1: \documentclass[12pt]{JHEP3}

2: 

3: \usepackage[dvips]{epsfig}

4: 

5:  \newlength{\wth}

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

7: 

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

9:  \unitlength=1.1in

10:  \begin{picture}(5.8,2.3)(0.5,0.25)

11:  \put(-0.04,2.54){\epsfig{file=#1, width=0.698 \wth,angle=270}}

12:  \put(0.85,0.5){\epsfig{file=#12, width=0.68 \wth}}

13:  \put(2.66,2.54){\epsfig{file=#2, width=0.698 \wth, angle=270}}

14:  \put(3.55,0.5){\epsfig{file=#22, width=0.68 \wth}}

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

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

17:  \end{picture}

18: }

19: 

20: \newcommand{\fourgraphst}[4]{%

21:  \unitlength=1.1in

22:  \begin{picture}(5.8,4)(0.5,0.4)

23: \put(0,2){\put(-0.04,2.54){\epsfig{file=#1, width=0.698 \wth,angle=270}}

24:  \put(0.85,0.5){\epsfig{file=#12, width=0.68 \wth}}

25:  \put(2.66,2.54){\epsfig{file=#2, width=0.698 \wth, angle=270}}

26:  \put(3.55,0.5){\epsfig{file=#22, width=0.68 \wth}}

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

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

29: }

30: 

31: \put(0,0){\put(-0.04,2.54){\epsfig{file=#3, width=0.698 \wth,angle=270}}

32:  \put(0.85,0.5){\epsfig{file=#32, width=0.68 \wth}}

33:  \put(2.66,2.54){\epsfig{file=#4, width=0.698 \wth, angle=270}}

34:  \put(3.55,0.5){\epsfig{file=#42, width=0.68 \wth}}

35:  \put(0.5,2.1){(c)}

36:  \put(3.2,2.1){(d)}

37: }

38:  \end{picture}

39: }

40: 

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

42:  \unitlength=1.1in

43:  \begin{picture}(5.8,4.4)(0.3,0.3)

44: \put(0,2.4){\put(0.5,0){\epsfig{file=#1, width=0.698 \wth}}

45:  \put(2.9,0){\epsfig{file=#2, width=0.698 \wth}}

46:  \put(0.5,2.2){(a)}

47:  \put(3,2.2){(b)}}

48: \put(0,0){\put(0.5,0){\epsfig{file=#3, width=0.698 \wth}}

49:  \put(2.9,0){\epsfig{file=#4, width=0.698 \wth}}

50:  \put(0.5,2.2){(c)}

51:  \put(3,2.2){(d)}}

52:  \end{picture}

53: }

54: 

55: \newcommand{\onegraph}[1]{%

56:  \unitlength=1.1in

57:  \begin{picture}(2.5,2.3)(0.5,0.25)

58:  \put(-0.04,2.54){\epsfig{file=#1, width=0.698 \wth,angle=270}}

59:  \put(0.85,0.5){\epsfig{file=#12, width=0.68 \wth}}

60:  \end{picture}

61: }

62: 

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

64:  \unitlength=1.1in

65:  \begin{picture}(5.8,2.3)(0,0.25)

66:  \put(0,0){\epsfig{file=#1.eps, width=0.698 \wth}}

67:  \put(2.7,0){\epsfig{file=#2.eps, width=0.698 \wth}}

68:  \put(0.0,2.3){(a)}

69:  \put(2.7,2.3){(b)}

70:  \end{picture}

71: }

72: 

73: \title{The Dark Side of mSUGRA}

74: 

75: \author{Benjamin C Allanach$^{1}$, Christopher G Lester$^{2}$ and Arne M

76:   Weber$^{3}$ \\ 

77: $^{1}$ DAMTP, CMS, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK\\

78: $^{2}$ Cavendish Laboratory, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK\\

79: $^3$ Max Planck Inst.\ f\"{u}r Phys., F\"{o}hringer Ring 6, D-80805 Munich,

80:   Germany\\ 

81: }

82: 

83: \keywords{Supersymmetry Effective Theories, Cosmology of Theories beyond the

84:   SM, Dark Matter}

85: \abstract{We study the $\mu<0$ branch of the minimal supergravity

86:   ansatz of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. The extent to

87:   which $\mu<0$ is disfavoured compared to $\mu>0$ in global fits is

88:   calculated 

89:   with Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods and bridge sampling. The fits

90:   include   state-of-the-art two-loop MSSM contributions to the electroweak

91:   observables 

92:   $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$, as well as the anomalous magnetic moment of the

93:   muon $(g-2)_\mu$, the relic density of dark matter and other

94:   relevant indirect observables. $\mu<0$ is only

95:   marginally disfavoured in global fits and should be considered in mSUGRA

96:   analyses. We estimate that the ratio of %marginalised

97:   probabilities is $P(\mu<0) / P(\mu>0)=0.07-0.16$. 

98: }

99: 

100: \preprint{DAMTP-2006-75\\MPP--2006--122\\ Cavendish-HEP-2006-024 \\

101:   hep-ph/0609295} 

102: 

103: \begin{document}

104: 

105: \section{Introduction}

106: 

107: There has been increasing recent attention on global fits of various indirect

108: data to minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), also sometimes called the constrained

109: minimal supersymmetric standard model

110: (CMSSM)~\cite{Ellis:2003si,Profumo:2004at,Baltz:2004aw,Ellis:2004tc,Stark:2005mp}.

111: mSUGRA makes phenomenological 

112: analysis of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)

113: tractable via the low number of free parameters.

114: In fact, the scalar masses $m_0$, 

115: gaugino masses $M_{1/2}$ and trilinear coupling $A_0$ are assumed to be

116: universal at a gauge unification scale  $M_{GUT} \sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV. 

117: If the MSSM is present in nature and if the mSUGRA

118: universality assumptions are approximately correct, chi-squared or probability

119: distributions for potential collider/dark matter observables

120: can be derived. Early

121: fits~\cite{Robros,Ellis:2003si,Profumo:2004at,Baltz:2004aw,Ellis:2004tc}

122: necessarily had fixed input parameters to reduce 

123: the dimensionality of the input parameter space, making scans practicable.

124: It is usually assumed that neutralinos constitute the current cold dark matter

125: content of the universe, since they are weakly interacting, electrically and

126: colour neutral and stable.

127: The predicted value of dark matter relic density $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ is a very

128: strong constraint on viable mSUGRA parameter space, effectively reducing its

129: dimensionality by 1.

130: 

131: The accuracy of the inferred value of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ from WMAP data makes a

132: global fit to all of the relevant mSUGRA parameters potentially difficult

133: because the system is rather under-constrained, possessing narrow, steep

134: valleys of degenerate $\chi^2$ minima.  

135: If the MSSM is confirmed in colliders, it will hopefully be possible to break

136: such degeneracies with collider observables. This does not help us at present,

137: where we want to provide a sort of `weather forecast' for future colliders.

138: It was indicated in ref.~\cite{Baltz:2004aw} that the powerful Markov Chain

139: Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique might allow us to find the probability

140: distribution of a  fully global fit to indirect data. 

141: Two of us went on~\cite{Allanach:2005kz} to demonstrate that MCMCs do indeed

142: allow such a fit, investigating collider observables. One of us examined the

143: effect of a naturalness prior~\cite{Allanach:2006jc}. Our results were

144: confirmed and expanded in Ref.~\cite{deAustri:2006pe}, also utilising the MCMC

145: method and including a one-loop MSSM calculation of the W-boson mass $M_W$ and 

146: the weak leptonic mixing angle $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ in the likelihood density.

147: The purpose of MCMC mSUGRA global fits is two-fold: as well as producing

148: interesting and useful physics results in themselves, we may profit from the

149: experience of utilising and developing the MCMC tools, which could prove very

150: useful when analysing future collider data. 

151: 

152: It is our purpose in the present paper to extend the previous $\mu>0$ global

153: fits to $\mu<0$. 

154: Besides the observables studied in~\cite{Allanach:2005kz} we now also include

155: $M_W$ and $\sin \theta_w^l$ in our analysis, as done in

156: e.g. \cite{Ellis:2004tc,deAustri:2006pe}. Being highly sensitive to new physics

157: these very accurately measured quantities play a key role in the electroweak

158: sector and are therefore also of great interest when it comes to further

159: constraining the mSUGRA parameter space. It was shown in the literature and

160: that the one-loop predictions for

161: the two observables alone do not bear enough accuracy to make reliable

162: predictions. In fact, the pure one-loop predictions can lead to results

163: contradictory to the state-of-the-art predictions \cite{Heinemeyer:2006px}

164: used in our analysis. These contain the known higher order contributions from

165: both the Standard Model and the MSSM\@. Extending our analysis to negative

166: values of 

167: $\mu$ it is crucial to further use a very accurate prediction for

168: $(g-2)_\mu$. The dominant two-loop corrections \cite{2loop} to this quantity

169: are therefore also taken into account in the present analysis. 

170: It is well known that the measured anomalous value of the magnetic

171: moment of the muon $(g-2)_\mu$ is roughly 2$\sigma$ above the Standard

172: Model (SM) predicted value. This positive contribution is predicted by

173: some regions of mSUGRA parameter space, provided $\mu>0$. The ``dark

174: side'' of mSUGRA (i.e.\ $\mu<0$) provides a negative contribution,

175: thereby being disfavoured by the $(g-2)_\mu$ measurement. In a global

176: fit, one can trade likelihood penalties between different observables

177: and the conclusion that $\mu<0$ is disfavoured to roughly 2$\sigma$ is

178: not at all obvious. We will calculate the extent to which the dark

179: side is ruled out by using MCMCs with ``bridge sampling''

180: \cite{radford}.  

181: We will encounter

182: problems associated with isolated likelihood density maxima in the

183: dark side, potentially ruining MCMC convergence. Fortunately, bridge

184: sampling provides a solution to the convergence issue and we are able

185: to calculate the degree to which the dark side is disfavoured with

186: respect to $\mu>0$. 

187: As well as extending

188: previous analyses to $\mu<0$, we have made several technical

189: improvements in the calculation of the likelihood compared with previous

190: attempts in the literature.

191: 

192: If the lightest supersymmetric particle decays into Standard Model

193: particles, as is the case in R-parity violation for instance, its

194: relic density will be essentially zero today. In that case, one

195: requires to obtain the WMAP fitted $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ from some other

196: source than neutralinos (gravitinos or hidden sector matter for

197: instance).  In order to investigate this case, we will also perform

198: the fits for the case where all relevant data {\em except}

199: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ are included in the likelihood density.  Such fits

200: will help us to understand the impact of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ in

201: constraining the model, as well as being relevant for the R-parity

202: violating mSUGRA~\cite{rpvSUGRA} in the limit of small R-parity

203: violating couplings.

204: 

205: We now go on to detail the various constraints used on the model in

206: section~\ref{sec:const}. The results of the dark side fitting

207: procedure are compared and contrasted against the better known $\mu>0$ ones

208: in section~\ref{sec:dark}, before the effect of dropping the dark-matter

209: constraint is examined in section~\ref{sec:noDM}. 

210: Closing remarks are presented in section~\ref{sec:conc}. A presentation of the

211: fitting procedures is confined to the appendix: 

212: Markov Chain Monte Carlos and bridge sampling are discussed in

213: appendix~\ref{sec:bridge}. Convergence problems

214: and their resolution are discussed in appendix~\ref{sec:conv}. 

215: 

216: \section{Constraints \label{sec:const}}

217: 

218: \TABULAR[r]{|c|c|}{\hline

219: mSUGRA parameter & range \\ \hline

220: $A_0$ & -4 TeV to 4 TeV \\

221: $m_0$ & 60 GeV to 4 TeV \\

222: $M_{1/2}$ & 60 GeV to 2 TeV \\

223: $\tan \beta$ &  2 to 62 \\ \hline

224: SM parameter & constraint \\ \hline

225: $1/\alpha^{\overline{MS}}$ & 127.918$\pm$0.018 \\

226: $\alpha_s^{\overline{MS}}(M_Z)$ & 0.1176$\pm$0.002 \\

227: $m_b(m_b)^{\overline   MS}$ & 4.24$\pm$0.11 GeV \\

228: $m_t$ & 171.4$\pm$2.1 \\ \hline

229: }{Input parameters \label{tab:inp}}

230: We vary 8 input parameters relevant to the model. 

231: The range of intrinsically mSUGRA parameters considered is shown in

232: Table~\ref{tab:inp}, where $\tan \beta$ is the ratio of the two MSSM Higgs

233: doublet vacuum expectation values.

234: We use Ref.~\cite{PDG} for the QED coupling

235: constant $\alpha^{\overline{MS}}$, the strong coupling constant

236: $\alpha_s^{\overline{MS}}(M_Z)$ and the running mass of the bottom quark 

237: $m_b(m_b)^{\overline   MS}$, all in the $\overline{MS}$ renormalisation scheme

238: The recent Tevatron top mass $m_t$ measurement \cite{mtmeas} is also employed. 

239: These SM inputs are shown in Table~\ref{tab:inp}. 

240: Experimental errors are so small on the mass of the $Z^0$ boson $M_Z$ 

241: and the muon decay constant $G_\mu$ that we 

242: fix them to their central values of 91.1876 GeV and $1.16637 \times 10^{-5}$

243: GeV$^{-2}$ respectively. 

244: The Standard Model (SM) input parameters are allowed to vary within 4$\sigma$

245: of their central values but a $\chi^2$ penalty 

246: \begin{equation}

247: \chi_i^2 = \frac{(c_i - p_i({\bf m}))^2}{\sigma_i^2} \label{chisq}

248: \end{equation}

249: is applied for observable $i$.  $c_i$ denotes the central value of the

250: experimental measurement, $p_i({\bf m})$ represents the value ``{\bf

251: p}redicted'' at any stage of the MCMC sampling given knowledge of the

252: model ${\bf m}$ presumed to be ``true'' at that point.  Finally

253: $\sigma_i$ is the standard error of the measurement.  Equivalently,

254: expressing this in the language of likelihoods, we are assuming that

255: each of these measurements have Gaussian errors,\footnote{The

256: experimental constraints on BR($B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$) and the

257: LEP constraints on the Higgs mass, each described later, are not

258: Gaussian constraints and must therefore be treated differently.

259: Nothing prevents us from continuing to parametrise their likelihood

260: distributions in the same way, however, but it should be realised that

261: a consequence of this is that the ``$\chi$-squared penalty'' (i.e. $-2

262: \log{{\mathcal L}_i}$) will not be parabolic, as ${\mathcal L}_i$ is

263: not a Gaussian distribution in these cases.} and that the likelihood

264: distribution ${\mathcal L}_i \equiv p(c_i | {\bf m})$ for any one

265: measurement may be written in the following way:

266: \begin{equation}

267: {\mathcal L}_i \equiv p(c_i | {\bf m}) =

268: \frac 1 {\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_i^2}}

269: \exp \left[ {-\chi_i^2 /2} \right].

270: \end{equation}

271: The normalisation constant $\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_i^2}$ may be ignored

272: in subsequent calculations as the absolute value of ${\mathcal L}_i$ will

273: never be needed.  It will only be necessary to know the {\em ratios}

274: \/of values of ${\mathcal L}_i$ at neighbouring points in the MCMC

275: chain, or between chains in which the neglected constants are identical.

276: 

277: 

278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

279: 

280: 

281: In order to calculate predictions for observables from the inputs in

282: Table~\ref{tab:inp}, we use {\tt

283:   SOFTSUSY2.0.7}~\cite{softsusy} to first calculate the MSSM spectrum.

284: \TABULAR{|cc|cc|cc|cc|}

285: {\hline

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

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

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

289:   86.4 &

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

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

292: \hline}{Lower bounds applied to sparticle mass predictions (in GeV). \label{tab:bds}}

293: We apply the bounds in

294: Table~\ref{tab:bds} in order to take into account 95$\%$ limits coming from

295: negative sparticle searches~\cite{PDG}. Any point transgressing these bounds 

296: is given a zero likelihood density (or, equivalently, an infinite $\chi^2$).

297: Also, we set a zero likelihood for any inconsistent point, e.g.\ one which does

298: not break electroweak symmetry correctly, or a point that contains tachyonic

299: sparticles. 

300: For points that are not ruled out,

301: we then link the MSSM spectrum via the SUSY Les Houches Accord~\cite{slha} to

302:   {\tt 

303:   micrOMEGAs1.3.6}~\cite{micromegas}, which then calculates $\Omega_{DM} h^2$, the

304: branching ratios $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ and $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+

305: \mu^-)$ and $(g-2)_\mu$.  

306: 

307: The measured value of the anomalous magnetic moment $(g-2)_\mu$ is in conflict

308: with the SM predicted value by~\cite{PDG}

309: \begin{equation}

310: \delta a_\mu \equiv \delta \frac{(g-2)_\mu}{2} = (22 \pm 10) \times 10^{-10}.

311: \end{equation}

312: This excess may be explained by a supersymmetric contribution,

313: the sign of which is identical to the sign of the superpotential $\mu$

314: parameter~\cite{susycont}. After obtaining the one-loop MSSM value of

315: $(g-2)_\mu$ from {\tt micrOMEGAs}, we add the following dominant 2-loop

316: corrections~\cite{2loop,private}: the logarithmic piece of the 2-loop QED

317: contribution, two-loop stop-higgs and chargino-stop/sbottom contributions.

318: 

319: \EPSFIGURE{bsmumupen.eps,height=8cm,angle=270}{$\chi^2$ penalty on

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

321:   \cite{private2}\label{fig:bsmumu}} The Tevatron has recently been

322:   instrumental in bounding the branching ratio of the rare decay

323:   channel $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$~\cite{bsmumu}.  Such bounds

324:   help constrain the mSUGRA parameter space~\cite{Ellis:2005sc}.  We

325:   apply a $\chi^2$ penalty on the value predicted by {\tt

326:   micrOMEGAs1.3.6} derived from CDF Tevatron Run II

327:   data~\cite{private2}. The resulting penalty is shown in

328:   Fig.~\ref{fig:bsmumu}.

329: 

330: Recently, it has been claimed that light sparticles are preferred by

331: the two weak observables $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ and $M_W$

332: \cite{Ellis:2004tc,Ellis:2006ix}.  In Ref.~\cite{deAustri:2006pe},

333: $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ were used at one loop order to help

334: constrain mSUGRA in a global MCMC fit. The preference for such light

335: SUSY was not particularly evident in the global fits.  We examine the

336: mSUGRA predictions for $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_w^l(\mbox{eff})$ in

337: Figs.~\ref{fig:mw} and~\ref{fig:st} for $A_0=0$, $\tan \beta=10$,

338: $\mu>0$, equal $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ and central experimental values for

339: the other inputs.  For the ``SOFTSUSY'' lines, the default {\tt

340: SOFTSUSY} calculation is used.  This contains the full SOFTSUSY MSSM

341: contributions to the leptonic mixing angle $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ and

342: $M_W$. It also contains the dominant 2-loop Standard Model

343: contributions to $M_W$.  For the lines marked ``2-loop'', the SUSY Les

344: Houches Accord is used to communicate with a currently private code

345: that calculates the W-boson mass $M_W$~\cite{Heinemeyer:2006px}, and

346: the effective leptonic mixing angle variable $\sin^2\theta^l_w$,

347: calculated to two loops in the dominant MSSM parameters. We use the

348: most general MSSM result for the full one-loop contributions.  Besides

349: all known corrections due to SUSY particles, the full SM contributions

350: are also included in the predictions for $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta^l_w$,

351: leading to the currently most accurate predictions within the MSSM\@.

352: The ``SM'' lines show the SM limit, where all corrections involving

353: sparticles are dropped, i.e.\ the state-of-the-art SM results

354: \cite{MWSM,Awramik:2004ge} with $M_{H^{\mathrm{SM}}}=M_h$.  They vary

355: slightly with $m_0=M_{1/2}$ because the varying mSUGRA parameters

356: produce different values of the Higgs boson mass $m_h$.  The

357: horizontal lines on the figures show the current $1\sigma$

358: experimental limits~\cite{mw,sinth}

359: \begin{equation}

360: M_W = 80.392\pm0.031\mbox{~GeV}, 

361: \qquad \sin^2 \theta_w^l = 0.23153 \pm 0.00020,

362: \end{equation}

363: where we have added experimental and theoretical errors in

364: quadrature. 

365: 

366: \DOUBLEFIGURE{mw,height=8cm}{sinth,height=8cm}{Various approximations to $M_W$

367:   in mSUGRA \label{fig:mw}}{Various

368:   approximations to $\sin^2 \theta_w$ in mSUGRA. \label{fig:st}}

369: The theoretical errors in the predicted $M_W$ and $\sin^2

370: \theta_w^l$  are estimated to be $10$ MeV and 12$\times 10^{-5}$

371: respectively~\cite{Ellis:2003si}. We use these uncertainties for the

372: purposes of comparison, although they have been slightly reduced recently by

373:   the addition of additional two-loop corrections taken into account in the

374:   present analysis~\cite{Heinemeyer:2006px,drMSSMal2B}. 

375: We see from the SOFTSUSY line in the figure that

376: the  prediction of $M_W$ does not have a strong preference for light SUSY,

377: since the model is within the 1$\sigma$ errors up until $m_0=M_{1/2}=4$

378: TeV. In actual fact, only very light SUSY masses are disfavoured by the

379: ``SOFTSUSY'' line, leading to predictions above the $1\sigma$-range.   

380: %

381: The situation is similar for the $\sin^2\theta^l_w$ ``SOFTSUSY'' line, where

382: again only very light SUSY masses lead to predictions outside the

383: $1\sigma$-range. % 

384: %Also, there is a even a preference for heavy SUSY from the $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$

385: %``SOFTSUSY'' line. 

386: However, using the best available predictions, corresponding to the ``2-loop''

387: lines, a 

388: preference for light $m_0=M_{1/2}$ can be seen in the prediction for

389: $M_W$. 

390: The SM curve which lies just below the $1\sigma$-interval is approached

391: from above in the decoupling limit, furthermore indicating a slight preference

392: of the MSSM over the SM\@. 

393: The preference for light SUSY is not as striking for $\sin^2\theta_w^l$. Here

394: most of the $m_0=M_{1/2}$ values are doing equally well, which is mainly due

395: to the fact 

396: that the SM prediction for $\sin^2\theta_w^l$ is already well within the

397: $1\sigma$-range.

398: With the behaviour of the ``one-loop'' curve and the best available result

399: being qualitatively different, it is

400: desirable to use the more accurate result for $M_W$ and

401: $\sin^2\theta_w^l$  when calculating 

402: the $\chi^2$ contributions of $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$  using

403: Eq.\ref{chisq}. Although Ref.~\cite{deAustri:2006pe} only used the one-loop

404: predictions, the theoretical errors were correspondingly enlarged in order to

405: take the larger uncertainty from higher order terms into account.

406: 

407:   \EPSFIGURE{mh,height=7cm}{LEP2 higgs $\chi^2$ penalty paid 

408: \label{fig:mhpen}}

409: LEP2 constraints on the lightest CP-even higgs mass are included as a further

410: likelihood penalty following a parameterisation of LEP2 data in the SM

411: limit~\cite{lep2higgs}. For the LEP2 constraints,

412: the SM limit is a good approximation for mSUGRA, since 

413: sparticle mass limits imply that we must be near the decoupling r\'{e}gime of

414: the MSSM~\cite{decouple}. We estimate that the {\tt SOFTSUSY2.0.7}

415: determination of $m_h$ has a 2 GeV theoretical

416: error in mSUGRA, although it may be somewhat larger in the general

417: MSSM~\cite{Allanach:2004rh}.  

418: We therefore smear the parameterised LEP2 Higgs likelihood density ${\mathcal

419:   L}_{LEP2}(m_h)$

420: with a Gaussian distribution of width $\sigma_h=2$ GeV:

421: \begin{equation}

422: {\mathcal L}_h(m_h) = \int_{m_h-4 \sigma_h}^{m_h+4 \sigma_h} dx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}

423:   \sigma_h} e^{\frac{-(m_h-x)^2}{2 

424:   \sigma_h^2}} {\mathcal L}_{LEP2}(x).

425: \label{Higgserror}

426: \end{equation}

427: The result of this procedure

428:   leads to the effective $\Delta \chi^2=-2 \ln {\mathcal L}_h$ penalty shown in

429:   Fig.~\ref{fig:mhpen}. The slight excess of candidate Higgs events

430:   over the background prediction at LEP2 can be seen by a negative

431:   $\Delta\chi^2$ penalty in the figure for $m_h \sim 116-121$ GeV.

432: 

433: The rare bottom quark branching ratio is

434: $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ is constrained to be~\cite{hfg}

435: \begin{equation}

436: BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)=  (3.55\pm0.38) \times 10^{-4}, \label{bsg}

437: \end{equation}

438: obtained by adding the experimental error with the estimated theory

439: error~\cite{gamb} of $0.3 \times 10^{-4}$ in quadrature.

440: Very recent estimates~\cite{Misiak:2006zs,Andersen:2006hr}

441: of $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ are compatible with Eq.~\ref{bsg} at the

442: 1$\sigma$ level, although

443: the error has decreased.

444: Our prediction of $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ is substituted for $p_i$ in

445: Eq.~\ref{chisq} in order to calculate $\chi_{BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)}^2$.

446: 

447: We use the WMAP3~\cite{wmap} power law $\Lambda$-CDM fitted value of 

448: \begin{equation}

449: \Omega \equiv \Omega_{DM} h^2 = 0.104^{+0.0073}_{-0.0128} \label{omega}

450: \end{equation}

451: for the dark matter relic density of the universe. We initially assume that the

452: neutralinos are stable and that they constitute the whole of the dark matter

453: relic density. 

454: Eq.~\ref{chisq} is used to calculate $\chi^2_{\Omega}$, with

455: $\sigma_{\Omega}=0.0073$ for a prediction lower than the central

456: experimental value and 0.0128 otherwise.

457: 

458: 

459: Having described the calculation of the likelihood associated

460: with each individual measurement, we are now in a position to define

461: the likelihood of the set of all measurements or observables, taken

462: together.  We are required to calculate the joint (total) likelihood

463: $\mathcal L$ of all the measurements given the truth, {\em i.e.}\ in the

464: notation of Eq~\ref{chisq} we want to know:

465: \begin{eqnarray}

466: {\mathcal L} &=& p( \mbox{measurements} | \mbox{true model}) \\

467: &=& p(c_1, c_2, \ldots | {\bf m}) \\

468: &=& p(c_1 | {\bf m}) \cdot p(c_2 | c_1 , {\bf m}) \cdot p(c_3 |

469: c_1, c_2, {\bf m}) \cdot \ldots \\

470: &=& {\mathcal L}_1 \cdot p(c_2 | c_1 , {\bf m}) \cdot p(c_3 |

471: c_1, c_2, {\bf m}) \cdot \ldots

472: \end{eqnarray}

473: which is not in general equal to

474: \begin{equation}

475: {\mathcal L}_1 \cdot

476: {\mathcal L}_2 \cdot

477: {\mathcal L}_3 \cdot

478: \ldots

479: \end{equation}

480: unless we can be confident that for each measurement

481: \begin{equation}

482: p(c_3 | c_1, c_2, {\bf m}) \approx p(c_3 | {\bf m}) \mbox{\qquad{\em

483: etc}}.\label{eq:whatwewantapprox}

484: \end{equation}

485: Fortunately we can be confident that Eq~\ref{eq:whatwewantapprox} {\em

486: does}\/ hold in our situation, as we have deliberately constructed ${\bf

487: m}$ to be broad enough such that all fundamental parameters which

488: might reasonably be expected to correlate any two of the measurements

489: are included within it\footnote{If the design of ${\bf m}$ were not

490: broad enough, then ${\bf m}$ would have to be extended.  For example:

491: were it the case that the up quark mass $m_u$ was expected to 

492: significantly correlate two

493: or more of the observables, then for Eq~\ref{eq:whatwewantapprox} to

494: continue to hold, $m_u$ would have to be added to ${\bf m}$ enlarging

495: its dimension by one.}.  We are therefore at liberty to write:

496: \begin{eqnarray}

497: {\mathcal L} &=& {\mathcal L}_1 \cdot

498: {\mathcal L}_2 \cdot

499: {\mathcal L}_3 \cdot

500: \ldots \\ 

501: &=& e^{-\sum_i \chi_i^2/2}

502: \end{eqnarray}

503: for the total likelihood, and we can be confident that this product

504: takes into account the expected correlations between all the

505: observables contained, due to the nature of the space $\left\{{\bf m}

506: \right\}$ of models considered.

507: 

508: 

509: \section{Dark Side Fits \label{sec:dark}}

510: 

511: \FIGURE{\twographst{m0m12Neg}{m0m12Pos}

512: \caption{mSUGRA Fits for (a) $\mu<0$ (b) $\mu>0$ marginalised to the

513:   $m_0$-$M_{1/2}$ plane. The posterior probability is indicated by the

514:   bar on the right hand side. The inner (outer) contours show the

515:   $68\%$ $(95\%)$ confidence region respectively.\label{fig:m0m12}} }

516:   We now compare and contrast the dark side fits to those with

517:   $\mu>0$.  In Figs.~\ref{fig:m0m12}(a) and~\ref{fig:m0m12}(b), we

518:   show the posterior probabilities $P$ marginalised\footnote{For readers

519:   unfamiliar with the term: marginalisation

520:   means ``integrated over the unseen dimensions of parameter space'' in this

521:   context.} to the 

522:   $m_0-M_{1/2}$ plane for both signs of $\mu$.  As with all

523:   2-dimensional marginalised plots in this paper, we bin the plane into

524:   75$\times$75 2-dimensional bins. The colour bar on the right hand side

525:   of the figures shows the posterior probability $P$ of each bin divided

526:   by the maximum posterior probability of any bin in the plot. In

527:   Fig.~\ref{fig:m0m12}(a), the only 68$\%$ contour\footnote{Note that the

528:     confidence regions in Figs.~\ref{fig:m0m12} (and those in later plots)

529:     should strictly be referred to as ``Bayesian credible intervals''

530:     (each region contains a fixed amount of the posterior probability) to

531:     distinguish them from the related concept from Frequentist Statistics

532:     called a ``confidence interval''. Usage of the term ``credible

533:     interval'' is not common in High Energy Physics, however, and we will

534: stick to ``confidence region''.} is at the lowest

535:   values of $m_0$: all other contours are 95$\%$ confidence region contours

536:   due to   the lowish likelihood densities. The brokenness of the contours is a

537:   result of statistical fluctuations in the results. Although

538:   these are visible, there is clearly reliable information 

539:   their trajectories in the plot.  The $\mu<0$ plot displays

540:   two isolated local maxima,

541:   whereas the 95$\%$ confidence region of $\mu>0$ is continuously

542:   connected. We discuss the relative normalisation of the two $\mu<0$ maxima

543:   in appendix~\ref{sec:conv}.

544:   In the 95$\%$ confidence region of Fig.~\ref{fig:m0m12}a closest to the

545:   origin,   the  relic 

546:   density is dominantly depleted 

547:   by either stop co-annihilation~\cite{Boehm:9911,arnie,Ellis:2001nx} ${\tilde

548:   t} \chi_1^0   \rightarrow t g$ or  

549:   stau co-annihilation~\cite{Griest:1990kh} ${\tilde \tau}_1 \chi_1^0 \rightarrow \tau \gamma$.

550: On the other hand, the 95$\%$ region at higher $m_0-M_{1/2}$ 

551: consists of resonant Higgs annihilation

552: regions~\cite{Drees:1992am,Arnowitt:1993mg,Djouadi:2005dz}, where

553: $\chi_1^0\chi_1^0 \rightarrow h,A^0 \rightarrow b {\bar b}/\tau^+

554: \tau^-$ and the focus point region where the LSP has a significant

555: higgsino component and $\chi_1^0\chi_1^0 \rightarrow ZZ, WW, t

556: \bar{t}$~\cite{Feng:1999mn,Feng:1999zg,Feng:2000gh}.

557: There was no significant

558: stop co-annihilation~\cite{Boehm:9911,arnie,Ellis:2001nx} region for

559: $\mu>0$.  

560: 

561: \FIGURE{\fourgraphst{m12a0}{a0tb}{m12tb}{m0tb}

562: \caption{Constraints from global fits with $\mu<0$ mSUGRA marginalised to

563:   2-dimensional parameter planes.

564: We have assumed a flat prior. The posterior probability is indicated by the bar

565:   on the right hand side. The inner (outer) contours show the

566:   boundary of a $68\%$

567:   $(95\%)$ confidence region.

568: \label{fig:mulz}}

569: } We now include some other marginalisations on the other

570: 2-dimensional parameter planes for $\mu<0$ mSUGRA with a flat

571: prior. They are displayed in

572: Figs.~\ref{fig:mulz}(a)-(d). Figs.~\ref{fig:mulz}(a) and~\ref{fig:mulz}(b)

573: show that the probability density for the 2-chain 

574: co-annihilation sample is not separated from the other sample in either

575: the $M_{1/2}-A_0$ plane or the $\tan \beta$-$A_0$ plane (the almost

576: disconnected region at the bottom of Fig.~\ref{fig:mulz}(a) consists

577: of the light $h^0$-pole region). There is only a modest separation in

578: the $M_{1/2}$-$\tan \beta$ plane: the 68$\%$ contours do not connect

579: the two regions, whereas the 95$\%$ contours

580: do. Fig.~\ref{fig:mulz}(d) shows that the connection between the two

581: samples in the $m_0-\tan \beta$ plane is marginal. The $m_0-A_0$

582: marginalisation was useful for investigating the physics behind the two

583: isolated probability maxima, and is displayed in appendix~\ref{sec:conv}.

584: 

585: \FIGURE{\fourgraphs{higgs}{gluino}{squark}{neut}

586: \caption{Probability distributions in mass of (a) the lightest CP even higgs,

587:  (b) gluino, (c) the left-handed squark and (d) the neutralino. Flat priors

588:  have been assumed.

589: \label{fig:mass}}

590: }

591: The probability distributions of the masses of selected MSSM particles are

592: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass} for

593: both signs of $\mu$ in mSUGRA\@. 

594: The $\mu<0$ sample has not been

595: normalised to the correct relative normalisation compared to $\mu>0$ in the

596: figure. The lightest CP-even higgs, the gluino and the lightest neutralino all

597: have mass distributions that are remarkably similar for either sign of $\mu$. 

598: However, in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}(c), we see that the $\mu<0$ sample has a flat

599: plateau for higher squark masses, whereas the $\mu>0$ sample tails off

600: somewhat. High squark masses

601: will result in smaller total SUSY cross-sections at the LHC but the lighter

602: gluino should still provide enough events for discovery if $m_{\tilde g}<2$

603: TeV~\cite{Armstrong:1994it,CMS}.

604: Sharp peaks at low gluino and neutralino masses are due to the

605: $h^0$-resonance annihilation region~\cite{Allanach:2005kz}. The broader peak

606: of the $\mu<0$ curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}(c) is due mostly to the

607: co-annihilation sample. The significant probability densities for large gluino

608: and squark masses are rather alarming, as then SUSY detection at the LHC would

609: require a longer running time.

610: Gauginos are not so sensitive to the range of the

611: prior in Table~\ref{tab:inp} but the sfermions are~\cite{deAustri:2006pe} and

612: a reduced range makes lighter sfermions more likely.

613: Also, naturalness priors~\cite{Allanach:2006jc} have a large impact, reducing

614: the likely sparticle masses. 

615: 

616: \subsection{Further investigations of the fits}

617: 

618: We examine the best-fit points from each sampling in Table~\ref{tab:bestfit}.

619: \TABULAR{|c|cc|c|cc|}{\hline

620:       & $\mu<0$ & $\mu>0$ & & $\mu<0$ & $\mu>0$  \\ \hline

621: $m_0$/GeV &  3610   & 156   & $\delta a_\mu/10^{-10}$ &-0.4 & 14.2 \\

622: $M_{1/2}$/GeV & 93 & 569  & $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)/10^{-4}$ &3.65 &3.41 \\

623: $A_0$/GeV &   -56   & 270  & $BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)/10^{-9}$ &3.1 &3.7 \\

624: $\tan \beta$ &6.0 &24.1 & $\sin^2 \theta_w^l(\mbox{eff})$ & 0.23153&0.23152\\

625: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ & 0.102 & 0.101 & $M_W$/GeV & 80.382& 80.368\\

626: $m_h$/GeV & 117.5 & 115.8 & $\chi^2$ & 4.5& 1.5\\

627: \hline

628: }{Best-fit points from the MCMC samplings for each sign of $\mu$. 

629: $\chi^2 \equiv

630:   \sum_i \chi_i^2$ and the Standard Model inputs are close to their

631:   experimental central values in each case. \label{tab:bestfit}}

632: We see from the table that, as expected, the $\mu>0$ sample has a better

633: best-fit point and a  correspondingly lower $\chi^2$, mainly due to the much

634: better fit to $\delta a_\mu$. In agreement with

635: Refs.~\cite{Ellis:2004tc,Ellis:2006ix}, the best-fit $\mu>0$ point is at light

636: SUSY masses. 

637: The $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ parameters are smaller

638: for the $\mu>0$ case than for $\mu<0$, corresponding to lighter sparticles and

639: the larger contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. 

640: If we take the $\mu<0$ best-fit point and {\em flip}\/ the sign of $\mu$, we

641: find that the point does not break electroweak symmetry properly and is

642: excluded. The $\mu>0$ best-fit 

643: point has a total $\chi^2$ of 181 when the sign of $\mu$ is flipped, mostly

644: due to an increase in the predicted value of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ to 0.195.

645: 

646: The region of smaller $m_0$, $M_{1/2}$ is more

647:   probable for $\mu>0$ than for $\mu<0$: this will lead to a relatively

648:   heavier $\mu<0$ 

649:   spectrum.  Our $\mu>0$ results are generally similar to previous analyses

650:   which did {\em not} \/include $M_W$ and $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ as

651:   constraints in Ref.~\cite{Allanach:2005kz} and to those which included the

652:   one-loop {\tt SOFTSUSY} prediction for $M_W$, $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ with

653:   enlarged theoretical errors~\cite{deAustri:2006pe}.  

654:   This seems in contradiction to the conclusions of

655:   Ellis {\em et al}~\cite{Ellis:2004tc,Ellis:2006ix}, where it is claimed that

656:   the electroweak   variables prefer light SUSY\@. Indeed, Fig.~\ref{fig:st}

657:   indicates that $M_W$, $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ do mildly prefer light SUSY but

658:   our results show that this preference is washed out in the global fits. 

659:   Our results allow for heavier sparticles than Ellis {\em et al}, mainly

660:   because we have chosen to allow more relevant parameters to vary: 8 compared

661:   to 2 in their paper (one dimension is fixed by requiring the relic density

662:   prediction to be the central WMAP-constrained value). Their fits are for

663:   different discrete values of 

664:   fixed $\tan \beta$, but if it were allowed to vary, we believe that the

665:   confidence regions there would be enlarged. In the present paper, we also

666:   obtain additional smearing from allowing $m_t$, $\alpha_s$, $\alpha$

667:   and $m_b$ to vary.

668:   \FIGURE{\twographs{sugraOppmw}{sugraOppstw}

669: \caption{Posterior probability distributions for weak observables in

670:   mSUGRA\@. \label{fig:weakobs}} } 

671: Figs.~\ref{fig:weakobs}(a) and~\ref{fig:weakobs}(b) show the probability

672:   distributions for $M_W$, 

673:   $\sin^2 \theta_w^l$ coming from the mSUGRA fits for both signs of

674:   $\mu$, although the sign does not make much difference.  We see that

675:   the $M_W$ prediction coming from the fits is skewed towards values

676:   lower than the central empirical value, corresponding to a

677:   preference for heavy SUSY from the rest of the

678:   fits. Fig.~\ref{fig:mw} confirms that heavier SUSY tends to have

679:   lighter values of $M_W$.  From Fig.~\ref{fig:st}, we see that heavy

680:   SUSY tends to be on the upper 1$\sigma$ empirical limit of $\sin^2

681:   \theta_w^l$.  Fig.~\ref{fig:weakobs}(b) does show evidence for this

682:   skew, which is rather mild.

683: \DOUBLEFIGURE{sugraOppomega,width=7cm}{sugraOppmt,width=7cm}{Dark

684:   matter relic density probability distribution \label{fig:whsq}}{Top

685:   mass probability distribution

686:   \label{fig:mt}} 

687: 

688: \EPSFIGURE{tb,width=7cm}{Probability distribution for $\tan \beta$ in mSUGRA

689: \label{fig:tb}}

690: The strongest constraint in the fits comes from the dark matter relic

691: density.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:whsq}, we show the probability densities

692: resulting from the fits for the dark matter relic density. Each curve

693: is normalised slightly differently to allow better viewing of the

694: results. We see that both the $\mu>0$ and the $\mu<0$ $\Omega_{DM}

695: h^2$ distributions follow the empirical constraint closely, except for

696: a slight excess just lower than the central value.

697: 

698: Another important aspect influencing the fits is the integrated {\em

699: volume} \/of the probability density, which is automatically taken

700: into account in a Bayesian analysis, as was demonstrated and pointed out in

701: Ref.~\cite{deAustri:2006pe}.  The usual arguments based purely on

702: values of $\chi^2$ above the best-fit value are valid when the probability

703: density function is Gaussian in the interesting parameters

704: (which is certainly not the case here, as even a

705: cursory glance at Fig.~\ref{fig:m0m12} allows). Thus even if, say, the

706: stop co-annihilation region had a much lower $\chi^2$ than other

707: regions of the fits,\footnote{In reality, the stop co-annihilation

708: region fits the data rather marginally.} the fact that its volume in

709: 8-dimensional input parameter space is much smaller than the other

710: regions will automatically disfavour it since its integrated

711: probability will be low.

712: 

713: The LEP2 higgs constraints shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mhpen}, along with

714: the current empirical value of $m_t$ shown in Table~\ref{tab:inp}

715: favours rather heavy mSUGRA\@.  Indeed, Fig.~\ref{fig:mt} shows that

716: $m_t$ is skewed to somewhat higher masses than the empirical

717: constraint, illustrating this tension (again, we have altered the

718: normalisation of the curves slightly for clarity).  Inspection of the

719: $\alpha(M_Z)^{\overline{MS}}$, $\alpha_s(M_Z)^{\overline{MS}}$,

720: $m_b(m_b)$ inputs show that they follow their empirical probability

721: distributions very closely.  There is a large volume of parameter

722: space for the $A^0$ dark matter annihilation region at high $\tan

723: \beta>10$ particularly for $\mu>0$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tb}.

724: High values of $\tan \beta$ mean that light SUSY is disfavoured by

725: $BR[b \rightarrow s \gamma]$ and $BR[B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-]$

726: since the data disfavours SUSY contributions~\cite{Ellis:2005sc},

727: which are approximately proportional to $\tan^2 \beta / M_{SUSY}^4$

728: and $\tan^6 \beta / M_{SUSY}^4$ respectively.  The distributions of

729: these two observables are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bs}.  

730: As can be seen

731: from the figure, the sign of the SUSY contribution to each observable

732: depends upon the sign of $\mu$.  The maxima in each figure correspond

733: to observables being close to their SM limit. 

734: $BR[b   \rightarrow s \gamma]$ prefers $\mu>0$ mildly, as $\mu<0$ tends to

735: predict a $BR[b   \rightarrow s \gamma]$ larger than the central empirical

736: value. 

737: \FIGURE{\twographs{sugraOppbsg}{sugraOppBsmumu}

738: \caption{Probability distributions of (a) $BR(b \rightarrow s

739:     \gamma)$ and (b)$BR(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-)$ in

740:     mSUGRA\@. \label{fig:bs}} 

741: }

742: 

743: \FIGURE{\twographs{sugraOppg-2}{vargm2}

744: \caption{Probability distributions for $\delta a_\mu$ in mSUGRA (a)

745:   for flat priors and both signs of $\mu$ and (b) for $\mu>0$ and

746:   various different priors. The key is explained in the

747:   text.\label{fig:gm2}} } $(g-2)_\mu$ is expected to be the observable

748:   that most strongly discriminates between the two signs of $\mu$. We

749:   plot its distribution in each case in Fig.~\ref{fig:gm2}(a). Since

750:   $\mu<0$ has the wrong sign of $\delta a_\mu$ compared to experiment,

751:   the probability density bunches around zero. Clearly heavy SUSY with

752:   a less negative SUSY contribution is favoured. However, we see that

753:   the $\mu>0$ distribution also prefers smaller SUSY contributions

754:   than the data in the global fits. This was initially unexpected, and

755:   will lead to $\mu<0$ mSUGRA being less ruled out.

756: %

757: In order to understand this behaviour better, we re-weight the $\mu>0$ sample

758: in various ways. $\delta a_\mu$ is approximately proportional to $\tan^2 \beta

759:   / M_{SUSY}^4$ and we need large $\tan \beta$ and rather light SUSY in order to

760:   get a sizable value in line with the central experimental value. As

761:   explained above, this is somewhat in conflict with LEP2 Higgs constraints

762:   and    $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$. We re-weight the $\mu>0$ chains,

763:   dividing by a 

764:   number that removes the likelihood contribution from the LEP2 Higgs

765:   constraint and the  $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ measurement, i.e.\

766:   ${\mathcal L}_h {\mathcal L}_{BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)}$. The probability

767:   distribution of $\delta a_\mu$ resulting from this procedure  is marked 

768:   as the ``reduced'' curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:gm2}(b). It extends to somewhat

769:   higher and more central values of $\delta a_\mu$, showing that some of the

770:   skew in the $\delta a_\mu$ distribution does come from the LEP2 Higgs and

771:   $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ measurements. However, the effect is rather

772:   small and the resulting distribution is rather far from the experimental

773:   distribution, indicating a further effect. There could be a significant

774:   volume effect if regions of parameter space that have central values

775:   of   $\delta a_\mu$ have a small volume. This would render our results

776:   sensitive to the prior, since by changing the measure of the input

777:   parameters, we can change the volume measure~\cite{Allanach:2006jc}.

778: %

779: In order to investigate the effects of this, we re-weight the $\mu>0$ chains

780: by a factor $1/(m_0 M_{1/2})$. Such a re-weighting mimics the effect of using

781:   a logarithmic prior on $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ since

782: \begin{eqnarray}

783: \int P(m_0, M_{1/2})\  d \ln m_0\ d \ln M_{1/2} &=& \int P(m_0, M_{1/2}) \frac{d \ln m_0}{d m_0}

784: \frac{d \ln M_{1/2}}{d M_{1/2}} \ dm_0 \ dM_{1/2} \nonumber \\

785: & = & \int \left(\frac{P(m_0,

786:   M_{1/2})}{m_0 M_{1/2}} \right) \ dm_0 \ dM_{1/2}. \label{rewt}

787: \end{eqnarray}

788: One might consider such a prior on technical naturalness grounds. 

789: The ``log prior'' results are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:gm2}(b). They have a

790: fatter tail out to higher values of $\delta a_\mu$ than the flat prior sample

791: or the ``reduced'' sample. When we perform the re-weighting in Eq.~\ref{rewt}

792: as well as the one to remove $BR(b \rightarrow s \gamma)$ and LEP2 Higgs

793: constraints, we obtain the ``log prior, reduced'' curve in the figure.

794: This shows a yet fatter tail and is starting to approach the empirical

795: probability distribution imposed on the fits. 

796: Our results are obviously somewhat dependent upon the prior. This is

797: essentially because there is not enough precise data yet to constrain 

798: mSUGRA very strongly. We must bear in mind this dependence upon the prior, and 

799: investigate different priors when we estimate $P_-/P_+$ below. 

800: 

801: \TABULAR{|c|ccc|}{\hline

802: prior &  flat & small & log \\ \hline

803: $P_-/P_+$ & 0.16 & 0.12 & 0.07\\

804: \hline

805: }{Ratios of integrated probability for different signs of $\mu$.

806:   \label{tab:ratios}}

807: The total normalisation of the $\mu>0$, $\mu<0$ samples is 

808: shown in

809: Table~\ref{tab:ratios} for various different priors. 

810: The ``small'' prior is a flat prior with a reduced range compared to the one

811: displayed in Table~\ref{tab:inp}. We filter the chains to only include points

812: with $m_0<2$ TeV and $|A_0|<2$ TeV. The table shows that

813: $\mu<0$ is somewhat disfavoured for the smaller ranges and more disfavoured

814: still for the log prior. The result is somewhat sensitive to the prior,

815: indicating the need for more data. We therefore prefer to quote a range 

816: for $P_-/P_+=0.07-0.16$ depending upon the prior. This range is a focal result

817: of the present paper.

818: %\TABULAR{|c|ccc|}{\hline

819: %prior &  $P_-^{\tilde t}/P_+$ & $P_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}/P_+$ &

820: %$\mathbf{P_-/P_+}$ \\ \hline

821: %flat & .063 & .097 & {\bf 0.16} \\

822: %small  & .052 & 076 & {\bf 0.12} \\

823: %log  & .031 & .035 & {\bf 0.07} \\

824: %\hline

825: %}{Ratios of integrated probability for different signs of $\mu$

826: %  \label{tab:ratios}}

827: 

828: 

829: 

830: \section{Fits Without WMAP3 \label{sec:noDM}}

831: 

832: \FIGURE{\twographst{m0m12NDMp}{m0m12NDMm}

833: \caption{Constraints from global fits {\em without the dark matter constraint}

834:   \/with (a) $\mu>0$ and (b) $\mu<0$ mSUGRA 

835:   marginalised to the $m_0$-$M_{1/2}$ plane.

836: We have assumed a flat prior. The posterior probability is indicated by the bar

837:   on the right hand side. The inner (outer)  contours show the

838:   boundary of a $68\%$

839:   $(95\%)$ confidence region. \label{fig:noDM}

840: }

841: }

842: We now briefly examine the effect of removing the dark matter $\chi^2$ penalty

843: from the fits. We could in principle re-weight the chains in order to do this,

844: but we find that that leads to statistical fluctuations in the results that

845: are too large. Initial investigations revealed that the efficiency becomes

846: much higher when we remove the dark matter relic density contribution to the

847: total $\chi^2$. We are able to increase the widths of the proposal

848: distribution to 197 GeV for $m_0$, 100 GeV for $M_{1/2}$, 400 GeV for $A_0$,

849: 8.5 for $\tan 

850: \beta$ and 1$\sigma$ for the Standard Model inputs and {\em still} \/achieve an

851: efficiency of around 35$\%$. This has the consequence that the chains explore

852: the parameter space much quicker than in the previous section, and so less

853: MCMC steps are needed.

854: We run a further 9$\times$200~000 MCMC steps for each sign of $\mu$. This

855: time, both signs of $\mu$ have excellent convergence statistics, $\hat R$

856: being different to 1 at the per-mille level only in each case.

857: \FIGURE{\fourgraphs{higgsNDM}{gluinoNDM}{squarkNDM}{neutNDM}

858: \caption{Probability distributions in mass of (a) the lightest CP even higgs,

859:  (b) gluino, (c) the left-handed squark and (d) the neutralino. Flat priors

860:  have been assumed.

861: \label{fig:massNDM}}

862: }

863: 

864: \EPSFIGURE{omega,width=6.4cm}{$\Omega h^2$ distributions without imposing the

865: dark matter constraint. \label{fig:om}}

866: We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:noDM} that removing the dark matter constraint

867:   yields a very different picture for the mSUGRA probability distributions in

868:   the $m_0$-$M_{1/2}$ plane. This confirms our statement that many of the

869:   features seen in the previous section 

870:   are due precisely to that constraint. The probability distribution is now

871:   much flatter in the input parameter space.  

872: The disallowed region at low $m_0$ and high $M_{1/2}$ is due to the no-charged

873:   LSP constraint. The disallowed region at low $m_0$ and low $M_{1/2}$ is due

874:   mostly to the combined effect of the $(g-2)_\mu$, $BR(b\rightarrow s \gamma)$

875:   and $m_h$ constraints. The disallowed region is significantly larger for

876:   $\mu<0$ than for $\mu>0$, due to those three observables. Marginalisations

877:   in other mSUGRA input parameter planes tell a similar

878:   story, more featureless than the fits including the dark matter constraint. 

879: As mentioned in the introduction, Fig.~\ref{fig:noDM} covers the case of

880:   R-parity violating mSUGRA when the R-parity violating couplings are smaller

881:   than about

882:   0.1. For larger R-parity violating couplings, one would have to include

883:   them in the renormalisation group equations to obtain accurate results.

884: 

885: The more featureless fits have predictable effects on the mass spectrum of the

886: MSSM, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:massNDM}. We have fixed the ranges of the

887: abscissas to be identical to those in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass} in order to

888: facilitate comparison. The lightest CP-even Higgs probability distribution is

889: broader and shifted to heavier values, due to the bigger volume of parameter

890: space allowed at higher $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ values. Gluino mass distributions

891: no longer tail off at higher masses: upper bounds would be mostly determined

892: by the cut-off placed $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$. The gluino mass and neutralino

893: distributions are 

894: also much less peaked than the ones in Figs.~\ref{fig:mass}b,d particularly for

895: $\mu<0$. The flatter distributions are, of course, an indication that the data

896: aren't strongly constraining. Large volumes at large $m_0,M_{1/2}$ effectively

897: move up the squark masses, as Fig.~\ref{fig:massNDM}c illustrates.

898: 

899: The probability distribution of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ is shown in

900: Fig.~\ref{fig:om} for each sign of $\mu$, when we drop the relic dark matter

901: $\chi^2$ contribution. In the figure, we see that huge

902: values can result: in fact the mean value for the $\mu>0$ sample

903: tails off at $\Omega_{DM} h^2 \sim 128$, much

904: larger than the WMAP3 value of 0.1. 

905: \TABULAR{|c|ccc|}{\hline

906: prior& flat & small  & log  \\ \hline

907:  ${P_-/P_+}$ &

908:   {0.45} &

909:  {0.43} &

910:  {0.19} \\

911: \hline

912: }{Ratios of integrated probability for different signs of $\mu$ with no dark

913:  matter constraint.

914:   \label{tab:ratios2}}

915: This illustrates the fact that regions of parameter space which fit the dark

916: matter data in mSUGRA need some special annihilation mechanism that is not

917: typical of the whole space. This and similar arguments have led several

918: authors to consider non-universal models~\cite{gian,sfk}, where the relic

919: density might be less fine-tuned. The distributions are highly skewed, having

920: tiny tails up to $\Omega h^2 \sim 1000$. 

921: The relative normalisation of $\mu>0$ to $\mu<0$ is calculated in the same

922: manner as in the previous section for different priors, and displayed in

923: Table~\ref{tab:ratios2}. 

924: $\mu<0$ is hardly disfavoured in R-parity violating mSUGRA (where we can

925: neglect the dark matter constraint), where

926: $P_-/P_+=0.19-0.45$.

927: 

928: 

929: \section{Conclusions \label{sec:conc}}

930: 

931: We have performed global fits to mSUGRA using indirect data and

932: state-of-the-art predictions of the observables. The MCMC technique was

933: successfully employed despite initial non-convergence of the $\mu<0$ chains.

934: Bridge sampling was used to normalise two isolated maxima that had not been

935: traversed by any chain for $\mu<0$. 

936: We found that $\mu<0$ is somewhat disfavoured in comparison to $\mu>0$ but not

937: by huge margins. The rest of the fit prefers rather heavy SUSY and so the SUSY

938: contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ is small whichever the sign of $\mu$. 

939: $\mu<0$ is only disfavoured marginally, 

940: the ratio of integrated probability densities being

941: $P_-/P_+=0.07-0.16$ depending upon the prior.

942: We see from Fig.~\ref{fig:om} that without

943: the dark matter constraint, $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ is predicted up to values of

944: around 128. This corresponds to a $\chi^2_{\Omega}$ of around 3$\times 10^8$,

945: much larger than is likely from the other observables such as $M_W$ or 

946: $\sin^2 \theta_w^l(\mbox{eff})$.  

947: The fits are therefore completely dominated by the

948: dark matter relic density constraint and volume effects. 

949: Expectations that the SUSY scale will be light because of a preference from

950: weak observables turn out not to be true in the global fits. 

951: If the dark matter constraint is dropped, as would be the

952: case for R-parity violation, $\mu<0$ is hardly disfavoured at all, 

953: $P_-/P_+=0.19-0.45$. $\mu<0$ is much less disfavoured than many seem to

954: assume.  

955: Many recent analyses only consider $\mu>0$ on the grounds that $\mu<0$ is

956: strongly 

957: disfavoured by $(g-2)_\mu$. We have therefore demonstrated that this is {\em

958:   not} \/the case when one considers the entirety of the data and that $\mu<0$ 

959: should still  be considered in mSUGRA analyses.

960: 

961: It could be argued that the flat measure used here in $m_0$, $M_{1/2}$, $A_0$

962: and $\tan \beta$ can be improved upon. For instance, $\tan \beta$ is really

963: a derived quantity and is related to more fundamental Higgs potential

964: parameters, which could be considered more natural to have a flat measure

965: upon. There is also the issue of fine-tuning, recently illuminated in

966: Ref.~\cite{Giudice:2006sn}: we could disfavour regions of parameter space that

967: are highly fine-tuned, for instance~\cite{Allanach:2006jc}. Changes such as

968: these in the prior could potentially change the results of the fits and we

969: intend to investigate them in a future publication. 

970: 

971: Clearly, more data is required to 

972: decrease the dependence of results on the prior.

973: The most helpful data is likely to be that from colliders. 

974: The MCMC fitting technique has been used in an ATLAS study examining how

975: cross-section and kinematic endpoint information constrains

976: mSUGRA and non-universal models~\cite{Lester:2005je}.

977: At this moment, without data from colliders, we are forced to use indirect

978: constraints for the observables. However, in the future it will be desirable

979: to predict $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ given some SUSY collider

980: observables~\cite{Allanach:2004xn,Baltz:2006fm}. If this is in contradiction

981: with the observed value from cosmology, it will point to a wrong cosmological

982: assumption, which could then be changed. In order to really confirm that 

983: dark matter particles have been produced at colliders, one requires

984: compatibility with direct dark matter detection data. 

985: Of course one would like to drop the mSUGRA assumption and perform a general

986: SUSY analysis, but for this it is likely that additional data from a future

987: international linear collider would be

988: required~\cite{Allanach:2004xn,Baltz:2006fm}.  

989: In any case, the techniques investigated in this paper should prove useful for

990: the fits.

991: 

992: \acknowledgments

993: This work has been partially supported by PPARC\@. This paper was produced

994: using the University of Cambridge EScience CAMGRID computing facility.

995: We would like to thank W Hollik for help with electroweak observables, 

996: B Heinemann and C S Lin for the likelihood density penalty of $B_s \rightarrow

997: \mu^+ \mu^-$, R Rattazzi for a discussion about priors,

998: D St\"ockinger for the two-loop contributions to the anomalous magnetic

999: moment of the muon, A Pukhov for help with {\tt micrOMEGAs},

1000: J Ellis, K Olive, T Plehn, L Roszkowski, J Smillie, G Weiglein and the

1001: Cambridge SUSY 

1002: working group for helpful comments and M Calleja for invaluable help with using

1003: CAMGRID. 

1004: 

1005: \appendix

1006: 

1007: \section{Markov Chain Monte Carlos\label{sec:bridge}}

1008: 

1009: Our Markov chain consists of a list of parameter points (${\mathbf

1010: x}^{(t)}$) and associated likelihood densities (${\mathcal L}({\mathbf x}^{(t)})$). Here, $t$ labels the link

1011: number in the chain.  Given some point at the end of the Markov chain

1012: (${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$), the Metropolis-Hastings

1013: algorithm~\cite{Metropolis,Hastings,MacKay} requires one to randomly

1014: pick another potential point (${\mathbf x}$) (typically in the

1015: vicinity of ${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$) using a proposal distribution

1016: $Q({\mathbf x};{\mathbf x}^{(t)})$. There is a large amount of freedom

1017: in the choice of the proposal function $Q$, and this freedom is

1018: usually exploited to improve the efficiency of the sampling process.

1019: In order to ensure that the choice of $Q$ does not bias the final set

1020: of samples in some way, the form of $Q$ is taken into account when

1021: deciding whether to accept or reject the new point.  

1022: If the ratio $\rho$

1023: defined by

1024: \begin{equation}

1025: \rho = 

1026: \frac{{\mathcal L}({\bf x})}{{\mathcal L}{({\bf x}^{(t)} )}}

1027: \frac{Q({\mathbf x}^{(t)};{\mathbf x})}{Q({\mathbf x};{\mathbf x}^{(t)})}

1028: \end{equation} is greater

1029: than one, the new point ${\bf x}$ is appended to the chain.  If $\rho$

1030: is instead less than one, a decision must be made to determine whether

1031: to accept or reject the proposed point ${\bf x}$.  The rule is that

1032: acceptance of ${\bf x}$ must occur with probability $\rho$.  If

1033: accepted, ${\bf x}$ is added to the end of the chain. If not accepted,

1034: the point ${\mathbf x}^{(t)}$ is copied once more onto the end of the

1035: chain.  Whichever point makes it on to the end of the chain is

1036: thereafter known as ${\mathbf x}^{(t+1)}$.

1037: 

1038: As a result of following the above steps, the sampling density of

1039: points in the chain becomes proportional to the density of the target

1040: distribution (such as the posterior probability density, or the

1041: likelihood when the prior is uniform) as the number of links goes to

1042: infinity, under the circumstances described in Ref.~\cite{MacKay}.  The

1043: Metropolis-Hastings MCMC algorithm is typically much more efficient

1044: than a straightforward scan for the dimensionality of input parameter

1045: space $D>3$; the number of required steps scales roughly linearly with

1046: $D$ rather than as a power law.  We take the proposal function $Q$ to

1047: be a product of Gaussian distributions along each dimension

1048: $k=1,2,\ldots,D$ centred on the location of the current point along

1049: that dimension, i.e.\ $x^{(t)}_k$:

1050: \begin{equation}

1051: Q({\mathbf x}; {\mathbf x}^{(t)}) = 

1052:   \prod_{k=1}^D \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi} l_k} e^{-(x_k -x_k^{(t)} )^2

1053:   / 2 l_k^2},

1054: \end{equation}

1055: where $l_k$ denotes the width of the distribution along direction $k$. 

1056: For the case where we include the dark matter relic density in the

1057: calculation, 

1058: we choose $l_{m_0}=100$ GeV, $l_{M_{1/2}}=50$ GeV, $l_{A_0}=400$ GeV and

1059:   $l_{\tan \beta}=3$. 

1060: For the Standard Model inputs, we choose $l_k = 8 \sigma_k / 20$.  We

1061: discuss why these particular values were chosen in the next section.

1062: 

1063: In order to start the chain we follow the following procedure, which finds a

1064: point at random in parameter space that is not a terrible fit to the data.

1065: We pick some ${\mathbf y}^{(0)}$ at random in the mSUGRA parameter

1066: space using a flat distribution for its probability density function (pdf). 

1067: The Markov chain for ${\mathbf y}$ is evolved through 2000 steps.

1068: We then set ${\mathbf x}^{(0)}={\mathbf y}^{(2000)}$,

1069: continuing the Markov chain in ${\mathbf x}$ and discarding the ``burn-in''

1070: chain ${\mathbf y}$. A reasonable-fit point is typically found long before

1071: 2000 iterations of the Markov chain.

1072: We must make sure that we perform enough iterations after this point 

1073: that the chain traverses the remaining viable parameter space. 

1074: We will provide a convergence test to this effect.

1075: 

1076: \subsection{Efficiency}

1077: 

1078: The efficiency of a chain can be defined as ``the

1079: number of links whose coordinates differ from those of their

1080: predecessor in the chain'' divided by ``the total number of points in

1081: the chain''.  There will always be a tension between efficiency and

1082: convergence\footnote{For a discussion of convergence, see

1083: appendix~\ref{sec:conv}.} in chains:

1084: if the $l_k$ are set to be too

1085: small, efficiency will increase but the chain will take too long to

1086: achieve convergence whereas if they are too large, the efficiency will

1087: be so small that the sampling will contain large statistical

1088: fluctuations. 

1089: In practice, the bulk of our posterior

1090: probability density is contained in a very thin hyper-surface in the

1091: 8-dimensional input parameter space~\cite{Allanach:2005kz}. It is thin

1092: because $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ varies very rapidly over mSUGRA space

1093: compared to the high accuracy of the empirical constraint. With the

1094: $l_k$ listed above, we found that efficiencies were at the per-mille

1095: level, too small to achieve a statistically stable result in a

1096: reasonable amount of CPU time.  To achieve a significantly larger

1097: efficiency, we had to reduce $l_k$ to such a level that we lost

1098: convergence because the chains had not traversed the viable parameter

1099: space.  In order to counter this, we expanded the errors on

1100: $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ to $\pm 0.02$ while calculating the likelihood

1101: density in the chain. This artificially thickens the ``surface''

1102: containing the bulk of the posterior probability density, increasing

1103: the efficiency to much more reasonable values of around 5--7$\%$.  In

1104: order to correct for this artificial thickening and re-impose the

1105: required constraint of Eq.~\ref{omega}, it was therefore necessary to

1106: re-weight each link of each chain at the end of the sampling.  Each

1107: link is re-weighted by the ratio of the proper likelihood density

1108: ${\mathcal L}_P$ to the likelihood density with inflated errors

1109: ${\mathcal L}_I$:

1110: \begin{equation}

1111: \frac{{\mathcal L}_P}{{\mathcal L}_I} =

1112:         \exp \left(

1113: 	  {-\frac{(c_{\Omega}-p_{\Omega})^2}{2\sigma^2_{\Omega

1114:         }}} \right) \div

1115: 	\exp \left(

1116: -\frac{(c_\Omega - p_\Omega)^2}{2 \times 0.02^2}

1117: \right) 

1118: \label{reweight}

1119: \end{equation} 

1120: in order to

1121: impose the correct penalty on the links. We ignore additional

1122: constants that are independent of $\Omega_{DM} h^2$ in this expression

1123: since the overall normalisation of the likelihood density is here

1124: undetermined.  The re-weighting procedure necessarily degrades the

1125: statistical spread of the results, however we find that the increase

1126: in efficiency more than compensates for this effect. Below, we

1127: re-weight different variables in order to investigate various features

1128: in the results, but the method remains analogous to the one described

1129: here.

1130: 

1131: \subsection{Bridge Sampling}

1132: 

1133: One of the numbers we will require from our MCMC samples is the ratio

1134: of integrated posterior probabilities of $\mu>0$ ($P_+$) and $\mu<0$

1135: ($P_-$). This ratio will tell us the extent to which $\mu<0$ is

1136: disfavoured over $\mu>0$.  Assuming a flat prior in the variables of

1137: the model, the posterior probability is equal to the integrated

1138: likelihood divided by a factor which does not depend upon model

1139: hypotheses or parameters. Thus $P_-/P_+=\int d{\bf x} {\mathcal

1140: L}_-({\bf x}) / \int d{\bf x}{\mathcal L}_+({\bf x})$, where

1141: ${\mathcal L}_{+,-}({\bf x})$ is the likelihood density of $\mu>0$

1142: $(<0)$ mSUGRA respectively at parameter point $({\bf x})$.  One way to

1143: estimate this ratio would be to include the sign of $\mu$ as a free

1144: parameter in the Metropolis-Hastings procedure, to be chosen randomly

1145: in a proposal point. This algorithm leads to large inefficiencies

1146: because the $\mu>0$ and $\mu<0$ likelihood surfaces have a limited

1147: overlap, meaning that too many proposals for an opposite sign of $\mu$

1148: will be rejected. Also, the procedure would likely provide large

1149: statistical fluctuations for the disfavoured sample, which we expect

1150: to be the $\mu<0$ one. Even though it is disfavoured, we should like

1151: to investigate its properties.

1152: 

1153: A simple way one might hope to evaluate the ratio ${P_-}/{P_+}$ is

1154: \begin{equation}

1155: \frac{P_-}{P_+} = \frac{1}{E_- \left[ \frac{{\mathcal L}_+}{{\mathcal L}_-}

1156:     \right]} 

1157: \approx \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t=1}^N \frac{{\mathcal L}_-

1158: ({\mathbf x_i^{(t)}})}{{\mathcal L}_+ ({\mathbf x_i^{(t)}})},

1159: \end{equation}

1160: where $E_-$ denotes the expectation with respect to the $\mu<0$

1161: likelihood distribution \cite{radford}. $N$ denotes the number of MCMC

1162: steps. 

1163: Unfortunately, a simple importance sampling estimate of this kind does

1164: not work if there are any valid points (${\mathcal L} \ne 0$) for one

1165: sign of $\mu$ that are invalid (${\mathcal L} = 0$) for the opposite

1166: sign of $\mu$.  In our case there are plenty of these dangerous

1167: pairings, as sparticle mass or tachyonic bounds move around in

1168: parameter space depending upon the sign of $\mu$.  To get around this

1169: problem, we use a solution known as bridge sampling~\cite{radford}

1170: with a ``geometric bridge''.  This allows us to generate a (biased)

1171: estimator $r$ for the ratio ${P_-}/{P_+}$ as long as there is some viable

1172: region of $\mu>0$ parameter space that is also viable for $\mu<0$.

1173: The estimator for the ratio is constructed as follows:

1174: \begin{equation}

1175:  \frac{P_-}{P_+}  =

1176: \frac{E_+ \left[ \sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal L}_-}{{\mathcal L}_+}}

1177:   \right]}

1178: {E_- \left[ \sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal L}_+}{{\mathcal L}_-}}

1179:   \right]} \approx r \equiv

1180: \frac{\sum_{t=1}^N \sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal L}_- ({\mathbf x}_+^{(t)})

1181: }{{\mathcal L}_+ ({\mathbf x}_+^{(t)})}}}{\sum_{t=1}^N \sqrt{\frac{{\mathcal

1182: 	L}_+ ({\mathbf x}_-^{(t)}) 

1183: }{{\mathcal L}_- ({\mathbf x}_-^{(t)})}}} , \label{bridge}

1184: \end{equation}

1185: where $(\mathbf x)^{(t)}_{+,-}$ are the parameter points of the links

1186: in the $\mu>0$ or $\mu<0$ chains respectively.  Here, we have assumed

1187: an equal number of links in each chain.  In summary, to calculate $r$,

1188: we must run two chains, one for positive $\mu$ and one for negative

1189: $\mu$, and for every link, record the likelihood one would have

1190: obtained for identical input parameters except for the opposite sign

1191: of $\mu$. 

1192: 

1193: \section{Convergence and Normalisation\label{sec:conv}}

1194: 

1195: \EPSFIGURE{conv,width=7cm}{Convergence statistics for the

1196:   MCMCs. 

1197: \label{fig:conv}}In order to evaluate the convergence of the MCMC chains, we always run 9

1198: independent chains with different random starting points. By comparing the 

1199: similarity of the resulting sampling densities of input parameters in

1200: the chains, one can

1201: construct~\cite{gelman} a measure of convergence $\hat R$. $\hat R$ is an upper

1202: bound on the reduction in variance of parameters that would result from

1203: running the chains for an infinite number of steps. The precise implementation

1204: is  listed in Ref.~\cite{Allanach:2005kz}. Values close to 1 indicate

1205: convergence of the chains.

1206: 

1207: \FIGURE{\twographst{stopm0A0}{noStopm0A0}

1208: \caption{The two types of negative $\mu$ samples: (a) the ``$\mu<0$, 2

1209:   chains'' samples (later shown to be co-annihilation samples), and (b)

1210:   the ``$\mu<0$, 7 chains'' samples (later shown to be

1211:   non co-annihilation samples, dominated by resonant Higgs annihilation

1212:   regions).  The posterior probability is indicated by the bar on the

1213:   right hand side. The inner (outer) contours show the boundary of a

1214:   $68\%$ $(95\%)$ confidence region.\label{fig:stop}}}

1215: We run 9 chains of 500~000 points for $\mu>0$ mSUGRA and for the

1216: $\mu<0$ dark side of mSUGRA\@.  The $\mu>0$ curve in

1217: Fig.~\ref{fig:conv} shows good convergence is achieved by 500 000 MCMC

1218: steps. However, the $\mu<0$ curve shows a problem: convergence is

1219: never achieved. This is a serious difficulty as one could not draw any

1220: quantitative statistical inferences from the non-converged chains.

1221: Further inspection of the $\mu<0$ results shows that two of the

1222: $\mu<0$ chains are in a completely different part of parameter space

1223: than the other seven.  This indicates isolated maxima of likelihood

1224: density which the MCMC has not been able to jump between in the finite

1225: number of MCMC steps attempted\footnote{A proposal distribution with

1226: longer tails, such as an $n-$dimensional Cauchy distribution, would

1227: have more chance of making such a jump.}.  There is no balance between

1228: the two isolated maxima in the sample.  Isolating the two anomalous

1229: $\mu<0$ chains and calculating $\hat R$ between just them, we obtain

1230: the ``$\mu<0$, 2 chains'' curve, which closely approaches 1 by 500~000

1231: MCMC steps. Thus within this isolated maximum, convergence is

1232: achieved.  The same can be said of the other ``$\mu<0$, 7 chains''

1233: samples: they also converge amongst themselves. Thus, the shapes of

1234: each isolated maximum are well determined, but the relative

1235: normalisation of the two different types of negative $\mu$ samples is

1236: not. 

1237: 

1238: \FIGURE{\onegraph{sugraOppmchimstop}

1239: \caption{Probability density in the lightest stop-lightest neutralino mass

1240:   plane for the 2-chain sample. The posterior probability is indicated

1241:   by the bar on the right hand side. The inner (outer) contours show

1242:   the boundary of a $68\%$ $(95\%)$ confidence

1243:   region. \label{fig:stop2}} }

1244: 

1245: In order to illustrate the two maxima, we marginalise the two types of

1246: negative $\mu$ samples onto the $m_0-A_0$ plane in

1247: Figs.~\ref{fig:stop}(a) and~\ref{fig:stop}(b).

1248:   The maxima are isolated in this

1249: plane (as well as in some other 2-parameter planes).  

1250: %As with all

1251: %2-dimensional marginalised plots in this paper, we bin the plane into

1252: %75$\times$75 2-dimensional bins. The colour bar on the right hand side

1253: %of the figures shows the posterior probability $P$ of each bin divided

1254: %by the maximum posterior probability of any bin in the plot. 

1255: The two

1256: regions are completely separated. Their shape is primarily determined

1257: by regions which efficiently deplete the relic density of neutralinos

1258: which, in mSUGRA, is often higher than the WMAP3 constraint.  We

1259: investigate the 2-chain sample in Fig.~\ref{fig:stop2}. 

1260: In the figure,

1261: there are two good-fit regions: where the stau

1262: co-annihilates~\cite{Griest:1990kh} (at moderate values of $A_0$, higher

1263: values of $m_{\tilde t}$ in the figure) with

1264: the LSP ${\tilde \tau}_1 \chi_1^0 \rightarrow \tau \gamma$ and where

1265: the lightest stop co-annihilates (at $A_0<-3$ TeV) with the LSP

1266: ${\tilde t} \chi_1^0 \rightarrow t g$ in the early universe, where

1267: $m_{\chi_1^0} \approx m_{{\tilde t}_1}$, the lower

1268: strip in the figure. There was no significant

1269: stop co-annihilation~\cite{Boehm:9911,arnie,Ellis:2001nx} region for

1270: $\mu>0$.  On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{fig:stop}(b) dominantly

1271: consists of resonant Higgs annihilation

1272: regions~\cite{Drees:1992am,Arnowitt:1993mg,Djouadi:2005dz}, where

1273: $\chi_1^0\chi_1^0 \rightarrow h,A^0 \rightarrow b {\bar b}/\tau^+

1274: \tau^-$ and the focus point region where the LSP has a significant

1275: higgsino component and $\chi_1^0\chi_1^0 \rightarrow ZZ, WW, t

1276: \bar{t}$~\cite{Feng:1999mn,Feng:1999zg,Feng:2000gh}.

1277: 

1278: We need a method to determine the relative normalisation of the 

1279: 2-chain co-annihilation sample and the 7-chain resonant higgs

1280: annihilation sample.  Equivalently we need a method to determine the

1281: ratio of the posterior probability ${\tilde P}_-^{\tilde t}$ of the 2-chain

1282: co-annihilation sample and the posterior probability

1283: ${\tilde P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}$ of the 7-chain resonant higgs

1284: annihilation sample. We use ${\tilde P}$ to denote the fact that the

1285: posterior probabilities are un-normalised.

1286: Fortunately, Eq.~\ref{bridge} provides us with a

1287: solution: we first determine the normalisation of the $\mu>0$ sample

1288: with respect to each separate $\mu<0$ sample, i.e.\ ${\tilde P}_-^{\tilde

1289: t}/P_+$ and ${\tilde P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}/P_+$.  Since these

1290: quantities individually have good convergence properties, their ratio is also

1291: well determined:

1292: \begin{equation}

1293: \frac{{\tilde P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}}{{\tilde P}_-^{\tilde t}} = 

1294:  \frac{{\tilde P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}}{P_+} \div \frac{{\tilde

1295:  P}_-^{\tilde  t}}{P_+} 

1296: =0.097 \div 0.063 = 1.53. \label{RofR}

1297: \end{equation}

1298: Normalising the probabilities as $a{\tilde P}_-^{{\tilde t}} \equiv

1299: P_-^{{\tilde t}}$, $b{\tilde P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}} \equiv

1300: P_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}$, we fix $a$ and $b$ by imposing ${

1301:   P}_-^{{\tilde t}} + {P}_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}} = 1$ and

1302: Eq.~\ref{RofR}. 

1303: The relative posterior probabilities ratios are re-calculated

1304: whenever alternative priors are investigated.

1305: In section~\ref{sec:dark} where we present the total $\mu<0$

1306: sample results, we present posterior probability densities with the correct

1307: normalisation, according to this prescription.

1308: The ratio of the probability of $\mu<0$ to $\mu>0$ is then determined simply

1309: by: 

1310: \begin{equation}

1311:   \frac{P_-}{P_+} = \frac{P_-^{\tilde

1312:  t}}{P_+} + \frac{P_-^{\slash\!\!\!{\tilde t}}}{P_+}. 

1313: \end{equation} 

1314: 

1315: It is worth noting that, had we been unlucky, we might have obtained

1316: only chains like those in the 7-chain sample. In that case we would

1317: have carried on with the analysis without realising about the

1318: different 2-chain sample, therefore any results achieved would have

1319: been incomplete. An obvious question is: were there any other local

1320: maxima that we have missed by not running enough chains?

1321: Unfortunately, any fitting procedure is susceptible to this caveat and

1322: there is no satisfactory answer. Finding a high but very narrow global

1323: maximum is an unsolved problem in any number of dimensions.

1324:  

1325: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{Ellis:2003si}

1328:   J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,

1329:   {\em Likelihood analysis of the CMSSM parameter space},

1330:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 095004

1331:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310356].

1332:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310356;%%

1333: \bibitem{Profumo:2004at}

1334:   S.~Profumo and C.~E.~Yaguna,

1335:    {\em A statistical analysis of supersymmetric dark matter in the MSSM after

1336:   WMAP},

1337:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 095004

1338:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407036].

1339:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407036;%%

1340: \bibitem{Baltz:2004aw}

1341:   E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,

1342:   {\em Markov chain Monte Carlo exploration of minimal supergravity with

1343:   implications for dark matter},

1344:   JHEP {\bf 0410} (2004) 052

1345:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407039].

1346:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407039;%

1347: \bibitem{Ellis:2004tc}

1348:   J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1349:   {\em Indirect sensitivities to the scale of supersymmetry},

1350:   JHEP {\bf 0502} (2005) 013

1351:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411216].

1352:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411216;%%

1353: \bibitem{Stark:2005mp}

1354:   L.~S.~Stark, P.~Hafliger, A.~Biland and F.~Pauss,

1355:  {\em New allowed mSUGRA parameter space from variations of the trilinear

1356:    scalar

1357:   coupling A0},

1358:   JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 059

1359:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0502197].

1360:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502197;%%

1361: \bibitem{Robros}

1362:  R.~G.~Roberts and L.~Roszkowski,

1363:   {\em Implications for minimal supersymmetry from grand unification and the

1364:   neutrino relic abundance},

1365:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 309} (1993) 329

1366:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9301267].

1367:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9301267;%%

1368: 

1369: %\cite{Allanach:2005kz}

1370: \bibitem{Allanach:2005kz}

1371:   B.~C.~Allanach and C.~G.~Lester,

1372:   {\em Multi-dimensional mSUGRA likelihood maps},

1373:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 015013

1374:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0507283].

1375:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507283;%%

1376: 

1377: %\cite{Allanach:2006jc}

1378: \bibitem{Allanach:2006jc}

1379:   B.~C.~Allanach,

1380:    {\em Naturalness priors and fits to the constrained minimal supersymmetric

1381:   standard model},

1382:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 635} (2006) 123

1383:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0601089].

1384:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601089;%%

1385: \bibitem{deAustri:2006pe}

1386:   R.~R.~de Austri, R.~Trotta and L.~Roszkowski,

1387:   {\em A Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of the CMSSM},

1388:   JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 002

1389:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0602028].

1390:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602028;%%

1391: %cite{Heinemeyer:2006px}

1392: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:2006px}

1393:   The code is forthcoming in a publication by A.~M.~Weber et al.;

1394:   S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, D.~St\"ockinger, A.~M.~Weber and G.~Weiglein,

1395:   {\em Precise prediction for M(W) in the MSSM},

1396:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604147.

1397: \bibitem{2loop}

1398: S. Heinemeyer, D.~St\"ockinger and G.~Weiglein, 

1399: {\em  Electroweak and supersymmetric two-loop corrections to (g-2)(mu)},

1400: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B690} (2004) 103, [arXiv:hep-ph/0405255];

1401: S.~Heinemeyer, D.~St\"ockinger and G.~Weiglein,

1402:   {\em Two-loop SUSY corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon},

1403:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 690} (2004) 62

1404:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0312264].

1405:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312264;%%

1406: \bibitem{radford}

1407: C.H.~Bennett, 

1408: {\em Efficient estimation of free energy differences from Monte Carlo data}, 

1409: Jnl.\ of Comp. Phys. {\bf 22} (1976) 245;

1410: A.~Gelman and X.-Li~Meng, 

1411: {\em Simulating normalizing constants: from importance sampling to bridge

1412:   sampling to path sampling}, Stat. Sci. {\bf 13} (1998) 163;

1413: R.~M.~Neal {\em Estimating ratios of normalizing constants using Linked

1414:   Importance Sampling}, Technical Report No. 0511 (2005), Dept.\ of Statistics,

1415: University of Toronto 

1416: \bibitem{rpvSUGRA}

1417: B..~C.~Allanach, A.~Dedes and H.~K.~Dreiner,

1418:   {\em The R parity violating minimal supergravity model},

1419:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 115002 (2004)

1420:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72}, 079902 (2005)]

1421:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0309196];

1422:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309196;%%

1423:   B.~C.~Allanach, M.~A.~Bernhardt, H.~K.~Dreiner, C.~H.~Kom and P.~Richardson,

1424:   {\em Mass Spectrum in R-Parity Violating mSUGRA and Benchmark Points},

1425:   arXiv:hep-ph/0609263.

1426:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609263;%%

1427: \bibitem{PDG}

1428: W.-M.~Yao {\em et al}, {\em The review of particle physics}, Jnl.\ Phys. {\bf

1429:   G33} (2006) 1, http://pdg.lbl.gov/

1430: \bibitem{mtmeas}

1431: The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, 

1432: {\em Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark},

1433: [arXiv:hep-ex/0608032].

1434: \bibitem{softsusy}

1435: B.C. Allanach, {\em SOFTSUSY: A program for calculating supersymmetric

1436:   spectra}, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 143} (2002) 305, [arXiv:hep-ph/0104145].

1437: \bibitem{slha}

1438: P. Skands {\em et al}, {\em SUSY Les Houches accord: Interfacing SUSY spectrum

1439:   calculators, decay packages, and event generators}, JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004)

1440: 036, [arXiv:hep-ph/0311123].

1441: \bibitem{micromegas}

1442:  G. B\'{e}langer, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov,

1443: {\em micrOMEGAs: Version 1.3},

1444:  Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 174} (2006) 577 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405253];

1445: G. B\'{e}langer, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov,

1446: {\em micrOMEGAs: A program for calculating the relic density in the MSSM},

1447:  Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 149} (2002) 103 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112278].

1448: \bibitem{susycont}

1449:  U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,

1450:   {\em Probing supergravity grand unification in the Brookhaven g-2 experiment},

1451:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 1648,

1452:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9507386].

1453:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507386;%%

1454: \bibitem{private}

1455: D.~St\"{o}ckinger,

1456: {\em  The muon magnetic moment and supersymmetry},

1457: arXiv:hep-ph/0609168.

1458: \bibitem{private2}

1459: We thank C S Lin for providing us with the likelihoods. 

1460: \bibitem{bsmumu}

1461: CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 8176,

1462: {\em Search for the Rare Decays $B_{s(d)}$}, CDF Public Note 8176,

1463: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/bottom/060316.blessed-bsmumu3/

1464: \bibitem{Ellis:2005sc}

1465:  A.~Dedes and B.~T.~Huffman,

1466:    {\em Bounding the MSSM Higgs sector from above with the Tevatron's $B/s

1467:  \rightarrow 

1468:  \mu^+ \mu^-$},

1469:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 600}, 261 (2004)

1470:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0407285];

1471:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407285;%%

1472:   J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and V.~C.~Spanos,

1473:   {\em On the interpretation of $B/s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ in the CMSSM},

1474:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 624} (2005) 47

1475:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504196].

1476:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504196;%%

1477: \bibitem{Ellis:2006ix}

1478:   J.~R.~Ellis, S.~Heinemeyer, K.~A.~Olive and G.~Weiglein,

1479:   {\em Phenomenological indications of the scale of supersymmetry},

1480:   JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 005

1481:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0602220].

1482:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602220;%%

1483:  \bibitem{MWSM} M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and G.~Weiglein,  

1484:                 {\em Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D 69} (2004) 053006,   

1485:                 hep-ph/0311148.

1486:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311148;%%

1487:  \bibitem{Awramik:2004ge} M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and

1488:                 G.~Weiglein,

1489:                 {\em Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.} {\bf 93} (2004) 201805,

1490:                 hep-ph/0407317.

1491:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407317;%%

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{mw}

1494: See the July 2006 numbers from http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/

1495: \bibitem{sinth}

1496: S. Heinemeyer and G. Weiglein, {\em The MSSM in the Light of Precision Data},

1497: arXiv:hep-ph/0307177

1498: \bibitem{drMSSMal2B} J.~Haestier, S.~Heinemeyer, D.~St\"ockinger and

1499:                      G.~Weiglein,

1500:                      {\em JHEP} {\bf 0512} (2005) 027,

1501:                      hep-ph/0508139;

1502:                      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508139;%%

1503:                      hep-ph/0506259.

1504:                      %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506259;%%

1505: \bibitem{lep2higgs}

1506:   R.~Barate {\it et al.}  [LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches],

1507:   {\em Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP},

1508:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61

1509:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].

1510:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%

1511: \bibitem{decouple}

1512:   A.~Dobado, M.~J.~Herrero and S.~Penaranda,

1513:   {\em The Higgs sector of the MSSM in the decoupling limit},

1514:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 17} (2000) 487

1515:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0002134].

1516:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002134;%%

1517: \bibitem{Allanach:2004rh}

1518:   B.~C.~Allanach, A.~Djouadi, J.~L.~Kneur, W.~Porod and P.~Slavich,

1519:   {\em Precise determination of the neutral Higgs boson masses in the MSSM},

1520:   JHEP {\bf 0409} (2004) 044

1521:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406166].

1522:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406166;%%

1523: \bibitem{hfg}

1524: E. Barberio {\em et al} [Heavy Flavour Averaging Group],

1525: {\em Averages of b-hadron Properties at the End of 2005}, arXiv:hep-ex/0603003.

1526: \bibitem{gamb}

1527:   P.~Gambino, U.~Haisch and M.~Misiak,

1528:   {\em Determining the sign of the $b \rightarrow s \gamma$ amplitude},

1529:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94} (2005) 061803

1530:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410155].

1531:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410155;%%

1532: \bibitem{Misiak:2006zs}

1533:   M.~Misiak {\it et al.},

1534:   %``The first estimate of BR(B -> X_s gamma) at O(alpha_s^2),''

1535:   arXiv:hep-ph/0609232.

1536:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609232;

1537: \bibitem{Andersen:2006hr}

1538:   J.~R.~Andersen and E.~Gardi,

1539:   %``Radiative B decay spectrum: DGE at NNLO,''

1540:   arXiv:hep-ph/0609250.

1541:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609250;%%

1542: \bibitem{wmap}

1543:  D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1544:    {\em Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results

1545:   Implications for cosmology},

1546:   arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.

1547:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%

1548: 

1549: \bibitem{Boehm:9911}

1550: C.~Boehm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,  {\em Light Scalar Top Quarks and Supersymmetric Dark Matter}, 

1551: {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 035012

1552:   {\tt hep-ph/9911496}.

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{arnie}

1555:  R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso, {\em  Coannihilation Effects in

1556:  Supergravity and D-Brane Models}, {Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B606} (2001) 59

1557:   {\tt hep-ph/0102181}.

1558: 

1559: \bibitem{Ellis:2001nx}

1560: J.~R. Ellis, K.~A. Olive and Y.~Santoso, {\em Calculations of Neutralino-Stop Coannihilation in the CMSSM}, {Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 18} (2003) 395,

1561:   {\tt hep-ph/0112113}.

1562: 

1563: \bibitem{Griest:1990kh}

1564: K.~Griest and D.~Seckel, {\em Three exceptions in the calculation of relic

1565:   abundances}, {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D43} (1991) 3191--3203.

1566: 

1567: \bibitem{Drees:1992am}

1568: M.~Drees and M.~M. Nojiri, {\em The Neutralino Relic Density in Minimal N=1 Supergravity},  {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D47} (1993) 376--408,

1569:   {\tt hep-ph/9207234}.

1570: 

1571: \bibitem{Arnowitt:1993mg}

1572: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath, {\em  Cosmological Constraints and SU(5) Supergravity Grand Unification}, {Phys. Lett.} {\bf B299} (1993) 58--63,

1573:   {\tt hep-ph/9302317}.

1574: 

1575: \bibitem{Djouadi:2005dz}

1576:   A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,

1577:   {\em Neutralino dark matter in mSUGRA: Reopening the light Higgs pole  window,},

1578:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 624} (2005) 60

1579:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504090].

1580:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504090;

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{Feng:1999mn}

1583: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and T.~Moroi, {\em Multi-TeV scalars are natural in minimal supergravity},  {Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84} (2000) 2322--2325,

1584:   {\tt hep-ph/9908309}.

1585: 

1586: \bibitem{Feng:1999zg}

1587: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and T.~Moroi, {\em Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry},  {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61} (2000) 075005,

1588:   {\tt hep-ph/9909334}.

1589: 

1590: \bibitem{Feng:2000gh}

1591: J.~L. Feng, K.~T. Matchev, and F.~Wilczek, {\em  Neutralino dark matter in focus point supersymmetry},  {Phys. Lett.} {\bf B482} (2000) 388--399,

1592:   {\tt hep-ph/0004043}.

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{Armstrong:1994it}

1595: {\bf ATLAS} Collaboration, W.~W. Armstrong {\em et.~al.},  

1596: {\em ATLAS detector and physics performance},

1597: CERN-LHCC-94-43.

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{CMS}

1600: {\bf CMS} Collaboration, A. de Roeck {\em et al}, 

1601: {\em CMS physics technical design report vol. II: physics performance},

1602: CERN/LHCC 2006-021.

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{gian}

1605:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~Delgado and G.~F.~Giudice,

1606:   {\em The well-tempered neutralino},

1607:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 741} (2006) 108

1608:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0601041].

1609:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601041;%%

1610: \bibitem{sfk}

1611:  S.~F.~King and J.~P.~Roberts,

1612:  {\em Natural implementation of neutralino dark matter},

1613:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603095.

1614:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603095;%%

1615: \bibitem{Giudice:2006sn}

1616:   G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,

1617:   {\em Living dangerously with low-energy supersymmetry},

1618:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 757} (2006) 19

1619:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0606105].

1620:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606105;%%

1621: \bibitem{Lester:2005je}

1622:   C.~G.~Lester, M.~A.~Parker and M.~J.~White,

1623:    {\em Determining SUSY model parameters and masses at the LHC using

1624:   cross-sections, kinematic edges and other observables},

1625:   JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 080

1626:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0508143].

1627:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508143;%%

1628: 

1629: 

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{Allanach:2004xn}

1632:   B.~C.~Allanach, G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema and A.~Pukhov,

1633:    {\em Requirements on collider data to match the precision of WMAP on

1634:   supersymmetric dark matter},

1635:   JHEP {\bf 0412} (2004) 020

1636:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0410091].

1637:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410091;%%

1638: 

1639: 

1640: 

1641: \bibitem{Baltz:2006fm}

1642:   E.~A.~Baltz, M.~Battaglia, M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Wizansky,

1643:   {\em Determination of dark matter properties at high-energy colliders},

1644:   arXiv:hep-ph/0602187.

1645:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602187;%%

1646: 

1647: 

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{Metropolis}

1650: N.~Metropolis, A.W.~Rosenbluth, M.N.~Teller and E.~Teller,

1651: {\em Equations of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines},

1652: Journal of Chemical Physics, {\bf 21} (1953) 1087-1091

1653: \bibitem{Hastings}

1654: W.K.~Hastings,

1655: {\em {Monte Carlo} Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their

1656:   Applications},

1657: Biometrika {\bf 57} (1970) 97-109.

1658: \bibitem{MacKay}

1659: D.~MacKay, {\em Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms}.

1660: \newblock Cambridge University Press, 2003.

1661: 

1662: 

1663: \bibitem{gelman}

1664: A. Gelman and D. Rubin, 

1665: {\em Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences},

1666: Stat. Sci. {\bf 7} (1992) 457.

1667: 

1668: 

1669: \end{thebibliography}

1670: 

1671: \end{document}

1672: