1: \documentclass[12pt,dvips]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{rotating}
4: \usepackage{hhline}
5: \usepackage{array}
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7:
8: \topmargin 0 pt
9: \def\baselinestretch{1.27}
10: \textheight 22.5cm
11: \textwidth 16.3cm
12: \hoffset -1.5cm
13: \voffset -.2cm
14:
15:
16: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
20: \tolerance=100000
21:
22: % \thispagestyle{empty}
23: % \setcounter{page}{1}
24:
25: \newcommand{\lsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$<$\\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
26: \newcommand{\gsim}{\raisebox{-0.13cm}{~\shortstack{$>$\\[-0.07cm] $\sim$}}~}
27:
28: \newcommand{\imag}{\Im {\rm m}}
29: \newcommand{\real}{\Re {\rm e}}
30: \newcommand{\s}{\\ \vspace*{-3.5mm}}
31:
32: \def\tablename{\bf Table}%
33: \def\figurename{\bf Figure}%
34:
35: \begin{flushright}
36: DESY 06--011 \\[-0.1cm]
37: KAIST--TH 2006/02 \\[-0.1cm]
38: hep-ph/0602109\\
39: \today
40: \end{flushright}
41:
42: \vspace{0.3cm}
43:
44:
45: \begin{center}
46: {\large \bf Heavy Higgs Resonances for the Neutralino Relic Density\\[-1mm]
47: in the Higgs Decoupling Limit of the CP--noninvariant\\
48: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
49: }\\[1.2cm]
50: S.Y. Choi$^1$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{sychoi@chonbuk.ac.kr}}
51: and Y.G. Kim$^2$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{ygkim@muon.kaist.ac.kr}}
52: \end{center}
53: %
54:
55: \vskip 0.2cm
56:
57: %
58: {\small
59: \begin{center}
60: $^1$ {\it Deutches Elektronen--Synchrotron DESY, D--22603 Hamburg, Germany and \\
61: Physics Department and RIPC, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju
62: 561-756, Korea}\\[2mm]
63: $^2$ {\it Department of Physics, KAIST, Daejon 305-701, Korea}
64: \end{center}
65: }
66:
67: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
68: \vspace{2.cm}
69:
70: %
71: \begin{abstract}
72: \noindent
73: The lightest neutralino is a compelling candidate to account for cold dark matter
74: in the universe in supersymmetric theories with $R$--parity. In the CP--invariant
75: theory, the neutralino relic density can be found in accord with recent WMAP data
76: if neutralino annihilation in the early universe occurs via the $s$--channel $A$
77: funnel. In contrast, in the CP--noninvariant theory two heavy neutral Higgs bosons
78: can contribute to the Higgs funnel mechanism significantly due to a CP--violating
79: {\it complex} mixing between two heavy states, in particular, when they
80: are almost degenerate. With a simple analytic and numerical
81: analysis, we demonstrate that the CP--violating Higgs mixing can modify the
82: profile of the neutralino relic density {\it considerably} in the heavy Higgs
83: funnel with the neutralino mass close to half of the heavy Higgs masses.
84: \end{abstract}
85: %
86:
87: %============================================================================
88: \newpage
89:
90: The nature of the dark matter is one of the most important questions at the
91: interface of particle physics and cosmology. Recently there have been
92: big improvements in the astrophysical and cosmological data, most notably due
93: to the Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP)\cite{WMAP} and the Sloan
94: digital sky survey (SDSS)\cite{SDSS}. With the data we can infer the following
95: $2\sigma$ range for the density of cold dark matter normalized by the critical
96: density
97: %
98: \begin{eqnarray}
99: 0.094 < \Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 < 0.129,
100: \label{eq:Omega_CDM}
101: \end{eqnarray}
102: %
103: where $h\approx 0.7$ is the (scaled) Hubble constant in units of
104: 100 km/sec/Mpc. Such a precise determination of $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$ imposes
105: severe constraints on any model that tries to explain it.\s
106:
107: In supersymmetric theories with $R$--parity \cite{MSSM}, the lightest
108: supersymmetric particle (LSP), which is typically the lightest neutralino
109: $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \equiv\chi$, is stable and it serves as an excellent
110: cold dark matter (CDM) candidate \cite{LSP_DM,SUSY_DM_review}.
111: However, typical mSUGRA models in the parameter space of minimal SUSY predict
112: much larger values for the neutralino relic density than the values in the
113: range (\ref{eq:Omega_CDM}). Some specific mechanisms leading to strongly
114: enhanced neutralino annihilation are required to produce the observed dark
115: matter relic density \cite{enhancement_mechanism}. Such an enhancement might be
116: due to the presence of light sleptons, enhancing the LSP annihilation into
117: leptons, to an accidental degeneracy of the LSP and the lighter stau (or stop),
118: leading to enhanced LSP--stau (or stop) co--annihilation, to the LSP with
119: significantly mixed gaugino--higgsino components, enhancing the annihilation
120: into gauge bosons, or to an accidental degeneracy $M_A\approx 2 m_\chi$ with
121: large $\tan\beta$, leading to enhanced annihilation through an $s$--channel
122: pseudoscalar $A$ in the CP--invariant theory.\s
123:
124: In particular, the enhanced LSP annihilation via a $A$ funnel in the
125: CP--invariant case is due to two reasons; (i) the $S$--wave amplitude for
126: $\chi\chi\to A$ is not suppressed near threshold while the $P$--wave amplitude
127: for $\chi\chi\to H$ is suppressed near threshold and (ii) the total $A$ decay
128: width\footnote{The decays, $A \to W^+W^-$ and $A\to ZZ$, are forbidden, leading to
129: a small $A$ width for small $\tan\beta$ (unless the decay $A\to t\bar{t}$ is open).}
130: becomes large as the $A\to b\bar{b}$ decay mode is greatly enhanced for
131: large $\tan\beta$.\s
132:
133: The generic feature of the $A$ funnel enhancement could, however, be greatly
134: modified due to the CP--violating mixing among neutral Higgs bosons
135: as well as due to the CP--violating Higgs couplings to neutralino pairs in
136: the CP--noninvariant theory \cite{cp_violating_higgs, pilaftsis_wagner,
137: complex_mixing_1, CKLZ, cp_noninvariant}. In this work we analyze, both
138: analytically and numerically, the impact on the LSP relic density by the
139: CP--violating Higgs mixing, loop--induced at the loop level in the
140: CP--noninvariant MSSM \cite{DM_MSSM_CP}. To be specific, we consider the
141: case when two (almost) degenerate heavy neutral Higgs bosons $H$ and $A$ are
142: essentially decoupled from the lightest neutral Higgs boson\footnote{This
143: situation is naturally realized in the MSSM in the decoupling
144: limit with $M_A > 2 m_Z$ \cite{CKLZ, cp_invariant_decoupling}.} and
145: their masses are very close to twice the LSP mass.\s
146:
147: With the lightest neutral Higgs boson decoupled, the CP--violating mixing of the
148: two nearly--degenerate heavy Higgs bosons is described by a $2\times 2$
149: {\it complex} mass matrix, composed of a real
150: dissipative part and an imaginary absorptive part \cite{CKLZ}. This mixing
151: can be very large, generating frequent mutual transitions inducing large
152: CP--odd mixing effects, which are quantitatively described by the complex mixing
153: parameter $X$:
154: %
155: \begin{eqnarray}
156: X = \frac{1}{2}\tan 2\theta
157: = \frac{\Delta^2_{HA}}{M^2_H-M^2_A -i\left[M_H\Gamma_H-M_A\Gamma_A\right]},
158: \end{eqnarray}
159: %
160: where the complex off--diagonal term $\Delta^2_{HA}$ of the
161: Higgs mass matrix couples two Higgs states.\s
162:
163: The Higgs masses and widths are then shifted in a characteristic pattern by
164: the CP--violating mixing \cite{resonant_mixing_zerwas}, of which
165: the individual shifts can be obtained by separating real and imaginary parts
166: in the relations:
167: %
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: && \left[M^2_{H_2}\!-\!i M_{H_2} \Gamma_{H_2}\right]
170: \!-\!\left[M^2_H\!-\!i M_H \Gamma_H\right]
171: =
172: - \left\{\left[M^2_{H_3}\!-\!i M_{H_3} \Gamma_{H_3}\right]
173: \!-\!\left[M^2_A\!-\!i M_A \Gamma_A\right]\right\}\nonumber\\[2mm]
174: &&{ }\hskip 2.32cm = -\left\{\left[M^2_A\!-\!i M_A \Gamma_A\right]
175: \!-\!\left[M^2_H\!-\!i M_H \Gamma_H\right]\right\}
176: \times\,\mbox{\small $\frac{1}{2}$}\, [\sqrt{1+4X^2}-1]
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: %
179: In such a non--Hermitian mixing the ket and bra mass eigenstates have
180: to be defined separately: $|H_i \rangle = C_{i\alpha}|H_\alpha\rangle$
181: and $\langle\widetilde{H}_i| = C_{i\alpha}\langle H_\alpha|$ ($i=2, 3$ and
182: $H_\alpha=H,A$); $C_{2H}=\cos\theta, C_{2A}=\sin\theta, C_{3H}=-\sin\theta$
183: and $C_{3A}=\cos\theta$ in terms of the complex mixing angle $\theta$.\s
184:
185: As two mass eigenstates have no definite CP parity and an enlarged mass
186: splitting, the profile of the LSP relic density can considerably be modified
187: in the heavy Higgs funnel. For a simple analytic and numerical illustration,
188: we consider a specific scenario within the CP--violating MSSM [MSSM--CP], while
189: a more comprehensive analysis is separately given in a future publication.
190: We assume the source of CP violation to be localized entirely in the complex stop
191: trilinear coupling $A_t$ but all the other interactions to be CP
192: conserving.\footnote{This assignment is compatible with the bounds
193: from the electric dipole moment measurements \cite{EDM}.}\s
194:
195: In this situation, CP violation is transmitted through stop--loop corrections
196: to the effective Higgs potential, generating three CP--odd complex quartic
197: parameters. The effective parameters have been calculated in
198: Ref.~\cite{pilaftsis_wagner} to two--loop accuracy and, with $t/\tilde{t}$
199: contributions, the parameters are determined by the parameters; the SUSY scale
200: $M_S$ which is taken to be essentially the average of two stop masses--squared,
201: the higgsino parameter $\mu$, the stop trilinear parameter $A_t$ and the
202: top Yukawa coupling $h_t=\sqrt{2} \bar{m}_t /v\sin\beta$ defined with the running
203: $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass $\bar{m}_t$ and the Higgs vacuum expectation value
204: $v\approx 246$ GeV. The one--loop improved Born Higgs mass matrix is derived
205: from this effective Higgs potential and then the matrix elements are shifted to
206: the pole--mass parameters by including dispersive contributions from Higgs
207: self--energies.\s
208:
209: Before evaluating the impact of the complex $H/A$ mixing on the
210: LSP relic density in the heavy--Higgs funnel, we describe an approximate
211: procedure for estimating the relic density \cite{Griest_Seckel}. The LSP
212: number density is evolved in time
213: according to the Boltzmann equation. When the temperature of the Universe is
214: higher than the LSP mass, the number density is simply given by its
215: thermal--equilibrium density. However, once the temperature drops below
216: the LSP mass, the number density drops exponentially. As a result, the LSP
217: annihilation rate becomes smaller than the Hubble expansion rate at a certain
218: point when the LSP neutralinos fall out of equilibrium and the LSP number
219: density in a co--moving volume remains constant. The present LSP relic
220: abundance is then approximately given by
221: %
222: \begin{eqnarray}
223: \Omega h^2 \simeq {1.07 \times 10^9~ \rm GeV^{-1} \over J g_*^{1/2}\, M_{PL}},
224: \label{eq:omega}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: %
227: where $g_*=81$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom
228: and $\rm M_{PL}=1.22 \times 10^{19}\, GeV$ is the Planck mass.
229: And the integral $J$ is given by
230: %
231: \begin{eqnarray}
232: J(x_f) = \int_{x_f}^{\infty} {\langle\sigma v\rangle \over x^2} dx,
233: \label{eq:j_xf}
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: %
236: where $\langle \sigma v\rangle$ is the thermally averaged LSP annihilation
237: cross section times the relative velocity $v$ of two annihilating LSPs, and
238: $x_f=m_\chi/T_f$ with the freeze--out temperature $T_f \simeq m_\chi/25$ for
239: typical weak--scale numbers. We take $x_f=25$ in the following numerical
240: demonstration.\s
241:
242: When the heavy Higgs boson masses are large and close to twice the LSP mass,
243: the LSP annihilation is dominated by heavy Higgs--boson exchanges.
244: The LSP annihilation rate can then be estimated with reasonable approximation by
245: including only the $s$--channel heavy Higgs boson exchanges.
246: In the decoupling limit the $H\chi\chi$ and $A\chi\chi$ couplings read
247: %
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: && \langle \chi_L|H|\chi_R\rangle = \langle \chi_R|H|\chi_L\rangle^*
250: \simeq -\frac{g}{2}\,\, (N_{12}-N_{11}\tan\theta_W)
251: (\sin\beta N_{13}+\cos\beta N_{14}), \nonumber\\
252: && \langle \chi_L|A|\chi_R\rangle\, = \langle \chi_R|A|\chi_L\rangle^*\,
253: = -\frac{g}{2}\, i(N_{12}-N_{11}\tan\theta_W)
254: (\sin\beta N_{13}-\cos\beta N_{14}),
255: \label{eq:coupling}
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: %
258: in terms of $\tan\beta$ and the neutralino mixing matrix $N_{i\alpha}$
259: ($i,\alpha=1$-$4$) diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix ${\cal M}_N$ as
260: $N^*{\cal M}_N N^\dagger = {\cal M}_{diag}$ \cite{neutralino_mixing}.
261: The LSP annihilation rate multiplied by the relative velocity $v$ of two LSPs
262: can be expressed as
263: %
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: \sigma v = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{a,b = H, A} {\cal P}_a {\cal P}^*_b\,\,
266: \frac{\Gamma_{ab}(\sqrt{s})}{\sqrt{s}},
267: \label{eq:event_rate}
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: %
270: where the relative velocity $v$ is taken to be $2\beta=2\sqrt{1-4m^2_\chi/s}$,
271: and the production amplitudes ${\cal P}_{a,b}$ and the transition decay widths
272: $\Gamma_{ab}$ are defined as
273: %
274: \begin{eqnarray}
275: && {\cal P}_a = \sum_{i=2,3}\, \sum_{b=H,A} C_{ia}\, \Pi_i\, C_{ib} \,
276: P(\chi\chi\to a),\nonumber\\
277: && \Gamma_{ab} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{s}}\sum_F \oint d\Phi_F\,
278: D(a\to F) D^*(b\to F),
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: %
281: with the Higgs propagators $\Pi_i=1/(s-M^2_{H_i}+i M_i\Gamma_{H_i})$. Here,
282: $P(\chi\chi\to H, A)$ are the $\chi\chi\to H, A$ production amplitudes,
283: determined by the couplings (\ref{eq:coupling}), and $D(H, A\to F)$
284: the $H, A\to F$ decay amplitudes, for any kinematically and dynamically
285: allowed decay mode $F$.
286: Evaluating $J(x_f)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:j_xf}) with the event rate
287: (\ref{eq:event_rate}) and inserting its value into
288: Eq.~(\ref{eq:omega}) yields the present neutralino relic density.\s
289:
290: Although it is possible to calculate the masses and (transition) decay widths
291: of the heavy Higgs bosons fully, we estimate them in the present work
292: with a few approximations, which are reliable in the Higgs decoupling
293: limit. In general, the light Higgs boson, the fermions and electroweak gauge
294: bosons, and in supersymmetric theories, gauginos, higgsinos and scalar states
295: may contribute to the loops in the complex mass matrix. In the decoupling
296: limit, the couplings of the heavy Higgs bosons to gauge bosons and their
297: superpartners are suppressed. Assuming all the other supersymmetric particles
298: to be suppressed either by couplings or by phase space, we consider only
299: loops by the LSP neutralino, the light Higgs boson and the top/bottom quark
300: for the absorptive parts as characteristic examples; loops from other
301: (s)particles could be treated in the same way of course.\s
302:
303: In order to demonstrate the effect of the CP--violating $H/A$ mixing
304: on the neutralino relic density in the MSSM--CP numerically, we adopt a
305: typical set of parameters\footnote{Analyses of electric dipole moments show that
306: the phase of $\mu$ is quite small, unless sfermions are very heavy \cite{EDM};
307: therefore its phase is set zero in our numerical demonstration.},
308: %
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: M_S = 0.5\,\, {\rm TeV},\quad |A_t|= 1.0\,\, {\rm TeV}, \quad
311: \mu= 2.0\,\, {\rm TeV}; \quad \tan\beta=5,
312: \label{eq:parameter_set}
313: \end{eqnarray}
314: %
315: while varying the pseudoscalar mass $M_A$, the SU(2) gaugino mass $M_2$, and
316: the phase $\Phi_A$ of the trilinear term $A_t$, and taking $M_1\simeq 0.5 M_2$.
317: [By reparameterization of the fields, $M_2$ is set real and positive.]
318: For such a large $\mu$ compared to $M_2$, the LSP is almost
319: bino--like and its mass is close to $M_1$.\s
320:
321: The $\Phi_A$ dependence of the $H/A$ mixing parameter $X$ and the heavy
322: Higgs masses and are displayed in Figs.~\ref{fig:mixing}(a) and (b),
323: respectively, for $M_{2,A}=0.5$ TeV.\footnote{With one common phase $\Phi_A$, the
324: complex mixing parameter $X$ obeys the relation $X(2\pi-\Phi_A)=X(\Phi_A)$ so that
325: all CP--even quantities are symmetric when switching from $\Phi_A$ to
326: $2\pi-\Phi_A$. Therefore we can restrict the discussion to the range $0\leq
327: \Phi_A\leq \pi$.} The two--state system in the MSSM--CP shows a very
328: sharp resonance CP--violating mixing, purely imaginary near $\Phi_A=0.09\pi$
329: and $\Phi_A=0.67\pi$. We note that the mass shift is indeed enhanced by more
330: than an order of magnitude if the CP--violating phase rises to non--zero values,
331: reaching a maximal value of the mass difference $\sim 24$ GeV.
332: As a result, the two mass eigenstates become clearly distinguishable,
333: incorporating significant admixtures of CP--even and CP--odd components
334: mutually in the wave functions.\s
335:
336:
337: %
338: \begin{figure}[htb]
339: \begin{center}
340: \mbox{ }\\[0.2cm]
341: \epsfig{file=mixing.eps,height=7.5cm,width=14cm}\hskip 0.5cm
342: \caption{\it The $\Phi_A$ dependence of (a) the real (black) and imaginary
343: (red) parts of the mixing parameter $X$ and (b) the heavy Higgs
344: boson masses, $M_{H_2}$ (black) and $M_{H_3}$ (red).
345: $M_2$ and $M_A$ are set to 500 GeV.
346: Note that $\real/\imag X(2\pi-\Phi_A) =+\real/-\imag X(\Phi_A)$ and
347: the masses and widths are symmetric about $\Phi_A=\pi$.}
348: \label{fig:mixing}
349: \end{center}
350: \end{figure}
351: %
352:
353: The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} shows the allowed space of the phase
354: $\Phi_A$ and the normalized mass difference $(M_A-2m_\chi)/2m_\chi$ for the
355: range ($\ref{eq:Omega_CDM}$). Here we have set $M_2$ to 0.5 TeV and have
356: scanned the parameter space where $ 450\, {\rm GeV} \leq M_A \leq 550\, \rm GeV$
357: and $0 \leq \Phi_A \leq \pi$.
358: The allowed region for $\pi\leq \Phi_A \leq 2\pi$ is simply obtained by
359: reflecting the allowed region for $0\leq \Phi_A\leq \pi$ with respect to
360: $\Phi_A=\pi$. The green strip is for the range
361: (\ref{eq:Omega_CDM}) and the blue region for $\Omega h^2 < 0.095$.
362: In the other remaining region, we have $\Omega h^2 > 0.129$. One can clearly
363: see that (i) the neutralino relic density is indeed greatly suppressed for
364: $M_A \sim 2 m_\chi$ due to the Higgs resonances and the detailed
365: prediction for the relic density depends strongly on the value of the phase
366: $\Phi_A$ as well as the mass difference between $M_A$ and $2m_\chi$.\s
367:
368: %
369: \begin{figure}[htb]
370: \begin{center}
371: \mbox{ }\\[0.3cm]
372: \epsfig{file=maphi_scan.eps,height=7.5cm,width=7.5cm}\hskip 1.cm
373: \epsfig{file=m2ma_scan.eps,height=7.5cm,width=7.5cm}
374: \vskip -0.1cm
375: \caption{\it Left panel: The allowed phase space of the CP phase $\Phi_A$ and
376: the normalized mass difference $(M_A-2m_\chi)/2m_\chi$ for the
377: range (\ref{eq:Omega_CDM}). The green area is for the range
378: (\ref{eq:Omega_CDM}), but the blue area is for the enlarged
379: range with the lower bound ignored. Right panel: The allowed region
380: of the $(M_2, M_A)$ plane for the bound $\Omega h^2 <0.129$
381: in the CP--invariant case with $\Phi_A=0$ (a blue strip) and
382: CP--noninvariant case with $\Phi_A=0.55\pi$ (two green strips).
383: The values of the other relevant parameters are given in the
384: text.}
385: \label{fig:fig2}
386: \end{center}
387: \end{figure}
388: %
389:
390:
391: The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2} shows the allowed regions of the
392: $(M_2, M_A)$ plane for $\Omega h^2 <0.129$ in the CP--invariant case
393: (one blue strip) with $\Phi_A=0$ and in the CP--noninvariant case with
394: $\Phi_A \simeq 0.55\pi$ (two green strips). Clearly, in order to satisfy
395: the relic density constraint, the LSP mass, which is approximately $0.5 M_2$,
396: should be close to half of the Higgs masses.
397: In the CP--invariant case only the CP--odd Higgs boson $A$ is active for
398: the Higgs funnel mechanism and so only one allowed strip with its width of
399: about 20 GeV is developed. In contrast, in the CP--noninvariant case
400: with $\Phi_A=0.55\pi$, both of the heavy Higgs bosons become active for
401: the funnel mechanism, leading to two strips; one strip is almost
402: identical to the strip in the CP--invariant case, but the other is newly
403: developed as the $H_3$ state, which is purely CP--even in the
404: CP--invariant case, has a significant CP--odd component due to
405: the CP--violating Higgs mixing. The combined width of two strips is widened
406: due to the enlarged mass splitting between two mass eigenstates in the
407: CP--noninvariant case.\footnote{Two Higgs--boson masses are approximately
408: $M_{H_2}\approx M_A+ 15$ GeV and $M_{H_3}\approx M_A-5$ GeV, respectively.}\s
409:
410:
411: {\it To summarize.} We have examined the effect of the CP--violating H/A mixing
412: on the LSP annihilation cross section in the Higgs decoupling limit. By a simple
413: analysis with a specific parameter set (\ref{eq:parameter_set})
414: we have demonstrated that the CP--violating mixing can modify the profile of
415: the LSP relic density {\it considerably} in the heavy Higgs funnel with the
416: LSP mass close to half of the Higgs masses. Therefore, in order to
417: elucidate the Higgs funnel mechanism through high--energy experiments on the
418: supersymmetric particles, it is necessary to determine with good accuracy the complex
419: mixing angle between two Higgs states in addition to the LSP and heavy
420: Higgs boson masses and couplings \cite{heavy_Higgs_masses}.\s
421:
422:
423: \vskip 0.3cm
424:
425: %-------------------------------
426: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
427: %-------------------------------
428:
429: The authors are grateful to P.M. Zerwas for his valuable comments and
430: suggestions. The work of SYC was supported partially by KOSEF through CHEP at
431: Kyungpook National University and by the Korea Research Foundation Grant
432: by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) (KRF--2006--013--C00097) and the work of
433: YGK was supported partially by the KRF Grant funded by the Korean
434: Government (KRF--2005--201--C00006) and by the KOSEF Grant
435: (KOSEF R01--2005--000--10404--0).
436:
437: %
438: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
439:
440: \bibitem{WMAP} WMAP Collaboration, D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J.
441: Suppl. Ser. {\bf 148} (2003) 175.
442:
443: \bibitem{SDSS} SDSS Collaboration, M. Tegmark {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev.
444: D {\bf 69} (2004) 103501.
445:
446: \bibitem{MSSM} For a recent review, we refer to D.J.H. Chung, L.L. Everett,
447: G.L. Kane, S.F. King, J.D. Lykken and L.T. Wang, Phys. Rept. {\bf 407}
448: (2005) 1.
449:
450: \bibitem{LSP_DM} H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419; J. Ellis,
451: J. Hagelin, D. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 127} (1983)
452: 233; J. Ellis, J. Hagelin, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
453: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 238} (1984) 453.
454:
455: \bibitem{SUSY_DM_review} For reviews on supersymmetric dark matter, see, for
456: example, G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. {\bf 267}
457: (1996) 195; G. Bertane, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. {\bf 405} (2005)
458: 279.
459:
460: \bibitem{enhancement_mechanism} H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J.M. Mizukoshi,
461: X. Tata and Y. Wang, JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 050; H. Baer and C. Balazs, JCAP
462: {\bf 0305} (2003) 006; U. Chattopadhyay , A. Corsetti and P. Nath, Phys.
463: Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 035005; J. Ellis, K.A. Olive, Y. Santoso and
464: V.C. Spanos, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 565} (2003) 176; M. Battaglia, A. De Roeck,
465: J.R. Ellis, F. Gianotti, K.A. Olive and L. Pape, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 33}
466: (2004) 273; R. Arnowitt and B. Dutta and B. Hu, hep--ph/0310103; J.R. Ellis,
467: K.A. Olive, Y. Santoso and V.C. Spanos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004) 095004;
468: M.E. Gomez, T. Ibrahim, P. Nath and S. Skadhauge, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}
469: (2004) 035014; J.R. Ellis, S. Heinemeyer, K.A. Olive and G. Weiglein,
470: JHEP {\bf 0502} (2005) 013; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J.L. Kneur,
471: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 055; C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees,
472: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62} (2000) 035012; R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso,
473: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 606} (2001) 59; J.R. Ellis, K.A. Olive and Y. Santoso,
474: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 18} (2003) 395; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J.L. Kneur,
475: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 624} (2005) 60.
476:
477: \bibitem{cp_violating_higgs} A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 096010;
478: Phys. Lett. B 435 (1998) 88; ; D.A. Demir, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60} (1999)
479: 055006; S.Y. Choi, M. Drees and J.S. Lee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 481} (2000) 57;
480: M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 586}
481: (2000) 92; Phys. Lett. B {\bf 495} (2000) 155; T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
482: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63} (2001) 035009; S.W. Ham, S.K. Oh, E.J. Yoo, C.M. Kim
483: and D. Son, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 055003.
484:
485: \bibitem{pilaftsis_wagner} A. Pilaftsis and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B
486: {\bf 553} (1999) 3.
487:
488: \bibitem{complex_mixing_1} A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 504} (1997) 61;
489: J.R. Ellis, J.S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 075010;
490: J.S. Lee, hep-ph/0409020; J.R. Ellis, J.S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys.
491: B {\bf 718} (2005) 247; J.R. Ellis, J.S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev.
492: D {\bf 71} (2005) 075007.
493:
494: \bibitem{CKLZ} S.Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, Y. Liao and P.M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys.
495: J. C {\bf 40} (2005) 555.
496:
497: \bibitem{cp_noninvariant} J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber and J. Kalinowski,
498: in preparation; For a different point of view see also I.F. Ginzburg,
499: M. Krawczyk and P. Osland, hep--ph/0211371; M.N. Dubinin and A.V. Semenov,
500: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 28} (2003) 233.
501:
502: \bibitem{DM_MSSM_CP} P. Gondolo and K. Freese, JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 052;
503: S.Y. Choi, S.-C. Park, J.H. Jang and H.S. Song, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}
504: (2001) 015006; T. Nihei and M. Sagawa, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 055011;
505: T. Nihei, hep--ph/0508285; C. Balazs, M. Carena, A. Menon,
506: D.E. Morrissey and C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71} (2005) 075002.
507:
508: \bibitem{cp_invariant_decoupling} J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D
509: {\bf 67} (2003) 075019.
510:
511: \bibitem{resonant_mixing_zerwas} S. G\"{u}sken, J.H. K\"{u}hn and P.M. Zerwas,
512: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} 262 (1985) 393.
513:
514: \bibitem{EDM} Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Lett. {\bf B249} (1990) 449;
515: I. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 111301; {\bf 60}
516: (1998) 099902(E); {\bf 61} (2000) 093004; M. Brhlik, G.J. Good and
517: G.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 115004; R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and
518: Y. Santos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2000) 113010; V. Barger, T. Falk, T. Han,
519: J. Jiang, T. Li and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 056007;
520: S.Y. Choi, M. Drees and B. Gaissmaier, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 014010.
521:
522: \bibitem{Griest_Seckel} K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43} (1991)
523: 3191.
524:
525: \bibitem{neutralino_mixing} For details on the neutralino mixing in the MSSM,
526: see, for instance, S.Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat--Pick and
527: P.M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 563; {\bf 23} (2002) 769.
528:
529: \bibitem{heavy_Higgs_masses} K. Desch, T. Klimkovich, T. Kuhl and A. Raspereza,
530: hep--ph/0406229; M. Battaglia, hep-ph/0410123; M. Battaglia and M.E. Peskin,
531: hep--ph/0509135.
532:
533: \end{thebibliography}
534:
535: \end{document}
536: