1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \textwidth6.5in

3: \textheight8.7in

4: \oddsidemargin0.0in

5: \topmargin-0.5in

6: \usepackage{epsfig,cite}

7: \usepackage {amsmath}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: \include{epsf}

10: %\usepackage{pdfsync}

11: %%%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

16: \newcount\timecount

17: \newcount\hours \newcount\minutes  \newcount\temp \newcount\pmhours

18: \hours = \time

19: \divide\hours by 60

20: \temp = \hours

21: \multiply\temp by 60

22: \minutes = \time

23: \advance\minutes by -\temp

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

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

26:             \else\the\minutes\fi}

27: \def\clock{

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

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

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

31:             \else\ifnum\hours>12

32:                  \pmhours=\hours

33:                  \advance\pmhours by -12

34:                  \the\pmhours:\minute\ PM

35:                  \fi

36:             \fi

37:       \fi

38: \fi

39: }

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

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

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

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

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

45: 

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

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

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

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

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

51: 

52: \def\draft{$\bold{

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

54: }$\par\noindent}

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

56: 

57: %%%%%%%%%%%% New Command %%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

60: 

61: %%%%%%%%%%%% Environment Short Cuts %%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

64: 

65: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fonts, Special symbols, etc %%%%%

66: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

67: \def\ss{\scriptscriptstyle}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99: %%%%%%%%%%%% Spartners %%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108: \def\stop{\widetilde t}

109: \def\sbot{\widetilde b}

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

111: 

112: %%%%%%%%%% Masses %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

162: \def\mla{m_A}

163: \def\mlb{m_B}

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

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

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

167: 

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

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

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

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

172: 

173: 

174: %%%%%%%%%%%%  NEW FROM VASSILIS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

185: 

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

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

188: 

189: 

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

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

192: \newcommand{\goto}{\rightarrow}

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

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

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

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

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

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

199: 

200: 

201: %%%%%%%%%%%%  END OF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

202:  

203: \begin{document}

204: \begin{titlepage}

205: \pagestyle{empty}

206: \baselineskip=21pt

207: \rightline{\tt hep-ph/0607002}

208: \rightline{CERN-PH-TH/2006-110}

209: \rightline{UMN--TH--2509/06}

210: \rightline{FTPI--MINN--06/23}

211: \vskip 0.2in

212: \begin{center}

213: {\large{\bf What if supersymmetry breaking appears below the GUT scale?}}

214: \end{center}

215: \begin{center}

216: \vskip 0.2in

217: {\bf John~Ellis}$^1$, {\bf Keith~A.~Olive}$^{2}$ and

218: {\bf Pearl Sandick}$^{2}$

219: \vskip 0.1in

220: 

221: {\it

222: $^1${TH Division, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland}\\

223: $^2${William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\

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

225: }

226: 

227: \vskip 0.2in

228: {\bf Abstract}

229: \end{center}

230: \baselineskip=18pt \noindent

231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

232: 

233: We consider the possibility that the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters 

234: $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ of the MSSM

235: are universal at some scale $M_{in}$ below the supersymmetric grand unification

236: scale $M_{GUT}$, as might occur in scenarios where either the primordial 

237: supersymmetry-breaking mechanism or its communication to the observable sector

238: involve a dynamical scale below $M_{GUT}$. We analyze the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$

239: planes of such sub-GUT CMSSM models, noting the dependences of phenomenological,

240: experimental and cosmological constraints on $M_{in}$. In particular, we find that the

241: coannihilation, focus-point and rapid-annihilation funnel regions of the GUT-scale

242: CMSSM approach and merge when $M_{in} \sim 10^{12}$~GeV. We discuss

243: sparticle spectra and the possible sensitivity of LHC measurements to the value

244: of $M_{in}$.

245: 

246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

247: \vfill

248: \leftline{CERN-PH-TH/2006-110}

249: \leftline{June 2006}

250: \end{titlepage}

251: \baselineskip=18pt

252: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

253: 

254: \section{Introduction}

255: 

256: The primary phenomenological reason for expecting supersymmetry to appear

257: at the TeV scale is to ensure the naturalness of the hierarchy of mass

258: scales in fundamental physics \cite{hierarchy}. It is also known to facilitate the

259: construction of simple Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) with no intermediate

260: mass scale, if supersymmetry appears around the TeV scale \cite{gut}. These two 

261: motivations for low-energy supersymmetry arise specifically in theories with large GUT and 

262: Planck mass scales, and are supplemented by other

263: motivations for low-energy supersymmetry, such as cold dark matter \cite{EHNOS} and the

264: existence of a light Higgs boson \cite{erz}.

265: 

266: Supersymmetry is all very nice, but it must be broken, and there is no

267: consensus how this occurs. Presumably the origin of

268: supersymmetry breaking is with a gravitino mass in local supersymmetry \cite{sugr2},

269: but the mechanism for gravitino mass generation is still unclear, as is

270: the manner whereby this breaking is communicated to the supersymmetric

271: partners of observable particles \cite{BIM}. It is often supposed that supersymmetry

272: is initially broken in some Polonyi or hidden sector of the theory \cite{pol,bfs}, and

273: is then transmitted to the spartners of Standard Model particles by

274: either gravitational-strength interactions or some high-scale gauge

275: interactions.

276: 

277: In phenomenological treatments of supersymmetry, the effective observable

278: magnitudes of these supersymmetry-breaking parameters at low scales are

279: then calculated using the renormalization-group equations (RGEs) of the effective

280: low-energy theory, which is typically taken to be the minimal

281: supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) \cite{mssm}. 

282: One often assumes

283: that the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are universal at some high

284: input scale, and we term the resulting constrained model the CMSSM~\cite{cmssm,efgosi,cmssmnew,cmssmmap,like}.

285: However, it should be stressed that not all models of supersymmetry

286: breaking, e.g., in string theory yield such universal input parameters \cite{dterm}.

287: 

288: There is also the question of what input scale should be used to initialize 

289: the renormalization-group running of the soft supersymmetry-breaking 

290: parameters. In most CMSSM studies, this is taken to be the supersymmetric GUT scale

291: $M_{GUT} \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$~GeV, but 

292: this assumption may be questioned. In general, it should probably be taken 

293: as approximately equal to the lowest among the dynamical scales in 

294: the Polonyi or hidden sector where supersymmetry is originally broken, and 

295: the scales of the interactions that transmit this breaking to the 

296: observable MSSM particles. 

297: 

298: One could well imagine scenarios in which the input scale is {\it above}

299: the GUT scale, e.g., if supersymmetry breaking and its mediation are

300: characterized by the Planck or the string scale. In this case, the soft

301: supersymmetry-breaking gaugino masses $m_{1/2}$ would evolve together down to the

302: GUT scale, where they would still be universal, diverging at lower scales

303: according to the conventional MSSM RGEs.  On

304: the other hand, the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses $m_0$ would not in

305: general be universal at the GUT scale $M_{GUT}$, but would be different for

306: different GUT multiplets. For example, in conventional SU(5) the scalar

307: masses of the spartners of the $d_R$ and $\ell_L$ would be identical, but

308: different from those of the spartners of the $q_L, u_R$ and $e_R$, since

309: they come from $\boldmath{\bar{5}}$ and $\boldmath{10}$ representations,

310: respectively. On the other hand, in flipped SU(5) the groupings would be

311: $u_R, \ell_L$ and $q_L, d_R$, with the $e_R$ different again, whereas only

312: in SO(10) would all the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses of the

313: quarks and leptons be universal (but not those of the Higgs bosons). These

314: would be interesting scenarios to study, but are not the objects of this

315: paper.

316: 

317: Here we study instead the equally (if not more) plausible case in which universality applies

318: to the parameters $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ 

319: at some input scale {\it below} the GUT scale. This might occur if the 

320: scale at which supersymmetry is broken dynamically in some hidden sector is smaller than the $M_{GUT}$, for example due to the v.e.v. of

321: some condensate that appears at a lower scale. A partial analogue may be the chiral-symmetry breaking quark condensate in QCD, which generates a `soft' effective quark mass that `dissolves' at scales above $\Lambda_{QCD}$. Alternatively, perhaps `hard' supersymmetry breaking in the

322: hidden sector is communicated to the observable sector by loops of particles weighing less than

323: $M_{GUT}$, which `dissolve' at high scales. In any such sub-GUT CMSSM scenario, the gaugino

324: masses would evolve in the same way as the gauge couplings at the leading

325: (one-loop) level, but from a different

326: starting point, so that their effective values at low energies would be less

327: separated than they are in the usual GUT CMSSM scenario. Likewise, the

328: effective values of the soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses at low

329: energies would also be more similar in a sub-GUT CMSSM than in the usual scenario. 

330: 

331: The renormalization of the gauge couplings would always be the same in

332: sub-GUT CMSSM scenarios, and the successful

333: coupling unification of supersymmetric GUTs would

334: therefore be preserved. However, because the renormalizations of the soft

335: supersymmetry-breaking parameters would differ in these scenarios, as

336: we demonstrate and explain, the regions of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane

337: allowed by experiments and cosmology in such a sub-GUT CMSSM scenario may

338: be very different from those allowed in the usual GUT CMSSM scenario. For

339: example, the impact of the LEP constraint on the MSSM Higgs $h$ is more marked, 

340: because the reduced dependence on $m_{1/2}$ of $m_{\tilde t}$ (which largely 

341: controls $m_h$) implies that only values of $m_{1/2}$ larger than those required

342: in the GUT CMSSM are allowed in a sub-GUT CMSSM.

343: 

344: However, the most dramatic aspect of a sub-GUT CMSSM scenario may be the

345: altered form of the constraint imposed by the relic density of supersymmetric cold dark matter. 

346: We assume that R parity is conserved, so that the lightest supersymmetric particle

347: (LSP) is stable, and hence should be present in the Universe today as a relic from

348: the Big Bang. We further assume that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the 

349: neutralino  $\chi$. In

350: the usual GUT CMSSM scenario, one may distinguish three 

351: well-separated, generic regions of

352: the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane that are allowed by the dark matter constraint 

353: imposed by WMAP~\cite{WMAP} on the relic $\chi$ density: 

354: the coannihilation region \cite{stauco}, 

355: the focus-point region \cite{focus} and the

356: rapid-annihilation funnel region \cite{efgosi,funnel}. In sub-GUT CMSSM models, these regions

357: tend to merge in a striking way as the input supersymmetry-breaking

358: scale is reduced. This behaviour is understandable, stemming from the relations

359: between different MSSM particle masses. In the coannihilation

360: region, the neutralino and lighter stau have very similar masses, whereas

361: in the focus-point region $|\mu| \sim m_W$, and in the funnel region

362: $m_\chi \sim m_A/2$. Because of the different degrees of renormalization

363: of the sparticle masses in sub-GUT CMSSM models, the relations between

364: these masses and the underlying parameters $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ change,

365: causing the three different regions to move and ultimately merge.

366: 

367: \section{Experimental, phenomenological and cosmological constraints

368: in the CMSSM}

369: 

370: We begin by briefly discussing the constraints imposed on a standard 

371: GUT CMSSM model.  This will serve as a baseline for comparison with

372: the sub-GUT CMSSM models which are the focus of this paper.

373: In Fig. \ref{fig:mint}(a), we show the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane in the

374: GUT CMSSM model for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $m_t = 172.5$~GeV~\cite{mt}.  

375: Among the relevant phenomenological constraints shown are  

376: the limits on the chargino mass: $m_{\chi^\pm} > 104$~GeV~\cite{LEPsusy},

377: shown as the near-vertical (black) dashed line at low $m_{1/2}$, 

378: and on the Higgs mass: $m_h >

379: 114$~GeV~\cite{LEPHiggs}, shown as the near-vertical (red) dot-dashed curve

380: at $m_{1/2} \approx 400$ GeV~\footnote{Here and throughout this paper, we use

381: {\tt FeynHiggs}~\cite{FeynHiggs} for the calculation of $m_h$. We do not allow for

382: the possible theoretical and parametric errors in the {\tt FeynHiggs} results, which

383: would allow values of $m_{1/2} \sim 80$~GeV

384: smaller for the value of $\tan \beta = 10$ considered here.}.

385: Another phenomenological constraint is the requirement that

386: the branching ratio for $b \rightarrow

387: s \gamma$ be consistent with the experimental measurements~\cite{bsgex}. 

388: These measurements agree with the Standard Model, and

389: therefore provide bounds on MSSM particles~\cite{bsgth}  and hence

390: the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ parameter space. 

391: At $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$, the bound due to $b \rightarrow

392: s \gamma$ is weak, as is shown by the green shaded region 

393: at low $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$.  Typically, the $b\rightarrow s\gamma$

394: constraint is more important for $\mu < 0$, but it is also relevant for

395: $\mu > 0$,  particularly when $\tan\beta$ is large. 

396: Finally, we display with pink shading the 

397: regions of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane that are favoured by

398: the BNL measurement~\cite{g-2} of $g_\mu - 2$ at the 2-$\sigma$ level, as calculated

399: in the Standard Model using $e^+ e^-$ data~\footnote{The $\pm 1-\sigma$ range of the

400: possible supersymmetric contribution to $g_\mu - 2$ is indicated by dashed lines. 

401: In view of the uncertainty surrounding the Standard Model contribution to $g_\mu - 2$, we

402: consider the implementation of this constraint as purely indicative.}.

403: 

404: \begin{figure}

405: \begin{center}

406: \mbox{\epsfig{file=gutcmssms.eps,height=7cm}}

407: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut14s.eps,height=7cm}}

408: \end{center}

409: \begin{center}

410: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut13s.eps,height=7cm}}

411: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut12.5s.eps,height=7cm}}

412: \end{center}

413: \caption{\it

414: Examples of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes with $\tan \beta = 10$ and 

415: $A_0 = 0$ but with  different values of $M_{in}$.

416: (a) The CMSSM case with $M_{in} = M_{GUT} \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$~GeV, 

417: (b) $M_{in} = 10^{14}$ GeV, 

418: (c) $M_{in} = 10^{13}$ GeV and (d) $M_{in} = 10^{12.5}$ GeV. 

419: In each panel, we show the regions excluded by 

420: the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles, those ruled out by $b

421: \to s \gamma$ decay~\protect\cite{bsgex,bsgth} (medium green shading), and those 

422: excluded 

423: because the LSP would be charged (dark red shading). The region favoured 

424: by the WMAP range $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 =

425: 0.1045^{+0.0072}_{-0.0095}$ has light turquoise shading. The region 

426: suggested by $g_\mu - 2$ is medium (pink) shaded.}

427: \label{fig:mint}

428: \end{figure}

429: 

430: As already mentioned, we assume that R parity is conserved, so that the

431: LSP is stable, and we further assume that the LSP

432: is the lightest neutralino $\chi$.

433: Also shown as the turquoise shaded regions in Fig. \ref{fig:mint} are the parts of

434: the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane where the relic density  of the neutralino LSP $\chi$ falls

435: within the range preferred by  WMAP, 

436: %and other astrophysical and cosmological data, ! we use wmap alone now.

437: namely  $0.085 < \Omega_{CDM} < 0.119$ at the 2-$\sigma$

438: level~\cite{WMAP}.  The cosmological region shown in panel a) corresponds

439: to the $\chi-{\tilde \tau}$ co-annihilation strip~\cite{stauco}.

440: The `bulk' region which existed formerly at small $m_{1/2}$

441: and $m_0$ is excluded for $\tan \beta =10$ with $m_t = 172.5$~GeV

442: by the Higgs mass bound. 

443: 

444: There is an additional region of acceptable relic 

445: density in the GUT CMSSM model, known as the

446: focus-point region~\cite{focus}, which is found

447: at rather higher values of $m_0$.

448: As $m_0$ is increased, the value of $\mu$ at the electroweak scale

449: which is required in the GUT CMSSM to obey

450: the electroweak symmetry breaking conditions eventually begins to drop. 

451: When $\mu \la m_{1/2}$, the composition of the LSP gains a strong Higgsino

452: component, and the relic density begins to drop precipitously.  

453: As $m_0$ is increased further, there is no longer any 

454: consistent solution for $\mu$. The focus-point region is not seen in panel a),

455: since it occurs at $m_0 > 1000$~GeV for the value $m_t = 172.5$~GeV

456: assumed here. However, the focus-point region does appear

457: in the sub-GUT CMSSM models discussed below.

458: 

459: Finally, another region of interest is that created by

460: rapid annihilation via the direct-channel pole mediated by the 

461: Higgs pseudoscalar  $A$ when $m_\chi

462: \sim {1\over 2} m_{A}$~\cite{efgosi,funnel}. We recall that the heavier

463: neutral scalar Higgs boson $H$ is almost degenerate with the pseudoscalar

464: boson $A$, but plays a much less significant role in the annihilation process.

465: Since the heavy scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs masses decrease as  

466: $\tan \beta$ increases, whilst $m_\chi$ is almost fixed by the value of $m_{1/2}$

467: and is largely independent of $m_0$,

468: eventually  $ 2 m_\chi \simeq  m_A$ at any fixed value of $m_{1/2}$. The direct-channel

469: annihilation then becomes rapid, yielding a

470: `funnel' of parameters with acceptable relic density, that extends to large

471: $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ at large $\tan\beta$.  This region is not 

472: present in the GUT CMSSM model at $\tan \beta = 10$, but we will see that 

473: it appears when the input scale for supersymmetry breaking is reduced.

474: The funnel due to rapid annihilation via the light Higgs scalar is excluded

475: in this case by the chargino mass bound, as well as by the Higgs mass bound. 

476: 

477: \section{Lowering the universality scale for soft supersymmetry breaking}

478: 

479: We now explore the consequences of reducing below $M_{GUT}$ the scale at which 

480: universality is assumed for the supersymmetry-breaking parameters $m_{1/2}$ and

481: $m_0$, as might occur if the underlying supersymmetry-breaking mechanism and/or

482: the mechanism for communicating it to the observable sector are characterized by

483: a dynamical scale $M_{in} < M_{GUT}$. One could, in principle, imagine that the 

484: scales at which the $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ parameters are universal

485: might be different, but we do not consider

486: such a possibility here~\footnote{We note, in passing, that we also assume universality 

487: at the same input scale for

488: the soft trilinear supersymmetry-breaking parameters $A$, though this is not

489: of great relevance for our discussion.}.

490: 

491: As already mentioned, at the one-loop level the renormalizations of the gaugino

492: masses $M_a (a = 1, 2, 3)$ are identical with those of the 

493: corresponding gauge coupling strengths $\alpha_a$, so that in a sub-GUT CMSSM

494: \begin{equation}

495: M_a (Q) \; = \; \frac{\alpha_a(Q)}{\alpha_a(M_{in})}M_a(M_{in}),

496: \label{univino}

497: \end{equation}

498: where the input gaugino masses $M_a(M_{in}) =  m_{1/2}$ by

499: assumption. By comparison, in the usual GUT CMSSM, the values of the gaugino

500: masses would already be different at the lower scale $M_{in}$:

501: $M_a(M_{in}) = (\alpha_a(M_{in})/\alpha(GUT)) \times m_{1/2}$. Therefore,

502: in the sub-GUT CMSSM scenario, the low-energy effective 

503: soft supersymmetry-breaking gaugino masses differ from each other by smaller amounts

504: than in the usual GUT CMSSM.

505: 

506: The soft supersymmetry-breaking scalar masses of the different squark and slepton 

507: flavours and Higgs bosons $m_{0_i}$ are renormalized below the universality scale 

508: by both gauge interactions and Yukawa interactions. The latter are important

509: for the stop squarks and the Higgs multiplet 

510: coupled to them, and for the sbottom squarks, stau sleptons and the other Higgs multiplet

511: at large $\tan \beta$. The net effects of these renormalizations may be summarized as

512: follows:

513: \begin{equation}

514: m^2_{0_i}(Q) \; = \; m^2_0(M_{in}) + C_i(Q, M_{in}) m^2_{1/2},

515: \label{suniv}

516: \end{equation}

517: where the calculable renormalization coefficients $C_i(Q, M_{in}) \to 0$ as $Q \to M_{in}$,

518: and, for $M_{in} \ge 10^{11}$~GeV as explored here, $C_i(Q, M_{in}) \to 

519: C_i(Q, M_{GUT})$ monotonically as $M_{in} \to M_{GUT}$. The coefficients

520: $C_i(Q, M_{in})$ are positive for all the squarks and sleptons, but negative for the Higgs 

521: multiplet $H_2$ that is

522: coupled to the top quark, and also for the other Higgs multiplet $H_1$ at large $\tan \beta$

523: when it has large couplings to the bottom quark and $\tau$ lepton.

524: These negative corrections make possible dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking, 

525: if they drive the full quantity (\ref{suniv}) for the corresponding Higgs multiplet negative at 

526: low energies. In our

527: treatment of the sub-GUT CMSSM, we include these effects consistently in the

528: electroweak vacuum conditions.

529: 

530: We see in Figs.~\ref{fig:mint} and \ref{fig:mint2} several features related to these

531: renormalization effects. For example, as $M_{in}$ decreases, we see that the requirement

532: that the LSP not be charged (shown as a brick-red shaded region), 

533: which imposes the bound $m_{\tilde \tau_1} > m_\chi$

534: (where ${\tilde \tau_1}$ is the lighter stau slepton),

535: encroaches on the allowed region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane from the bottom-right

536: corner. This can be understood from the RGE evolution.  As $M_{in}$ decreases,

537: the ratio of the lightest neutralino mass to $m_{1/2}$ increases. Simultaneously, 

538: the coefficient $C_{\tilde {\tau_1}}$ decreases as $M_{in}$ decreases.

539: Both effects go in the same direction of requiring a higher value of $m_0$

540: for a given value of $m_{1/2}$ in order to enforce $m_{\tilde \tau_1} > m_\chi$.  

541: We also see a (purple shaded) bound

542: that encroaches on the allowed region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane from the top-left

543: corner, which is due to the change in the electroweak vacuum conditions. The LEP chargino

544: mass constraint lies just within this boundary, and further within the allowed region is

545: a strip where $\Omega_\chi$ falls within the WMAP range~\footnote{We return later to

546: its detailed morphology and evolution with $M_{in}$.} .

547: This shift in this bound can also be traced directly to the diminished RGE evolution,

548: and can be understood qualitatively from the tree-level solution for $\mu$:

549: \beq

550: \mu^2 = \frac{(m_1^2 - m_2^2 \tan^2 \beta)}{\tan^2 \beta -1} - \frac{M_Z^2}{2}

551: \label{mu2}

552: \eeq

553: where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the soft Higgs masses associated with

554: $H_1$ and $H_2$ and the latter is coupled to the top sector\footnote{Note that our results

555: are based on full two-loop RGEs and not the simple

556: explanatory approximations given in eqs. \ref{univino} - \ref{mu2}.}. For low

557: and moderate values of $\tan \beta$, $m_1^2 > 0$ whilst $m_2^2 < 0$

558: at the weak scale.

559: As $M_{in}$ decreases, the running of $m_1$ and $m_2$ is suppressed

560: and, as a result, the absolute values of both remain closer to $m_0$. 

561: Thus the value of $\mu$ at the weak scale is decreased for any fixed values

562: of $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$, and the line where 

563: $\mu^2$ changes sign is found at a lower value of $m_0$ for any fixed value

564: of $m_{1/2}$.  The purple shaded

565: regions in Figs.~\ref{fig:mint} and \ref{fig:mint2} correspond to regions

566: for which  $\mu^2 < 0$, which are therefore unphysical.   

567: 

568: Finally, we also see that the lower bound

569: on $m_{1/2}$ due to the LEP Higgs constraint becomes more stringent as $M_{in}$

570: decreases. This is because $m_h < m_Z$ at the tree level, with a renormalization

571: that is dominated by a logarithmic dependence on $m_{\tilde t}$. In turn, we see from

572: (\ref{suniv}) that $m_{\tilde t}$ increases with $m_{1/2}$, at a rate that is suppressed as

573: $M_{in}$ is decreased. Thus, one requires a 

574: progressively higher value of $m_{1/2}$ in order to

575: push the lightest CMSSM Higgs mass above the LEP lower limit $m_h > 114$~GeV.

576: 

577: \begin{figure}

578: \begin{center}

579: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut12s.eps,height=7cm}}

580: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut11.9s.eps,height=7cm}}

581: \end{center}

582: \begin{center}

583: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut11.8s.eps,height=7cm}}

584: \mbox{\epsfig{file=subgut11.5s.eps,height=7cm}}

585: \end{center}

586: \caption{\it

587: Examples of $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes with $\tan \beta = 10$ and 

588: $A_0 = 0$ but with  different values of $M_{in}$

589: (a) $M_{in} = 10^{12}$ GeV , (b) $M_{in} = 10^{11.9}$ GeV, 

590: (c) $M_{in} = 10^{11.8}$ GeV and (d) $M_{in} = 10^{11.5}$ GeV. 

591: In each panel, we show the regions excluded by 

592: the LEP lower limits on MSSM particles, those ruled out by $b

593: \to s \gamma$ decay~\protect\cite{bsgex,bsgth} (medium green shading), and those 

594: excluded 

595: because the LSP would be charged (dark red shading). The region favoured 

596: by the WMAP range $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 =

597: 0.1045^{+0.0072}_{-0.0095}$ has light turquoise shading. The region 

598: suggested by $g_\mu - 2$ is medium (pink) shaded.}

599: \label{fig:mint2}

600: \end{figure}

601: 

602: \section{Evolution of the dark matter constraint}

603: 

604: We now discuss separately the evolving impact of the WMAP 

605: relic-density constraint as $M_{in}$

606: is decreased for fixed $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$. 

607: We see in the usual GUT CMSSM scenario in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint} the familiar

608: feature of the $\chi - {\tilde \tau_1}$ coannihilation strip at low $m_0$, which extends from

609: $m_{1/2} \sim 400$~GeV (where it is cut off by the $m_h$ constraint) up to $m_{1/2} \sim

610: 900$~GeV, where it drops down into the forbidden ${\tilde \tau_1}$ LSP 

611: region~\footnote{If the gravitino were light, the ${\tilde \tau_1}$ would become the NLSP

612: in this region, and there would be an allowed region with gravitino dark matter, but we do

613: not explore this possibility here.}. There is no funnel region for this value of $\tan \beta$,

614: and the focus-point region is unseen at larger values of $m_0$. At low $m_{1/2} \sim

615: 150$~GeV, there is a strip where rapid annihilation via the $h$ pole would bring the

616: $\chi$ density into the WMAP range which is, however, forbidden by the LEP chargino

617: constraint and {\it a fortiori} the LEP Higgs constraint.

618: 

619: The picture starts changing already for $M_{in} = 10^{14}$~GeV, as seen in 

620: Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(b). The electroweak vacuum condition is visible at $(m_{1/2}, m_0)

621: \sim (200, 1000)$~GeV, with the chargino constraint close by, and a WMAP strip

622: tracking its boundary with $m_0 \sim 200$~GeV lower. This WMAP strip does not join

623: directly with the coannihilation strip, but is instead deflected via a section of the rapid

624: $h$ annihilation strip at $m_{1/2} \sim 150$~GeV. This behaviour is linked to the

625: $\chi \chi \to WW$ channel, which has a significant threshold in $m_{1/2}$, but 

626: whose importance varies with $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$.  

627: The rate of variation of the relic density in this

628: region is reflected in the thickness of the WMAP-allowed region. 

629: For example, if we follow the relic density at fixed $m_0 = 600$ GeV, we find

630: that at small $m_{1/2}$, the relic density is low due to the 

631: rapid annihilation through the light Higgs.  As $m_{1/2}$ is increased,

632: the density increases and at $m_{1/2} \simeq 170 - 190$ GeV, the density is too high.

633: However at slightly higher $m_{1/2}$, the $WW$ channel opens up,

634: and because $\mu$ is lower relative to its value in the GUT-CMSSM, the

635: relic density drops and becomes small at $m_{1/2} \la 200$ GeV.  

636: As one moves away from the forbidden triangle in the upper left, $\mu$ begins to 

637: increase, and the relic density again begins to increase so that 

638: the relic density is too large when $m_{1/2} \ga 240$ GeV.  Thus, along this horizontal line, we have passed through

639: three regions for which we match the WMAP relic density.

640: The coannihilation strip

641: is rather similar to that in the GUT CMSSM case shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(a).

642: 

643: 

644: There is a more dramatic change for $M_{in} = 10^{13}$~GeV, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(c).

645: Not only has the electroweak vacuum constraint encroached further on the

646: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane, but also the focus-point WMAP strip has receded further away from

647: it, appearing at $m_0 \sim 300$~GeV lower. Moreover, this focus-point strip now connects 

648: smoothly at $m_{1/2} \sim 250$~GeV with the $\chi - {\tilde \tau_1}$ coannihilation strip at 

649: low $m_0$. The coannihilation strip itself exhibits some broadening and embryonic 

650: bifurcation at $m_{1/2} \sim 1000$~GeV, due to the approaching funnel.

651: 

652: The emerging picture is much clearer in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d), where $M_{in} = 

653: 10^{12.5}$~GeV. The focus-point part of the 

654: WMAP strip has now separated further from the electroweak vacuum boundary, but also

655: the linked `coannihilation' portion of the WMAP strip has separated from the

656: ${\tilde \tau_1}$ LSP boundary, by an amount that increases with $m_{1/2}$. In fact,

657: we now recognize the region at large $m_{1/2}$ as the opening of a characteristic

658: rapid $A, H$ annihilation funnel, of the type seen in the GUT CMSSM only when

659: $\tan \beta \sim 50$ for $\mu > 0$ as studied here. On the further side of the funnel,

660: at $m_{1/2} \sim 900$~GeV, we now see more clearly the bifurcation of the second

661: funnel wall from the continuing coannihilation strip.

662: 

663: The changes described above accelerate as $M_{in}$ decreases further, as seen in

664: Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}. For $M_{in} = 10^{12}$~GeV, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}(a),

665: the former focus-point, lower coannihilation and funnel regions merge into a WMAP

666: ellipse that encloses just a small region where the $\chi$ relic density is too large.

667: The further wall of the funnel and the continuation of the coannihilation strip form a

668: well-developed `vee' shape that extends to much larger values of $m_{1/2}$ than

669: those shown here.

670: 

671: Even more strikingly, when $M_{in}$ is reduced slightly to $10^{11.9}$~GeV, as

672: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}(b), the ellipse is now filled up. This is the culmination of

673: a trend, noticeable already in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}, for the WMAP regions to

674: broaden as well as merge as $M_{in}$ decreases. The possibility that the LSP

675: relic density falls within the WMAP range therefore appears more `natural'.

676: Moreover, we see in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}(a), (b) that it is increasingly `unlikely' that

677: the relic density will exceed the WMAP range, whereas this appeared much

678: more `likely' in the GUT CMSSM case shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(a). Whether one

679: worries about the `naturalness' of supersymmetric dark matter or not, it is

680: nevertheless interesting that there is less cause for worry when $M_{in}

681: \sim 10^{12}$~GeV.

682: 

683: The situation changes again with just a small change to $M_{in} = 10^{11.8}$~GeV,

684: as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}. The ellipse has now almost evaporated, with the

685: relic density falling below the range favoured by WMAP over most of the visible part of

686: the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane~\footnote{These regions would of course still be acceptable for

687: cosmology, if there were another important source of cold dark matter.}. The only region

688: with an excessive amount of cold dark matter is inside the `vee' at large $m_{1/2}$.

689: Note also, that the region favoured by the relic density no longer overlaps with

690: the region preferred by  the $g_\mu - 2$ anomaly.   

691: 

692: Finally, when $M_{in} = 10^{11.5}$~GeV, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d), the

693: ellipse favoured by WMAP has disappeared completely We also notice that the

694: large-$m_{1/2}$ `vee' starts to fill in, with a new generic region of acceptable relic

695: density now appearing. This is due, in particular, to the opening up of new 

696: annihilation channels such $(H,A) + Z, H^\pm + W^\mp$ that are sufficient to bring 

697: the relic density down into the WMAP range. At lower values of $M_{in} \to 10^{10}$~GeV

698: (not shown), the electroweak vacuum boundary continues to press downwards and the relic 

699: density is always below the favoured WMAP range for $m_\chi < m_A/2$. 

700: The relic density lies within

701: the WMAP range only along narrow strips close to the top and bottom of the `vee' where $m_\chi

702: \ge m_A/2, m_{\tilde \tau_1}$.

703: To better understand this behaviour, let us look at the density at fixed $m_{1/2} = 900$ GeV.

704: At large $m_0$, the annihilation cross section is large dominated by the 

705: broad s-channel pole through the heavy Higgses, $H$ and $A$.  

706: As $m_0$ is lowered, $2m_\chi$ becomes larger than $m_A$, and at $m_0 \approx 700$,

707: the WMAP density is attained.  As one moves to lower $m_0$, away from the pole, the relic density 

708: increases, but the heavy Higgs masses decrease opening up the $H^\pm + W^\mp$

709: channel when $m_0 \approx 630$ GeV and the $(H,A) + Z$ at slightly lower $m_0$.

710: In this region of the parameter space, the $s$-wave annihilation cross section is 

711: dominant and decreases as $m_0$ is lowered, so there is a modest increase in the density 

712: and the WMAP value is obtained again when $m_0 \la 600$ GeV.

713: At still lower $m_0$, yet another channel opens up. At $m_0 \la 560$ GeV, the $h,A$ channel

714: is open and the density once again drops below the WMAP value. 

715: As we continue to move off of the Higgs funnel, the $h,A$ contribution slowly decreases

716: and the density rises and surpasses the WMAP value. At this value of $m_{1/2}$, 

717: we are past the endpoint of $\chi-{\tilde \tau}$ coannihilation and the density is too large as 

718: we enter the $\tilde \tau$ LSP region. 

719: 

720: If we continue to lower the supersymmetry breaking input scale, $M_{in}$, 

721: we find that the region seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d) begins to evaporate.

722: At $M_{in} = 10^{11.2}$~GeV, it is gone, but the $\chi-{\tilde \tau}$ coannihilation region

723: has returned for $M_{1/2} \ga 600$ GeV. The lower end of the coannihilation region continues

724: to move to higher $M_{1/2}$ as $M_{in}$ is decreased, so that when $M_{in} < 10^{10}$ GeV,

725: the lower end of the coannihilation region is at $M_{1/2} \approx 900$ GeV.

726: 

727: 

728: \section{Evolution of sparticle masses}

729: 

730: We now discuss the extent to which the results presented in the previous Section

731: can be understood in terms of the evolution of sparticle masses with $M_{in}$,

732: and the corresponding implications for and of sparticle measurements at colliders such as

733: the LHC.

734: 

735: We display in Fig.~\ref{fig:linear} two examples of the evolution of sparticle mass

736: parameters with $M_{in}$ in the focus-point region. Panel (a) is for $(m_{1/2}, m_0)

737: = (200, 1000)$~GeV, and panel (b) for $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (500, 1000)$~GeV. In

738: each case, we show the evolution of the unmixed electroweak gaugino mass

739: $M_1$ (blue dotted lines), the Higgs soft mass represented by $sgn(m_2^2)(\sqrt{|m_2^2|})$ 

740: (turquoise dot-dashed lines), the absolute value of $\mu$ (red dashed lines)

741: and the LSP mass $m_\chi$ (solid black line). 

742: We see that, as $M_{in}$ decreases from the GUT

743: value of $2 \times 10^{16}$~GeV, both $|\sqrt{m_2^2}|$ and particularly $|\mu|$

744: plummet precipitously, whereas the gaugino masses $M_{1,2}$ evolve more slowly.

745: In the GUT CMSSM, $m_\chi$ is essentially equal to $M_1$, but this changes as

746: $M_{in}$ decreases, and $m_\chi$ is given by $|\mu|$ when this is small. In both

747: the examples shown, the first disaster to occur as $M_{in}$ decreases is that

748: $|\mu|$ vanishes, which marks the boundary of the region of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$

749: plane allowed by the electroweak vacuum conditions. The disallowed regions are

750: shaded (purple): this boundary reaches the point $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (200, 1000)$~GeV 

751: shown in panel (a) when $M_{in} \sim 10^{14.5}$~GeV, whereas Armageddon

752: is postponed until $M_{in} \sim 10^{11.4}$~GeV for the point $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = 

753: (500, 1000)$~GeV shown in panel (b). In both the cases studied, $\sqrt{|m_2^2|}$

754: does not vanish until well inside the region disallowed by the electroweak vacuum

755: conditions. We have seen the consequences of this behavior 

756: in Figs. \ref{fig:mint} and \ref{fig:mint2} as the encroachment of the 

757: region where the electroweak symmetry breaking conditions are not obeyed.

758: 

759: \begin{figure}

760: \begin{center}

761: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mass1s.eps,height=7cm}}

762: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mass2s.eps,height=7cm}}

763: \end{center}

764: \begin{center}

765: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mass3s.eps,height=7cm}}

766: \mbox{\epsfig{file=mass4s.eps,height=7cm}}

767: \end{center}\caption{\it

768: Mass parameters as functions of $M_{in}$ in the focus-point

769: region, for (a) $(m_{1/2}, m_0)

770: = (200, 1000)$~GeV, and (b) $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (500, 1000)$~GeV, and in

771: the funnel region for (c) $(m_{1/2}, m_0)

772: = (1000, 400)$~GeV, and (d) $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 800)$~GeV.}

773: \label{fig:linear}

774: \end{figure}

775: 

776: In panel (a), the relic neutralino density exceeds the WMAP upper

777: limit in the GUT CMSSM, and the relic density falls as $M_{in}$ decreases. There

778: is a narrow range of $M_{in} \sim 10^{15}$~GeV where the density falls within

779: the favoured WMAP range, and it then falls to zero as $|\mu|$ and hence 

780: $m_\chi$ vanishes. In panel (b), there is a similar sequence of events, with the

781: WMAP range attained at a lower value of $M_{in} \sim 10^{13.2}$~GeV.

782: 

783: Panels (c) and (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:linear} provide analogous displays of the

784: evolution of mass parameters with $M_{in}$ in the funnel region, for

785: $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 400)$~GeV and $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 800)$~GeV,

786: respectively. Here, in addition to $M_1$, $\mu$, $|\sqrt{m_2^2}|$ and $m_\chi$, we also 

787: plot $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ and $m_A/2$. The evolution of

788: $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ is undramatic. 

789: As in panels (a) and (b), the physical region is bounded by the vanishing of $\mu$ and hence

790: $m_\chi$, which occurs at $M_{in} \sim 10^{6.5}$~GeV and $M_{in} \sim 10^{8.3}$~GeV

791: in cases (c) and (d), respectively. As in the cases (a) and (b), the LSP mass tracks

792: $M_1$ at large $M_{in}$ and then $\mu$ at smaller $M_{in}$ after the values of

793: $\mu$ and $M_1$ cross.

794: 

795: Among the more interesting aspects of panels (c) and (d) are the comparisons

796: between $m_\chi$ and $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$, on the one hand, and between

797: $m_\chi$ and $m_A/2$, on the other hand. In panel (c), we see that $m_\chi$

798: rises above $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ 

799: (which is unacceptable) when $M_{in}$ falls to $\sim 10^{14}$~GeV, 

800: a feature visible also in panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}, where we notice that

801: the point $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 400)$~GeV sits on the boundary of the

802: stau LSP region for this value of $M_{in}$. We also note that $m_\chi$ falls

803: (with $\mu$) below $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ when $M_{in} < 10^9$~GeV, an effect not

804: visible in our previous scans of the $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ planes

805: in Figs.~\ref{fig:mint} and \ref{fig:mint2}, where we only

806: considered $M_{in} \ge 10^{11.5}$~GeV. In panel (d), we again see the

807: crossover from $m_\chi \sim M_1$ to $m_\chi \sim \mu$, whereas $m_{\tilde \tau_1}

808: > m_\chi$ in this case.

809: 

810: Comparing now $m_\chi$ with $m_A/2$, we see in panel (c) that in the

811: case $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 400)$~GeV they become equal only in the

812: stau LSP region when $M_{in}  \sim 10^{13}$~GeV, whereas in the case

813: $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 800)$~GeV shown in panel (d) $m_\chi$ and $m_A/2$

814: become equal twice, when $M_{in} \sim 10^{12}$ and $10^{10.5}$~GeV, and

815: $m_\chi$ and $m_A/2$ are quite similar for intermediate and adjacent values

816: of $M_{in}$.

817: 

818: Since the relation between $m_\chi$ and $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ is very important

819: for coannihilation, and that between $m_\chi$ and $m_A/2$ is very important

820: for the rapid-annihilation funnel, these crossover patterns have important

821: effects on the relic $\chi$ density, and enable us to understand some

822: features of Figs.~\ref{fig:mint} and \ref{fig:mint2}. Specifically, for 

823: $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 400)$~GeV as shown in panel (c) of Fig.~\ref{fig:linear},

824: the approach towards $m_\chi = m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ as $M_{in} \to 10^{14}$~GeV

825: is responsible for a significant reduction in the dark matter density. The relic

826: density is also reduced for the case $(m_{1/2}, m_0) = (1000, 800)$~GeV

827: shown in panel (d) of Fig.~\ref{fig:linear} as $M_{in} \to 10^{12.5}$~GeV,

828: as also seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}. The relic density then remains below the

829: range favoured by WMAP as $M_{in} \to 10^{11.8}$~GeV, as seen in the

830: first three panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}. On the other hand, the density rises to

831: the favoured WMAP range when $M_{in} = 10^{11.5}$~GeV, and would even

832: exceed the WMAP range for smaller values of $M_{in}$. This is because $m_\chi$

833: is now greater than $m_A/2$. However, we expect the density to fall again as

834: $M_{in}$ decreases further and $m_\chi$ decreases again and crosses $m_A/2$

835: a second time.

836: 

837: \section{Implications for collider searches}

838: 

839: It is clear that the prospects for searches for supersymmetry at the LHC and

840: other colliders depend on the value of $M_{in}$ assumed. One may also

841: ask to what extent collider measurements could be used to extract the

842: value of $M_{in}$, at least within a specific CMSSM framework. These are

843: complicated issues whose full investigation would extend far beyond the scope of 

844: this exploratory study. Here we restrict our attention to two specific scans across the

845: $(m_{1/2}, m_0)$ plane for $\tan \beta = 10$ and $\mu > 0$ as functions of $M_{in}$, 

846: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:linear2}. 

847: In scan (a), we first fix $m_{1/2} = 700$~GeV and then, for each value of $M_{in}$, find

848: the values(s) of $m_0$ that yield a relic density within the range favoured by WMAP.

849: Then, for each of these WMAP-compatible choices of $m_0$, we calculate the

850: masses of some interesting sparticles, namely $\chi, {\tilde \tau_1}, \chi_2, {\tilde q_R}$

851: and ${\tilde g}$ and finally we plot their dependences on $M_{in}$. 

852: In scan (b), we instead first fix $m_0 = 700$~GeV, then find,

853: for each value of $M_{in}$, the value(s) of $m_{1/2}$ yielding the WMAP relic density,

854: and finally plot the same set of masses as functions of $M_{in}$.

855: 

856: \begin{figure}

857: \begin{center}

858: \mbox{\epsfig{file=scan2s.eps,height=8cm}}

859: \mbox{\epsfig{file=scan1s.eps,height=8cm}}

860: \end{center}

861: \caption{\it

862: Sparticle masses for sub-GUT CMSSM models chosen to be compatible with the WMAP

863: relic-density constraint for $\tan \beta = 10, A = 0, \mu > 0$ and (a) $m_{1/2} = 700$~GeV,

864: (b) $m_0 = 700$~GeV.  For each value of $M_{in}$, we choose (a) $m_0$ and (b)

865: $m_{1/2}$ so as to respect WMAP, and then plot the corresponding sparticle masses as

866: functions of $M_{in}$.}

867: \label{fig:linear2}

868: \end{figure}

869: 

870: In the case of the first scan at fixed $m_{1/2} = 700$~GeV shown in

871: Fig.~\ref{fig:linear2}(a), as $M_{in}$ decreases from $2 \times

872: 10^{16}$~GeV towards $10^{13}$~GeV, we see that $m_{\tilde g}$ and

873: $m_{\tilde q_R}$ decrease gradually, whereas $m_\chi, m_{\tilde \tau_1}$

874: and $m_{\chi_2}$ increase gradually. The behaviours of $m_{\tilde g}$ and

875: $m_\chi$ are simply due to their reduced mass renormalizations as $M_{in}$

876: decreases. In the case of $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$, at large $M_{in}$, one must

877: choose $m_0$ to lie within the WMAP coannihilation strip, so that the

878: relic density remains within the allowed range. This requires $m_{\tilde

879: \tau_1}$ to be only very slightly larger than $m_\chi$~\footnote{For this

880: reason, the (red) ${\tilde \tau_1}$ points are scarcely visible along the

881: (green) $\chi$ line.}, so it also increases as $M_{in}$ decreases. In the

882: case of $m_{\tilde q_R}$, there are effects due to both the reduced mass

883: renormalization and the WMAP-induced change in $m_0$, the former being

884: dominant. A new phenomenon appears as $M_{in} \to 10^{13}$~GeV, namely, as

885: seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d), the WMAP strip at small $m_0$ moves away

886: from the coannihilation limit, and $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ increases much more

887: rapidly than $m_\chi$. Also, a new branch of the WMAP strip

888: appears~\footnote{This branch, associated with the focus point, exists at

889: larger $M_{in}$ as well, but it does not appear in our scan, because it

890: only extends to $m_0 = 1500$~GeV.} at large $m_0$, in which $m_{\tilde

891: \tau_1}$ decreases as $M_{in} \to 10^{12}$~GeV: similar behaviour is

892: apparent for $m_{\tilde q_R}$. For points in the upper $m_0$ branch, the

893: $\chi_2$ has a lower mass and is predominantly Higgsino in content,

894: whereas in the lower $m_0$ branch the $\chi_2$ is mostly wino.  When

895: $M_{in} \sim 10^{12}$~GeV as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mint2}, the two

896: branches of the WMAP strip merge, as do the two possible values of

897: $m_{\tilde \tau_1}, m_{\tilde q_R}$ and $m_{\chi_2}$. However, appearing

898: already at $M_{in}$ slightly larger than $10^{12}$~GeV, we see new,

899: somewhat lower ranges of allowed values of $m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ and

900: $m_{\tilde q_R}$ (and higher values of $m_{\chi_2}$), which correspond to

901: the wedge of allowed $m_0$ values inside the `vee' visible in

902: Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d) for $m_{1/2}$ beyond the rapid-annihilation funnel.

903: It is apparent that the spectra allowed by WMAP are very sensitive to the

904: assumed value of $M_{in}$. For example, a determination of the ratio

905: $m_\chi/m_{\tilde g}$ with an accuracy of 4~\% (which may be possible at

906: the LHC) would by itself fix $M_{in}$ to within an order of magnitude, in

907: the restricted set of models considered here.

908: 

909: In the case of the second scan at $m_0 = 700$~GeV, we see in

910: Fig.~\ref{fig:mint} that due to the Higgs mass bound (we use here the

911: value of 112 GeV calculated using {\tt FeynHiggs}, so as to account for

912: theoretical uncertainties), a suitable WMAP strip appears only when

913: $M_{in} \la 10^{13}$~GeV, and this is reflected in the disappearance of

914: the sparticle mass lines just above $M_{in} = 10^{13}$~GeV in

915: Fig.~\ref{fig:linear2}(b). As $M_{in}$ decreases, two of the branches for

916: each sparticle mass merge. However, there are two other branches, one

917: appearing near $M_{in} \sim 10^{13}$~GeV and the other closer to $M_{in}

918: \sim 10^{12}$~GeV. These are due to the appearance of the WMAP-allowed

919: `vee' seen close to the $m_\chi = m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ line in

920: Fig.~\ref{fig:mint}(d) {\it et seq.}. In this case, we see that the

921: WMAP-allowed values of the sparticle masses vary rapidly for $M_{in} \in

922: (10^{12}, 10^{13})$~GeV. This another example how LHC measurements of

923: sparticle masses would help fix the magnitude of $M_{in}$ in this

924: restricted set of models.

925: 

926: \section{Discussion}

927: 

928: We have presented a first exploration of the dependence of the $(m_{1/2},

929: m_0)$ plane for $\tan \beta = 10, A = 0, \mu > 0$ on the scale $M_{in}$ at

930: which the input soft supersymmetry-breaking CMSSM mass parameters

931: $m_{1/2}$ and $m_0$ are assumed to be universal. We have displayed and

932: explained how the phenomenological, experimental and cosmological

933: constraints vary with $M_{in}$. In particular, we have shown that the

934: morphology of the region favoured by the WMAP range of the relic density

935: changes with $M_{in}$. Specifically, the focus point region at large $m_0$

936: the coannihilation strip and the rapid-annihilation funnel at large

937: $m_{1/2}$ approach each other and merge as $M_{in}$ decreases to $\sim

938: 10^{12}$~GeV. Consequently, the values of the sparticle masses that would

939: be compatible with WMAP depend on $M_{in}$, and measurements at the LHC

940: may be able to offer some hints about the value of $M_{in}$ within such

941: sub-GUT CMSSM scenarios.

942: 

943: It is desirable to extend this discussion to other values of the CMSSM

944: parameters $\tan \beta$ and $A$. It would also be interesting to extend

945: this analysis to less constrained versions of the MSSM, such as models

946: with non-universal Higgs masses, and also more constrained versions of the

947: MSSM motivated by minimal supergravity. It would also be valuable to

948: extend the brief discussion given here of the corresponding spectra and

949: the prospects for the LHC and ILC to `measure' indirectly the value of

950: $M_{in}$. We plan to return to these issues in a future paper.

951: 

952: 

953: \section*{Acknowledgments}

954: \noindent 

955: The work of K.A.O. and P.S. was supported in part

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

957: 

958: 

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

963: 

964: \bibitem{hierarchy}

965: E.~Witten,

966: %``Dynamical Breaking Of Supersymmetry,''

967: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 188} (1981) 513;

968: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B188,513;%%

969: N.~Sakai,

970: %``Naturalness In Supersymmetric 'Guts',''

971: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 11} (1981) 153;

972: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C11,153;%%

973: S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,

974: %``Softly Broken Supersymmetry And SU(5),''

975: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193} (1981) 150;

976: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,150;%%

977: R.~K.~Kaul and P.~Majumdar,

978: %``Cancellation Of Quadratically Divergent Mass Corrections In Globally Supersymmetric Spontaneously Broken Gauge Theories,''

979: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 199} (1982) 36.

980: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B199,36;%%

981: 

982: \bibitem{gut}

983: J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Kelley and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

984: %``Probing The Desert Using Gauge Coupling Unification,''

985: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 131;

986: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,131;%%

987: U.~Amaldi, W.~de Boer and H.~Furstenau,

988: %``Comparison of grand unified theories with electroweak and strong coupling constants measured at LEP,''

989: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 447;

990: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,447;%%

991: P.~Langacker and M.~x.~Luo,

992: %``Implications of precision electroweak experiments for M(t), rho(0), sin**2-Theta(W) and grand unification,''

993: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 817;

994: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,817;%%

995: C.~Giunti, C.~W.~Kim and U.~W.~Lee,

996: %``Running Coupling Constants And Grand Unification Models,''

997: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 6} (1991) 1745.

998: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A6,1745;%%

999: 

1000: 

1001: \bibitem{EHNOS}

1002: J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive

1003: and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 238} (1984) 453; see also

1004: H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 50} (1983) 1419.

1005: 

1006: \bibitem{erz}

1007:  J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,

1008:   %``Radiative Corrections To The Masses Of Supersymmetric Higgs Bosons,''

1009:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257} (1991) 83;

1010:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%

1011:   %``On radiative corrections to supersymmetric Higgs boson masses and their

1012:   %implications for LEP searches,''

1013:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 262} (1991) 477;

1014:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B262,477;%%

1015:   A.~Yamada,

1016:   %``Radiative corrections to the Higgs masses in the minimal supersymmetric

1017:   %standard model,''

1018:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 263}, 233 (1991);

1019:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B263,233;%%

1020: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1021:   %``One loop corrections to the Higgs sector in minimal supergravity models,''

1022:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 2482;

1023:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,2482;%%

1024:   P.~H.~Chankowski, S.~Pokorski and J.~Rosiek,

1025:   %``Charged and neutral supersymmetric Higgs boson masses: Complete one loop

1026:   %analysis,''

1027:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 274} (1992) 191;

1028:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B274,191;%%

1029: %``One loop corrections to the supersymmetric Higgs boson couplings and LEP

1030:   %phenomenology,''

1031:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 286} (1992) 307;

1032:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B286,307;%%

1033: A.~Dabelstein,

1034:   %``The One loop renormalization of the MSSM Higgs sector and its application

1035:   %to the neutral scalar Higgs masses,''

1036:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 495

1037:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9409375];

1038:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409375;%%

1039:   M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1040:   %``Renormalization-group-improved effective potential for the MSSM Higgs

1041:   %sector with explicit CP violation,''

1042:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586} (2000) 92

1043:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0003180];

1044:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003180;%%

1045:   A.~Katsikatsou, A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1046:   %``On the radiative corrections to the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson mass,''

1047:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 501} (2001) 69

1048:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0011370].

1049:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011370;%%

1050: 

1051: \bibitem{sugr2}

1052: E. Cremmer, B. Julia, J. Scherk, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and P. Van 

1053: Nieuwenhuizen, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 79B} (1978) 231; 

1054: and Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B147} (1979) 105;  

1055: E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 116B} 

1056: (1982) 231; and Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B212} (1983) 413;  

1057: R. Arnowitt, A.H. Chamseddine 

1058: and P. Nath, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 49} (1982) 970; 

1059: {\bf 50} (1983) 232 and Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 

1060: 121B} (1983) 33;  

1061: J. Bagger and E. Witten, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 115B} (1982) 202 and {\bf 118B} (1982) 

1062: 103;  

1063: J. Bagger, Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B211} (1983) 302.

1064: 

1065: \bibitem{BIM}

1066: For reviews, see:

1067: H.~P.~Nilles, Phys. Rep. {\bf 110} (1984) 1;

1068: A.~Brignole, L.~E.~Ibanez and C.~Munoz,

1069: arXiv:hep-ph/9707209,

1070: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707209;%%

1071: published in {\it Perspectives on supersymmetry}, ed.

1072: G.~L.~Kane, pp. 125-148. 

1073: 

1074: \bibitem{pol} 

1075: J. Polonyi, Budapest preprint KFKI-1977-93 (1977).

1076: 

1077: \bibitem{bfs} 

1078: R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C.A. Savoy, Phys.\ Lett. {\bf 119B} (1982) 343.

1079: 

1080: \bibitem{mssm}

1081: For a review see e.g. 

1082: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane,

1083: %``The Search For Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond The Standard Model,''

1084: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 117} (1985) 75.

1085: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{cmssm}

1088: M.~Drees and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1089: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 376 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207234];

1090: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207234;%%

1091: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

1092: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 597 [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321] 

1093: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

1094: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Schmitt,

1095: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in the light of LEP 1.5,''

1096: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 388} (1996) 97

1097: [arXiv:hep-ph/9607292];

1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607292;%%

1099: %J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Schmitt,

1100: %``Constraints on neutralino dark matter from LEP2 and cosmology,''

1101: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 413} (1997) 355

1102: [arXiv:hep-ph/9705444];

1103: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705444;%%

1104: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Schmitt,

1105: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 095002

1106: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801445];

1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801445;%%

1108: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis and K.~A.~Olive,

1109: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 075010

1110: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004169];

1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004169;%%

1112: V.~D.~Barger and C.~Kao,

1113: %``Relic density of neutralino dark matter in supergravity models,''

1114: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 3131

1115: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704403].

1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704403;%%

1117: 

1118: \bibitem{efgosi}

1119: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1120: %``The CMSSM parameter space at large tan(beta),''

1121: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510} (2001) 236

1122: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102098].

1123: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102098;%%

1124: 

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{cmssmnew}

1127: V.~D.~Barger and C.~Kao,

1128: %``Implications of new CMB data for neutralino dark matter,''

1129: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518} (2001) 117

1130: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106189];

1131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106189;%%

1132: L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,

1133: %``New cosmological and experimental constraints on the CMSSM,''

1134: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 024

1135: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106334];

1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106334;%%

1137: A.~B.~Lahanas and V.~C.~Spanos,

1138: %``Implications of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson in determining the  neutralino dark matter,''

1139: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 185

1140: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106345];

1141: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106345;%%

1142: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

1143: %``Constraints on the minimal supergravity model and prospects for SUSY  particle production at future linear e+ e- colliders,''

1144: JHEP {\bf 0108} (2001) 055

1145: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107316];

1146: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107316;%%

1147: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1148: %``Supersymmetric dark matter and Yukawa unification,''

1149: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 035003

1150: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201001];

1151: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201001;%%

1152: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso,

1153: %``Constraining supersymmetry,''

1154: New Jour.\ Phys.\  {\bf 4} (2002) 32

1155: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202110];

1156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202110;%%

1157: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, J.~K.~Mizukoshi, X.~Tata and Y.~Wang,

1158: %``Updated constraints on the minimal supergravity model,''

1159: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 050

1160: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205325];

1161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205325;%%

1162: R.~Arnowitt and B.~Dutta,

1163: arXiv:hep-ph/0211417.

1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211417;%%

1165: 

1166: \bibitem{cmssmmap}

1167: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1168: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in light of WMAP,''

1169: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 176

1170: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303043];

1171: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303043;%%

1172: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs,

1173: arXiv:hep-ph/0303114;

1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303114;%%

1175: A.~B.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1176: %``WMAPing out supersymmetric dark matter and phenomenology,''

1177: arXiv:hep-ph/0303130;

1178: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303130;%%

1179: U.~Chattopadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1180: %``WMAP constraints, SUSY dark matter and implications for the direct  detection of SUSY,''

1181: arXiv:hep-ph/0303201;

1182: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303201;%%

1183:  C.~Munoz,

1184:                hep-ph/0309346.

1185:                %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309346;%%

1186: 

1187: 

1188: \bibitem{like}

1189: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1190:   %``Likelihood analysis of the CMSSM parameter space,''

1191:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 095004

1192:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310356];

1193:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310356;%%

1194: J.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1195:                 {\em JHEP} {\bf 0502} 013,

1196:                 hep-ph/0411216;

1197:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411216;%%

1198:              B.~Allanach and C.~Lester,

1199:                 {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D 73} (2006) 015013, 

1200:                 hep-ph/0507283;

1201:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507283;%%

1202:                 B.~Allanach,

1203:                 hep-ph/0601089;

1204:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601089;%%

1205:                 R.~de Austri, R.~Trotta and L.~Roszkowski,

1206:                 hep-ph/0602028;

1207:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602028;%%

1208: J.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1209:   %``Phenomenological indications of the scale of supersymmetry,''

1210:   arXiv:hep-ph/0602220.

1211:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602220;%%

1212:   

1213:   \bibitem{dterm}

1214:   A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath,

1215:   %``Gaugino mass nonuniversality and dark matter in SUGRA, strings and D  brane

1216:   %models,''

1217:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 125010

1218:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0003186];

1219:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003186;%%

1220:   R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,

1221:   %``Coannihilation effects in supergravity and D-brane models,''

1222:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 59

1223:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0102181];

1224:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

1225:   D.~G.~Cerdeno, E.~Gabrielli, S.~Khalil, C.~Munoz, E.~Torrente-Lujan and E.~Torrente-Lujan,

1226:   %``Determination of the string scale in D-brane scenarios and dark matter

1227:   %implications,''

1228:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 603} (2001) 231

1229:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0102270].

1230:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102270;%%

1231:   

1232:   \bibitem{WMAP} D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1233:   %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results:

1234:   %Implications for Cosmology,''

1235:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0603449].

1236:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%

1237: 

1238:   

1239:   

1240:   \bibitem{stauco}

1241: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~A.~Olive,

1242: %``Neutralino stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the  mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle,''

1243: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 444} (1998) 367

1244: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810360];

1245: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810360;%%

1246: J.~R.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~A.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,

1247: %``Calculations of neutralino stau coannihilation channels and the  cosmologically relevant region of MSSM parameter space,''

1248: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 13} (2000) 181

1249: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 15} (2001) 413]

1250: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905481];

1251: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905481;%%

1252: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,

1253: %``Coannihilation effects in supergravity and D-brane models,''

1254: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606} (2001) 59

1255: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102181];

1256: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102181;%%

1257: M.~E.~G\'omez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis,

1258: Phys. Rev. D {\bf D61} (2000) 123512

1259: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907261];

1260: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907261;%%

1261:   Phys.\ Lett. {\bf B487} (2000) 313

1262: [arXiv:hep-ph/0004028];

1263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004028;%%

1264:   Nucl. Phys. B {\bf B638} (2002) 165

1265: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203131];

1266: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203131;%%

1267: T.~Nihei, L.~Roszkowski and R.~Ruiz de Austri,

1268: %``Exact cross sections for the neutralino slepton coannihilation,''

1269:   JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 024

1270: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206266].

1271: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206266;%%

1272: 

1273: \bibitem{focus}

1274: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1275:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 2322;

1276: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1277: Phys.\ Rev. {\bf D61} (2000) 075005;

1278: J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and F.~Wilczek,

1279: Phys.\ Lett.   {\bf B482} (2000) 388.

1280:   

1281: \bibitem{funnel}

1282: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik,

1283: %``Cosmological relic density from minimal supergravity

1284: %with implications for collider physics,''

1285: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 597

1286: [arXiv:hep-ph/9508321];

1287: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508321;%%

1288: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~A.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante,  

1289: P.~Quintana and X.~Tata,

1290: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 015007

1291: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005027];

1292: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005027;%%

1293: A.~B.~Lahanas and V.~C.~Spanos,

1294: %``Implications of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson in determining the  neutralino dark matter,''

1295: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 185

1296: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106345].

1297: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106345;%%

1298: 

1299: 

1300: \bibitem{mt}

1301: Tevatron Electroweak Working Group,

1302: {\it Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark},

1303:   arXiv:hep-ex/0603039.

1304:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603039;%%

1305:   

1306: \bibitem{LEPsusy}

1307: Joint LEP~2 Supersymmetry Working Group,

1308: {\it Combined LEP Chargino Results up to 208 GeV}, \\

1309: {\tt http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos{\_}moriond01/%

1310: charginos{\_}pub.html}.

1311:   

1312:   

1313: \bibitem{LEPHiggs}

1314: LEP Higgs Working Group for Higgs boson searches, OPAL Collaboration,

1315: ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration and L3

1316: Collaboration,

1317: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].

1318: {\it Search for neutral Higgs bosons at LEP}, paper submitted to 

1319: ICHEP04, Beijing,

1320: LHWG-NOTE-2004-01, ALEPH-2004-008, DELPHI-2004-042, L3-NOTE-2820,

1321: OPAL-TN-744, \\

1322: {\tt 

1323: http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/August2004{\_}MSSM/index.html}.

1324: 

1325: 

1326: \bibitem{FeynHiggs}

1327: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1328: {\it Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ } {\bf 124} (2000) 76 

1329: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812320];

1330: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812320;%%

1331: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1332: {\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C} {\bf 9} (1999) 343 

1333: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812472].

1334: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812472;%%

1335: 

1336: 

1337: 

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{bsgex}

1340: S.~Chen {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

1341: %``Branching fraction and photon energy spectrum for b $\to$ s gamma,''

1342: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 251807

1343: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108032];

1344: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108032;%%

1345: P.~Koppenburg {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1346: %``An inclusive measurement of the photon energy spectrum in b $\to$ s gamma

1347: %decays,''

1348: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93} (2004) 061803

1349: [arXiv:hep-ex/0403004].

1350: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403004;%%

1351: B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BaBar Collaboration],

1352: %``Determination of the branching fraction for inclusive decays B $\to$ X/s gamma,''

1353: arXiv:hep-ex/0207076.

1354: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207076;%%

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{bsgth}

1358:  M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1359:   %``Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma: Standard model and

1360:   %two-Higgs doublet model,''

1361:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 527} (1998) 21

1362:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9710335];

1363:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710335;%%

1364:  %M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1365:   %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''

1366:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534} (1998) 3

1367:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9806308];

1368:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806308;%%

1369:   C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G.~F. Giudice,

1370: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009337];

1371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1372: M.~Carena, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~Wagner,

1373: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 499} (2001) 141 

1374: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010003]; 

1375: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1376: P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,

1377: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338; 

1378: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%

1379: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,

1380: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''

1381: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 034007

1382: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329];

1383: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%

1384: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub and Y.~Yamada,

1385: %``Beyond leading-order corrections to anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma at large

1386: %tan(beta): The charged-Higgs contribution,''

1387:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 055005

1388:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311151];

1389:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311151;%%

1390:   %``Present status of inclusive rare B decays,''

1391:   T.~Hurth, 

1392:   Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  {\bf 75} (2003) 1159

1393:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0212304].

1394:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212304;%%

1395: 

1396: \bibitem{g-2}

1397: G.~W.~Bennett {\it et al.}  [Muon g-2 Collaboration],

1398: %``Measurement of the negative muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.7-ppm,''

1399: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92} (2004) 161802

1400: [arXiv:hep-ex/0401008];

1401: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401008;%%

1402: M.~Davier, S.~Eidelman, A.~Hocker and Z.~Zhang,

1403: %``Updated estimate of the muon magnetic moment using revised results from e+ e-

1404: %annihilation,''

1405: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 31} (2003) 503

1406: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308213];

1407: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308213;%%

1408: K.~Hagiwara, A.~D.~Martin, D.~Nomura and T.~Teubner,

1409: arXiv:hep-ph/0312250;

1410: J.~F.~de Troc\'oniz and F.~J.~Yndur\'ain,

1411: %``The hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,''

1412: arXiv:hep-ph/0402285;

1413: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402285;%%

1414: K.~Melnikov and A.~Vainshtein,

1415: %``Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the muon anomalous

1416: %magnetic moment revisited,''

1417: arXiv:hep-ph/0312226;

1418: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312226;%%

1419:  M.~Passera,

1420:   %``The standard model prediction of the muon anomalous magnetic moment,''

1421:   arXiv:hep-ph/0411168.

1422:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411168;%%

1423: 

1424: 

1425: 

1426:  

1427: 

1428: \end{thebibliography}

1429: 

1430: 

1431: 

1432: 

1433: 

1434: \end{document}

1435: 

1436: 

1437: 

1438: 

1439: