1: \documentclass[preprint,notoc]{JHEP3}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3:
4: \def\Vind{V^{\rm induced}}
5: \def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
6: \def\eslt{E_T^{\rm miss}}
7: \def\emiss{\not\!\!{E}}
8: \def\to{\rightarrow}
9: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}
10: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
11: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
12: \def\te{\tilde e}
13: \def\th{\tilde h}
14: \def\tH{\tilde H}
15: \def\tl{\tilde l}
16: \def\tu{\tilde u}
17: \def\ts{\tilde s}
18: \def\tb{\tilde b}
19: \def\tf{\tilde f}
20: \def\td{\tilde d}
21: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}
22: \def\tL{\tilde L}
23: \def\tH{\tilde H}
24: \def\tst{\tilde t}
25: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}
26: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
27: \def\tg{\tilde g}
28: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}
29: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}
30: \def\tq{\tilde q}
31: \def\tB{\widetilde B}
32: \def\tw{\widetilde W}
33: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}
34: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
35: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
36: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
37: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
38: \def\CM{\cal M}
39:
40: \title{Target dark matter detection rates \\
41: in models with a well-tempered neutralino}
42: \author{Howard Baer$^{a,b}$, Azar Mustafayev$^c$, Eun-Kyung Park$^b$
43: and Xerxes Tata$^d$\\
44: $^a$Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA\\
45: $^b$Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
46: FL 32306, USA\\
47: $^c$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas,
48: Lawrence, KS 66045, USA\\
49: $^d$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
50: Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\\
51: E-mail: \email{baer@hep.fsu.edu}, \email{amustaf@ku.edu},
52: \email{epark@hep.fsu.edu}, \email{tata@phys.hawaii.edu}}
53:
54: \preprint{\vbox{FSU-HEP-061018, UH-511-1097-06}}
55:
56: \abstract{In the post-LEP2 era, and in light of recent
57: measurements of the cosmic
58: abundance of cold dark matter (CDM) in the universe from WMAP, many
59: supersymmetric models tend to predict
60: 1. an overabundance of CDM and
61: 2. pessimistically low rates for direct detection of neutralino dark matter.
62: However, in models with a ``well-tempered neutralino'', where the
63: neutralino composition is adjusted to give the measured abundance of CDM,
64: the neutralino is typically of the mixed bino-wino
65: or mixed bino-higgsino state.
66: Along with the necessary enhancement to neutralino annihilation rates,
67: these models tend to give elevated direct detection scattering rates compared
68: to predictions from SUSY models with universal soft breaking terms.
69: We present neutralino direct detection cross sections from a variety of
70: models containing a well-tempered neutralino, and find
71: cross section asymptotes
72: with detectable scattering rates.
73: These asymptotic rates provide targets that various
74: direct CDM detection experiments should aim for.
75: In contrast, in models where the neutralino mass rather than its
76: composition is varied to give the WMAP relic density
77: via either resonance annihilation or co-annihilation,
78: the neutralino remains essentially bino-like, and
79: direct detection rates may be below the projected reaches of all proposed
80: experiments.}
81:
82: %Two exceptions are found: the bino-wino co-annihilation case and the
83: %$A$-resonance annihilation case,
84: %wherein a pure-bino DM particle particle can have
85: %detection rates below all projected reach limits.}
86:
87:
88: \keywords{Supersymmetry Phenomenology, Supersymmetric Standard Model, Dark Matter}
89:
90: \begin{document}
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93:
94: One of the compelling successes of $R$-parity conserving
95: supersymmetric models is the prediction
96: of a candidate particle to account for cold dark matter (CDM) in the universe.
97: The lightest neutralino $\tz_1$ is especially attractive\cite{haim,griest},
98: since it could be produced
99: thermally in the early universe with a cosmic abundance of the right order
100: of magnitude to match precise measurements by the WMAP collaboration
101: combined with data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which
102: yield \cite{wmap}
103: %
104: \be
105: \Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2 = 0.111^{+0.011}_{-0.015} \ \ (2\sigma)\ .
106: \label{eq:Oh2}
107: \ee
108: %
109: The CDM relic abundance can be predicted in particle physics models with
110: thermal WIMPs (such as the stable neutralino of supersymmetric models),
111: where it is found that, aside from the additional complication of
112: possible co-annihilation with electrically charged or colored sparticles
113: or accidental resonance enhancements,
114: %
115: \be
116: \Omega_{\rm WIMP}h^2\sim \frac{0.1\ {\rm pb}}{\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle}
117: \sim 0.1 \left(M_{\rm SUSY}\over{100 \ {\rm GeV}}\right)^2\;,
118: \label{eq:susypred}
119: \ee
120: %
121: where $\langle\sigma v_{rel}\rangle$ is the thermally averaged
122: neutralino annihilation cross section times relative velocity, and
123: $M_{\rm SUSY}$ is the sparticle mass scale. Assuming no hierarchy in the
124: sparticle spectrum, we see that sparticles with weak scale masses give
125: the correct order of magnitude~(\ref{eq:Oh2}) for the relic density,
126: whereas for much larger sparticle masses the predicted relic density
127: will be too large {\it unless} the neutralino annihilation cross section
128: in the early universe is enhanced from its naive value.
129: %Thus, large neutralino annihilation cross sections in the early universe
130: %lead to low relic densities.
131: The smallness of the error bars on the CDM relic density measurement
132: provides a stringent upper bound on the relic CDM abundance predicted by
133: supersymmetric models.\footnote{Throughout our analysis, we assume
134: thermal production of neutralinos and standard Big Bang cosmology, even
135: at very early times in the history of the Universe. We recognise that it
136: is possible to build phenomenologically viable models where the very early
137: history of the Universe is significantly altered. In these more
138: complicated cosmologies,
139: our considerations would not apply \cite{graciela}.} The
140: lower bound is less certain, since the dark matter may be comprised of
141: several particles
142: and the neutralino need not saturate the value
143: in (\ref{eq:Oh2}).
144:
145: In early analyses of supersymmetric dark matter,
146: the favored neutralino annihilation mechanism in the
147: early universe was taken to be $\tz_1\tz_1 \to f\bar{f}$ (where $f$ is a
148: SM fermion), which occurs via $t$-channel sfermion exchange.
149: Many analyses were performed within constrained frameworks
150: where squark, slepton and gaugino mass parameters are related at
151: some high energy scale, and where the sleptons tend to be lighter than
152: squarks owing to renormalization group effects.
153: Within such models, neutralino annihilation to leptons then has a larger cross
154: section than annihilation to quarks since $m_{\tell} < m_{\tq}$.
155: Assuming sfermion exchange as the dominant neutralino annihilation mechanism,
156: the rather low value of $\Omega_{CDM}h^2$ measured by WMAP
157: favors quite light sparticle masses $\sim 100$~GeV.
158: At the same time, sparticle search limits from LEP2 require
159: $m_{\tw_1}>103.5$~GeV and $m_{\tell_{L,R}}\agt 99$~GeV,
160: resulting in some tension between slepton-mediated annihilation scenarios
161: and the WMAP/LEP2 data (see however Ref. \cite{king}
162: for some models where sfermion exchange remains as the dominant neutralino
163: annihilation channel in the early universe).
164: As a result, the more generic prediction of constrained supersymmetric
165: models today in the LEP2 allowed parameter space is an {\it
166: overabundance} of CDM: see Eq.~(\ref{eq:susypred}). In fact, it is only
167: for special parameter choices where the neutralino annihilation cross
168: section is enhanced, or where co-annihilation with colored or charged
169: sparticles is important, that the model prediction is in accord with the
170: measured abundance in (\ref{eq:Oh2}).
171:
172: The situation is exemplified in the extensively studied minimal
173: supergravity model (mSUGRA)\cite{msugra}. This model posits that the
174: minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is the correct effective
175: theory valid between mass scales $Q=M_{\rm GUT}$ to $Q=M_{\rm weak}$.
176: It is assumed that
177: SUSY breaking in a hidden sector induces {\it universal} soft SUSY breaking
178: terms for visible sector fields via gravitational interactions. The
179: effective Lagrangian for the visible sector, renormalized at a very high scale
180: $Q\sim M_{\rm GUT}$, is thus parametrized by
181: a common mass parameter $m_0$ for all
182: Higgs and matter scalars, a common mass $m_{1/2}$
183: for the $SU(3)$, $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gauginos,
184: % masses $M_3$, $M_2$ and
185: %$M_1$,
186: and a common trilinear scalar coupling parameter $A_0$. The gauge and Yukawa
187: couplings and soft SUSY breaking terms are then evolved via
188: renormalization group equations (RGEs) from $M_{\rm GUT}$ to $M_{\rm
189: weak}$, and electroweak symmetry is broken radiatively due to the large
190: top Yukawa coupling. The model is completely defined by the well-known
191: parameter set
192: %
193: \be
194: m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta\ \ {\rm and}\ \ sign(\mu ),
195: \ee
196: %
197: where $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of Higgs field vacuum expectation values
198: $\tan\beta =v_d/v_u$, and $\mu$ is the superpotential Higgs mass term,
199: whose magnitude (but not sign) is determined by the electroweak symmetry
200: breaking minimization conditions.
201:
202: The region of low $m_0$ and low $m_{1/2}$
203: (the so-called bulk region) of the mSUGRA model
204: where neutralino annihilation via slepton
205: exchange occurs\cite{bulk}, is nearly ruled out as already noted above.
206: This leaves only several
207: surviving regions in accord with (\ref{eq:Oh2})\cite{bb}: (1)~co-annihilation
208: regions at low $m_0$ where $m_{\ttau_1}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$\cite{stau,isatools},
209: or at particular $A_0$ values where $m_{\tst_1}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$\cite{stop},
210: (2)~resonance annihilation regions such as the $A$-funnel\cite{Afunnel},
211: where $2m_{\tz_1}\sim m_A$, $m_H$, and the $A \ (H)$-resonance
212: enhances the neutralino annihilation rate, or the extremely narrow light
213: Higgs corridor, where $2m_{\tz_1}\simeq m_h$,\cite{drees_h}
214: and (3)~the hyperbolic branch/focus point region (HB/FP) at large $m_0$,
215: where $\mu$ becomes small and the neutralino acquires a significant
216: higgsino component\cite{hb_fp}, which enhances its
217: annihilation rate into vector bosons.
218: Aside from these regions, most of the parameter space of the mSUGRA
219: model is ruled out because the sparticle mass scale is too high
220: resulting in a suppression of the annihilation rate and
221: a corresponding over-abundance of CDM. Finally, we
222: note that in mSUGRA, the $\tz_1$ is dominantly bino-like over all of parameter
223: space, with the exception being the HB/FP region,
224: where it picks up a significant higgsino component, and becomes
225: mixed higgsino dark matter (MHDM).
226:
227: While the mSUGRA model serves as an economic paradigm for SUSY
228: phenomenology in gravity-mediated SUSY breaking models, the assumption
229: regarding universality at $Q=M_{GUT}$ is not well-motivated theoretically, and
230: models with non-universal soft terms should be considered. In fact,
231: patterns of non-universality generically arise in many SUSY GUT and
232: string model incarnations. But what theoretical template is then
233: suitable? In this report, we will maintain the phenomenological successes of
234: supersymmetric models, while extending the parameter space to allow
235: various patterns of non-universality. Motivated by the successes of gauge
236: coupling unification and the observed consistency
237: of the light Higgs mass prediction ($m_h\alt 135$~GeV) in the MSSM with precision electroweak measurements, we
238: maintain the assumption that the MSSM is the correct effective theory
239: between $M_{\rm GUT}$ and $M_{\rm weak}$. We also preserve the beautiful
240: mechanism of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) triggered
241: by the large top quark Yukawa coupling and associated
242: renormalization group (RG) running of soft parameters from a high scale
243: such as $M_{\rm GUT}$ to the weak scale $M_{\rm weak}$. We assume
244: degeneracy of matter scalar soft terms equal to $m_0$ at $M_{GUT}$ in
245: order to suppress unwanted
246: %FCNCs
247: flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) processes; Higgs boson soft mass
248: parameters may, however, be assumed to be different from $m_0$. Also,
249: even in grand unified models
250: the three gaugino masses need not be unified at $M_{GUT}$ (since SUSY
251: breaking vevs need not necessarily respect the GUT symmetry).
252: Finally, we assume standard Big Bang cosmology with the lightest neutralino
253: as a thermal relic making up the bulk of CDM in the universe: {\it i.e.}
254: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\sim 0.11$.
255:
256: With the increased freedom in the GUT scale parameter space that is now
257: possible with the relaxation of the various universality assumptions, we
258: will be able to find scenarios such that the $\tz_1$ gains a {\it
259: partial} wino or higgsino component: {\it i.e.} just enough to fulfill
260: the CDM relic density measurement (\ref{eq:Oh2}). Models of this sort
261: with mixed higgsino dark
262: matter\cite{ellis_nuhm,drees2,nuhm1,belanger,mamb,lm3dm} (MHDM) or mixed
263: wino dark matter\cite{bn,winodm} (MWDM) have been collectively dubbed
264: models of a ``well-tempered neutralino'' in Ref. \cite{adg}.
265: While tempering will vary the neutralino composition to attain the
266: measured relic density, it is alternatively possible to vary the
267: neutralino mass: in this case, agreement with (\ref{eq:Oh2})
268: may arise via resonant enhancement of the annihilation cross section,
269: via stop or stau co-annihilation, or via the recently suggested
270: bino-wino co-annihilation (BWCA) mechanism \cite{bwca}.
271:
272: Since we will be working only with model parameter choices that
273: completely saturate the WMAP measurement, we will be
274: naturally interested in the associated direct detection of dark matter
275: by underground experiments searching for relic neutralino-nucleus
276: collisions. The spin-independent neutralino-proton elastic cross section, as a
277: function of neutralino mass, serves as a figure of merit for direct
278: detection experiments, and experimental sensitivities are usually shown
279: as $\sigma (\tz_1 p)\ vs.\ m_{\tz_1}$, where effects of the specific
280: nuclear target have been extracted. This allows for a direct comparison
281: of the capabilities of detectors with different target
282: materials. Predictions of direct detection scattering rates have been
283: worked out by many groups for the mSUGRA model\cite{direct}, as well as
284: for models with non-universal soft
285: terms\cite{nezri,bottino,munoz}. Frequently, if a model point yields a
286: relic density {\it in excess} of the value ({\ref{eq:Oh2}), it also
287: tends to give extremely low direct detection rates, painting perhaps too
288: pessimistic a picture for direct detection searches, given the WMAP
289: constraint. By the same token, requiring a model with a well-tempered
290: neutralino which yields the measurement~({\ref{eq:Oh2}), the mechanism
291: which increases neutralino annihilation rates in the early universe may
292: also increase the direct detection rates. This is the
293: case if we start with a bino-like $\tz_1$, and then temper it by adding
294: just enough of either a higgsino component, and in some cases even a
295: wino
296: component, so as to saturate
297: Eq.~({\ref{eq:Oh2}). Large direct detection rates are generally not
298: expected if the neutralino relic density is brought into agreement via
299: neutralino co-annihilation with other charged or colored sparticles, or even
300: via BWCA.
301:
302: \section{Direct detection cross sections in models with a well-tempered
303: neutralino }
304:
305: We begin with a brief overview, in Fig. \ref{fig:dd}, of the current
306: experimental upper limits on the spin-independent neutralino-proton
307: cross section $\sigma_{\rm SI}(\tz_1 p)\ vs.\ m_{\tz_1}$, along with
308: projections for their upgrades and other proposed experiments.
309: Currently the most stringent upper limit on direct detection of
310: neutralinos has been obtained by the CDMS experiment\cite{cdms}, a
311: cryogenic solid-state apparatus in the Sudan mine using $Si$ and $Ge$
312: targets. This limit, shown by the solid contour labelled CDMS, extends
313: down to cross sections of $\sigma (\tz_1 p)\sim 3\times 10^{-7}$~pb for
314: $m_{\tz_1}\sim 100$~GeV, and to about $2\times 10^{-6}$~pb for TeV
315: neutralinos. Since the experiments are based on the measurement of the
316: recoil energy of the nucleus which, of course, reduces with increasing
317: neutralino mass, the limits become weaker (and ultimately saturate) for
318: neutralinos that are much heavier than the nucleus. The goal of
319: CDMS~II, as well as of Edelweiss II\cite{edelweiss} and Cresst
320: II\cite{cresst}, is to achieve optimal sensitivities of $\sim 10^{-8}$~pb
321: by 2007-2008, as shown in the curve labelled CDMS II. In the
322: long-term, CDMS plans to deploy 7 supertowers in the Sudbury mine site
323: in a set-up labelled SuperCDMS, and aims to achieve a sensitivity as low
324: as $10^{-9}$~pb by around 2012\cite{supercdms}. At the same time, a
325: variety of projects are planned to construct large noble gas dark matter
326: detectors, using xenon\cite{zeplin,xenon}, argon\cite{warp,clean} and/or
327: neon\cite{clean} targets. Such detectors are cost-efficient, and can be
328: envisaged to reach the ton scale in target material, and in addition may
329: have neutron veto capabilities. Without making any representation of
330: the feasibility of such detectors, we also show the projected reach in
331: Fig.~\ref{fig:dd} of the Warm Argon Project (WARP), 1400~kg detector,
332: which aims for a sensitivity of $10^{-10}$~pb, as indicative of this class
333: of detectors.
334: %
335: \FIGURE[!t]{
336: \epsfig{file=ddsummary171.eps,width=10cm,angle=-90}
337: \caption{\label{fig:dd}
338: Spin-independent neutralino-proton scattering cross section versus
339: neutralino mass in various cases of models with a well-tempered neutralino.
340: We also show reach and projected reach of CDMS, CDMS II, SuperCDMS and
341: WARP 1400 kg detector. We take $m_t=171.4$ GeV.}}
342: %
343:
344: In addition to the various experimental sensitivities in
345: Fig.~\ref{fig:dd}, we also show the expectation for the
346: neutralino-proton direct detection cross section in various models, but
347: only for parameter choices that give the neutralino relic density in
348: agreement with (\ref{eq:Oh2}). We take $m_t=171.4$~GeV in our analysis
349: \cite{tmass}. Specifically, for each model we generate parameter space
350: points, and then use Isajet v7.74 for the calculation of the sparticle
351: mass spectrum and the associated neutralino relic
352: density\cite{isajet}. Then, for those points where the latter is
353: compatible with its observed value, we extract the spin-independent
354: neutralino-proton scattering rate from the IsaReS subroutine\cite{bbbo}
355: (a part of the Isatools package that includes the evaluation of relic
356: density \cite{isatools} and other low energy observables) and plot it in
357: Fig.~\ref{fig:dd}.
358: We begin by showing for reference
359: the expectation for the direct detection cross section
360: for the paradigm
361: mSUGRA model for $\mu >0$ (red points) and $\mu <0$ (dark blue points).
362: We scan over $m_0:0-5$~TeV, $m_{1/2}:0.1-2$~TeV, $\tan\beta =10,\ 30,\
363: 45,\ 50,\ 52$ and 55, and take $A_0=0$.
364: %
365: For both signs of $\mu$, we see that points form two distinct
366: branches. For positive $\mu$ (red points), the branch which extends
367: from $\sigma\sim 4\times 10^{-7}$
368: pb at low $m_{\tz_1}$ to values below $10^{-10}$~pb for large
369: $m_{\tz_1}$ and is formed by bulk/stau co-annihilation and $A$-funnel
370: points. The HB/FP points where $\tz_1$ forms MHDM lie on the
371: upper branch at roughly constant $\sigma\sim 2\times 10^{-8}$
372: pb\cite{bbbo}. In this region, as higher values
373: %
374: of $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ are probed, an increasingly mixed bino/higgsino
375: $\tz_1$ is needed to maintain accord with (\ref{eq:Oh2})\cite{bkpu}. As
376: a result, the neutralino has a slightly {\it increasing} direct
377: detection cross section. We note that it is precisely in this HB/FP
378: region, which falls entirely within the range of Super-CDMS experiment,
379: that the gluinos and squarks can be very heavy so that the direct
380: detection of supersymmetric particles at the CERN LHC
381: \cite{susylhc,bbbkt,bbko} is the most difficult, even with $b$-tagging
382: capabilities of the LHC detectors \cite{mizukoshi}.
383: %is the region of
384: %parameter space of the mSUGRA model where it is most difficult for CERN
385: %LHC to find supersymmetry, owing to the large associated gluino and
386: %squark masses!
387: We also show the mSUGRA expectation for $\mu <0$ (blue points).
388: %
389: %In this case, extremely low
390: %direct detection rates can occur due to interference between
391: %Higgs and squark exchange Feynman diagrams in the scattering amplitude.
392: The direct detection cross sections in the HB/FP branch are only
393: slightly lower than for positive $\mu$, and should be within the projected
394: detection capability of Super-CDMS. A striking feature is that the
395: direct detection cross section for the stau-coannihilation/$A$-funnel
396: branch falls below even the WARP sensitivity for neutralino masses
397: bigger than just 300~GeV. The suppression of the cross section for
398: negative $\mu$ for large squark masses (where direct detection is
399: dominated by $h$ and $H$ exchanges between the nucleus and the
400: neutralino) was also noted in Ref. \cite{negmu}, and is the result of
401: several contributing factors: the neutralino coupling to $h$ is smaller
402: for negative $\mu$ because of a cancellation between the $H_u^0$ and $H_d^0$
403: contributions to the coupling, there is a negative interference between
404: the tree-level $h$ and $H$ diagrams,\footnote{
405: Although $m_H \gg m_h$, for large values of $\tan\beta$ the $H$-mediated
406: contributions to neutralino-nucleon scattering remain significant. This is
407: because $h \sim H_u^0$ when $\tan\beta$ is large so that its coupling to
408: the strange quark (which makes the dominant tree level contribution) is
409: suppressed by the Higgs mixing angle, whereas $H\sim H_d^0$ has an
410: essentially unsuppressed coupling to $s$-quarks.}
411: but most importantly, diagrams where the
412: Higgs bosons couple via the gluon content of the proton through quark loops
413: interfere negatively (positively) with tree level diagrams where the
414: Higgs bosons couple to the quark content of the proton when $\mu <0$
415: ($\mu >0$).
416: % {\amcorr In this case, extremely
417: %low direct detection rates can occur due to a cancellation between
418: %{\it up-} and {\it down-}Higgs exchange diagrams~\cite{negmu}.}
419: %
420: %In spite of the low cross sections from the stau co-annihilation region
421: %and $A$-funnel, the HB/FP remains with large and
422: %accessible direct detection cross sections of $\sim 10^{-8}$ pb.
423:
424: Next we turn to models with a well-tempered neutralino. In order to
425: avoid extremely lengthy computer scans, for the most part we fix
426: $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta=10$ and take $\mu >0$.
427:
428: \subsection {NUHM1 model: small ${\bf \mu}$ case}
429:
430: The first model we investigate is the one extra parameter non-universal
431: Higgs model (NUHM1)\cite{nuhm1}. These models are inspired by $SO(10)$
432: SUSY GUTs, wherein matter superfields belong to the 16-dimensional
433: spinor representation of $SO(10)$, while Higgs superfields belong to the
434: 10-dimensional fundamental representation. To avoid unwanted FCNC
435: effects, we retain $m_0$ as the common matter scalar mass parameter
436: renormalized at $Q=M_{GUT}$, but now allow an independent SUSY breaking
437: mass squared parameter
438: $m_{\phi}^2$, which can take either sign, for both $H_u$ and $H_d$
439: fields. It has been shown in Ref. \cite{nuhm1} that for any
440: mSUGRA parameter subset of the NUHM1 parameter set,
441: dialing $m_{\phi}^2\gg m_0^2$ leads to
442: a {\it diminution} of $\mu^2$, resulting in an
443: increased higgsino-content of $\tz_1$ which can then become MHDM.
444: %state consisting of
445: %MHDM is achieved, which can then be consistent with (\ref{eq:Oh2}).
446: We
447: scan over the mSUGRA $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane for $m_0:\ 0-2$~TeV,
448: $m_{1/2}:\ 0-1.5$~TeV with $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $\mu >0$, while
449: tempering the $\tz_1$ at every point by dialing $m_{\phi}^2>> m_0^2$
450: until $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\simeq 0.11$ is attained. The associated
451: spin-independent direct detection cross sections are then plotted as
452: green dots. We have checked that other values of $A_0$ and
453: $\tan\beta$ give qualitatively similar results.
454: %Aside from
455: %a band at very low $m_{\tz_1}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:dd} extending to
456: %$\sigma\sim 10^{-10}$ pb due to stau co-annihilation (where $m_{\phi}^2$
457: %need not be dialed to agreement with ({\ref{eq:Oh2}),
458: We find that the direct
459: detection cross sections lie along a band at $\sigma\sim 1-3\times 10^{-8}$ pb,
460: and so this example of a model with a
461: well-tempered bino/higgsino neutralino lies
462: almost entirely within the reach of SuperCDMS.
463: %, at least if $\mu >0$.
464: %Low mu region should be quite independent of sign of mu, so long as
465: %Z1 gets a significant higgsino component. HB
466:
467: \subsection {NUHM1 model: ${\bf A}$-funnel case}
468:
469: Within the NUHM1 model framework,
470: it is also possible to obtain agreement with (\ref{eq:Oh2}) by
471: dialing $m_\phi^2\ne m_0^2$ to large negative values.
472: In this case, the $\tz_1$ remains nearly pure bino, but $m_A$ drops until
473: $m_A \sim 2m_{\tz_1}$, so that the neutralino annihilation in the early
474: universe is resonance-enhanced, even at low $\tan\beta$\cite{nuhm1}.
475: Since a pure bino does not couple to $h$ or $H$, we
476: do not expect a significant direct detection cross section except
477: perhaps when sfermions are also light. For this case- where $m_A$ rather
478: than the -ino content of $\tz_1$ is varied- the expectation is shown
479: by pink dots extending to rather low values
480: below $10^{-10}$~pb, which is below the projected reach of even the WARP
481: 1400~kg detector.
482:
483: \subsection{LM3DM model with MHDM:}
484:
485: In this model, instead of using non-universal scalars, we adopt
486: non-universal gaugino masses. In particular, by taking $M_1=M_2\equiv
487: m_{1/2}$ at the GUT scale, but by dialing $|M_3({\rm GUT})|<<m_{1/2}$,
488: we reduce the gluino and squark masses. This reduction in sparticle
489: masses feeds into a reduction in the magnitude of the $\mu$ parameter
490: via the coupled RGEs and the EW minimization conditions\cite{lm3dm},
491: resulting in MHDM consistent with (\ref{eq:Oh2}) together with
492: low gluino and squark masses relative to charginos and neutralinos.
493: %, where $\Omega_{\tz_1}\simeq 0.11$ at each
494: %point.
495: This is called the ``low $|M_3|$ dark matter model''
496: (LM3DM). For each point in the mSUGRA $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane
497: (again for $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $\mu >0$) we reduce $M_3 >0$ until
498: ({\ref{eq:Oh2}) is satisfied, and show the corresponding
499: direct detection cross section in
500: Fig. \ref{fig:dd} as tan points. We see in this model that
501: %(aside
502: %from low $m_{\tz_1}$ where again the mSUGRA model is already in accord with
503: %({\ref{eq:Oh2}) due to stau co-annihilation)
504: there exists a dense upper band of cross sections where $|\mu|$ is small
505: enough to be MHDM, where $\sigma (\tz_1 p)\sim 2-5\times 10^{-8}$~pb
506: which again falls within the projected reach of SuperCDMS. There is also
507: a lower band of tan points with lower direct detection cross sections
508: where compatibility with (\ref{eq:Oh2}) requires only a small reduction
509: in $|M_3|$ because annihilation via relatively light sleptons in the low
510: $m_0$ region of the parameter space also helps to yield the WMAP value of the
511: CDM density. Although the neutralino is
512: bino-like, $\sigma(\tz_1 p) \agt 10^{-9}$~pb (within the WARP
513: 1400~kg reach) in this region, presumably because of both a slightly
514: enhanced higgsino content and a lighter squark mass (relative to
515: mSUGRA). We have checked that these results are qualitatively independent of
516: the sign of $M_3$. However, if we increase $\tan\beta$ to 30, while the
517: upper band remains essentially fixed, the lower one becomes more diffuse
518: and extends down to about $2\times 10^{-10}$~pb for the highest values
519: of $m_{\tz_1}$.
520:
521:
522: \subsection{Mixed wino dark matter model (MWDM)}
523:
524: In the MWDM model\cite{winodm}, we may either take $M_1({\rm GUT})$ as a
525: free parameter with $M_2=M_3\equiv m_{1/2}$
526: and raise it until, {\it at the
527: weak scale} $M_1\sim M_2$ (MWDM1), or we can fix $M_1=M_3\equiv m_{1/2}$
528: and lower the GUT scale value of $M_2$ until again, {\it at the weak scale},
529: $M_1\sim M_2$ (MWDM2). In both cases, the near equality of weak
530: scale bino and wino masses
531: (with $|\mu |$ remaining large) results in an LSP that is a mixed
532: bino-wino state with only a small higgsino admixture. The
533: resulting mixed bino-wino $\tz_1$ has an increased annihilation rate
534: into $W^+W^-$ pairs (via chargino exchange).\footnote{If $M_1=M_2$ at
535: the weak scale, the LSP is a photino with electromagnetic couplings to
536: the $\tw^{\pm}W^{\mp}$ system, and the corresponding cross section
537: for annihilation to $W$ bosons is governed by
538: electromagnetic interactions.} Co-annihilation effects may also be
539: important.
540: Within the MWDM framework, we can take any point in the $m_0\
541: vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane of mSUGRA, and pull either $M_1$ up or $M_2$ down in
542: value until we get a MWDM particle with $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2\simeq 0.11$.
543:
544: The direct detection cross sections from the WMAP-consistent points for
545: the MWDM1 model (where $M_1$ is raised) are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dd}
546: as yellow points. The striking feature is that the upper edge of the band of
547: cross sections is detectable by Super-CDMS for all values of
548: $\tz_1$ masses.
549: The direct detection cross
550: section remains large in this band primarily because of the enhanced
551: coupling of the lightest neutralino to $h$. This is due in part to the fact
552: that as $M_1$ increases (while $\mu$ and $M_2$ stay essentially fixed),
553: there is not only increased bino-wino mixing,
554: but also bino-wino-higgsino mixing.
555: Moreover, the relative sign of the bino and wino components of
556: $\tz_1$ is negative (it is positive for a pure photino state) so that the
557: contribution from the neutral higgs-higgsino-bino and
558: higgs-higgsino-wino {\it add constructively} in the $h\tz_1\tz_1$
559: coupling\cite{wss}.
560: %
561: %The MWDM1 particles will again
562: %enjoy enhanced direct detection rates relative to the mSUGRA case thanks
563: %to the enhanced wino component of the neutralino, for which both the
564: %quark-squark-neutralino and the neutralino-neutralino-higgs couplings
565: %are strengthened via coupling to the larger $SU(2)$ gauge coupling,
566: %rather than the somewhat weaker $U(1)_Y$ coupling. In addition, there
567: %is also an enhancement due to the relative reduction in the ratio
568: %$m_{\tq}/m_{\tz_1}$. The maximal MWDM1 cross sections asymptote above
569: %the $10^{-8}$~pb level.
570: %
571: There is also a group of points with intermediate and low $m_{\tz_1}$
572: that lie outside of the main yellow band. For those points, the
573: $\tz_1$ remains bino-like, and the WMAP
574: value of relic density is achieved through various stau-coannihilation or
575: A-funnel mechanisms. For these points,
576: the above-mentioned cross section enhancements are absent.
577: and direct detection of the neutralino would only
578: be possible (if at all) at WARP 1400~kg. We have checked that if
579: we increase $\tan\beta$ to 30, the upper portion of the main yellow band
580: remains qualitatively unaltered (if anything, for very low $m_{\tz_1}$,
581: the cross section increases slightly), whereas the lower edge of this
582: band now spreads down to $\sigma(\tz_1 p) \sim 10^{-10}$~pb, so some
583: points with $m_{\tz_1} \agt 500$~GeV may not be within reach of the WARP
584: 1400~kg detector.
585: For these points, an increase of $M_1$ increases $m_{\tz_1}$ until
586: the $A$-funnel is reached before $\tz_1$ becomes MWDM, so $\tz_1$
587: remains bino-like.
588: If instead, we take $\mu < 0$, the {\it entire} main
589: yellow band shifts down and has $\sigma(\tz_1 p) \le 10^{-8}$~pb, so
590: that super-CDMS becomes insensitive for $m_{\tz_1}\agt 500$~GeV, and a
591: significant number of points closer to the lower edge of the yellow band
592: fall below the reach of even the WARP 1400~kg experiment.
593: %
594: %
595: %While many of the points lie beyond the reach of
596: %SuperCDMS, they should be accessible to ton-size dark matter detectors such
597: %as WARP 1400~kg.
598:
599: In the MWDM2 case where $M_2$ is lowered relative to fixed $M_1$ and
600: $M_3$, we see that the direct detection cross section (shown by orange
601: dots) falls off more rapidly with $m_{\tz_1}$ than in the MWDM1
602: case. This is because gluinos and squarks, and hence $|\mu|$, are
603: typically larger for a fixed LSP mass: as a result, the higgsino content
604: of $\tz_1$ is reduced (relative to the MWDM1 case). Furthermore, the
605: wino content, while increased relative to mSUGRA, remains significantly smaller
606: than in the MWDM1 case; the smaller wino component means
607: that co-annihilations with $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$ are crucial
608: in getting the right relic density, so in fact this case resembles
609: BWCA dark matter, and the $\tz_1$ is only slightly tempered.
610: The small wino component of $\tz_1$ results in a smaller coupling of the
611: neutral Higgs bosons to $\tz_1$ pairs compared to the MWDM1 case.
612: The direct detection cross section, which becomes roughly comparable to that
613: of the lower branch of the mSUGRA model, and may lie beyond even the
614: reach of WARP 1400~kg for $m_{\tz_1}\agt 350$~GeV.
615:
616: \subsection{Bino-wino co-annihilation (BWCA) dark matter model}
617:
618: The last method we study to get the observed value of the relic density is
619: to allow $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gaugino masses
620: with {\it opposite signs}, but with their weak scale magnitudes nearly
621: equal: $|M_1({\rm weak})|\sim |M_2({\rm weak})|$ \cite{bwca}. In this
622: case, there is essentially no mixing between the bino and wino states
623: and the $\tz_1$ remains nearly a pure bino DM particle. However,
624: since $m_{\tw_1}\sim m_{\tz_2}\sim m_{\tz_1}$, bino-wino co-annihilation
625: can lower the LSP relic density to its measured value if $M_1$ or $M_2$ are
626: appropriately adjusted. In the BWCA1 scenario, $M_1< 0$ is
627: adjusted for any fixed values of $M_2=M_3\equiv m_{1/2}$, while for the
628: BWCA2 scenario, it is $M_2 <0$ that is adjusted with $M_1=M_3\equiv
629: m_{1/2}$. Because $\tz_1$ remains bino-like, we expect the
630: neutralino-nucleon scattering rate via Higgs boson exchange diagrams to be
631: small, so that $\sigma(\tz_1 p)$ will be relatively small unless squarks
632: are very light. This is borne out by our analysis.
633:
634: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dd}, we show the direct detection cross section for the
635: BWCA2 model (light blue dots), where $-M_2$ is adjusted for a chosen
636: value of $M_1=M_3\equiv m_{1/2}$. In this case,
637: we see that the scattering rates are
638: smaller than in the MWDM2 case, but may be observable at super-CDMS
639: (WARP 1400~kg detector) if the LSP is lighter than 160 (300)~GeV.
640: % at least for $\mu > 0$.
641: The smallness of this cross section is primarily
642: because the neutralino is essentially bino-like so that its higgsino
643: components, which are essential in order for it to couple to $h$ or $H$,
644: are very small. Squark mediated contributions are usually much
645: smaller. We have checked that the contributions from Higgs boson
646: couplings to quarks interferes constructively with the corresponding
647: (loop) contribution from its couplings to gluons, leading to the small,
648: but possibly observable cross section.
649:
650: Although we do not show results for the BWCA1 model where $M_1 <0$ is
651: adjusted to give the relic density, we have checked that the range of
652: cross sections is qualitatively similar to the BWCA2 case except that
653: even for small values of neutralino mass, the direct cross section can
654: drop to well below $10^{-10}$~pb, so that it may not be detectable even
655: at the WARP 1400~kg experiment. This is essentially for the same reasons
656: (detailed above) that the cross section can be small for
657: negative values of $\mu$ in the mSUGRA model. In the BWCA1 case, although
658: $\mu > 0$, the relative sign between the mass parameter $M_1$ of the
659: dominant gaugino component and $\mu$ is negative. The potential for the
660: destructive interference between contributing diagrams means that
661: although the cross section may be observable at the Super-CDMS (WARP
662: 1400~kg) detector if $m_{\tz_1} \le 280$~GeV (400~GeV), direct detection
663: rates could be below the sensitivity of the WARP 1400~kg experiment even
664: for very low values of $m_{\tz_1}$.
665:
666: \section{Conclusions}
667:
668: %The search for supersymmetry (and new physics, in general) takes place
669: %on several fronts. There is the direct search for sparticles at
670: %colliders, there is the search for indirect effects, involving radiative
671: %corrections with sparticles in loops, in rare processes, and finally,
672: %there are experiments searching for evidence of the dark matter in our
673: %galactic halo. These searches are, of course, inter-dependent within
674: %a specific model framework since non-observation of direct or indirect
675: %SUSY signals excludes certain regions of model parameter space. By the
676: %same token, if we identify the thermally produced lightest neutralino as
677: %the bulk of the recently cold dark matter whose density has recently
678: %been determined to a few percent \cite{wmap}, we necessarily
679: %pick out a small subspace of the entire parameter space of any
680: %particular model. It is plausible -- especially if the measured relic
681: %density differs from its ``generic model expectation'' -- that in this
682: %subspace expectations for other experiments may also be quite different
683: %from what we might have expected by a study of the entire model
684: %parameter space. In this paper, we have re-evaluated
685: %the prospects for direct detection of cold
686: %dark matter by experiments designed to measure the recoil of the nucleus
687: %caused by collisions of dark matter particles in light of the relic
688: %density data.
689:
690: %The well-studied mSUGRA model with its hall-mark GUT scale universality
691: %exemplifies the situation we have just mentioned.
692: In general scans over the LEP2-allowed portions of parameter space
693: of supersymmetric models with GUT scale universality (such as mSUGRA),
694: the predicted neutralino relic density is usually considerably above the WMAP
695: measurement~(\ref{eq:Oh2}), while the direct detection rates are
696: pessimistically low.
697: The predicted relic density matches its measured
698: value only if one is in a region of co-annihilation,
699: of resonance annihilation, or of mixed higgsino dark matter annihilation
700: (such as the HB/FP region).
701: In the last case, the predicted direct detection rates
702: for WMAP allowed points in parameter space are roughly constant with
703: $m_{\tz_1}$ at a value $\sigma (\tz_1 p)\sim 10^{-8}$ pb.
704: Usually, as one proceeds to higher values of $m_{\tz_1}$, one has a
705: falling direct detection cross section. However, in the HB/FP region,
706: as $m_{\tz_1}$ increases, an increasingly larger higgsino component
707: of $\tz_1$ is needed to maintain consistency with Eq.~({\ref{eq:Oh2}).
708: The large higgsino component
709: also contributes to a direct detection cross section which is
710: large and relatively stable against variations in $m_{\tz_1}$.
711: The WMAP-allowed part of the HB/FP is
712: an example of a region of parameter space where the composition of the
713: neutralino is tempered to give the observed value of the CDM relic
714: density. In the co-annihilation and resonance annihilation regions
715: where {\it sparticle masses} are adjusted to
716: give the measured relic density the neutralino remains a bino, and there
717: is no
718: enhancement of the direct detection cross section.
719:
720: In our study, we have examined a variety of models where we extend the
721: parameter space of the mSUGRA model, allowing either scalar mass or
722: gaugino mass non-universality, to obtain agreement with (\ref{eq:Oh2}).
723: In well-tempered neutralino models where
724: the composition of the neutralino is dialed to give the
725: observed relic density, we typically get increased rates for
726: neutralino direct detection because the coupling responsible
727: for enhancement of the annihilation cross section
728: frequently also enhances neutralino-nucleon scattering. More to the
729: point, models of well-tempered neutralinos with mixed higgsino dark
730: matter yield neutralino-proton scattering cross sections that asymptote
731: to $\sim 10^{-8}$~pb for large neutralino masses, within the sensitivity
732: of the proposed 25~kg Super-CDMS upgrade of the CDMS experiment as
733: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:dd}.
734: Well-tempered neutralino models with mixed wino dark
735: matter may also yield detectable values of $\sigma (\tz_1 p)$ as illustrated by
736: the MWDM1 model in this figure.
737: These asymptotic values of $\sigma(\tz_1 p)$ can serve
738: as target cross sections that proposed experiments should aim to
739: attain. In contrast, in the MWDM2 model, where
740: the observed value of relic density is
741: obtained more via co-annihilation processes, the wino-higgsino content
742: of $\tz_1$, and hence the direct detection cross section, remains
743: relatively unenhanced.
744:
745:
746: In models where the mass -- and not the composition -- of the neutralino
747: is varied to give the observed CDM relic density via resonance
748: annihilation or via co-annihilation, the neutralino remains dominantly
749: bino-like. In these cases, the direct detection cross sections do not
750: asymptote with increasing $m_{\tz_1}$, and we do not expect an
751: enhancement of the direct detection rate, except for small parameter
752: regions where sfermions are also very light.
753:
754: In summary, we have shown that if relic dark matter consists
755: predominantly of stable neutralinos that have been thermally produced in
756: standard Big Bang cosmology, projections for the reach of
757: direct dark matter detection experiments
758: %designed to detect nuclear recoils caused by
759: %neutralino-nucleus collisions in the material of the detector
760: are substantially improved in supersymmetric models where
761: the composition of the neutralino is adjusted to give the observed relic
762: density. In this case, the neutralino will likely be detectable at
763: proposed experiments. Unfortunately, there is no analogous improvement
764: in the corresponding projections if the measured relic density is
765: obtained by adjusting sparticle masses instead of the neutralino
766: composition.
767:
768:
769: \acknowledgments
770:
771: This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and
772: by the National Science Foundation.
773: %grant numbers DE-FG02-97ER41022, DE-FG03-94ER40833, DE-FG03-92-ER40701 and
774: %FG02-05ER41361.
775:
776:
777: % ---- Bibliography ----
778: %
779: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
780:
781: \bibitem{haim} H.~Goldberg, \prl{50}{1419}{1983};
782: J.~Ellis, J.~Hagelin, D.~Nanopoulos and M.~Srednicki,
783: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B127}, 233 (1983);
784: J.~Ellis, J.~Hagelin, D.~Nanopoulos, K.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
785: Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B238}, 453 (1984).
786: %
787: \bibitem{griest} For recent reviews, see {\it e.g.}
788: C.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,\prep{267}{195}{1996};
789: A.~Lahanas, N.~Mavromatos and D.~Nanopoulos,
790: \ijmpd{12}{2003}{1529};
791: M.~Drees, \hepph{0410113};
792: K.~Olive, ``TASI Lectures on Astroparticle Physics'', \astroph{0503065}.
793: %
794: \bibitem{wmap} D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} (WMAP Collaboration),
795: \astroph{0603449} (2006).
796: %
797: \bibitem{graciela} G.~Gelmini and P.~Gondolo, \prd{74}{2006}{023510}.
798: %
799: \bibitem{king} For cases where $t$-channel slepton exchange is still
800: relevant, see H.~Baer, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and A.~Mustafayev,
801: \jhep{0406}{2004}{044} and S.~F.~King and J.~P.~Roberts,
802: \jhep{0609}{2006}{036}.
803: %
804: \bibitem{msugra}
805: A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
806: \prl{49}{1982}{970};
807: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy,
808: \plb{119}{1982}{343};
809: N.~Ohta, \ptp{70}{1983}{542};
810: L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, \prd{27}{1983}{2359};
811: for reviews, see H.~P.~Nilles, {\em Phys.~Rep.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1, and
812: P.~Nath, \hepph{0307123}.
813: %
814: \bibitem{bulk} H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597};
815: V.~Barger and C.~Kao, \prd{57}{1998}{3131}.
816: %
817: \bibitem{bb} J.~Ellis, K.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~Spanos,
818: \plb{565}{2003}{176};
819: H.~Baer and C.~Balazs, JCAP{\bf 05} (2003) 006;
820: U.~Chattapadhyay, A.~Corsetti and P.~Nath, \prd{68}{2003}{035005};
821: A.~Lahanas and D.~V.~Nanopoulos, \plb{568}{2003}{55};
822: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~Kneur, \hepph{0602001};
823: for a review,
824: see A.~Lahanas, N.~Mavromatos and D.~Nanopoulos, Ref.~\cite{griest}.
825: %
826: \bibitem{stau} J.~Ellis, T.~Falk and K.~Olive,
827: \plb{444}{1998}{367}; J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
828: \app{13}{2000}{181};
829: M.E.~G\'{o}mez, G.~Lazarides and C.~Pallis, \prd{61}{2000}{123512}
830: and \plb{487}{2000}{313};
831: A.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~Spanos, \prd{62}{2000}{023515};
832: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,
833: \npb{606}{2001}{59}.
834: %
835: \bibitem{isatools} H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev
836: \jhep{0203}{2002}{042}.
837: %
838: \bibitem{stop} C.~B\"ohm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,
839: \prd{30}{2000}{035012};
840: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \app{18}{2003}{395};
841: J.~Edsj\"o, {\it et al.}, JCAP {\bf 04} (2003) 001
842: %
843: \bibitem{Afunnel} M.~Drees and M.~Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{376};
844: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \prd{57}{1998}{567};
845: H.~Baer, M.~Brhlik, M.~Diaz, J.~Ferrandis, P.~Mercadante,
846: P.~Quintana and X.~Tata, \prd{63}{2001}{015007};
847: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, G.~Ganis, K.~Olive and M.~Srednicki,
848: \plb{510}{2001}{236}; L.~Roszkowski, R.~Ruiz de Austri and T.~Nihei,
849: \jhep{0108}{024}{2001}; A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~L.~Kneur,
850: \jhep{0108}{2001}{055};
851: A.~Lahanas and V.~Spanos, \epjc{23}{2002}{185}; Ref.~\cite{isatools}.
852: %
853: \bibitem{drees_h}
854: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath, \prl{70}{1993}{3696};
855: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, Ref.~\cite{bulk};
856: A.~Djouadi, M.~Drees and J.~Kneur, \plb{624}{2005}{60}.
857: %
858: \bibitem{hb_fp} K.~L.~Chan, U.~Chattopadhyay and P.~Nath,
859: \prd{58}{1998}{096004}.
860: J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and T.~Moroi, \prl{84}{2000}{2322} and
861: \prd{61}{2000}{075005}; for earlier work, see also
862: H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, F.~Paige and X.~Tata, \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and
863: \prd{53}{1996}{6241}; H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, M.~Drees, F.~Paige and X.~Tata,
864: \prd{59}{1999}{055014}; for a model-independent approach, see
865: H.~Baer, T.~Krupovnickas, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
866: \jhep{0510}{2005}{020}.
867: %
868: \bibitem{ellis_nuhm} J.~Ellis, K.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \plb{539}{2002}{107};
869: J.~Ellis, T.~Falk, K.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \npb{652}{2003}{259}.
870: %
871: \bibitem{drees2} M.~Drees, \hepph{0410113}.
872: %
873: \bibitem{nuhm1} H.~Baer, A.~Mustafayev, S.~Profumo, A.~Belyaev and X.~Tata,
874: \prd{71}{2005}{095008} and \jhep{0507}{2005}{065}.~The latter paper
875: includes a complete list of references on other studies within the NUHM
876: framework.
877: %
878: \bibitem{belanger} G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, A.~Cottrant, A.~Pukhov and
879: A.~Semenov, \npb{706}{2005}{411}.
880: %
881: \bibitem{mamb} Y.~Mambrini and E.~Nezri, \hepph{0507263} (2005).
882: %
883: \bibitem{lm3dm} H.~Baer, A.~Mustafayev, E.~Park, S.~Profumo and X.~Tata,
884: \jhep{0604}{2006}{041}.
885: %
886: \bibitem{bn} A.~Birkedal-Hansen and B.~Nelson, \prd{64}{2001}{015008}
887: and \prd{67}{2003}{095006}.
888: %
889: \bibitem{winodm} H.~Baer, A.~Mustafayev, E.~Park and S.~Profumo,
890: \jhep{0507}{2005}{046}.
891: %
892: \bibitem{adg} N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~Delgado and G.~F.~Giudice,
893: \npb{741}{2006}{108}.
894: %
895: \bibitem{bwca} H.~Baer, T.~Krupovnickas, A.~Mustafayev,
896: E.~Park, S.~Profumo and X.~Tata,
897: \jhep{0512}{2005}{011}.
898: %
899: \bibitem{direct} For a recent analysis, see H.~Baer, C.~Balazs,
900: A.~Belyaev and J.~O'Farrill, JCAP{\bf 0309}, 2003 (007); a subset of
901: earlier work includes M.~Goodman and E.~Witten, \prd{31}{1985}{3059};
902: K.~Griest, \prl{61}{1988}{666} and \prd{38}{1988}{2357} [Erratum-ibid.\
903: D {\bf 39}, 3802 (1989)]; M.~Drees and M.~Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{4226}
904: and \prd{48}{1993}{3483}; V.~A.~Bednyakov, H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus
905: and S.~Kovalenko, \prd{50}{1994}{7128}; P.~Nath and R.~Arnowitt,
906: \prl{74}{1995}{4592}; L.~Bergstrom and P.~Gondolo, \app{5}{1996}{263};
907: H.~Baer and M.~Brhlik, \prd{57}{1998}{567}; J.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and
908: K.~Olive, \plb{481}{2000}{304} and \prd{63}{2001}{065016}; E.~Accomando,
909: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso, \npb{585}{2000}{124}; A.~Bottino,
910: F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel, \prd{63}{2001}{125003};
911: M.~E.~Gomez and J.~D.~Vergados, \plb{512}{2001}{252}; A.~B.~Lahanas,
912: D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos, \plb{518}{2001}{94}; A.~Corsetti and
913: P.~Nath, \prd{64}{2001}{115009}; E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,
914: \prl{86}{2001}{5004}; M.~Drees, Y.~G.~Kim, T.~Kobayashi and
915: M.~M.~Nojiri, \prd{63}{2001}{115009}; see also J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and
916: F.~Wilczek, \plb{482}{2000}{388} and \prd{63}{2001}{045024}; R.~Ellis,
917: A.~Ferstl, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \prd{67}{2003}{123502};
918: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,
919: \prd{69}{2004}{015005}; see C.~Mu\~noz, \hepph{0309346} for a recent
920: review.
921: %
922: \bibitem{nezri} V.~Bertin, E.~Nezri and J.~Orloff,
923: \jhep{0302}{2003}{046}.
924: %
925: \bibitem{bottino} A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
926: \prd{70}{2004}{015005}.
927: %
928: \bibitem{munoz} D.~Cerdeno and C.~Mu\~noz, \jhep{0410}{2004}{015};
929: Y.~Mambrini and C.~Mu\~noz, JCAP {\bf 0410} (2004) 003;
930: see also S.~Baek, D.~Cerdeno, Y.~G.~Kim, P.~Ko and C.~Mu\~noz,
931: \jhep{0506}{2005}{017}.
932: %
933: \bibitem{cdms} D.~S.~Akerib {\it et al.} (CDMS Collaboration),
934: \astroph{0405033} (2004).
935: %
936: \bibitem{edelweiss} A.~Benoit {\it et al.} (Edelweiss Collaboration),
937: \plb{545}{2002}{43}.
938: %
939: \bibitem{cresst} M.~Bravin {\it et al.} (CRESST Collaboration),
940: \apj{12}{1999}{107}.~
941: %
942: \bibitem{supercdms} R.~W.~Schnee {\it et al.} (SuperCDMS Collaboration),
943: \astroph{0502435}.
944: %
945: \bibitem{zeplin} D.~B.~Cline {\it et al.} (ZEPLIN-4 Collaboration),
946: \npps{124}{2003}{229}.
947: %
948: \bibitem{xenon} Y.~Suzuki {\it et al.} (Xenon Colaboration),
949: \hepph{0008296}.
950: %
951: \bibitem{warp} R.~Brunetti {\it et al.} (WARP Collaboration),
952: \astroph{0405342}.
953: %\nar{49}{2005}{265}.
954: %
955: \bibitem{clean} J.~A.~Nikkel, W.~H.~Lippincott and D.~N.~McKinsey,
956: \ijmpa{20}{2005}{3113}.
957: %
958: \bibitem{tmass} Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, E.~Brubaker {\it et
959: al.}, \hepex{0608032}.
960: %
961: \bibitem{isajet} ISAJET v7.74, by H.~Baer, F.~Paige, S.~Protopopescu and
962: X.~Tata, \hepph{0312045}; see also
963: H.~Baer, J.~Ferrandis, S.~Kraml and W.~Porod, \prd{73}{2006}{015010}.
964: %
965: \bibitem{bbbo} IsaReS, see H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev and J.~O'Farrill in
966: Ref.~\cite{direct}.
967: %
968: \bibitem{bkpu} H.~Baer, T.~Krupovnickas, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
969: \jhep{0510}{2005}{020}.
970: %
971: \bibitem{susylhc}
972: H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, F.~Paige and X.~Tata, \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and
973: \prd{53}{1996}{6241}; H.~Baer, C.~H.~Chen, M.~Drees, F.~Paige and X.~Tata,
974: \prd{59}{1999}{055014}; S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles, \npb{547}{1999}{60};
975: S.~Abdullin {\it et al.} (CMS Collaboration), \hepph{9806366};
976: B.~Allanach, J.~Hetherington, A.~Parker and B.~Webber,
977: \jhep{08}{2000}{017}.
978: %
979: \bibitem{bbbkt} H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and X.~Tata,
980: \jhep{0306}{2003}{054}; P.~G.~Mercadante, J.~K.~Mizukoshi and X.~Tata,
981: \prd{72}{2005}{035009}.
982: %
983: \bibitem{bbko} H.~Baer, A.~Belyaev, T.~Krupovnickas and J.~O'Farrill,
984: JCAP {\bf 0404} (2004) 005.
985: %
986: \bibitem{mizukoshi} See P.~Mercadante {\it et al.} in Ref.~\cite{bbbkt}.
987: %
988: \bibitem{negmu} J.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and K.~Olive in Ref.~\cite{direct}.
989: %
990: \bibitem{wss} See H.~Baer and X.~Tata,
991: {\it Weak Scale Supersymmetry: From Superfields to Scattering Events},
992: (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
993: %
994: \end{thebibliography}
995: \end{document}
996: