text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry remains one of the best-motivated frameworks for possible physics beyond the Standard Model, and many analyses have been published of the parameter space of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM). It is often assumed that the soft supersymmetry-breaking mass terms $`m_{1/2},m_0`$ are universal at an input GUT scale, a restriction referred to as the constrained MSSM (CMSSM). In addition to experimental constraints from sparticle and Higgs searches at LEP , the measured rate for $`bs\gamma `$  and the value of $`g_\mu 2`$  111In view of the chequered history of this constraint, we present results obtained neglecting $`g_\mu 2`$, as well as results using the latest re-evaluation of the Standard Model contribution ., the CMSSM parameter space is also restricted by the cosmological density of non-baryonic cold dark matter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$ . It is also often assumed that most of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$ is provided by the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), which we presume to be the lightest neutralino $`\chi `$.

The importance of cold dark matter has recently been supported by the WMAP Collaboration , which has established a strong upper limit on hot dark matter in the form of neutrinos. Moreover, the WMAP Collaboration also reports the observation of early reionization when $`z20`$ , which disfavours models with warm dark matter. Furthermore, the WMAP data greatly restrict the possible range for the density of cold dark matter: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2=0.1126_{0.0091}^{+0.0081}`$ (one-$`\sigma `$ errors). Several recent papers have combined this information with experimental constraints on the CMSSM parameter space , assuming that LSPs dominate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$.

The optimal way to combine these various constraints is via a likelihood analysis, as has been done by some authors both before  and after  the WMAP data was released. When performing such an analysis, in addition to the formal experimental errors, it is also essential to take into account theoretical errors, which introduce systematic uncertainties that are frequently non-negligible. The main aim of this paper is to present a new likelihood analysis which includes a careful treatment of these errors.

The precision of the WMAP constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}`$ selects narrow strips in the CMSSM parameter space, even in the former ‘bulk’ region at low $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$. This narrowing is even more apparent in the coannihilation ‘tail’ of parameter space extending to larger $`m_{1/2}`$, in the ‘funnels’ due to rapid annihilations through the $`A`$ and $`H`$ poles that appear at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and in the focus-point region at large $`m_0`$, close to the boundary of the area where electroweak symmetry breaking remains possible. The experimental and theoretical errors are crucial for estimating the widths of these narrow strips, and also for calculating the likelihood function along cuts across them, as well as for the global likelihood contours we present in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ planes for different choices of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of $`\mu `$.

In the ‘bulk’ and coannihilation regions, we find that the theoretical uncertainties are relatively small, though they could become dominant if the experimental error in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$ is reduced below 5% some time in the future. However, theoretical uncertainties in the calculation of $`m_h`$ do have an effect on the lower end of the ‘bulk’ region, and these are sensitive to the experimental and theoretical uncertainties in $`m_t`$ and (at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) also $`m_b`$. The theoretical errors due to the current uncertainties in $`m_b`$ and $`m_t`$ are dominant in the ‘funnel’ and ‘focus-point’ regions, respectively. These sensitivities may explain some of the discrepancies between the results of different codes for calculating the supersymmetric relic density, which are particularly apparent in these regions. These sensitivities imply that results depend on the treatment of higher-order effects, for which there are not always unique prescriptions.

With our treatment of these uncertainties, we find that the half-plane with $`\mu >0`$ is generally favoured over that with $`\mu <0`$, and that, within each half-plane, the coannihilation region of the CMSSM parameter space is generally favoured over the focus-point region 222Our conclusions differ in this respect from those of ., but these preferences are not strong.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we discuss the treatment of the various constraints employed to define the global likelihood function. In section 3, we present the profile of the global likelihood function along cuts in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane for different choices of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of $`\mu `$. In section 4, we present iso-likelihood contours at certain CLs, obtained by integrating the likelihood function. Finally, in section 5, we summarize our findings and suggest directions for future analyses of this type.

## 2 Constraints on the CMSSM Parameter Space

### 2.1 Particle Searches

We first discuss the implementation of the accelerator constraints on CMSSM particle masses. Previous studies have shown that the LEP limits on the masses of sparticles such as the selectron and chargino constrain the CMSSM parameter space much less than the LEP Higgs limit and $`bs\gamma `$ (see, e.g., ). As we have discussed previously, in the CMSSM parameter regions of interest, the LEP Higgs constraint reduces essentially to that on the Standard Model Higgs boson . This is often implemented as the 95% confidence-level lower limit $`m_h>114.4`$ GeV . However, here we use the full likelihood function for the LEP Higgs search, as released by the LEP Higgs Working Group. This includes the small enhancement in the likelihood just beyond the formal limit due to the LEP Higgs signal reported late in 2000. This was re-evaluated most recently in , and cannot be regarded as significant evidence for a light Higgs boson. We have also taken into account the indirect information on $`m_h`$ provided by a global fit to the precision electroweak data. The likelihood function from this indirect source does not vary rapidly over the range of Higgs masses found in the CMSSM, but we include this contribution with the aim of completeness.

The interpretation of the combined Higgs likelihood, $`_{exp}`$, in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane depends on uncertainties in the theoretical calculation of $`m_h`$. These include the experimental error in $`m_t`$ and (particularly at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) $`m_b`$, and theoretical uncertainties associated with higher-order corrections to $`m_h`$. Our default assumptions are that $`m_t=175\pm 5`$ GeV for the pole mass, and $`m_b=4.25\pm 0.25`$ GeV for the running $`\overline{MS}`$ mass evaluated at $`m_b`$ itself. The theoretical uncertainty in $`m_h`$, $`\sigma _{th}`$, is dominated by the experimental uncertainties in $`m_{t,b}`$, which are treated as uncorrelated Gaussian errors:

$$\sigma _{th}^2=\left(\frac{m_h}{m_t}\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_t^2+\left(\frac{m_h}{m_b}\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_b^2.$$
(1)
The Higgs mass is calculated using the latest version of FeynHiggs . Typically, we find that $`(m_h/m_t)0.5`$, so that $`\sigma _{th}`$ is roughly 2-3 GeV. Subdominant two-loop contributions as well as higher-order corrections have been shown to contribute much less .

The combined experimental likelihood, $`_{exp}`$, from direct searches at LEP 2 and a global electroweak fit is then convolved with a theoretical likelihood (taken as a Gaussian) with uncertainty given by $`\sigma _{th}`$ from (1) above. Thus, we define the total Higgs likelihood function, $`_h`$, as

$$_h(m_h)=\frac{𝒩}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _{th}}𝑑m_h^{}_{exp}(m_h^{})e^{(m_h^{}m_h)^2/2\sigma _{th}^2},$$
(2)
where $`𝒩`$ is a factor that normalizes the experimental likelihood distribution.

### 2.2 $`bs\gamma `$ Decay

The branching ratio for the rare decays $`bs\gamma `$ has been measured by the CLEO, BELLE and BaBar collaborations , and we take as the combined value $`(bs\gamma )=(3.54\pm 0.41\pm 0.26)\times 10^4`$. The theoretical prediction of $`bs\gamma `$  contains uncertainties which stem from the uncertainties in $`m_b`$, $`\alpha _s`$, the measurement of the semileptonic branching ratio of the $`B`$ meson as well as the effect of the scale dependence. In particular, the scale dependence of the theoretical prediction arises from the dependence on three scales: the scale where the QCD corrections to the semileptonic decay are calculated and the high and low energy scales, relevant to $`bs\gamma `$ decay. These sources of uncertainty can be combined to determine a total theoretical uncertainty. Finally, the experimental measurement is converted into a Gaussian likelihood and convolved with a theoretical likelihood to determine the total likelihood $`_{bsg}`$ containing both experimental and theoretical uncertainties  333Further details of our treatment of experimental and theoretical errors, as applied to the CMSSM, can be found in ..

### 2.3 Measurement of $`g_\mu 2`$

The interpretation of the BNL measurement of $`a_\mu g_\mu 2`$  is not yet settled. Two updated Standard Model predictions for $`a_\mu `$ have recently been calculated . One is based on $`e^+e^{}`$ hadrons data, incorporating the recent re-evaluation of radiative cross sections by the CMD-2 group:

$$a_\mu =(11,659,180.9\pm 7.2\pm 3.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^{10},$$
(3)
and the second estimate is based on $`\tau `$ decay data:

$$a_\mu =(11,659,195.6\pm 5.8\pm 3.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^{10},$$
(4)
where, in each case, the first error is due to uncertainties in the hadronic vacuum polarization, the second is due to light-by-light scattering and the third combines higher-order QED and electroweak uncertainties. Comparing these estimates with the experimental value , one finds discrepancies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =(22.1\pm 7.2\pm 3.5\pm 8.0)\times 10^{10}(1.9\sigma )$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =(7.4\pm 5.8\pm 3.5\pm 8.0)\times 10^{10}(0.7\sigma ),$$
(6)
for the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$ estimates, respectively, where the second error is from the light-by-light scattering contribution and the last is the experimental error from the BNL measurement.

Based on the $`e^+e^{}`$ estimate, one would tempted to think there is some hint for new physics beyond the Standard Model. However, the $`\tau `$ estimate does not confirm this optimistic picture. Awaiting clarification of the discrepancy between the $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\tau `$ data, we calculate the likelihood function for the CMSSM under two hypotheses:

* neglecting any information from $`g_\mu 2`$, which may be unduly pessimistic, and
* taking the $`e^+e^{}`$ estimate (5) at face value, which may be unduly optimistic.

When including the likelihood for the muon anomalous magnetic moment, $`a_\mu `$, we calculate it combining the experimental and the theoretical uncertainties as follows:

$$_{a_\mu }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma }e^{(a_\mu ^{th}a_\mu ^{exp})^2/2\sigma ^2},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma ^2=\sigma _{exp}^2+\sigma _{th}^2`$, with $`\sigma _{exp}`$ taken from (5) and $`\sigma _{th}^2`$ from (1), replacing $`m_h`$ by $`a_\mu `$.

As is well known, the discrepancy (5) would place significant constraints on the CMSSM parameter space, favouring $`\mu >0`$, though we do consider both signs of $`\mu `$. In fact, we find that $`\mu >0`$ is favoured somewhat, even with the ‘pessimistic’ version (6) of the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint.

### 2.4 Density of Cold Dark Matter

As already mentioned, we identify the relic density of LSPs with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$. In addition to the CMSSM parameters, the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$ involves some parameters of the Standard Model that are poorly known, such as $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$. The default values and uncertainties we assume for these parameters have been mentioned above. Here we stress that both these parameters should be allowed to run with the effective scale $`Q`$ at which they contribute to the calculation of the relic density, which is typically $`Q2m_\chi `$. This effect is particularly important when treating the rapid-annihilation channels due to $`\chi \chi A,HX\overline{X}`$ annihilations, but is non-negligible also in other parts of the CMSSM parameter space.

Specifically, the location of the rapid-annihilation funnel due to $`A,H`$ Higgs-boson exchange, which appears in the region where $`m_A2m_\chi `$, depends significantly on the determination of $`m_A`$ . For this determination, the input value of the running $`\overline{MS}`$ mass of $`m_b`$ is a crucial parameter, and the appearance of the funnels depends noticeably on $`m_b`$ . On the other hand, the exact location of the focus-point region  (also known as the hyperbolic branch of radiative symmetry breaking ) depends sensitively on $`m_t`$ , which dictates the scale of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking .

In calculating the likelihood of the CDM density, we follow a similar procedure as for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in (1, 7), again taking into account the contribution the uncertainties in $`m_{t,b}`$. In this case, we take the experimental uncertainty from WMAP  and the theoretical uncertainty from (1), replacing $`m_h`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. We will see that the theoretical uncertainty plays a very significant role in our analysis.

### 2.5 The Total Likelihood

The total likelihood function is computed by combining all the components described above:

$$_{tot}=_h\times _{bs\gamma }\times _{\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2}\times _{a_\mu }$$
(8)
In what follows, we consider the CMSSM parameter space at fixed values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 10, 35, and 50 with $`A_0=0`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 10 and 35, we compute the likelihood function for both signs of $`\mu `$, but not for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, since in the case the choice $`\mu <0`$ does not provide a solution of the RGEs with radiative electroweak symmetry breaking.

The likelihood function in the CMSSM can be considered as a function of two variables, $`_{tot}(m_{1/2},m_0)`$, where $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ are the unified GUT-scale gaugino and scalar masses respectively. When plotting confidence levels as iso-likelihood contours in the corresponding $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ planes, we normalize likelihood function by setting the volume integral

$$_{tot}𝑑m_0𝑑m_{1/2}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}$$
(9)
for each value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, combining where appropriate both signs of $`\mu `$. We also compare the integrals of the likelihood function over the coannihilation and focus-point regions, and for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

For most of the results presented below, we perform the analysis over the range $`m_{1/2}=100`$ GeV up to 1000 GeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and up to 2 TeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 35 and 50. The upper limit on $`m_0`$ is taken to be the limit where solutions for radiative electroweak symmetry breaking are possible and the range includes the focus-point region at large $`m_0`$. We discuss below the sensitivity of our results to the choice of the upper limit on $`m_{1/2}`$.

## 3 Widths of Allowed Strips in the CMSSM Parameter Space

We begin by first presenting the global likelihood function along cuts through the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane, for different choices of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the sign of $`\mu `$ and $`m_{1/2}`$. These exhibit the relative importance of experimental errors and other uncertainties, as well as the potential impact of the $`g_\mu 2`$ measurement.

We first display in Fig. 1 the likelihood along slices through the CMSSM parameter space for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10,A_0=0,\mu >0,`$ and $`m_{1/2}=300`$ and 800 GeV in the left and right panels, respectively, plotting the likelihood as a function of $`m_0`$ in the neighborhood of the coannihilation region . The solid red curves show the total likelihood function calculated including the uncertainties which stem from the experimental errors in $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$. The green dashed curves show the likelihood calculated without these uncertainties, i.e., we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=\mathrm{\Delta }m_b=0`$. We see that these errors have significant effects on the likelihood function. In each panel, the horizontal lines correspond to the 68% confidence level of the respective likelihood function. The likelihood functions shown here include $`_{a_\mu }`$ calculated using $`e^+e^{}`$ data. For these values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ with $`\mu >0`$, the constraint from $`g_\mu 2`$ is not very significant. For reference, we present in Table 1 and 2 the values of the likelihood functions corresponding to the 68%, 90%, and 95% CLs for each choice of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$.

When $`\mu <0`$, the $`g_\mu 2`$ information plays a more important role, as exemplified in Fig. 2, where we show the likelihood in the coannihilation region for $`m_{1/2}=800`$ GeV. For $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, the likelihood is severely suppressed (see the discussion below) and we do not show it here.

We now discuss the components of the likelihood function which affect the relative heights along the peaks shown in Fig. 1. In the case $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, the likelihood increases when the errors in $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$ are included, due to two dominant effects. 1) The total integrated likelihood is decreased when the errors are turned on (by a factor of $`2`$ when $`g_\mu 2`$ is included and by a factor of $`3`$ when it is omitted, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$), so the normalization constant, $`𝒩`$, becomes larger, and 2) since $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV corresponds to the lower limit on $`m_{1/2}`$ due to the experimental bound on the Higgs mass, the Higgs contribution to the likelihood increases when the uncertainties in the heavy quark masses are included. When $`m_{1/2}=800`$ GeV, it is primarily the normalization effect which results in an overall increase. The Higgs mass contribution at this value of $`m_{1/2}`$ is essentially $`_{h_{exp}}=1`$. We remind the reader that the value of the likelihood itself has no meaning. Only the relative likelihoods (for a given normalization) carry any statistical information, which is conveyed here partially by the comparison to the respective 68% CL likelihood values.

In Fig. 3, we extend the previous slices through the CMSSM parameter space to the focus-point region at large $`m_0`$. The solid (red) curve corresponds to the same likelihood function shown by the solid (red) curve in Fig. 1, and the peak at low $`m_0`$ is due to the coannihilation region. The peak at $`m_02500(4500)`$ GeV for $`m_{1/2}=300(800)`$ GeV is due to the focus-point region 444We should, in addition, point out that different locations for the focus-point region are found in different theoretical codes, pointing to further systematic errors that are currently not quantifiable.. The $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is not taken into account in the upper two figures of this panel. Also shown in Fig. 3 are the 68%, 90%, and 95% CL lines, corresponding to the iso-likelihood values of the fully integrated likelihood function corresponding to the solid (red) curve. As one can see, one of the effects of the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint (even at its recently reduced significance) is a suppression of the likelihood function in the focus-point region.

The focus-point peak is suppressed relative to the coannihilation peak at low $`m_0`$ because of the theoretical sensitivity to the experimental uncertainty in the top mass. We recall that the likelihood function is proportional to $`\sigma ^1`$, and that $`\sigma `$ which scales with $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2)/m_t`$, is very large at large $`m_0`$ . This sensitivity is shown in Fig. 4, which plots both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2)/m_t`$ for the cut corresponding to Fig. 3c. Notice that, for the two values of $`m_0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.1`$, corresponding to the coannihilation and focus-point regions, the error due to the uncertainty in $`m_t`$ is far greater in the focus-point region than in the coannihilation region. Thus, even though the exponential in $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2}`$ is of order unity near the focus-point region when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.1`$, the prefactor is very small due the large uncertainty in the top mass. This accounts for the factor of $`>1000`$ suppression seen in Fig. 3 when comparing the two peaks of the solid red curves.

We note also that there is another broad, low-lying peak at intermediate values of $`m_0`$. This is due to a combination of the effects of $`\sigma `$ in the prefactor and the exponential. We expect a bump to occur when the Gaussian exponential is of order unity, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m_t\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2/m_t`$. From the solid curve in Fig. 4, we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^210`$ at large $`m_0`$ for our nominal value $`m_t`$ = 175 GeV, but it varies significantly as one samples the favoured range of $`m_t`$ within its present uncertainty. The competition between the exponential and the prefactor would require a large theoretical uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2/m_t2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=5`$ GeV. From the dashed curve in Fig. 4, we see that this occurs when $`m_01000`$ GeV, which is the position of the broad secondary peak in Fig. 3a. At higher $`m_0`$, $`\sigma `$ continues to grow, and the prefactor suppresses the likelihood function until $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ drops to $`0.1`$ in the focus-point region.

As is clear from the above discussion, the impact of the present experimental error in $`m_t`$ is particularly important in this region. This point is further demonstrated by the differences between the curves in each panel, where we decrease ad hoc the experimental uncertainty in $`m_t`$. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$ is decreased, the intermediate bump blends into the broad focus-point peak. Once again, this can be understood from Fig. 4, where we see that as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$ is decreased, we require a large sensitivity to $`m_t`$ in order to get an increase in $``$. This happens at higher $`m_0`$, and thus explains the shift in the intermediate bump to higher $`m_0`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t`$ decreases. When the uncertainties in $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$ are set to 0, we obtain a narrow peak in the focus-point region. This is suppressed relative to the coannihilation peak, due to the effect of the $`g_\mu 2`$ contribution to the likelihood.

We can now understand better Tables 1 and 2 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. For the cases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t0`$ in Table 1 and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=5`$ GeV in Table 2, the coannihilation peak is much higher than the focus-point peak, so that the 68% CL (or even the 80% CL) does not include the focus point. To reach the 90% CL, we need to include some part of the focus point, and this explains why the 68% CL is much higher than the 90% CL. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=1`$ GeV case in Table 2 is a peculiar one in which the integral over the coannihilation peak is already around 68% of the total integral and, because the focus point peak is flat and broad, we do not need to change the level much to get the 90% CL. In the cases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=0`$, and also $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=0.5`$ GeV in Table 2, the focus-point peak is also relatively high and already contributes at the 68% CL. Therefore we do not see an order of magnitude change between the 68% CL and the 90% CL.

As one would expect, the effect of the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is more pronounced when $`\mu <0`$. This is seen in Fig. 5 for the cut with $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV. The most startling feature is the absence of the coannihilation peak at low $`m_0`$ when the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is applied. In this case, the focus-point region survives, because the sparticle masses there are large enough for the supersymmetric contribution to $`g_\mu 2`$ to be acceptably small. The broad plateau at intermediate $`m_0`$ is suppressed in this case, and the likelihood does not reach the 95% CL when $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=5`$ GeV. Another effect of the Higgs mass likelihood can be seen by comparing the coannihilation regions for the two signs of $`\mu `$ when $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV and the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is not applied. Because the Higgs mass constraint is stronger when $`\mu <0`$ 555For the same Higgs mass $`m_h`$, one needs to go to a higher value of $`m_{1/2}`$ when $`\mu <0`$. For the choices $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`m_{1/2}=300`$ GeV, we find using FeynHiggs nominal values $`m_h=114.1`$ GeV for $`\mu >0`$ and $`m_h=112.8`$ GeV when $`\mu <0`$., the coannihilation peak is suppressed when $`\mu <0`$ relative to its height when $`\mu >0`$. We note that part of the suppression here is due to the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint, which also favours positive $`\mu `$.

We show in Fig. 6 the likelihood function along cuts in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35,A_0=0,\mu <0`$ and $`m_{1/2}=1000`$ GeV (left panels) and $`1500`$ GeV (right panels). The $`g_\mu 2`$ contribution to the likelihood is included in the bottom panels, but not in the top panels. The line styles are the same as in Fig. 3, and we note that the behaviours in the focus-point regions are qualitatively similar. However, at $`m_01000`$ GeV the likelihood function exhibits double-peak structures reflecting the locations of the coannihilation strip and the rapid-annihilation funnels, whose widths depend on the assumed error in $`m_t`$, as can be seen by comparing the different line styles.

Fig. 7 displays the likelihood function along cuts in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50,A_0=0,\mu >0`$ and $`m_{1/2}=800`$ GeV (left panels) or $`1600`$ GeV (right panels). The $`g_\mu 2`$ contribution to the likelihood is included in the bottom panels, but not in the top panels. The line styles are the same as in Fig. 3, and we note that the coannihilation and focus-point regions even link up somewhat below the 95% CL in the case of $`m_0=800`$ GeV, if the present error in $`m_t`$ is assumed, but only if the $`g_\mu 2`$ contribution to the likelihood is discarded. In this case, we can not resolve the difference between the coannihilation and funnel peaks.

## 4 Likelihood Contours in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ Planes

Using the fully normalized likelihood function $`_{tot}`$ obtained by combining both signs of $`\mu `$ for each value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we now determine the regions in the $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ planes which correspond to specific CLs. For a given CL, $`x`$, an iso-likelihood contour is determined such that the integrated volume of $`_{tot}`$ within that contour is equal to $`x`$, when the total volume is normalized to unity. The values of the likelihood corresponding to the displayed contours are tabulated in Table 1 (with $`g_\mu 2`$) and Table 2 (without $`g_\mu 2`$).

Fig. 8 extends the previous analysis to the entire $`(m_{1/2},m_0)`$ plane for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`A_0=0`$, including both signs of $`\mu `$. The darkest (blue), intermediate (red) and lightest (green) shaded regions are, respectively, those where the likelihood is above 68%, above 90%, and above 95%. Overall, the likelihood for $`\mu <0`$ is less than that for $`\mu >0`$, even without including any information about $`g_\mu 2`$ due to the Higgs and $`bs\gamma `$ constraints. Only the bulk and coannihilation-tail regions appear above the 68% level, but the focus-point region appears above the 90% level, and so cannot be excluded.

The highly non-Gaussian behaviour of the likelihood shown in Fig. 8 can be understood when comparing this figure to Fig. 3(a,b). At fixed $`m_{1/2}`$ and for a given CL, portions of the likelihood function above the horizontal lines in 3(a,b) correspond to shaded regions in Fig. 8. The broad low-lying bump or plateau in the likelihood function at intermediate values of $`m_0`$ is now reflected in the extended features seen in Fig. 8. The extent of this plateau is somewhat diminished for $`\mu <0`$.

The bulk region is more apparent in the left panel of Fig. 8 for $`\mu >0`$ than it would be if the experimental error in $`m_t`$ and the theoretical error in $`m_h`$ were neglected. Fig. 9 complements the previous figures by showing the likelihood functions as they would appear if there were no uncertainty in $`m_t`$, keeping the other inputs the same and using no information about $`g_\mu 2`$. We see that, in this case, both the coannihilation and focus-point strips rise above the 68% CL.

Fig. 10 is also for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and $`A_0=0`$, including both signs of $`\mu `$. This time, we include also the $`g_\mu 2`$ likelihood, calculated on the basis of the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation estimate of the Standard Model contribution. This figure represents an extension of Fig. 3(c,d). In this case, very low values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ are disfavoured when $`\mu >0`$. Furthermore, for $`\mu <0`$ the likelihood is suppressed and no part of the coannihilation tail is above the 68% CL. In addition, none of the focus point region lies above the 90% CL for either positive or negative $`\mu `$. However, neither of these can be excluded completely, since there are $`\mu <0`$ zones within the 90% likelihood contour, and focus-point zones within the 95% likelihood contour.

It is important to note that the results presented thus far are somewhat dependent on the range chosen for $`m_{1/2}`$, which has so far been restricted for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ to $`1`$ TeV. In Fig. 11, we show the the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ plane for $`\mu >0`$ and $`\mu <0`$ allowing $`m_{1/2}`$ up to 2 TeV, including the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint. Comparing this figure with Fig. 10, we see that a considerable portion of the focus-point region is now above the 90% CL due to the enhanced volume contribution at large $`m_{1/2}`$.

Fig. 12 is for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$, $`A_0=0`$ for both $`\mu >0`$ and $`\mu <0`$. Fig. 13 includes the $`g_\mu 2`$ likelihood, calculated on the basis of the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation estimate of the Standard Model contribution, which is not included in the previous figure. In this case, regions at small $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ are disfavoured by the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint, as seen in both figures with $`\mu <0`$. At larger $`m_{1/2}`$, the coannihilation region is broadened by a merger with the rapid-annihilation funnel that appears for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The optional $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint would prefer $`\mu >0`$, and in the $`\mu <0`$ half-plane it favours larger $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$, as seen when the left and right panels are compared.

Fig. 14 is for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, $`A_0=0`$ and $`\mu >0`$. Again, the right panel includes the $`g_\mu 2`$ likelihood, calculated on the basis of the $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation estimate of the Standard Model contribution, which is not included in the left panel. In this case, the disfavouring of regions at small $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$ by the $`bs\gamma `$ constraint is less severe than in the case of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ and $`\mu <0`$, but is still visible in both panels. The coannihilation region is again broadened by a merger with the rapid-annihilation funnel. In the absence of the $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint, both the coannihilation and the focus-point regions feature strips allowed at the 68% CL, and these are linked by a bridge at the 95% CL. However, when the optional $`g_\mu 2`$ constraint is applied, this bridge disappears, the 90% and 95% CL strips in the focus-point region becomes much thinner, and the 68% strip disappears in this region.

## 5 Summary

We have presented in this paper a new global likelihood analysis of the CMSSM, incorporating the likelihoods contributed by $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$ and (optionally) $`g_\mu 2`$. We have discussed extensively the impacts of the current experimental uncertainties in $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$, which affect each of $`m_h`$, $`bs\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$. In particular, the widths of the coannihilation and focus-point strips are sensitive to the uncertainties in $`m_t`$ and $`m_b`$, and a low-lying plateau in the likelihood is found with the present uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_t=5`$ GeV.

We recall that the absolute values of the likelihood integrals are not in themselves meaningful, but their relative values do carry some information. Generally speaking, the global likelihood function reaches higher values in the coannihilation region than in the focus-point region, as can be seen by comparing the entries with and without parentheses in Table 3. This tendency would have been reversed if the uncertainty in $`m_t`$ had been neglected, as seen in Table 4, but the preference for the coannihilation region is in any case not conclusive.

Table 3 also displays the integrated likelihood function for different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the sign of $`\mu `$, exhibiting a weak general preference for $`\mu >0`$ if the $`g_\mu 2`$ information is used. If this information is not used, $`\mu <0`$ is preferred for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$, but $`\mu >0`$ is still preferred for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. There is no significant preference for any value between $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and the upper limits $`>35`$ and $`>50`$ where electroweak symmetry breaking ceases to be possible in the CMSSM, though we do find a weak preference for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ and $`\mu >0`$.

In the foreseeable future, the analysis in this paper could be refined with the aid of improved measurements of $`m_t`$ at the Fermilab Tevatron collider, by refined estimates of $`m_b`$, by better determinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2`$ and more experimental and theoretical insight into $`g_\mu 2`$, in particular. One could also consider supplementing our phenomenological analysis with arguments based on naturalness or fine-tuning, which would tend to disfavour larger values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$. However, in the absence of such theoretical arguments, our analysis shows that long strips in the coannihilation and focus-point regions cannot be excluded on the basis of present data. The preparations for searches for supersymmetry at future colliders should therefore not be restricted to low values of $`m_{1/2}`$ and $`m_0`$.

Acknowledgments
We thank Martin Grünewald and Peter Igo-Kemenes for help with the Higgs likelihood, and Geri Ganis for help with the $`bs\gamma `$ likelihood. The work of K.A.O., Y.S., and V.C.S. was supported in part by DOE grant DE–FG02–94ER–40823.


format: text

text:
# Formalism for the Subhalo Mass Function in the Tidal-limit Approximation

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The dark halo substructures (dark subhalos) are the dynamically distinct, self-bound objects in virialized dark matter halos. The presence of substructures in the dark matter halos is a generic picture of the cold dark matter (CDM) cosmology. Recent numerical simulations of ultra-high resolution indeed confirmed that the dark halos are not smooth structureless objects but clumpy systems marked by a wealth of substructures (Tormen et al., 1998; Klypin et al., 1999; Okamoto & Habe, 1999; Ghigna et al., 2000; Springel et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2002; De Lucia et al., 2003; Hayashi et al., 2003; Zenter & Bullock, 2003).

Recently, the mass function of dark subhalos has drawn sharp attentions (Fujita et al., 2002; Sheth, 2003; Blanton, 2003) especially because of its connection to the galaxy luminosity function. Yet, it is not an easy task to derive the subhalo mass function either in numerical or analytical ways. The numerical approach to the subhalo mass function using N-body simulations still suffers from resolution effects related to the so called over-merging problem (Klypin et al., 1999). Even recently available ultra-high resolution simulations are capable of producing only the local subhalo mass function, i.e., the mass function of the subhalos within one individual dark halo (Okamoto & Habe, 1999; Ghigna et al., 2000). Given the importance of the subhalo mass function as a clue to understanding of the galaxy luminosity function, however, what is also desired is the global subhalo mass function, i.e., the mass function of all the subhalos in the universe, irrespective of the host halos.

As for the analytic approach, the hindrance is the complexity of the subhalo evolution. For the mass function of dark halos, we already have a remarkably successful theory developed by Press & Schechter (1974, hereafter PS). The principle of the PS theory is this: the formation and evolution of dark halos can be traced by the linear theory, assuming (i) dark halos have no internal structure; (ii) dark halos form independently of their surroundings; (iii) dark halos do not lose mass in the evolution but only hierarchically merge via gravity. Unlike the case of the halo mass function, however, the subhalo mass function cannot be derived under such simple assumptions. The subhalos are, by definitions, the internal structures of the halos, being placed in highly dense surroundings, and thus the formation and evolution of the subhalos must depend strongly on their surroundings. Among the various consequences from the surrounding influences, the most significant one is the subhalo mass-loss: the subhalos do not only gravitationally merge but also get disrupted or at least lose considerable amount of their mass through the interaction with the surroundings. In fact, it has been demonstrated by several N-body simulations that the subhalos lose most of their mass throughout the evolution, contributing after all only $`1015\%`$ of the total mass of the host halos (e.g., Tormen et al., 1998). There are three different processes that can drive the subhalos to lose mass: the global tides generated by the host halos, the dynamical frictions, and the close-encounters with the other subhalos. Apparently, the subhalo mass-loss is quite a complicated process, so that it would be practically impossible to take into account its effect fully in deriving the subhalo mass function analytically. That was why all previous analytic approaches had to make the unrealistic assumption that the subhalos do not lose mass during the evolution (Fujita et al., 2002; Sheth, 2003; Blanton, 2003).

However, the mass-loss phenomenon is the most essential feature of the subhalo evolution, which must be taken into account in order to estimate the subhalo mass function in any realistic sense. Here we attempt for the first time to estimate both the global and the local subhalo mass functions with the subhalo mass-loss effect taken into account. To make the theory analytically tractable, we still make some simplified assumptions that the subhalo mass-loss is mainly driven by the global tides, and that the condition for a subhalo to survive the global tides is a simple function of the distance from its host halo.

## 2 FORMALISM

The (differential) global subhalo mass function, $`\frac{dN(M_s)}{d\mathrm{ln}M_s}d\mathrm{ln}M_s`$, is defined as the number density of subhalos in logarithmic mass range $`[\mathrm{ln}M_s,\mathrm{ln}M_s+d\mathrm{ln}M_s]`$. To estimate it, we assume the following.

* The gravitational collapse process to form dark matter halos follows the Top-hat spherical dynamics, according to which a dark halo of mass $`M`$ forms at redshift $`z`$ if the density contrast $`\delta `$ ($`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\overline{\rho }`$, $`\overline{\rho }`$: the mean mass density of the universe) of a Lagrangian region in the linear density field smoothed on mass scale of $`M`$ satisfies the gravitational collapse condition of $`\delta =\delta _c(z)`$ where $`\delta _c(z)`$ is the critical density contrast at redshift $`z`$ whose value depends on cosmology (Kitayama & Suto, 1996). For a flat universe of closure density, $`\delta _c(z)1.68(1+z)`$ (Gunn & Gott, 1972).
* The mass function of dark halos is well evaluated by the PS theory as

$$\frac{dN(M)}{d\mathrm{ln}M}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{\overline{\rho }}{M}\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{d\mathrm{ln}M}\right|\nu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{2}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\nu \delta _c/\sigma (M)`$ and $`\sigma (M)`$ is the rms density fluctuation of the linear density field on mass scale of $`M`$.
* A dark halo hosts a multiple of subhalos, each of which rotates on a circular orbit. The global tidal field of the host halo strips the subhalos, which drives the subhalos to either get completely destroyed or survive but with reduced mass. A subhalo of initial mass $`M_1`$ before the tidal stripping effect at an initial distance $`r`$ from its host halo of mass $`M_2`$ eventually survives the tidal stripping effect, ending up with having reduced mass of $`M_s`$($`<M_1`$), if $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, and $`r`$, satisfy the condition

$$M_s=c_t\left(\frac{4\pi }{3}\overline{\rho }\right)\left(\frac{M_1}{M_2}\right)r^3,$$
(2)
where the proportionality constant $`c_t`$ is a free parameter.
* The spatial distribution of the subhalos inside their host halo follows that of the dark matter particles, i.e., the profile given by Navarro, Frenk, & White (1996) (hereafter, NFW):

$$P_{M_2}(r)\frac{1}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
(3)
where $`r_s`$ is the scale radius.

It is worth noting that equation (2) is reminiscent of the familiar tidal-limit approximation, according to which a subhalo in the tidal field loses all mass beyond its tidal radius, $`r_t`$. We set $`c_t`$ as a free parameter since its precise value depends on underlying assumptions: if the halo potentials can be approximated as point mass and the linear size of the subhalo is much smaller than the distance from the host halo, the tidal radius has a simple expression of $`r_t=(c_tM_1/M_2)^{1/3}r`$ with $`c_t=1/2`$ (the Roche limit); if the effect of the centrifugal force is taken into account, then $`c_t=1/3`$ (the Jacobi limit); if the halos are treated more realistically as the extended mass profiles, then the tidal radius has a more general expression (see, e.g., Tormen et al., 1998). Although equation (2) is an obvious oversimplification of real tidal mass-loss process (Hayashi et al., 2003), there are numerical clues that the fraction of the survival subhalos has a strong correlation with the distance from the host halos (Okamoto & Habe, 1999). It implies that the tidal survival condition should depend on the subhalo orbital distance as well as the host halo and the subhalo mass. Therefore, equation (2) may be the simplest possible choice for the functional form of the tidal survival condition.

Let us first consider $`P_{M_2}(M_1;r)`$, the conditional probability that a subhalo has an initial mass greater than $`M_1`$ (before the tidal mass-loss) provided that it rotates upon a host halo of mass $`M_2`$ at a distance $`r`$. According to the hypothesis (i), $`P_{M_2}(M_1;r)=P_{\delta _2=\delta _c}[\delta _1(r)\delta _c]`$ where $`\delta _i`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) is the density contrast of a Lagrangian region in the linear density field smoothed on mass scale $`M_i`$, and $`\delta _{ci}`$ is the critical value of $`\delta _i`$. The conditional probability $`P_{\delta _2=\delta _c}[\delta _1(r)\delta _c]`$ can be computed from the Gaussian probability density distribution with the help of the Bayes theorem. For the case of the sharp k-space filter, it has the following simple analytic form (Yano et al., 1996):

$$P_{M_2}(M_1;r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_\beta ^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{x^2}{2}\right)𝑑x,\mathrm{with}\beta \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}}\left(\frac{\delta _{c1}}{\sigma _1}\right)\left[1\frac{\delta _{c2}}{\delta _{c1}}\frac{\sigma _c^2}{\sigma _2^2}\right].$$
(4)
Here $`\sigma _i^2`$ (with $`i=1,2`$) and $`\sigma _c^2(r)`$ are the mass variance of the linear density field on mass scale of $`M_i`$, and the linear density cross correlation, respectively, given as

$$\sigma _i^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{ln}(k_{ci})}\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)d\mathrm{ln}k,\sigma _c^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{ln}(k_{c2})}\mathrm{\Delta }^2(k)\frac{\mathrm{sin}kr}{kr}d\mathrm{ln}k$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ is the dimensionless power spectrum of the linear density field, $`\gamma \sigma _c^2/(\sigma _1\sigma _2)`$, and the integral upper limit $`k_{ci}`$ is related to $`M_i`$ by $`k_{ci}=(6\pi ^2\overline{\rho }/M_i)^{1/3}`$. In fact, it was Yano et al. (1996) who first incorporated the spatial correlations between the dark halos themselves into the PS theory. Fujita et al. (2002) used the formalism of Yano et al. (1996) to estimate the local subhalo mass function with the spatial correlations between the host halos and the subhalos taken into account. However, Fujita et al. (2002) assumed that the spatialdistribution of the subhalos is uniform, and averaged $`P_{M_2}(M_1;r)`$ over $`r`$ without taking into account the tidal mass-loss and its correlation with $`r`$.

Next, let us consider $`P_{M_2}(r)`$, the probability of finding a subhalo in a spherical shell of radius $`r`$ and thickness $`dr`$ around a host halo of mass $`M_2`$ in the Lagrangian space. According to the hypothesis (iv), it can be written as

$$P_{M_2}(r)=\frac{A}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}4\pi r^2dr,\mathrm{with}A\frac{1}{4\pi r_s^3[\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{R_2}{r_s})\frac{R_2}{r_s+R_2}]}.$$
(6)
where $`R_2`$ is the virial radius of $`M_2`$, and the amplitude $`A`$ is determined to satisfy the normalization constraint of $`_0^{R_2}P_{M_2}(r)=1`$. We approximate $`R_2`$ by the Top-hat radius of $`M_2`$, and adopt the empirical relation for $`r_s`$ proposed by Klypin et al. (1999):

$$R_2=\left[\frac{3M_2}{4\pi \overline{\rho }}\right]^{1/3},r_s=\frac{R_2}{124}\left[\frac{M_2}{h^1M_{}}\right]^{0.084}.$$
(7)
It is also worth mentioning here that $`\delta `$,$`R_2`$, $`r`$, and $`r_s`$ are all measured in the Lagrangian space where the density field is still Gaussian.

The joint conditional distribution, $`P_{M_2}(r,M_1)`$, i.e., the probability of finding a subhalo of mass greater than $`M_1`$ at a distance $`r`$ from a host halo of mass $`M_2`$, can be derived from equations (4) and (6) by using the Bayes theorem: $`P_{M_2}(M_1,r)=P_{M_2}(M_1;r)P_{M_2}(r)`$. The partial derivative, $`P_{M_2}(r,M_1)/M_1`$, is proportional to the fraction of the host halo volume occupied by those subhalos of mass $`M_1`$ at a distance $`r`$, $`f_{M_2}(M_1,r)`$, such that $`f_{M_2}(M_1,r)=(M_2/\overline{\rho })|P_{M_2}(r,M_1)/M_1|`$ where the proportionality factor $`(M_2/\overline{\rho })`$ is nothing but the average volume of the host halo. Following the familiar PS-like approach, the initial number density of the subhalos of mass $`M_1`$ at a distance $`r`$ inside a host halo of mass $`M_2`$ equals $`f_{M_2}(M_1,r)`$ divided by the average volume of the subhalo $`M_1/\overline{\rho }`$ such that $`dN_{M_2}(r,M_1)/(4\pi r^2drdM_1)=2\left(\overline{\rho }/M_1\right)f_{M_2}(M_1)`$ where the factor $`2`$ is the normalization constant introduced by PS (see also, Peacock & Heavens, 1990; Bond et al., 1991; Jedamzik, 1995; Yano et al., 1996; Fujita et al., 2002). We end up with the following expression:

$$\frac{d^2N_{M_2}(r,M_1)}{4\pi r^2drd\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{M}_1}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}_1}\right)\left|\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma _1}{d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{M}_1}\right|\left(\frac{\xi }{1\gamma ^2}\right)\frac{A}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\xi ^2}{2}\right).$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{M_1}M_1/M_2`$ and $`\xi \frac{\nu _1}{\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}}\left(1\frac{\nu _1}{\nu _2}\gamma \right)`$ with $`\nu _i\delta _{ci}/\sigma _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Equation (8) is the conditional mass and spatial distribution of the subhalos provided that they are included in the host halos of mass $`M_2`$ before the tidal mass-loss. If the subhalo mass were conserved, the local subhalo mass function would be computed simply by integrating equation (8) over $`r`$. However, the subhalos in reality either get destroyed or lose mass, so that the subhalo mass function cannot be simply obtained in that way. Notwithstanding, the reduced mass of survived subhalos can be determined from the informations of $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, and $`r`$ according to the hypothesis (iii).

Hence, we find the local subhalo mass function after the tidal mass loss as

$$\frac{dN_{M_2}(M_s)}{d\mathrm{ln}M_s}d\mathrm{ln}M_s=_{r_c}^{R_2}4\pi r^2𝑑r_{\mathrm{}}^0d\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{M}_1\frac{dN_{M_2}(r,M_1)}{4\pi r^2drd\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{M}_1}\delta _D\left(c_t\frac{4\pi }{3}\overline{\rho }\stackrel{~}{M}_1r^3M_s\right).$$
(9)
where $`\delta _D`$ represents the Dirac-delta function, and $`r_c`$ represents the lower limit for the subhalo survival: if a subhalo is located at a distance smaller than $`r_c`$, they get completely destroyed by the strong tidal stripping effect. The value of $`r_c`$ has been empirically found to be a few times the scale radius $`r_s`$ (Ghigna et al., 2000; Hayashi et al., 2003). The upper limit $`R_2`$ in the integration of $`r`$ is set from the expectation that the subhalos should be inside the virial radius of the host halo. Note that equations (8) and (9) are all expressed in terms of the rescaled subhalo mass $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1=M_1/M_2`$. Their dependence on the host halo mass comes only implicitly from $`\gamma `$ and $`\xi `$. It implies that the subhalo mass function should not depend strongly on the host halo mass, consistent with numerical detections (e.g., De Lucia et al., 2003). Furthermore, we compute the contribution of the subhalos to the host halo mass by integrating equation (9) over $`M_s`$, and find that it is approximately $`10\%`$ of the host halo mass, which is also consistent with numerical simulations (e.g., Tormen et al., 1998). Finally, the global subhalo mass function is obtained by multiplying the local subhalo mass function by the host halo mass function and integrating it over the host halo mass:

$$\frac{dN(M_s)}{d\mathrm{ln}M_s}d\mathrm{ln}M_s=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\mathrm{ln}M_2\frac{dN(M_2)}{d\mathrm{ln}M_2}\frac{dN_{M_2}(M_s)}{d\mathrm{ln}M_s}d\mathrm{ln}M_s,$$
(10)
where the host halo mass function $`dN(M_2)/d\mathrm{ln}M_2`$ is given in equation (1).

Figure 1 plots the cumulative local (upper panel) and the global (lower panel) mass functions at redshift $`z=0`$ for the case of for a flat CDM cosmology (Bond & Efstathiou, 1984) with the following choice of the cosmological parameters: the matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, the vacuum energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5`$, the dimensionless Hubble constant $`h=0.5`$, and the rms density fluctuation on the scale of $`8h^1`$Mpc, $`\sigma _8=0.7`$. For the local subhalo mass function, the host halo mass is chosen to be $`M_2=10^{14}M_{}h^1`$. In each panel, the solid and the dashed lines correspond to the cases of $`c_t=1/3`$ and $`c_t=1/2`$, respectively. For comparison, the subhalo mass function with no tidal effect is also plotted as dotted lines. It is clear from Figure 1 that both the global and the local cumulative subhalo mass functions are close to a power law $`N(M_s)M_s^l`$, and that the tidal mass-loss effect changes the subhalo mass function in a self-similar manner. We find that the power-law slope of the local subhalo mass function is $`l0.8`$ while that of the global subhalo mass function is slightly sharper $`l0.9`$. The power-law slope of the global subhalo mass function gets sharper in the high mass section. It is due to that massive subhalos experience the stronger tidal stripping effect (eq. ) to lose more mass, and also that the dark halos which can afford to hosting such massive subhalos are rare whose number density decrease sharply (eq. ).

## 3 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

We provided for the first time a theoretical formalism in which one can estimate analytically the global and the local mass distribution of dark matter subhalos that undergo tidal mass-loss process. Adopting the simple tidal-limit approximation, we showed that the resulting mass functions are consistent with what has been found in recent high-resolution N-body simulations, providing theoretical clues to the unique properties of the subhalo mass distribution: the power-law shape, weak dependence on host halo mass, self-similar change, and roughly $`10\%`$ contribution of subhalos to the total mass.

Yet, it is worth mentioning that our subhalo mass functions are subject to several caveats. The most obvious one is that we have oversimplified the subhao mass-loss process, using the simple tidal limit approximation, and also ignored the effects of dynamical frictions and close encounters between subhalos. It has been shown by numerical simulations that the tidal limit approximation underestimates the subhalo mass-loss considerably (Hayashi et al., 2003). Although it was shown by simulations that the most dominant force that leads to the mass loss of the subhalos is the global tides (Okamoto & Habe, 1999), the dynamical frictions and subhalo close-encounters may change the subhalo orbits making the subhalos more susceptible to the tidal forces (Tormen et al., 1998). We have also assumed simply that the subhalos rotate on stable circular orbits. However, in reality, the the subhalo orbits are quite eccentric, changing with time (Tormen et al., 1998; Hayashi et al., 2003). Definitely, it will be quite necessary to refine our formalism by making more realistic treatments of the subhalo evolution, especially its mass-loss process.

Finally, we conclude that our formalism is expected to provide an important first step toward realistic modeling of the abundance distribution of dark halo substructures.

We are very grateful to the anonymous referee who helped us greatly improve the original manuscript. We also acknowledge gratefully the research grant of the JSPS (Japan Society of Promotion of Science) fellowship. This research was supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research of JSPS (12640231).


text:
# Recent Charm from CLEO

## 1 Introduction

Charm sector is a good hunting ground for possible new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). Because the SM processes are highly suppressed, the opportunity for evidence of new physics to emerge becomes enhanced in charm relative to the other flavors burdman .

## 2 Cabibbo-Suppressed $`D^+`$ Decays

$`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^+K_s^0`$ are single Cabibbo-Suppressed decays and $`D^+K^+\pi ^0`$ is a doubly Cabibbo-Suppressed decay. One of the main interest in charm physics has been the $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ mixing. To unravel any non SM contributions to $`D^0\overline{D^0}`$ mixing, we need to understand the SU(3) symmetry breaking effects. These Cabibbo-Suppressed decays will provide useful estimation of the SU(3) violating effects in the $`D`$ system.

Given the large uncertainties in absolute $`D^+`$ branching fractions, we use $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ and $`K_s^0\pi ^+`$ as normalization modes and measure the ratios of these Cabibbo-Suppressed decays relative to these normalization modes.

We perform maximum likelihood fit to the selected data sample and extract the signal from unbinned maximum likelihood fits. The signal yields are summarized in Table 1. They translate into the following ratios of branching fraction measurements: $`\frac{Br(D^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)}{Br(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}`$ = 0.0144 $`\pm `$ 0.0019 $`\pm `$ 0.0010, $`\frac{Br(D^+K^+K_s)}{Br(D^+\pi ^+K_s)}`$ = 0.1892 $`\pm `$ 0.0155 $`\pm `$ 0.0073, $`\frac{Br(D^+K^+\pi ^0)}{Br(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)}`$ = 0.0029 $`\pm `$ 0.0018 $`\pm `$ 0.0009.

Using PDG PDG  values of $`Br(D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)`$ = (9.1 $`\pm `$ 0.6)% and $`Br(D^+\pi ^+\overline{K^0})`$ = (2.77 $`\pm `$ 0.18)%, we obtain the following branching fraction measurements: $`Br(D^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ = (1.31 $`\pm `$ 0.17 $`\pm `$ 0.09 $`\pm `$ 0.09) $`\times `$ 10-3, $`Br(D^+K^+\overline{K^0})`$ = (5.24 $`\pm `$ 0.43 $`\pm `$ 0.20 $`\pm `$ 0.34) $`\times `$ 10-3, $`Br(D^+K^+\pi ^0)`$ = (2.64 $`\pm `$ 1.64 $`\pm `$ 0.82 $`\pm `$ 0.17) $`\times `$ 10-4 and $`Br(D^+K^+\pi ^0)`$ $`<`$ 4.2 $`\times `$ 10-4 at 90% C.L. The first error is statistical and the second error is systematic. The third error in the measurements is due to the uncertainty in the normalization braching fractions. For $`\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`K^+K_s`$ decays, these numbers are the best single measurements. For $`K^+\pi ^0`$. These numbers give the first limit on this decay mode.

We also measured the ratio R1 chau  which is expected to be 1 in the limit of SU(3) symmetry. Our measurement of 1.84$`\pm `$0.38 is higher than the theoretical predition that the SU(3) symmetry breaking effects are at about 30% level.

It is believed that in the $`D`$ system the interference between external and internal decay amplitudes is destructive. Our measurement of R2 chau  of 2.03$`\pm `$0.32 indicates this is indeed the case.

The details of the analysis can be found in clns03-1832

## 3 Dalitz Analysis of $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$

Three-body decays provide excellent opportunities to study the interference among the intermediate state resonances, allowing the measurements of both the amplitudes and phases of the intermediate states. For example, in the Dalitz analysis of $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$, E791 reported significant evidence for a borad neutral scalar resonance, the $`\sigma `$(500) e791 .

We performed Dalitz analysis of $`D^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ at CLEO. About 80% of the events entering the Dalitz plot in Figure 1 are signal events. We then extact the amplitude and phase of each component. The results are summaried in Table 2.

Including a scalar $`\sigma (500)`$ does not result in a significantly improved likelihood and yielded fit fraction is consistent with zero.

It is also interesting to mention that we do not see more massive $`\rho `$ mesons like $`\rho ^+(1700)`$ either.

The details of the analysis can be found in cleo-conf-03-03

## 4 First Observation of $`D^0K_S^0\eta \pi ^0`$

This work was motivated by BaBar and CLEO’s recent Dalitz analyses results of $`D^0K_s^0K^+K^{}`$ and $`K_s^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. As a0(980) to $`\eta \pi ^0`$ is the dominating decay mode, we expect to observe $`D^0K_S^0\eta \pi ^0`$ as well.

To study this decay we use decay channels: $`K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, $`\eta \gamma \gamma `$, $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$. The decay $`D^0K_S^0\pi ^0`$ is used for systematic cross-checks and normalization. Using the energy release variable $`Q=M(D^+)M(D^0)m_{\pi ^+}`$, we observe a clean signal in the $`Q`$ distribution as shown in Figure 2. This is the first observation of the decay mode of $`D^0K_S^0\eta \pi ^0`$. The preliminary measured the ratio of branchings fractions is:

$$R=\frac{BR(D^0K_S^0\eta \pi ^0)}{BR(D^0K_S^0\pi ^0)}=0.38\pm 0.07_{stat.}\pm 0.05_{syst.}.$$

We are performing Dalitz plot analysis for the decay $`D^0K_S^0\eta \pi ^0`$. Final results will be ready in the near future.

## 5 First Search for Flavor Changing Neutral Current Decay $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$

Standard Model (SM) predicts the rate for the $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay of $`10^8`$ or less fajfer ; burdman . Non SM extension, i.e. gluino exchange in SUSY, might enhance this rate by two orders of magnitude. A measurement of this decay mode is a good test of new physics beyond the SM.

For this analysis Gao  we use CLEO II & II.V data sample. Combinatoric background is suppressed by the tagging process $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ using the energy release variable $`Q=M(D^+)M(D^0)m_{\pi ^+}`$.

Figure 3 shows the $`Q`$ distributions for $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ candidates where $`D^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$. The circles with error bars are CLEO data which are fit using a binned likelihood fit to a Gaussian function with expected mean and width determined from signal Monte Carlo simulation, on top of a threshold background function. For $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ where $`D^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, $`628.0\pm 31.8`$ signal events of $`D^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ are observed. The signal and background levels found in the data are in good agreement with those obtained from Monte Carlo simulations. For $`D^+D^0\pi ^+`$ where $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$, no significant enhancement is observed in the signal region. The signal yield of $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ from the fit is $`19.2\pm 9.3`$ events. From Monte Carlo simulations, the relative efficiency for $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ and $`D^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ is determined to be: $`ϵ(\gamma \gamma )/ϵ(\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ = 1.58 $`\pm `$ 0.05. We set upper limits:

$$B(D^0\gamma \gamma )/B(D^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)<0.033$$

and

$$B(D^0\gamma \gamma )<2.9\times 10^5\mathrm{@}90\%C.L.$$

This is the first search for the decay mode of $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$. The details of the analysis can be found in Gao

## 6 CLEO-c and CESR-c project news

In early 2003, the NSF approved a five year program of charm physics called CESR-c and CLEO-cCLEOc-CESRc . From 2003 to 2006, the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) accelerator will operate at center of mass energies at 4140, 3770 and 3100MeV with the expected luminosity of a few 1032 cm-2s-1.

One may wonder what physics can CLEO-c offer in the next few years when we expect lots of data from Tevatron and B factories. Especially BaBar and Belle will have a few hundred fb-1 of data which contains lots of charm decays.

Running at Charm threshold with $`D`$ tagging provides an extremly powerful and “background free” environment that allow some very precise measurements which are not possible at other environments.

For example, recently there have been exciting progress in Lattice QCD which will be able to calculate with accuracies of 1 to 2 percent. The CLEO-c decay constant and form factor measurements with similar precision will provide a golden and timely test of Lattice QCD.

Large uncertainties in the current and future measurements of CKM matix elements come from our poor measurements of the absolute charm branching fractions. Again, CLEO-c will be the ideal place to provide these crucial information in a timely fashion.

There are also potential to observe new forms of matter: Glueballs and hybrids. As we all know, glueballs have been sighted too many times without confirmation. With 1 billion $`J/\psi `$ data, CLEO-c can either find it or debunk it.

The CESR-c/CLEO-c program can be briefly listed as follow:

* 2003 $``$ 2004 Act I: $`\psi (3770)`$ — 3 fb-1; 30M events, 6M tagged D (310 times MARK III).
* 2004 $``$ 2005 Act II: $`\sqrt{s}4100MeV`$ — 3 fb-1; 1.5M $`D_s\overline{D}_s`$, 0.3M tagged $`D_s`$ (480 $`\times `$ MARK III).
* 2005 $``$ 2006 Act III: $`\psi (3100)`$ — 1 fb-1; 1 Billion $`J/\psi `$ (170 times MARK III, 20 times BES II).

This statistics is required for precise measurement of branching ratios, decay constants and other SM parameters in the charm sector.


text:
# Influence of topology on the performance of a neural network

## 1 Introduction

There is a growing interest in evolving complex networks, in particular, networks with scale–free (SF) topology . SF occurs in many different contexts, including the WWW and the Internet, e-mail and scientific–citation networks, ecological, protein and gene interaction networks, etc. In these examples, the degree $`k`$ of a vertex, i.e., the number of arcs linking it to other vertices, is power-law distributed, $`P(k)k^\gamma `$ (see figure 1). This implies that the network includes a relatively large number of nodes with small connectivity, defining what we call the network boundary, and a few nodes, the hubs, with a large connectivity, comparable to the network size $`N`$. As a consequence, SF networks exhibit the interesting small-world property, that is, the average path length between two nodes is very small compared to the network size.

Evolving networks with such complex topology are also common in biology. Neuronal networks, for instance, seem to exhibit the small-world property. This was recently demonstrated in a set of in-vitro experiments of growing cultured neurons . Although an impressive amount of work has been done in the last few years concerning SF networks, it has only recently been reported on the specific consequences of such an architecture on the performance of auto–associative neural networks . The authors in  show that a SF neural network is able to store and retrieve $`P`$ patterns with a lower computer–memory cost than the fully–connected Hopfield neural network. They also find a similar performance with a (biologically unrealistic) nearest–neighbor hypercubic Ising lattice. The authors in  study the zero temperature behavior of different topologies, namely, the Barabási–Albert (BA) SF, small–world and random diluted networks, and a better performance for the random diluted case than for the other topologies is reported. However, for the relative large mean connectivity these authors use ($`k=50`$), the BA network has not the SF property , so that this result lacks interest.

We here report on the influence of topology on the associative–memory task of the network as a function of temperature. In particular we focus on two main issues, namely, on the robustness of the network performance against thermal noise for varying topology, and on the effect of varying the SF connectivity distribution $`P(k)`$ on the network performance.

## 2 Definition of Models

Consider the BA evolving network  with $`N`$ nodes and $`\eta (N\eta _0)`$ links. Here, $`\eta _0`$ is the initial number of nodes generating the network, $`\eta \eta _0`$ is the number of links that are added during the evolution at each time step, and $`N`$ is the final number of nodes in the network. This will latter be generalized to consider other SF networks. In order to have a neural system with the chosen topology, we place a binary neuron, $`s_i=1`$ or $`0,`$ at each node $`i,`$ and then “store” $`P`$ binary random patterns, $`\xi ^\mu \left\{\xi _i^\mu =1\text{ or }0\right\},`$ $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},P,`$ with mean activity level $`\xi _i^\mu =1/2.`$ This is done in practice by associating a synaptic intensity $`\omega _{ij}`$ at each link according to the Hebbian learning rule,

$$\omega _{ij}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{P}{}}(2\xi _i^\mu 1)(2\xi _j^\mu 1).$$
(1)
A meaningful direct comparison of this SF neural network (SFNN) and the standard Hopfield neural network cannot be made because the second case involves $`N^2`$ synaptic connections. A hypercubic Ising lattice has the same number of synapses than the SFNN; however, real neural systems are known to exhibit more complex neuron connectivity than the Ising network. Consequently, we compare the performance of the SFNN with that of a highly diluted Hopfield network (HDHN). The HDHN is obtained from the standard Hopfield network by randomly suppressing synapses until only $`\eta (N\eta _0)`$ of them remain, i.e., the number of synapses scales as $`N`$ and not as $`N^2`$. To maintain the SF behavior in the BA network, the value of $`\eta `$ must be very small compared to the network size, that is, $`\eta N`$ . The connectivity distribution of the HDHN is illustrated in figure 1 (left). The main differences between this distribution and the corresponding one for a SF network is that the latter has no typical connectivity value. More specifically, the SF network distribution is a power–law while the HDHN distribution has a maximum and an Gaussian decay and, consequently, may be characterized by a (typical) mean connectivity.

A relevant magnitude to monitor in order to compare the performance of different topologies is the overlap function, defined for pattern $`\nu `$ as

$$m^\nu \frac{2}{N}\underset{i}{}(2\xi _i^\nu 1)s_i.$$
(2)
The performance of the two networks is compared in figure 2 for $`P=1`$ and $`\eta =3.`$ This clearly shows that, excluding very low temperature, the retrieval of information as characterized by $`m^\nu `$ is better for the SFNN than for the HDHN. In both cases, the retrieval of information deteriorates as $`P`$ is increased. However, we also observe that, at finite temperature, the performance of the SFNN increases significantly if one considers only the retrieval of

information concerning neurons with a connectivity degree higher than certain value, $`k_0,`$ i.e., the hubs . This can be understood on simple grounds by computing the local overlap $`m_i^1`$ with one pattern for neuron $`i`$ and averaging over all neurons with the same connectivity $`k.`$ The resulting mean overlap for a given connectivity $`m(k)`$ is plotted in figure 2 (right) for different temperatures. This shows that, even at high temperature, the local overlap for hubs is close to one whereas it is very small for the boundary (fluctuations in the lower curves are due to the small number of hubs present in the network for the relative small network size we are using). This finding reflects the “negative” role of the boundary and the “positive” role of the hubs on the SFNN performance during each retrieval experiment when thermal fluctuations are considered. This observation is in agreement with the $`T=0`$ behavior reported in .

Another important issue is how the exponent of the distribution influences the performance of SF network for associative memory tasks. In order to analyze this, we studied networks characterized by different power–law exponents. With this end, we used a Molloy–Red (MR) SF network  with $`P(k)k^\gamma ,`$ where $`\gamma `$ is a tunable parameter. As illustrated in figure 1 (right), the number of neurons in the network with a high connectivity increases as $`\gamma `$ is decreased.

Even more interesting is when one compares the behavior of the MR network with that of the HDHN in the limit $`T=0`$ (cf. figure 3). As thermal fluctuations are then suppressed, the network performance is only perturbed by the interference among the stored patterns. In order to consider the limit of interest, we started with one of the stored patterns, and computed the state of each neuron according to the deterministic rule $`s_i(t+1)=\mathrm{\Theta }(h_i(t)).`$ Here, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside step function, and $`h_i_j^{(i)}w_{ij}s_j`$ is the local field associated with neuron $`i`$ with the sum over all neurons $`j`$ connected to it. At the end of the network evolution, we recorded the overlap, $`m_{final},`$

with the starting pattern as a function of the total number of stored patterns $`P`$. In order to visualize the difference in performance between the two types of networks, we defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{final}m_{final}^{SFNN}m_{final}^{HDHN}`$. Figure 3 shows how this difference in performance varies with the number of stored patterns. The graph illustrates that the SFNN has a better and better performance as compared with the HDHN as the number of stored patterns is increased. This effect is enlarged as $`\gamma `$ is increased. This can be understood by considering the different decays of $`P(k)`$ for large $`k`$ in both SFNN and HDHN, and the fact that for increasing values of $`\gamma ,`$ the relative position of $`k`$ moves to the left for both topologies, but due to the power–law decay the effect of the hubs remains for the SFNN.

Summing up, the topology of a neural network has a key role in the processes of memorization and retrieval of patterns. In particular, neural networks with scale–free topology may exhibit a better performance than Hopfield–like networks with the same number of synapses distributed randomly over the network. Our study can be useful to understand the role of regions with different connectivity degrees in real neural systems during memorization and retrieval of information. In particular, it may improve our understanding of how fluctuations or perturbations in the typical number of synapses of some brain areas can affect the processing of information and memorization in these regions. Our study also suggests the convenience of developing new methods to store the more relevant information into the hubs, increasing in this way the effective network-performance and efficiency. It would be desirable to check our findings against experimental observations on real neural systems focusing on the topology which is built up by natural selection.

## Acknowledgments

We tanks Dr. Pastor-Satorras for fruitful suggestions. This work was supported by the Spanish MCyT and FEDER “Ramón y Cajal” contract and project no BFM2001-2841.