242: Greece}\\

243: $^3${William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\

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

245: $^4${Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, \\

246: Victoria, BC, V8P 1A1, Canada; \\

247: Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, ON, N2J 2W9, Canada}\\

248: }}

249: 

250: \vskip 0.2in

251: {\bf Abstract}

252: \end{center}

253: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

254: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

255: 

256: We estimate the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs boson $h$ in the

257: minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model with universal soft

258: supersymmetry-breaking masses (CMSSM), subject to the available

259: accelerator and astrophysical constraints. For $m_t = 174.3$~GeV, we find

260: that $114~{\rm GeV} < m_h < 127$~GeV and a peak in the $\tan \beta$

261: distribution $\simeq 55$. We observe two distinct peaks in the

262: distribution of $m_h$ values, corresponding to two different regions of

263: the CMSSM parameter space. Values of $m_h < 119$~GeV correspond to small

264: values of the gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$ and the soft trilinear

265: supersymmetry-breaking parameter $A_0$, lying along coannihilation strips,

266: and most of the allowed parameter sets are consistent with a

267: supersymmetric interpretation of the possibly discrepancy in $g_\mu - 2$.

268: On the other hand, values of $m_h > 119$~GeV may correspond to much larger

269: values of $m_{1/2}$ and $A_0$, lying in rapid-annihilation funnels. The

270: favoured ranges of $m_h$ vary with $m_t$, the two peaks being more clearly

271: separated for $m_t = 178$~GeV and merging for $m_t = 172.7$~GeV. If the

272: $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is imposed, the mode of the $m_h$ distribution is

273: quite stable, being $\sim 117$~GeV for all the studied values of $m_t$.

274: 

275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

276: \vfill

277: \leftline{CERN-PH-TH/2005-173}

278: \leftline{September 2005}

279: \end{titlepage}

280: \baselineskip=18pt

281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

282: 

283: \section{Introduction}

284: 

285: One of the characteristic predictions of the minimal supersymmetric  extension

286: of the Standard Model (MSSM) is the mass of the lightest neutral  Higgs boson

287: $h$, which is expected to be $m_h \la 150$~GeV~\cite{mssmhiggs}. This is very consistent

288: with the range $m_h \la 200$~GeV that is favoured by global  analyses of the

289: available precision electroweak data~\cite{lepewwg}. Various studies have shown

290: that the lightest neutral MSSM Higgs boson is very likely to be  discovered at

291: the LHC, and possibly at the Fermilab Tevatron 

292: collider. It is therefore interesting to attempt to refine the MSSM 

293: prediction for $m_h$, and to consider what one would learn from a  measurement

294: of the $h$ mass \cite{egno}.

295: 

296: We study these questions within the constrained version of the MSSM

297: (CMSSM), in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses $m_0$ and

298: gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ are each assumed to be universal at some GUT

299: input scale, as are the trilinear soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters

300: $A_0$. We impose on the CMSSM the available phenomenological constraints

301: from accelerator experiments, astrophysics and cosmology \cite{EHNOS,cmssmwmap}, treating the

302: supersymmetric interpretation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the

303: muon, $g_\mu - 2$, as an optional constraint, and interpreting the WMAP

304: range for the cold dark matter density~\cite{WMAP} as an upper bound: 

305: $\Omega_\chi h^2 < 0.129$.

306: 

307: We base our study on a statistical sampling of the CMSSM parameter space

308: that is uniform in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for 100~GeV $< m_{1/2} <

309: 2$~TeV, $m_0 < 2$~TeV, $|A_0 / m_{1/2}| < 3$, $2 < \tan \beta < 58$ and

310: $\mu > 0$, assuming initially that $m_t = 174.3$~GeV~\cite{mtop174} and

311: discussing later

312: other possible values of $m_t$.  We began with a random sample of over

313: 320,000 CMSSM points: requiring the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)

314: to be a neutralino brought the number down to somewhat over 260,000. As

315: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(a), before imposing the various phenomenological

316: constraints we find that $m_h$~\footnote{We use Fortran code {\tt

317: FeynHiggs}~\cite{feynhiggs} to calculate $m_h$.} 

318: is distributed between very low values $ <

319: 110$~GeV and an upper limit $\sim 128$~GeV, with a single peak at $\sim

320: 120$~GeV.  The drop-off in the count at low $m_h$ is mainly related to our

321: choice of a uniform measure in the CMSSM input parameters: because of the

322: logarithmic dependence of $m_h$ on $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, low values of

323: $m_h$ only occur at low values of $m_{1/2}, m_0$ and $\tan \beta$. (We

324: recall that $m_h$ evolves quickly as $m_{1/2}$ is increased at low

325: $m_{1/2}$ and more slowly at large $m_{1/2}$.)  The fall-off at large

326: $m_h$ is largely due to our choice of 2~TeV as the upper limit on

327: $m_{1/2}$. Extending this upper limit would slowly push the peak in

328: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(a) to the right, and the count at the peak would grow

329: rapidly. Once again, because of the logarithmic dependence of $m_h$ on

330: $m_{1/2}$, even a modest change in the position of the peak would require

331: increasing the upper limit on $m_{1/2}$ substantially.

332: 

333: \begin{figure}

334: \vskip 0.5in

335: \vspace*{-0.75in}

336: %\hspace*{-.70in}

337: \begin{minipage}{8in}

338: \epsfig{file=allmhs.eps,height=3.1in}

339: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

340: \epsfig{file=mhs.eps,height=3.1in}

341: \hfill

342: \end{minipage}

343: \caption{

344: {\it

345: The distribution of the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs 

346: boson, $m_h$, in the CMSSM (a) before applying the accelerator cuts and 

347: the WMAP relic density constraint, and (b) after applying these 

348: constraints.

349: In the latter case, the red (light) histogram shows the points favoured by 

350: the optional $g_\mu - 2$ constraint. We assume $m_t = 174.3$~GeV in both 

351: panels.

352: }} 

353: \label{fig:mh}

354: \end{figure}

355: 

356: 

357: We next apply a series of constraints, including the LEP lower limit on 

358: the

359: chargino mass of 104~GeV, $b \to s \gamma$~\cite{bsg} and the limit on

360: $\Omega_\chi h^2$ that was discussed above, as well as the the direct

361: experimental limit on $m_h$ of $\sim 114$~GeV~\cite{mh}~\footnote{We recall

362: that, although this lower limit may be relaxed in some variants of the MSSM, its

363: value does not change for the CMSSM studied here~\cite{nuhm1}.}.  The most

364: severe cut on the sample, by far, is that due to the relic density, which for

365: most points exceeds the WMAP upper limit. When all cuts are applied our sample

366: is reduced to 3075 points, which are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b).  

367: Most of

368: the range in $m_h$ is still available after imposing the various

369: phenomenological constraints, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b).  However, we see

370: that the distribution of $m_h$ within this range exhibits significant

371: structures, with peaks at $m_h \simeq 121$ and $117$~GeV, and a dip at

372: $m_h \simeq 119$~GeV.

373: 

374: In the rest of this paper, we explain the origins of these features,

375: describe the domains of the CMSSM parameter space that populate these

376: peaks in the $m_h$ distribution, and discuss the effects of imposing the

377: optional $g_\mu - 2$ constraint~\cite{g-2} and varying $m_t$. The peaked

378: structures

379: in $\tan \beta$ and $m_h$ reflect different processes that might reduce

380: the density of supersymmetric relics $\chi$ into the range allowed by WMAP

381: and other observations~\footnote{Note that although

382: we consider $A_0 \ne 0$, the the stop-coannihilation 

383: region \cite{stopco} is beyond the range we scan.}: either coannihilations with sleptons, most

384: importantly the lighter stau: ${\tilde \tau}_1$ \cite{efo}, or rapid 

385: annihilations:  $\chi \chi$ via the

386: heavier neutral Higgs bosons $A,H$ \cite{funnel}, or (exceptionally) rapid

387: annihilations: $\chi \chi$ via the lightest neutral Higgs bosons 

388: $h$~\cite{Drees}.

389: 

390: The structures in the $m_h$ distribution imply that, once $m_t$ is better

391: known from Tevatron and/or LHC measurements and assuming the CMSSM

392: framework~\footnote{We also assume that theoretical errors in the CMSSM

393: calculation of $m_h$ can be reduced along with the experimental error.}, a

394: measurement of $m_h$ at the LHC or Tevatron might enable one to estimate

395: ranges for the values of $m_{1/2}, A_0$ and $\tan \beta$, {\it even if

396: sparticles themselves are not yet discovered}. If sparticles {\it are}

397: discovered, confronting their masses with the ranges inferred from $m_h$

398: will be a crucial test of the CMSSM framework.

399: 

400: 

401: \section{Effects of Phenomenological Constraints on the CMSSM Parameter 

402: Space}

403: 

404: As already mentioned, we have sampled uniformly the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane

405: for $m_{1/2}, m_0 < 2$~TeV, $|A_0 / m_{1/2}| < 3$, $2 < \tan \beta < 58$

406: and $\mu > 0$~\footnote{This sign of $\mu$ is suggested by even a loose

407: interpretation of $g_\mu - 2$.}, assuming $m_t = 174.3$~GeV as our

408: default~\footnote{We discuss later the effect of varying $m_t$ in our

409: analysis.}. As $\tan \beta$ is increased, there is an increasing fraction

410: of sample points that do not yield consistent electroweak vacua.

411: Nevertheless, the consistent solutions are distributed quite smoothly in

412: $\tan \beta$ before applying the accelerator and cosmological cuts, as

413: seen in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta}. However, after applying the

414: cuts, the distribution in $\tan \beta$ is far from uniform, as seen in

415: panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta}. The distribution of allowed models is

416: sharply peaked towards large $\tan \beta$, with a relatively small tail

417: surviving below $\tan \beta \sim 20$. This observation holds for both

418: the general sample and the $(g_\mu - 2)$-friendly subsample~\footnote{We assume

419: here $g_\mu-2$ range from 6.8 to $43.6 \times 10^{-10}$~\cite{g-2}.}, 

420: shown as the light (red) shaded histogram in panel (b).

421: 

422: \begin{figure}

423: \vskip 0.5in

424: \vspace*{-0.75in}

425: %\hspace*{-.70in}

426: \begin{minipage}{8in}

427: \epsfig{file=alltbs.eps,height=3.1in}

428: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

429: \epsfig{file=tbs.eps,height=3.1in}

430: \hfill

431: \end{minipage}

432: \caption{

433: {\it

434: (a) The distribution in $\tan \beta$ of the sample points shown in 

435: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mh}(a), before the accelerator and 

436: WMAP constraints are applied, and (b) their distribution after applying 

437: these phenomenological constraints. In the latter, we see that the 

438: distribution of $g_\mu - 2$-friendly points (coloured red/grey) is similar 

439: to 

440: that of the total sample.

441: }} 

442: \label{fig:tanbeta}

443: \end{figure}

444: 

445: The preference for large $\tan \beta$ is an understandable consequence of

446: the interplay of the various accelerator and cosmological constraints. For

447: example, the cosmological upper limit on the supersymmetric relic density

448: in the coannihilation region imposes an upper limit on $m_{1/2}$ that is

449: significantly relaxed at large $\tan \beta$, in particular by rapid $\chi

450: \chi \to A, H$ annihilation.  Moreover, the funnels due to the

451: rapid-annihilation processes $\chi \chi \to H, A$ are broader than the

452: coannihilation strips that define the acceptable cosmological regions at

453: lower $\tan \beta$. We also note that the range of small values of

454: $m_{1/2}$ that is excluded by the experimental lower limit on $m_h$

455: diminishes as $\tan \beta$ increases, and recall that the predominance of

456: high $\tan \beta$ in satisfying constraints was clearly seen in a

457: likelihood analysis~\cite{eossl} when comparing

458: regions of high likelihood for $\tan \beta = 10$ and 50.

459: 

460: Panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:gen} displays the allowed points in the $(A_0,

461: \tan \beta)$ plane. We see that they gather into three clusters: one

462: centered around $A_0 = 0$ that extends to small values of $\tan \beta$, and

463: two at large values of $|A_0|$ that are concentrated at larger $\tan

464: \beta$, particularly for $A_0 < 0$.  As seen in panel (b) of

465: Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, these accumulations populate different regions of

466: $m_h$. Specifically, the points with $m_h \in (114, 119)$~GeV, which

467: populate the low-mass peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b), have relatively low

468: values of $A_0$, most of which are negative. On the other hand, points

469: with $A_0 < - 2$~TeV generally have $m_h \in (119, 122)$~GeV and points

470: with $A_0 > 1$~TeV have $m_h \in (122, 127)$~GeV. Between these wings,

471: there are addditionally some low-$|A_0|$ points with $m_h \in (119,

472: 124)$~GeV. Thus, the higher-mass peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b) receives

473: contributions from all regions of $A_0$. We also see in

474: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b) that essentially all the low-mass points are $(g_\mu

475: - 2)$-friendly (shaded red/grey), that only some of the high-mass points

476: with $A_0 > - 2$~TeV are $(g_\mu - 2)$-friendly, and that none of the

477: points with $A_0 < - 2$~TeV are $(g_\mu - 2)$-friendly.

478: 

479: \begin{figure}

480: \vskip 0.5in  

481: \vspace*{-0.75in}

482: %\hspace*{-.70in}

483: \begin{minipage}{8in}

484: \epsfig{file=tbAg3.ps,height=3.1in}

485: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

486: \epsfig{file=mhAg.ps,height=3.1in}

487: \hfill

488: \end{minipage}

489: \caption{

490: {\it

491: (a) The distribution in the $(A_0, \tan \beta)$ plane of the sample points 

492: shown in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mh}(b) that survive the accelerator and

493: WMAP constraints, and (b) a scatter plot of these points in the 

494: $(A_0, m_h)$ plane. The $(g_\mu - 2)$-friendly points are coloured red 

495: (grey).

496: }}

497: \label{fig:gen}

498: \end{figure}

499: 

500: \section{Interpretation of Features in the $m_h$ Distribution}

501: 

502: The origins of many of these features can be understood qualitatively by

503: referring to the various $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes displayed in Fig. 2

504: of~\cite{EHOW3} for different values of $\tan \beta$ and $A_0$. Updated

505: planes for the case $\tan \beta = 55$, whose importance can be seen from

506: panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta} and panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:gen},

507: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ehow3}. When $\tan \beta \la 45$ and $\mu > 0$

508: as assumed here, the regions allowed by WMAP and the other constraints are

509: essentially narrow {\it coannihilation strips} that decrease in width as

510: $m_{1/2}$ increases, terminating when $m_{1/2} \sim 1000$~GeV. In most of

511: these regions, $|A_0| \la 1000$~GeV also, so these points populate the

512: central $A_0 \sim 0$ region in Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}(b).  Therefore, they

513: provide the majority of the models in the {\it low-mass peak} in

514: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b), but also a tail extending under the higher-mass

515: peak, as seen in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}.  These coannihilation

516: strips are also the dominant features for $\tan \beta = 55$ when $A_0 >

517: 0$, as seen in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:ehow3} by the two examples for

518: $A_0 = + m_{1/2}, + 2 m_{1/2}$.

519: 

520: \begin{figure}

521: \vskip 0.5in

522: \vspace*{-0.75in}

523: %\hspace*{-.70in}

524: \begin{minipage}{8in}

525: \epsfig{file=enos55_174.3Aps.eps,height=3.3in}

526: \hspace*{-0.17in}

527: \epsfig{file=enos55_174.3Ans.eps,height=3.3in}

528: \hfill

529: \end{minipage}

530: \caption{

531: {\it

532: Regions in the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes for $\tan \beta = 55$, as 

533: calculated for $m_t = 174.3$~GeV using the latest version of the {\tt 

534: SSARD} code~\cite{SSARD}. Note the narrow coannihilation strips for $A_0 > 0$

535: in panel 

536: (a) and the broader rapid-annihilation funnels for $A_0 < 0$ shown in panel 

537: (b).}} 

538: \label{fig:ehow3} 

539: \end{figure}

540: 

541: However, a second class of features is visible in Fig. 2 of~\cite{EHOW3}

542: when $\tan \beta \ga 50$, namely {\it rapid-annihilation funnels} at large

543: $m_{1/2}$, as updated in panels (a, b) of

544: Fig.~\ref{fig:ehow3} for $A_0 = 0, - m_{1/2}, - 2 m_{1/2}$. These funnel

545: regions populate the {\it high-mass peak} in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b). 

546: The funnels are typically broader than the coannihilation strips, and

547: therefore have a larger weighting in the constant-density sampling of the

548: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane that we have made in this paper. As a result, the

549: larger values of $\tan \beta$ have a strong weight in the sample of models

550: surviving the accelerator and WMAP constraints that we showed in

551: Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta}. We recall that we retain in our analysis points

552: whose relic density $\Omega_\chi h^2 $ falls below the range favoured by

553: WMAP~\cite{WMAP}, which typically have slightly lower values of $m_0$ than 

554: along the

555: coannihilation strips, while remaining within the region where the LSP is

556: the lightest neutralino $\chi$, and lie inside the rapid-annihilation

557: funnels. Restricting our plots to points with $\Omega_\chi$ within the

558: WMAP range would reduce the statistics in our plots, but not alter their

559: basic features. The weight of the rapid-annihilation points could be

560: diminished if one used a different sampling procedure, e.g., if one gave

561: less weight to regions of parameter space with large $m_{1/2}$ and/or

562: $m_0$, and hence $|A_0|$, as might be motivated by fine-tuning

563: considerations. However, the `twin-peak' structure of the $m_h$ 

564: distribution would survive any smooth reweighting of parameter space.

565: 

566: The rapid-annihilation funnels are responsible for the dense cluster of

567: models at large $\tan \beta$ and $A_0 < - 2$~TeV in panel (a) of

568: Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, which have $m_h > 119$~GeV as seen in panel (b) of

569: Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, and hence populate the higher peak in the Higgs mass

570: distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}. It is also clear from 

571: Figs.~\ref{fig:mh} and

572: \ref{fig:gen} that the basic feature of a doubly-peaked Higgs mass

573: distribution linked to different ranges of $A_0$ would also survive any

574: smooth reweighting of the parameter space.

575: 

576: As discussed in~\cite{EHOW3} and seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ehow3}, the

577: locations of the rapid-annihilation funnels are very sensitive to $A_0$,

578: reflecting the sensitivity of $m_{A,H}$ to this parameter (among others).

579: Starting from the $A_0 = 0$ case where the funnel extends above $m_{1/2}

580: \sim 1000$~GeV for  $m_t = 174.3$~GeV, the funnel moves to smaller

581: $m_{1/2}$ as $A_0$ decreases and merges progressively with the

582: coannihilation strip. On the other hand, no funnels are visible for $A_0$

583: sufficiently $> 0$. The WMAP regions for $A_0 = \pm 2 m_{1/2}$ provide points in

584: Fig.~\ref{fig:gen} with extreme positive and negative values of $A_0$,

585: respectively. The different breadths of these regions explain the

586: asymmetry in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, in particular. Indeed, for

587: $A_0 > 0$ these points are simply continuations of the coannihilation

588: strips. As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, some of these points are $(g_\mu -

589: 2)$-friendly, and provide the tail under the high-mass peak in

590: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}.

591: 

592: We now consider the $(m_{1/2}, A_0)$ planes shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fish},

593: where panel (a) shows the combination of all vales of $\tan \beta$, and

594: panel (b) shows only models with $\tan \beta > 50$.  These panels update

595: analogous plots in~\cite{EHOW3}, and display significant differences due

596: to the reduction in $m_t$ from 178~GeV to 174.3~GeV and improvements in

597: the treatment of vacuum stability requirements. Previously, we had seen a

598: clear separation between `fins' at $A_0 \sim \pm 1.5 m_{1/2}$ and a

599: `torso' at $A_0 \sim 0$, which has vanished apart (possibly) from a

600: vestigial ´fin´ at $A_0 > 2$~TeV that is more visible at large $\tan

601: \beta$.  We also note the apüpearance of a small `head' with a `tooth' at

602: $m_{1/2} \la 150$~GeV and $A_0 \sim 0$, which is due to points with

603: $m_\chi \sim m_h/2$, whose relic density falls within the WMAP range

604: thanks to rapid annihilation through the light CMSSM Higgs 

605: pole~\cite{Drees}. These

606: points have $m_{\chi^\pm}$ very close to the LEP lower limit, and might be

607: accessible to the Tevatron.

608: 

609: We see in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:fish}

610: that the points with $m_h < 119$~GeV (darker blue/black and 

611: red/grey colours) cluster at $m_{1/2},

612: A_0 < 1$~TeV and $A_0 > - 3$~TeV. Almost all these points make a

613: supersymmetric contribution to $g_\mu - 2$ that could explain the possible

614: discrepancy between experiment and the Standard Model calculation based on

615: $e^+ e^-$ data (indicated in red/grey). On the other hand, only a small

616: fraction of the models with $m_h > 119$~GeV (pale colours) are compatible

617: with this supersymmetric interpretation of $g_\mu - 2$ (pink/light grey). 

618: As seen in

619: panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:fish}, all the parameter sets with $\tan \beta

620: > 50$ have $m_h > 119$~GeV. The $(g_\mu - 2)$-friendly points are 

621: concentrated at $m_{1/2} \lappeq 1$~TeV.

622: 

623: \begin{figure}

624: \vskip 0.5in

625: \vspace*{-0.75in}

626: %\hspace*{-.70in}

627: \begin{minipage}{8in}

628: \epsfig{file=Am12.ps,height=3.1in}

629: \hspace*{-0.17in}

630: \epsfig{file=Am1250.ps,height=3.1in}

631: \hfill

632: \end{minipage}

633: \caption{

634: {\it

635: (a) The distribution in the $(m_{1/2}, A_0)$ plane of the 

636: points shown in 

637: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mh}(b) that satisfy the accelerator and WMAP 

638: constraints, separated into the low-$m_h$ region (blue points) and 

639: the high-$m_h$ region (red points). (b) The distribution in the $(m_{1/2}, 

640: A_0)$ plane of points with $\tan \beta > 50$.}} 

641: \label{fig:fish}

642: \end{figure}

643: 

644: This analysis can be used as a diagnostic tool when the Higgs boson is

645: discovered at the Tevatron or the LHC, at least within the CMSSM framework 

646: and assuming

647: that $m_t = 174.3$~GeV. This framework would be invalidated if $m_h >

648: 127$~GeV. On the other hand, if the Higgs boson is discovered with a mass

649: $m_h < 119$~GeV, one can infer from Fig.~\ref{fig:fish}(a) that both

650: $m_{1/2}$ and $A_0$ must be small, and that supersymmetry is likely to 

651: lie along a coannihilation strip. On the other hand, if $m_h > 119$~GeV, 

652: supersymmetry may well have chosen a rapid-annihilation funnel.

653: 

654: \section{Potential Impact of $g_\mu - 2$}

655: 

656: We now comment further on the potential impact of imposing the $g_\mu - 2$

657: constraint~\cite{g-2}, which we treat as optional. We see in 

658: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b)  

659: that this constraint would suppress the high-$m_h$ peak, while retaining

660: most of the low-$m_h$ models. The suppression of the high-$m_h$ peak is a

661: consequence of the removal of points with large $m_{1/2}$ and/or $m_0$

662: that would make a very small contribution to $g_\mu - 2$, many of which

663: are in the rapid-annihilation funnels. A similar effect reduces also the

664: upper part of the low-$m_h$ peak, but the coannihilation strips would be

665: less affected by the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint. On the other hand, as seen in

666: Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta}, imposing the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint would not

667: alter the statistical preference for large $\tan \beta$. As we see in

668: Fig.~\ref{fig:gen}, imposing the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint would disfavour

669: models with large negative $A_0$, as well as many with large positive

670: $A_0$, but some models with large $\tan \beta$ and a small $A_0$ would

671: survive.

672: 

673: \section{Dependence on $m_t$}

674: 

675: In all the above, we have assumed that $m_t =174.3$~GeV~\cite{mtop174}. 

676: The central value was formerly 178~GeV~\cite{mtop178}, and the

677: current central value is $m_t = 172.7 \pm 2.9$~GeV~\cite{mtop172}, 

678: following significant evolution during recent months. In view of this and 

679: the remaining

680: experimental uncertainty, we have also considered the dependence of the above

681: analysis on $m_t$. We recall that $\Delta m_h \sim 1$~GeV for $\Delta m_t =

682: 1$~GeV in theoretical calculations, and that the parameter regions allowed by

683: WMAP vary quite considerably with $m_t$, particularly in the 

684: rapid-annihilation

685: funnel region, as seen in Fig.~1 of~\cite{EHOW3}. Specifically, this region

686: moves to smaller (larger)   $m_{1/2}$ for smaller (larger) $m_t$. As was already

687: mentioned, the coannihilation strips mainly populate the low-mass peak in

688: Fig.~\ref{fig:mh} whereas the high-mass peak is largely due to the

689: rapid-annihilation funnels. Accordingly, we would expect these peaks to be more

690: separated at large $m_t$ than at smaller values. Precisely this effect is seen

691: in the two panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:mt}. We see in panel (a)   that the upper

692: peak in Fig.~\ref{fig:mh}(b) shifts upwards by $\sim 4$~GeV if $m_t =

693: 178$~GeV~\cite{mtop178}, and is very clearly separated from the low-mass peak.  

694: Correspondingly, the upper limit on $m_h$ increases to 130~GeV. On the other

695: hand, we see in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:mt} that the two peaks merge for $m_t

696: = 172.7$~GeV~\cite{mtop172}, and the upper limit on $m_h$ decreases to

697: 126~GeV.   Likewise, many of the other features discussed previously in this

698: paper become more (less) pronounced for larger (smaller) $m_t$.

699: 

700: \begin{figure}

701: \vskip 0.5in

702: \vspace*{-0.75in}

703: %\hspace*{-.70in}

704: \begin{minipage}{8in}

705: \epsfig{file=fixed2s.eps,height=3.1in}

706: %\hspace*{-0.17in}

707: \epsfig{file=mt172s.eps,height=3.1in}

708: %\hfill

709: \end{minipage}

710: \caption{

711: {\it

712: As for panel (b) of Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mh}, but assuming (a) $m_t = 

713: 178$~GeV and (b) $m_t = 172.7$~GeV.

714: }} 

715: \label{fig:mt}

716: \end{figure}

717: 

718: By the time the Higgs boson is discovered, we expect $m_t$ to be known

719: with considerably greater precision than the present uncertainty $\delta

720: m_t \simeq 2.9$~GeV. Once $m_t$ is known with an accuracy $\delta m_t \la

721: 2$~GeV, and assuming that the accuracy of theoretical calculations in the

722: CMSSM can be brought to the same level, there will be no theoretical

723: ambiguity between the Higgs mass peaks, and diagnosis of the

724: supersymmetric parameters will indeed be possible along the lines

725: discussed in the previous Section.

726: 

727: As in the case $m_t = 174.3$~GeV shown in panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:mh},

728: for $m_t = 178$~GeV the effect of imposing the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint

729: would also be to remove the high-mass peak, leaving a plateau extending

730: from $m_t \sim 118$~GeV to $\sim 127$~GeV. The low-mass-peak would also be

731: reduced, but most of the intermediate plateau for $m_t = 178$~GeV would

732: survive the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint. In the case of $m_t = 172.7$~GeV shown

733: in panel (b), there is a more pronounced peak at $m_t \sim 117$~GeV and a

734: tail extending to $\sim 124$~GeV. It is striking that, whatever the value

735: of $m_t$, the mode of the $m_h$ distribution is relatively stable at $\sim

736: 117$~GeV and that the upper limit on $m_h$ also remains relatively stable

737: around 125~GeV, if the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is imposed.

738: 

739: \section{Conclusions}

740: 

741: We have shown that the available experimental and cosmological constraints

742: on the CMSSM allow only a limited range of $m_h$. If $m_t = 174.3$~GeV,

743: this is $< 127$~GeV without the $g_\mu - 2$ constraint and $< 124$~GeV if

744: it is imposed. If $g_\mu - 2$ is not imposed, we find twin peaks in the

745: $m_h$ distribution at $m_h \sim 117, 121$~GeV. The upper bound and the

746: lower peak are quite insensitive to variations in $m_t$, whereas the upper

747: peak is sensitive, and merges with the lower peak for low $m_t$. Large

748: values of $\tan \beta \sim 55$ are favoured by our analysis, whether the

749: $g_\mu - 2$ constraint is applied, or not.

750: 

751: We have also shown in this paper that the mass of the lightest CMSSM Higgs

752: boson may be a useful diagnostic tool for identifying the most likely

753: regions of the CMSSM parameter space, even if sparticles are not (yet)  

754: discovered. This is because the CMSSM is divided into distinct

755: coannihilation and rapid-annihilation regions, and measuring $m_h$ could

756: provide us with a hint which alternative is chosen by Nature.

757: 

758: \section*{Acknowledgments}

759: \noindent 

760: The work of D.V.N. was supported in part

761: by DOE grant :DE-FG03-95-ER-40917.

762: The work of K.A.O. was supported in part

763: by DOE grant DE--FG02--94ER--40823.

764: The work of Y.S. was supported in part by

765: the NSERC of Canada, and Y.S. thanks the Perimeter Institute for its

766: hospitality. 

767: 

768: 

769: 

770: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

771: 

772: \bibitem{mssmhiggs}

773: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

774:   %``Upper Bound Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Mass In The Minimal 

775:   %Standard Model,''

776:   Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 85} (1991) 1;

777:   %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%

778: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 262} (1991) 54;

779:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,54;%%

780: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,

781:   %``Can The Mass Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Of The Minimal 

782:   %Model Be Larger Than M(Z)?,''

783:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 66} (1991) 1815;

784:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%

785:  J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,

786:   %``Radiative Corrections To The Masses Of Supersymmetric Higgs Bosons,''

787:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257} (1991) 83;

788:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%

789:   %``On radiative corrections to supersymmetric Higgs boson masses and 

790:   %implications for LEP searches,''   

791:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 262} (1991) 477;

792:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,477;%%   

793:   A.~Yamada,

794:   %``Radiative corrections to the Higgs masses in the minimal 

795:   %standard model,''

796:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 263}, 233 (1991);

797:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B263,233;%%

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

799:   %``One loop corrections to the Higgs sector in minimal supergravity 

800:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 2482;

801:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,2482;%%

802:   P.~H.~Chankowski, S.~Pokorski and J.~Rosiek,

803:   %``Charged and neutral supersymmetric Higgs boson masses: Complete one 

804:   %analysis,''

805:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 274} (1992) 191;

806:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B274,191;%%

807: %``One loop corrections to the supersymmetric Higgs boson couplings and 

808:   %phenomenology,''

809:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 286} (1992) 307;

810:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B286,307;%%

811: A.~Dabelstein,

812:   %``The One loop renormalization of the MSSM Higgs sector and its 

813:   %to the neutral scalar Higgs masses,''

814:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 495

815:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9409375];

816:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409375;%%

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

818:   %``Renormalization-group-improved effective potential for the MSSM Higgs

819:   %sector with explicit CP violation,''

820:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586} (2000) 92

821:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0003180];

822:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003180;%%

823:   A.~Katsikatsou, A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

824:   %``On the radiative corrections to the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson mass,''

825:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 501} (2001) 69

826:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0011370].

827:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011370;%%

828: 

829: \bibitem{lepewwg}

830:   G.~Altarelli and M.~W.~Grunewald,

831:   %``Precision electroweak tests of the standard model,''

832:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 403-404} (2004) 189

833:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0404165].

834:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404165;%%

835: updated in: \\ 

836: S. de Jong,

837:   talk given at EPS HEPP 2005, Lisbon, Portugal, July 2005, see:\\

838: {\tt http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/misc/}.

839: 

840: \bibitem{egno}

841: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ganis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~A.~Olive,

842:   %``What if the Higgs boson weighs 115-GeV?,''

843:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 502} (2001) 171

844:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0009355].

845:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009355;%%

846: 

847: 

848: \bibitem{EHNOS}

849: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive

850: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B238} (1984) 453; see also

851: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.

852: 

853: \bibitem{cmssmwmap}

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

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

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

857: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303043];

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

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

860: %``Chi**2 analysis of the minimal supergravity model including WMAP, 

861: % g(mu)-2 and b $\to$ s gamma constraints,''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

871: %``WMAP constraints, SUSY dark matter and implications 

872: %for the direct  detection of SUSY,''

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

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

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

876: C.~Munoz,

877: %``Dark matter detection in the light of recent experimental results,''

878: arXiv:hep-ph/0309346;

879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309346;%%

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

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

882: arXiv:hep-ph/0310103.

883: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310103;%%

884: 

885: 

886: 

887: \bibitem{WMAP} C.~Bennett et al.,

888:                {\em Astrophys. J. Suppl.} {\bf 148} (2003) 1,

889:                astro-ph/0302207;\\

890:                %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

891:                D.~Spergel et al. [WMAP Collaboration],

892:                Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 175,

893:                astro-ph/0302209.

894:                %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

895: 

896: 

897: \bibitem{mtop174}

898: CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration and Tevatron Electroweak Working 

899: Group,

900:   %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''

901:   arXiv:hep-ex/0507006.

902:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507006;%%

903: 

904: \bibitem{feynhiggs} S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein, 

905:                     {\em Comp. Phys. Comm.} {\bf 124} 2000 76,

906:                     hep-ph/9812320; 

907:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

908:                     {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 9} (1999) 343, 

909:                     hep-ph/9812472.

910:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

911:                     The codes are accessible via

912:                     {\tt www.feynhiggs.de} .

913: 

914:                        

915: \bibitem{bsg}

916: R.~Barate et al.\ [ALEPH Collaboration],

917:                  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 429} (1998) 169;

918:                  %%CITATION = PHLTA,B429,169;%%

919:                  S.~Chen et al.\ [CLEO Collaboration],

920:                  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87} (2001) 251807,

921:                  hep-ex/0108032;

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

923:                  P.~Koppenburg et al. [Belle Collaboration],

924:                  {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93} (2004) 061803,

925:                  hep-ex/0403004;

926:                  %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403004;%%

927:                  K.~Abe et al.\ [Belle Collaboration],

928:                  {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 511} (2001) 151,

929:                  hep-ex/0103042;

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

931:                  B.~Aubert et al.\ [BABAR Collaboration],

932:                  hep-ex/0207074;

933:                  hep-ex/0207076;

934:                  %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207074;%%

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

936:                  see also {\tt www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/};

937:                  C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

938: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

939: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

940: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

941: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

942: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003];

943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

944: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,

945: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338; 

946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%

947: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,

948: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''

949: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007

950: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];

951: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%

952: T.~Hurth, arXiv:hep-ph/0212304. 

953: 

954: \bibitem{mh}

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

956: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

957: Collaboration,

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

959: {\it Search for neutral Higgs bosons at LEP}, paper submitted to 

960: ICHEP04, Beijing,

961: LHWG-NOTE-2004-01, ALEPH-2004-008, DELPHI-2004-042, L3-NOTE-2820,

962: OPAL-TN-744, \\

963: {\tt 

964: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/August2004{\_}MSSM/index.html}.

965: 

966: 

967: \bibitem{nuhm1}

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

969:   %``The MSSM parameter space with non-universal Higgs masses,''

970:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539} (2002) 107

971:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0204192].

972:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204192;%%

973: 

974: \bibitem{g-2}

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

976: %``Measurement of the negative muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''

977: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92} (2004) 161802

978: [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008];

979: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%

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

981: %``Updated estimate of the muon magnetic moment using revised results from e+ e-

982: %annihilation,''

983: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 31} (2003) 503

984: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308213];

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

986: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

987: arXiv:hep-ph/0312250;

988: J.~F.~de Troc\'oniz and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain,

989: %``The hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,''

990: arXiv:hep-ph/0402285;

991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402285;%%

992: K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,

993: %``Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon anomalous

994: %magnetic moment revisited,''

995: arXiv:hep-ph/0312226;

996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312226;%%

997:  M.~Passera,

998:   %``The standard model prediction of the muon anomalous magnetic moment,''

999:   arXiv:hep-ph/0411168;

1000:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411168;%%

1001:             A.~Hocker, hep-ph/0410081.

1002:                         %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410081;%%

1003:                         

1004:                         

1005: \bibitem{stopco}

1006: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,

1007: %``Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter,''

1008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 035012

1009: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911496];

1010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911496;%%

1011: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

1012: %``Calculations of neutralino stop coannihilation in the CMSSM,''

1013: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 18} (2003) 395

1014: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112113].

1015: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112113;%%

1016:                         

1017:  \bibitem{efo} J. Ellis, T. Falk, and K.A. Olive, \PL {\bf B444} (1998) 367

1018: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360];

1019: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810360;%%

1020: J. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, {\it Astr. Part. Phys.}

1021: {\bf 13} (2000) 181

1022: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 15} (2001) 413]

1023: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481];

1024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905481;%%

1025: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,

1026:   %``Coannihilation effects in supergravity and D-brane models,''

1027:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 59

1028:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0102181].

1029:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

1030: 

1031:                         

1032:  \bibitem{funnel}

1033: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1034: %``The Neutralino relic density in minimal N=1 supergravity,''

1035: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 376

1036: [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234];

1037: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207234;%%

1038: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

1039: %``Cosmological relic density from minimal supergravity

1040: %with implications for collider physics,''

1041: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 597

1042: [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321];

1043: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

1044: A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1045: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 023515

1046: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909497];

1047: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909497;%%

1048: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 16} (2001) 1229

1049: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009065];

1050: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009065;%%

1051: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante,  

1052: P.~Quintana and X.~Tata,

1053: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015007

1054: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005027];

1055: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%

1056: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1057: %``The CMSSM parameter space at large tan(beta),''

1058: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 236

1059: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098].

1060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1061: 

1062:                         

1063: 

1064: \bibitem{Drees}

1065: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

1066:   %``Neutralino dark matter in mSUGRA: Reopening the light Higgs pole 

1067:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 624} (2005) 60

1068:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504090].

1069:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504090;%%

1070: 

1071: \bibitem{eossl}

1072:   J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1073:   %``Likelihood analysis of the CMSSM parameter space,''

1074:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 095004

1075:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310356].

1076:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310356;%%

1077:   

1078: \bibitem{EHOW3}

1079:    J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1080:   %``Indirect sensitivities to the scale of supersymmetry,''

1081:   JHEP {\bf 0502} (2005) 013

1082:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411216].

1083:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411216;%%

1084: 

1085: \bibitem{SSARD}

1086: Information about this code is available from K.~A.~Olive: it contains

1087: important

1088: contributions from T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, J.~McDonald, K.~A.~Olive, Y. Santoso 

1089: and

1090: M.~Srednicki.

1091: 

1092: \bibitem{mtop178}

1093: V.~Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration],

1094:                      {\em Nature} {\bf 429} (2004) 638, 

1095:                      hep-ex/0406031;\\

1096:                      %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406031;%%

1097: CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration and Tevatron Electroweak Working 

1098: Group,

1099:                      hep-ex/0404010.

1100:                      %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%

1101: 

1102: \bibitem{mtop172}

1103: CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration and Tevatron Electroweak Working 

1104: Group,

1105:   %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''

1106:   arXiv:hep-ex/0507091.

1107:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507091;%%

1108: 

1109: 

1110: 

1111: \end{thebibliography}

1112: 

1113: 

1114: \end{document}

1115: 

1116: 

1117: 

1118: