text:
# Phase diagram of a surface superconductor in parallel magnetic field

## Abstract

Universal phase diagram of 2D surface superconductor with generic Rashba interaction in a parallel magnetic field is found. In addition to uniform BCS state we find two inhomogeneous superconductive states, the stripe phase with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{𝐐𝐫})`$ at high magnetic fields, and a new ”helical” phase with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐐𝐫})`$ which intervenes between BCS state and stripe phase at intermediate magnetic field and temperature. We prove that the ground state for helical phase carries no current.

Many efforts both theoretical and experimental have been spent in search of exotic nonhomogeneous superconducting states beginning with a pioneering papers by Larkin-Ovchinnikov and Fulde-Ferrel (LOFF) LO ; FF  predicting the stripe state in superconductors with competing ferromagnet interaction. Nevertheless no convincing experimental evidence for existence of such a state was found till now, partially due to rather narrow existence range of the LOFF state. Recently Barzykin and Gor’kov BG  did find a system where such inhomogeneous superconducting phase could be prominent. It is a two-dimensional surface superconductor with spin-orbital Rashba interaction. One of possible realization of such a system probably was reported in very interesting experiments NaW , where various signatures of surface superconductivity with $`T_c90K`$ were detected in the insulating $`WO_3`$ doped by small amount of $`Na`$. Surface spin-orbit superconductivity is unusual one due to the absence of inversion symmetry: this results in the presence of the the spin-orbital Rashba term rashba  and the chiral subband splitting of free electron spectrum at the surface. In such a superconductor condensate wave-function is a mixture of both singlet and triplet states Ed ; GR , therefore Pauli susceptibility is not vanishing GR  at $`T0`$; paramagnetic breakdown of superconductivity in a parallel magnetic field is shifted towards much higher field values due to the formation of LOFF state BG . The line of transition from normal to (any of) superconductive state $`T_c(h)`$ was determined in BG ; however, the nature of the phase intervening between uniform BCS and stripe LOFF state was not studied. This question is important because phenomenological theory Agterberg  predicts the possibility for a new helical state distinct from both BCS and stripe LOFF states.

In this Letter we provide a detailed phase diagram of a surface superconductor in a parallel magnetic field $`h`$. The phase diagram turns out to be universal after normalization of the temperature and the Zeeman energy by the critical temperature in zero magnetic field $`T_{c0}`$ for two models of high (I) and low (II) electron density. The model I assumes a normal 2D metal with Fermi energy being much greater than chiral splitting. The model II is suited for an electron gas in field effect heterostructures where electrons fill only the bottom of one of chiral bands. We demonstrate the existence of a helical state with order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐐𝐫})`$ (where $`𝐐𝐡`$) and $`Q\mu _Bh/v_F`$ in a considerable part of the phase diagram, which is summarized in Fig.1. The line $`𝒯`$ is the second-order transition line separating helical state from the homogeneous superconductor. Below the $`𝒯`$ point first-order transition between BCS and inhomogeneous state takes place. The line $`𝒮𝒯^{}`$ is the line of soft instability of the helical state (see below). The point $`𝒮`$ in the $`T_c(h)`$ line is special in that here the order parameter symmetry is $`U(2)`$ instead of usual $`U(1)`$. Full details of our theory will be presented in a separate publication long .

Near the surface of a crystal the translational symmetry is reduced and the inversion symmetry is broken even if it is present in the bulk. As a result a transverse electric field appears at interface and gives rise to the relativistic spin-orbit interaction known as the Rashba term: $`H_{so}=\alpha \left[\stackrel{}{\sigma }\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{p}}\right]\stackrel{}{n}`$, where $`\alpha >0`$ is the spin-orbit coupling constant, $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is a unit vector perpendicular to the surface, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z)`$ are spin Pauli matrices. Spin operator does not commute with the Rashba term, thus spin projection is not a good quantum number. On the other hand the chirality operator: $`\sigma ^x\mathrm{sin}\phi _𝐩\sigma ^y\mathrm{cos}\phi _𝐩`$, does commute with the Hamiltonian, where $`\phi _𝐩`$ is the angle between the momentum of the electron and the $`x`$-axis. Its eigenvalue: $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ is a quantum number of an electron state $`(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )`$. The Rashba term preserves the Kramers degeneracy with states $`(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )`$ and $`(\stackrel{}{p},\lambda )`$ belonging to the same energy.

In this Letter we consider the simplest model of surface superconductor: Gor’kov model for two-dimensional metal with the Rashba term being included GR , in the limit $`\alpha p_FT_c`$. The Hamiltonian written in the coordinate representation reads

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle }\psi _\alpha ^+(\stackrel{}{r})({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{P}^2}{2m}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\alpha [\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\times \widehat{P}]\stackrel{}{n}`$
$`g\mu _B\stackrel{}{h}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }/2)\psi _\beta (\stackrel{}{r})d^2r{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle }\psi _\alpha ^+\psi _\beta ^+\psi _\beta \psi _\alpha d^2r,`$ (1)
where $`m`$ is the electron mass and $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are spin indices, $`\widehat{P}=i\stackrel{}{}+\frac{e}{c}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the momentum operator in the presence of infinitesimal in-plane vector-potential $`\stackrel{}{A}=\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{r})`$. Zeeman interaction with a uniform external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{h}`$ parallel to the interface and in the $`x`$-direction is included. The vector-potential of such a field can be chosen to have only $`z`$-component, therefore it decouples from the 2D kinetic energy term. $`\mu _B`$ is Bohr magneton and $`g`$ is the Lande factor. Hereafter we use a notation $`H=g\mu _Bh/2`$.

The electron operator can be expanded in the basis of plane waves $`\widehat{\psi }_\alpha (\stackrel{}{r})=_{\lambda \stackrel{}{p}}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{r}}\widehat{c}_{\alpha 𝐩}`$. The one-particle part of the Hamiltonian (Phase diagram of a surface superconductor in parallel magnetic field) in the momentum representation:

$`\widehat{H}_0={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{p}}{}}\widehat{c}_{\alpha 𝐩}^+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+\alpha \left[\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\times \stackrel{}{p}\right]\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\right)\widehat{c}_{\beta 𝐩}`$ (2)
can be diagonalized by the transformation $`\widehat{c}_{\alpha 𝐩}=\eta _{\lambda \alpha }(\stackrel{}{p})\widehat{a}_{\lambda 𝐩}`$ with the two-component spinor $`\eta _\lambda (\stackrel{}{p})=(1,i\lambda \mathrm{exp}(i\phi _𝐩))/\sqrt{2}`$. Eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (2) corresponding to the chiralities $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ are

$$ϵ_\lambda (\stackrel{}{p})=p^2/2m\lambda \sqrt{\alpha ^2p^22\alpha p_yH+H^2}.$$
(3)
In the case of high electron density and respectively chemical potential $`\mu m\alpha ^2`$ ( model I) both chirality branches are filled and the equal momentum electron states are split by $`2\alpha p_F`$. Fermi circles with different chiralities are split with the radii $`p_F=\sqrt{2m\mu +m^2\alpha ^2}\pm m\alpha `$. Densities of states on the two Fermi circles are almost the same, $`\nu _\pm =\frac{m}{2\pi }\left(1\pm \frac{\alpha }{v_F}\right)`$, and in this paper we neglect the difference $`\nu _+\nu _{}`$. In the case of the low electron density (model II): $`m\alpha ^2/2<\mu <0`$, the electrons fill the bottom of only one chiral branch $`\lambda =1`$, i.e. a ring. The two Fermi circles of the ring in zero magnetic field have radii $`p_F=m\alpha +l\sqrt{2m\mu +m^2\alpha ^2},`$ where $`l=\pm 1`$ is the number specifying the inner and the outer part of the ring and is analogous to chirality. Density of states on the outer and inner part of the Fermi ring ($`l=\pm 1`$) is almost the same $`\nu _\pm =\frac{m}{2\pi }\frac{\alpha }{v_F}`$ in the case of narrow ring: $`v_F\alpha .`$ If magnetic field is applied, the two Fermi circles are displaced in opposite $`y`$-directions by a momentum $`Q=\pm H/v_F`$, where $`v_F=\sqrt{2\mu /m+\alpha ^2}`$ is the Fermi velocity in the I model, or half width of the ring divided by $`m`$ in the II model. The pairing interaction (the last term in Eq.(Phase diagram of a surface superconductor in parallel magnetic field)) can be factorized in the chiral basis: $`\widehat{H}_{int}=\frac{U}{4}_𝐪\widehat{A}^+(\stackrel{}{q})\widehat{A}(\stackrel{}{q})`$, where the pair annihilation operator $`\widehat{A}(\stackrel{}{q})=_{𝐩\lambda }\lambda e^{i\phi _𝐩}\widehat{a}_{\lambda 𝐩_{}}\widehat{a}_{\lambda 𝐩_+}`$ with $`𝐩_\pm =𝐩\pm 𝐪/2`$.

To calculate thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }=T\mathrm{ln}Z`$, we employ imaginary-time functional integration technique with Grassmanian electron fields $`a_{\lambda ,𝐩}`$, $`\overline{a}_{\lambda ,𝐩}`$ and introduce auxiliary complex field $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫,\tau )`$ to decouple pairing term $`H_{int}`$, cf. Popov . The resulting effective Lagrangian is of the form:

$`L[a,\overline{a},\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}]={\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\overline{a}_{\lambda 𝐩}\left(_\tau ϵ_\lambda (\stackrel{}{p})\right)a_{\lambda 𝐩}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪|^2}{U}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩\lambda }{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪\lambda e^{i\phi _𝐩}\overline{a}_{\lambda ,𝐩_+}\overline{a}_{\lambda ,𝐩_{}}+`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐪^{}\lambda e^{i\phi _𝐩}a_{\lambda ,𝐩_{}}a_{\lambda ,𝐩_+}].`$ (4)
Below we will work within the mean-field approximation which is controlled by the small Ginzburg number $`\mathrm{Gi}T_c/E_F`$. It is equivalent to the saddle-point approximation for the functional integral over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, thus we will be studying minima of the functional $`\mathrm{\Omega }[\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }^{}]`$ appearing after Gaussian integration over Grassmanian fields.

Near the normal-superconducting phase transition the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ is small and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ and its gradients. We consider the order parameter as a superposition of the finite number of harmonics, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)=_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐐_i𝐫\right)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i}(𝐫)`$ are slowly varying in 2D space functions, and derive the corresponding Ginzburg-Landau functional:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`={\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i|\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i}|^2+c_i|(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2e}{c}}\stackrel{}{A})\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i}|^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\beta _{ijk}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_j}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_k}\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐐_i𝐐_j+𝐐_k}^{}]d^2\stackrel{}{r}`$
The coefficient $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ includes Cooper loop diagram with transferred momentum $`Q`$:

$$\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})=\frac{1}{U}\frac{T}{2}\underset{\omega ,\lambda ,\stackrel{}{p}}{}G_\lambda ^n(\omega ,\stackrel{}{p_+})G_\lambda ^n(\omega ,\stackrel{}{p_{}})$$
(6)
where in the I model the normal-state Green function in in-plane magnetic field $`H\alpha p_F`$ is $`G_\lambda ^n(\omega ,\stackrel{}{p})=(i\omega \xi \lambda H\mathrm{sin}\phi _𝐩)^1`$, and $`\xi =p^2/2m\lambda \alpha p_F\mu `$ is assumed to be small compared to $`\alpha p_F`$, whereas in the II model $`Hm\alpha ^2`$ and $`\xi _l=v_F(l\pi mv_F)`$ is assumed to be small compared to $`m\alpha ^2`$ ($`\pi `$ is related to the center of the ring). Hereafter we present results for high density (I model), but results for low density are identical. The condition $`\mathrm{min}_Q\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})=0`$ determines the second-order transition line (if $`\beta >0`$) between the normal metal and the superconductor:

$$\frac{1}{U}=\underset{Q}{\mathrm{max}}\underset{\lambda ,\omega >0}{}\frac{\pi \nu T}{\sqrt{\omega ^2+H_\lambda ^2}},$$
(7)
hereafter $`H_\lambda =\lambda H+v_FQ/2.`$ Depending upon $`H`$, the maximum in Eq.(7) is attained either at $`Q=0`$ or at nonzero $`\pm |Q|`$. $`T_c(H)`$ line is shown on Fig.1 where both $`T_c`$ and $`H`$ are normalized by the critical temperature at zero magnetic field $`T_{c0}=2\omega _D\mathrm{exp}(1/\nu U+C)/\pi `$, where $`C=0.577`$ is the Euler constant. Near $``$ point $`v_FQ(H)\sqrt{H^2H_L^2}`$. In the limit $`H/T_{c0}\mathrm{}`$ we recover the asymptotics of $`T_c(H)`$ line GR , and find $`v_FQ(H)=2H\frac{\pi ^4T_{c0}^4}{7\zeta (3)e^{2C}H^3}`$. Note that $`Q=2H/v_F`$ is the momentum splitting of two $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ Fermi surfaces in parallel magnetic field. Lifshitz point $``$ separates $`Q=0`$ and $`Q0`$ solutions on the $`T_c(H)`$ line; it is the end point of the second order phase transition between the two superconducting phases. At $`H>H_L`$ inhomogeneous superconductive phase is formed below $`T_c(H)`$ line. No more than two harmonics contribute to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ just below $`T_c(H)`$ line: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)=\mathrm{\Delta }_+e^{iQy}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}e^{iQy}`$. Below $`T_c(H)`$ density of the thermodynamic potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is lower in the superconductive state than in the normal one by the amount:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{sn}=\alpha |\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+\beta _s|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4+\beta _a(|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|^2)^2,`$ (8)
where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2=|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|^2`$. We find coefficients $`\beta _{s,a}`$ using standard diagram expansion around normal state. At the symmetric point $`𝒮`$ where $`\beta _a(T_c(H),H)=0`$ the free energy (8) is invariant under $`U(2)`$ rotations of the order parameter spinor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_+,\mathrm{\Delta }_{})`$. At $`H<H_S`$ we find $`\beta _a<0`$ and the free energy at $`T<T_c(H)`$ is minimized by the choice of either $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=0`$, both correspond to helical state. At $`H>H_S`$ we find $`\beta _a>0`$ and in the free energy minimum $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|=|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|`$, which corresponds to the LOFF-like stripe phase with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)\mathrm{cos}(Qy)`$. At lower temperatures in this phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)`$ contains higher harmonics and is time reversal symmetric.

In the helical state with only one harmonics $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y)=\mathrm{\Delta }e^{iQy}`$, the thermodynamic potential reads:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hel}=\nu T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega ,\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \sqrt{(\omega +iH_\lambda \mathrm{sin}\phi )^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\frac{d\phi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{U}}.`$ (9)
In equilibrium the stationary conditions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hel}/\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hel}/Q=0`$ are satisfied and they can be found explicitly:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\nu U}}=T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega >0,\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐊\left(k\right)}{r(H_\lambda ,\omega )}};{\displaystyle \underset{\omega >0,\lambda }{}}f(H_\lambda ,\omega )=0`$ (10)
where $`r(H_\lambda ,\omega )=\sqrt{\omega ^2+(|H_\lambda |+\mathrm{\Delta })^2}`$, the Jacoby modulus $`k=2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }|H_\lambda |}/r(H_\lambda ,\omega )`$ and the function $`f(H_\lambda ,\omega )`$ is defined through the Jacoby complete elliptic integrals of the first and the second kind,

$$f(H_\lambda )=\frac{1}{H_\lambda }\left((\omega ^2+H_\lambda ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2)\frac{𝐊(k)}{r(H_\lambda ,\omega )}r(H_\lambda ,\omega )𝐄(k)\right).$$
(11)
We prove by direct microscopic calculation that $`\stackrel{}{j}_s=\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }/\stackrel{}{Q},`$ therefore the equilibrium state carries no supercurrent.

Minimum of the thermodynamic potential (9) over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be expanded in series of small $`Q`$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{hel}(Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{hel}(0)+\frac{\mathrm{}}{8m}n_s^{yy}Q^2+bQ^4+cQ^6,c>0.`$ The condition $`n_s^{yy}=0`$, $`b>0`$ determines the second order Lifshitz transition line $`𝒯`$, which ends at the point $`𝒯`$, where coefficient $`b=0`$ changes sign. We compute the coordinates of $`𝒯`$ point using Eqs.(9,10). At lower temperatures $`b<0`$ and first-order transition out of BCS state occurs.

The domain of helical state local stability was determined via consideration of the thermodynamic potential variations due to weak static modulation of the form $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{}{r})=v_q\mathrm{exp}(iqy)+v_{q+2Q}\mathrm{exp}(i(q+2Q)y)`$ (the presence of two Fourier harmonics in the perturbation is due to inhomogeneity of the background helical state): $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{\delta v}=\stackrel{}{v}^+\widehat{𝒜}(q)\stackrel{}{v}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{v}=(\delta v_q,\delta v_{q+2Q}^{})`$ and

$$\widehat{𝒜}(q)=\frac{\widehat{1}}{U}\underset{\omega >0,\lambda ,𝐩}{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{\lambda p_{}}G_{\lambda p_+}& F_{\lambda p_{}}F_{\lambda p_+}\\ F_{\lambda p_{}}^{}F_{\lambda p_+}^{}& G_{\lambda p_++Q}G_{\lambda p_{}+Q}\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The matrix $`𝒜`$ has two eigenvalues $`ϵ_1(q)<ϵ_2(q)`$. We define the helical state metastability line $`𝒮𝒯^{}`$ as a collection of points where one mode $`\delta v`$ becomes energetically favorable: $`\mathrm{min}_qϵ_1(q)=0`$. We solve numerically four equations simultaneously: two gap equations (10) that determine equilibrium $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`Q`$, together with the two equations $`_qϵ_1(q)=0`$ and $`ϵ_1(q)=0`$. By means of expansion of the Ginzburg-Landau functional up to the terms of order $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm |^8`$, we checked that the next-order ”anisotropic” term in the expansion (8) is of the form $`\epsilon (|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|^2)^4`$, with $`\epsilon >0`$. This fact ensures that the phase transition out of the helical state is of the second order (at least, near the $`T_c(H)`$ line).

We calculated electromagnetic response function $`\delta j_\alpha /\delta A_\beta =\frac{e^2}{mc}n_s^{\alpha \beta }`$ for helical state using standard diagram methods and found that $`n_s^{yy}=4\frac{m}{\mathrm{}}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{Q^2}`$. Thus on the Lifshitz line $`𝒯`$ there is no linear supercurrent in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field. The component $`n_s^{xx}`$ does not vanish anywhere in helical state region and is of the order of $`n_s`$ of the BCS state. This is in contrast with the classical LOFF problem, where $`n_s`$ was shown to vanish in the whole helical state; the difference is probably due to the fact that in our problem the direction of $`𝐐`$ is fixed by an applied field $`𝐡`$, while for the case of ferromagnetic superconductor it is arbitrary. The obtained behaviour of $`n_s^{\alpha \beta }`$ tensor indicates strongly anisotropic electromagnetic response of surface superconductor near the Lifshitz line $`𝒯`$.

So far we discussed the clean case; below we demonstrate that sufficiently high concentration of nonmagnetic impurities suppress both helical and stripe states. Consider impurities with weak short-range potential, characterized by to elastic scattering time $`\tau `$. By means of diagram technique AGD , we calculate the coefficient $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})`$ in the Ginzburg-Landau expansion (5) which is the electron-electron vertex in the Cooper channel in the presence of nonmagnetic impurities. It is given by a sum of ladder diagrams which are an alternating sequence of blocks of two normal metal Green functions $`G_\lambda =(i\omega \xi \lambda H\mathrm{sin}\phi _𝐩+\frac{i}{2\tau }\mathrm{sgn}\omega )^1`$ and an impurity line. In every block momenta on the upper and lower lines are opposite whereas the chiralities are the same. $`T_c(H)`$ line is found from $`\mathrm{min}_Q\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})=0`$, where $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})=1/U\pi \nu T\mathrm{max}_Q_{\omega >0}K(\omega ,H,\tau ,Q),`$ with the Cooper kernel $`K`$ given by

$$K(\omega ,H,\tau ,Q)=4\tau \frac{I_s^0\left[1I_s^2\right]+(I_a^1)^2}{\left(1I_s^0\right)\left[1I_s^2\right](I_a^1)^2},$$
(13)
where $`I_{s,a}^\gamma =I_+^\gamma \pm I_{}^\gamma `$ ($`\gamma =0,1,2`$) are functions of $`(T,H,\tau ,Q)`$: $`I_\lambda ^0=\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }^2+H_\lambda ^2\right)^{1/2}/4\tau ,`$ $`I_\lambda ^1=i\left(\stackrel{~}{\omega }I_\lambda ^0\frac{1}{4\tau }\right)/H_\lambda ,`$ $`I_\lambda ^2=i\stackrel{~}{\omega }I_\lambda ^1/H_\lambda `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega +\frac{1}{2\tau }`$. At $`H=0`$ time-reversal symmetry is recovered and Eq.(13) simplifies to $`K=2/\omega `$ independently on disorder, in agreement with Anderson theorem. We evaluate numerically $`\alpha ^{^{\prime \prime }}=^2\alpha (\stackrel{}{Q})/\stackrel{}{Q}^2`$ along the the transition line $`\alpha (T,H,\stackrel{}{Q})=0`$. At $`\tau T_{c0}/\mathrm{}0.11`$ we found $`\alpha ^{\prime \prime }>0`$ at any $`H`$, i.e. both stripe and helical state disappear from the phase diagram at $`\tau \mathrm{}/9T_{c0}`$. Similar condition for usual LOFF state is more stringent, cf. Aslamazov . In the dirty limit $`\tau T_{c0}1`$ the kernel $`K`$ simplifies to $`K=2/(\omega +2H^2\tau +v_F^2Q^2\tau /4)`$. From this form of $`K`$ one easily concludes that the paramagnetic critical field grows with increase of disorder as $`H_p=\sqrt{\pi T_{c0}/4\tau e^C}`$, cf. similar result in Klemm .

The phase diagram Fig.1 was obtained neglecting small parity-breaking term of the order $`\alpha /v_F1`$ in the thermodynamic potential (9): $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }=\eta Q`$ with $`\eta =\alpha \nu T_\omega f(H,\omega )`$, where function $`f`$ is defined for the clean case in Eq.(11). Taking this term into account while minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one finds that uniform BCS state transforms into a weakly helical state (predicted phenomenologically in Agterberg ) with small wave-vector $`\stackrel{~}{Q}\frac{2\alpha H}{v_F^2}`$ and without supercurrent (homogeneous state would carry supercurrent, as was found in Yip , but it is not the ground-state). The line of 2nd order transition $`𝒯`$ broadens then into a sharp cross-over region between two helical states with small and large values of $`Q`$. Within this crossover region, the superfluid density tensor is strongly anisotropic, with $`n_s^{yy}/n_s^{xx}(\alpha /v_F)^{2/3}`$. In the dirty limit long-wavelength helical modulation is present everywhere in superconducting state; near the transition line its wave-vector $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=\frac{4\alpha H}{v_F^2}`$.

We have calculated $`T_c(H)`$ line within mean-field approximation (MFA), those accuracy is usually of order $`T_c/ϵ_F`$ for clean 2D superconductor: actual transition is of Berezinsky-Kosterlitz-Thouless vortex depairing type, and is shifted downwards in temperature by about $`T_c^2/ϵ_F`$. In our system fluctuations are enhanced strongly around $``$ and $`𝒮`$ points. Near the $``$ point it is due to smallness of $`n_s^{yy}`$, and the enhancement factor is of the order of $`\sqrt{n_s^{xx}/n_s^{yy}}(\alpha /v_F)^{1/3}`$. In the vicinity of the point $`𝒮`$ fluctuations are enhanced due to extended $`U(2)`$ symmetry of the order parameter; 2D renormalization group calculation shows that $`U(2)`$ fluctuation modes shift actual $`T_c`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c4(T_c^2/ϵ_F)\mathrm{log}\beta _s/\beta _a`$ downwards at $`\beta _a\beta _s`$. In result, phase transition line $`T_c(H)`$ is deformed in the vicinities of $``$ and $`𝒮`$ points, as shown on Fig.1.

In conclusions, we have demonstrated an existence of three different superconductive states (two helical states and stripe state) in clean surface superconductor in parallel magnetic field, and have located transition lines between them. Strong disorder eliminates short-wavelength helical and stripe states, whereas long-wavelength helical state survives. We thank P. M. Ostrovsky and M. A. Skvortsov for many useful discussions. This research was supported by SCOPES grant, RFBR grant 01-02-17759, Russian ministry of science and Program ”Quantum macrophysics” of RAS. O. V. Dimitrova is grateful to Dynasty Foundation for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Dark Matter And 𝑩_𝒔→𝝁⁺𝝁⁻ With Minimal 𝑺𝑶_𝟏𝟎 Soft SUSY Breaking

## 1  Introduction

The constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model \[CMSSM\]  is a well defined model for soft SUSY breaking with five independent parameters given by $`m_0,M_{1/2},A_0,`$ $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`sign(\mu )`$. It has been used extensively for benchmark points for collider searches, as well as for astrophysical and dark matter analyses. The economy of parameters in this scheme makes it a useful tool for exploring SUSY phenomena. However the CMSSM may miss regions of soft SUSY breaking parameter space which give qualitatively different predictions. In this paper we consider an alternate scheme, the minimal $`SO_{10}`$ supersymmetric model \[MSO10SM\], which is well motivated and opens up a qualitatively new region of parameter space.

In the MSO10SM there are 7 soft SUSY breaking parameters $`\mu ,M_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_{16}`$ (a universal squark and slepton mass), $`m_{10}`$ (a universal Higgs mass) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$ (Higgs up/down mass splitting). Moreover the parameters $`A_0,m_{10},m_{16}`$ must satisfy the constraints  $`A_02m_{16}`$, $`m_{10}\sqrt{2}m_{16}`$, $`m_{16}>1.2\mathrm{TeV}`$ with $`\mu ,M_{1/2}m_{16}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$. Note, with these values of the soft SUSY breaking parameters, we can explore SUSY phenomena with qualitatively different behavior than in the CMSSM. This is mainly due to the Higgs splitting ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$) which, as is well known , enables one to obtain electroweak symmetry breaking with values $`m_{16}\mu ,M_{1/2}`$. Also, radiative EWSB with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ requires significantly less fine tuning with Higgs mass splitting (see Rattazzi and Sarid ). Furthermore, with 3 Higgs mass parameters $`\mu ,m_{10},`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$ we find that the latter two are strongly constrained by EWSB, once we fix the value of $`\mu `$, which we treat as a free parameter. This is unlike the CMSSM where $`\mu `$ is fixed by EWSB. Also note that small changes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$ lead to big changes in the CP odd Higgs mass $`m_A`$ .

It is not at all obvious that the MSO10SM region of soft SUSY breaking parameter space is consistent with cosmology .111 See also other recent articles discussing Yukawa unification and dark matter  The dark matter candidate in this model is the lightest neutralino. However, since the scalar masses of the first two families are of order $`m_{16}>1.2\mathrm{TeV}`$, and the third generation sfermions (except for the stops) also tend to be heavy, the usually dominant annihilation channels, for the neutralino LSP to light fermions via $`t`$–channel sfermion exchange, are suppressed. On the other hand, the process $`\chi \chi f\overline{f}`$ via $`s`$–channel $`A`$ exchange becomes important. This is due to the enhanced CP odd Higgs coupling to down–type fermions, which is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and because, in contrast to heavy scalar exchange, the process is not $`p`$–wave suppressed. In an earlier analysis, our $`\chi ^2`$–analysis favored a light CP odd Higgs mass $`m_A100`$ GeV , although heavier $`A`$ were also allowed. Such light $`A`$ are however disfavored for two reasons. In order to provide efficient annihilation for the LSPs, one would be squeezed into a rather low LSP mass region $`m_\chi m_A/2`$, which would require extreme fine–tuning at best. In addition, such low $`m_A`$ are anyway inconsistent with the current limits on $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. In this analysis, we vary the $`A`$ mass.

We study the cosmology of the MSO10SM in this paper. Obtaining the observed relic abundance of cold dark matter, which along with other cosmological parameters has recently been determined with an unprecedented accuracy , will provide a new important constraint on the model. We also compute the branching ratio for the process $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ due to $`A`$ exchange . It is absolutely essential to include this latter constraint in our analysis. Note, the CDF bound $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<2.6\times 10^6`$ . The cross section for the direct detection of dark matter is also computed. In section 2 we define the MSO10SM, describe its virtues and outline the analysis. In section 3 we compute the cosmological dark matter density and discuss our results. Then in section 4 we discuss our predictions for underground dark matter searches and for collider Higgs and SUSY searches.

## 2  Minimal $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ SUSY Model – MSO10SM

### 2.1 Framework

Let us define the minimal $`SO_{10}`$ SUSY model. Quarks and leptons of one family reside in the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ dimensional representation, while the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM reside in one $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ dimensional representation. For the third generation we assume the minimal Yukawa coupling term given by

$$\lambda \mathbf{16\; 10\; 16}.$$
(1)
On the other hand, for the first two generations and for their mixing with the third, we assume a hierarchical mass matrix structure due to effective higher dimensional operators. Hence the third generation Yukawa couplings satisfy $`\lambda _t=\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau =\lambda _{\nu _\tau }=\lambda `$.

Soft SUSY breaking parameters are also consistent with $`SO_{10}`$ with

* a universal gaugino mass $`M_{1/2}`$,
* a universal squark and slepton mass $`m_{16}`$,222$`SO_{10}`$ does not require all sfermions to have the same mass. This however may be enforced by non–abelian family symmetries or possibly by the SUSY breaking mechanism.
* a universal scalar Higgs mass $`m_{10}`$,
* and a universal A parameter $`A_0`$.

In addition we have the soft SUSY breaking Higgs mass parameters $`\mu `$ and $`B\mu `$. $`B\mu `$ may, as in the CMSSM, be exchanged for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Note, not all of these parameters are independent. Indeed, in order to fit the low energy electroweak data, including the third generation fermion masses, it has been shown that $`A_0,m_{10},m_{16}`$ must satisfy the constraints

$`A_0`$ $`2m_{16}`$ (2)
$`m_{10}`$ $`\sqrt{2}m_{16}`$
$`m_{16}`$ $`>1.2\mathrm{TeV}`$
$`\mu ,`$ $`M_{1/2}m_{16}`$
with

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta 50.$$
(3)
This result has been confirmed in two recent analyses .333Note, different regions of parameter space consistent with Yukawa unification have also been discussed in  The first property (Eqn. (2)) is necessary to fit the top, bottom and $`\tau `$ masses, in addition to the precision electroweak data . The second property (Eqn. (3)) is a consequence of third generation Yukawa unification, since $`m_t(m_t)/m_b(m_t)\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

One loop threshold corrections at the GUT scale lead to two significant parameters we treat as free parameters, although they are calculable in any GUT. The first is a correction to gauge coupling unification given by

$$ϵ_3\left[\alpha _3(M_G)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G\right]/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G$$
(4)
where the GUT scale $`M_G`$ is defined as the scale where $`\alpha _1(M_G)=\alpha _2(M_G)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G`$. The second is a Higgs splitting mass parameter defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2(m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2)/2m_{10}^2.$$
(5)
In order to fit the low energy data we find $`ϵ_34\%`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^213\%`$ . The largest corrections to $`ϵ_3`$ come from the Higgs and $`SO_{10}`$ breaking sectors, while the correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$ is predominantly due to the right–handed $`\tau `$ neutrino. For $`M_{\overline{\nu }_\tau }10^{1314}`$ GeV (appropriate for a light $`\tau `$ neutrino mass $`0.06`$ eV) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2107\%`$.

Finally, as a bonus, these same values of soft SUSY breaking parameters, with $`m_{16}`$ TeV, result in two very interesting consequences. Firstly, it “naturally” produces an inverted scalar mass hierarchy \[ISMH\] . With an ISMH squarks and sleptons of the first two generations obtain mass of order $`m_{16}`$ at $`M_Z`$. The stop, sbottom, and stau, on the other hand, have mass less than a TeV. An ISMH has two virtues.

1. It preserves “naturalness” (for values of $`m_{16}`$ which are not too large), since only the third generation squarks and sleptons couple strongly to the Higgs.
2. It ameliorates the SUSY CP and flavor problems, since these constraints on CP violating angles or flavor violating squark and slepton masses are strongest for the first two generations, yet they are suppressed as $`1/m_{16}^2`$. For $`m_{16}>`$ a few TeV, these constraints are weakened .

Secondly, Super–Kamiokande bounds on $`\tau (pK^+\overline{\nu })>1.9\times 10^{33}`$ yrs.  constrain the contribution of dimension 5 baryon and lepton number violating operators. These are however minimized with $`\mu ,M_{1/2}m_{16}`$ .

### 2.2 Analysis

We use a top–down approach with a global $`\chi ^2`$ analysis . The input parameters are defined by boundary conditions at the GUT scale. The 11 input parameters at $`M_G`$ are given by — three gauge parameters $`M_G,\alpha _G(M_G),`$ $`ϵ_3`$; the Yukawa coupling $`\lambda `$, and 7 soft SUSY breaking parameters $`\mu ,M_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_{16}^2,m_{10}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_H^2`$. These are fit in a global $`\chi ^2`$ analysis defined in terms of physical low energy observables. Note we keep three parameters $`(m_{16},\mu ,M_{1/2})`$ fixed; while minimizing $`\chi ^2`$ with the remaining 8 parameters. Below we will plot $`\chi ^2`$ contours as a function of $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ for different values of $`m_{16}`$. We use two (one) loop renormalization group \[RG\] running for dimensionless (dimensionful) parameters from $`M_G`$ to $`M_Z`$.444Note, we have checked that switching to 2 loop RGEs for dimensionful parameters can be compensated for by small changes in the GUT scale parameters, without significant changes in the low energy results. We require electroweak symmetry breaking using an improved Higgs potential, including $`m_t^4`$ and $`m_b^4`$ corrections in an effective 2 Higgs doublet model below $`M_{SUSY}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}^2)}`$ .

The $`\chi ^2`$ function includes 9 observables; 6 precision electroweak data $`\alpha _{EM},`$ $`G_\mu ,`$ $`\alpha _s(M_Z),`$ $`M_Z,M_W,`$ $`\rho _{NEW}`$ and the 3 fermion masses $`M_{top},m_b(m_b),M_\tau `$. In our analysis we fit the central values : $`M_Z=91.188`$ GeV, $`M_W=80.419`$ GeV, $`G_\mu \times 10^5=1.1664`$ GeV-2, $`\alpha _{EM}^1=137.04,`$ $`M_\tau =1.7770`$ GeV with 0.1% numerical uncertainties; and the following with the experimental uncertainty in parentheses: $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.1180(0.0020),`$ $`\rho _{new}\times 10^3=0.200(1.1)`$ , $`M_t=174.3(5.1)`$ GeV, $`m_b(m_b)=4.20(0.20)`$ GeV.555Note we take a conservative error for $`m_b(m_b)`$  in view of recent claims to much smaller error bars . We include the complete one loop threshold corrections at $`M_Z`$ to all observables. In addition we use one loop QED and three loop QCD RG running below $`M_Z`$.

The output of this analysis is a set of weak scale squark, slepton, gaugino and Higgs masses. With regards to the calculated Higgs and sparticle masses, the neutral Higgs masses $`h,H,A`$ are pole masses calculated with the leading top, bottom, stop, sbottom loop contributions; while all other sparticle masses are running masses. This output is then used to compute the cosmological dark matter density of the lightest neutralino which is the LSP. The dark matter analysis is discussed in more detail in section 3.

Using $`\chi ^2`$ penalties666In order to constrain the values of some physical observables in our $`\chi ^2`$ analysis, such as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ or $`m_A`$, we add a significant contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ function for values of these observables outside the desired range. We refer to this additional contribution as a $`\chi ^2`$ penalty. Minimization of $`\chi ^2`$ with Minuit, then pushes the fits to the desired range. Of course the $`\chi ^2`$ penalties then vanish. we apply two additional constraints:

* $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}300`$ GeV
* $`m_A`$ fixed.

The first is chosen to be consistent with $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ . Note, although we do calculate $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$, we do not use it as a constraint in the analysis. This is for two reasons — 1) this decay mode depends on 3–2 generation mixing which is model dependent and 2) it is not difficult to fit $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ for values of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}300`$ GeV. Hence, in order to be generally consistent with the measured value of $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$, we impose $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}300`$ GeV. With regards to the second constraint, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ are both sensitive to the value of $`m_A`$, we fix it’s value and present our results for different values of $`m_A`$.777The calculation of $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ requires a model for fermion mass matrices. In the absence of such a model we use the observed CKM matrix elements to calculate these flavor violating branching ratios.

Finally, we apply the experimental limits:

* lower bound on the lightest chargino mass $`m_{\chi ^+}>104`$ GeV,
* lower bound on the light Higgs mass $`m_h>111`$ GeV.

Note, because of the theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of $`m_h`$ ($`3`$ GeV), we conservatively impose $`m_h>111`$ GeV, instead of the LEP bound for SM Higgs $`m_h>114.4`$ GeV.

## 3  Cosmological Dark Matter Density

We compute the relic abundance $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ of the lightest neutralino using exact expressions for neutralino pair annihilation into all allowed final–state channels, which are valid both near and further away from resonances and thresholds . We further treat the neutralino coannihilation with the lightest chargino and next–to–lightest neutralino  and with the lighter stau  with similar precision. We only neglect the neutralino coannihilation with the stop which would only affect $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ in the regions of parameter space which are uninteresting for other reasons, as we comment below. We solve the Boltzmann equation numerically as in  and compute $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ with an error of a few per cent, which is comparable with today’s accuracy on the observational side. The latest determinations of cosmological parameters  give $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Mh^2=0.135_{0.009}^{+0.008}`$ for the total matter content and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0224\pm 0.0009`$ for the baryonic component. The difference, attributed to cold dark matter (CDM), is then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}h^2=0.113\pm 0.009,$$
(6)
which is significantly narrower than previous ranges. We then apply two constraints on the dark matter abundance:

* the upper bound $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$,
* $`2\sigma `$ preferred range $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$.

In Figs. 13 we present our results for different values of $`m_{16}`$ and $`m_A`$ in the $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ plane. In particular in Fig. 1 we present, for $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV and $`m_A=500`$ GeV, the (magenta) lines of constant $`\chi ^2`$ with the cosmologically preferred dark matter region (shaded green) satisfying $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$. We find significant regions of parameter space which gives $`\chi ^22`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ as above, and satisfies all other phenomenological constraints. In addition we have shaded (light red) the regions excluded by collider limits and by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.13`$.888A similar analysis was performed in the recent paper . However, they were not able to find acceptable cosmological solutions. It appears that they did not find any acceptable solutions because they find Yukawa unification only for $`M_{1/2}100`$ GeV and large $`\mu 300`$ GeV. In this region we probably would not find acceptable solutions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$, no matter what value we take for $`m_A`$.

In Fig. 2 we present a more detailed analysis of the same $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV, $`m_A=500`$ GeV case given in Fig. 1. We now include lines of constant $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ (upper left), $`m_h`$ (upper right), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ (lower left), and $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ (lower right). $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ is the spin independent neutralino dark matter cross–section relevant for direct dark matter searches. We now consider each one of these features further.

Recall, the branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ is sensitive to the value of the CP odd Higgs mass $`m_A`$ . For $`m_A=500`$ GeV, the branching ratio satisfies $`2\times 10^7<\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<8\times 10^7`$ for acceptable values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and $`\chi ^2<2`$. In a recent analysis it has been shown that, with an integrated luminosity of 15 fb-1, CDF can discover this process if $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})>1.2\times 10^8`$ . Hence most acceptable regions of parameter space lead to observable rates for $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$.

In Fig. 2 (upper right) we see that the light Higgs mass increases as $`M_{1/2}`$ decreases. In the acceptable regions of parameter space we find $`116<m_h<121`$ GeV. The value of the light Higgs mass is however fairly insensitive to $`m_{16}`$.

The cosmological relic abundance of the neutralino $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ (Fig. 2 (lower left)) is primarily determined by the direct s–channel pair–annihilation into SM fermion pairs through the CP odd Higgs. Since all the sfermions are very heavy, their contribution to reducing the neutralino number density is strongly suppressed. In contrast, because of the coupling $`Ab\overline{b}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (and similarly for the $`\tau `$’s), the $`A`$–resonance is effective and broad. Near $`m_\chi m_A/2`$ it reduces $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ down to allowed but uninterestingly small values $`0.1`$. As one moves away from the resonance, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ grows, reaches the preferred range $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$, before becoming too large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>0.13`$.999Note that at one loop we have $`M_1(M_Z)=M_{1/2}\alpha _1(M_Z)/\alpha _G`$ so $`M_1(M_Z)0.4M_{1/2}`$. For bino–like neutralino (which is true for larger $`\mu `$), we thus have $`m_\chi 0.4M_{1/2}`$. Hence for s–channel annihilation we have $`m_A2m_\chi 0.8M_{1/2}`$ or $`M_{1/2}(5/4)m_A`$ for the position of the “peak suppression.” (A similar, but much more narrow resonance due to $`h^0`$ is also present at $`M_{1/2}150`$ GeV and small $`\mu `$.) When $`m_\chi \text{ }>m_t`$ ($`M_{1/2}\text{ }>420`$ GeV) and the stops are not too heavy, the LSP pairs annihilate to $`t\overline{t}`$–pairs. In the region of large $`M_{1/2}`$, often where $`m_h`$ is already too low, two additional channels become effective. First, in this region the neutralino becomes almost mass degenerate with the lighter stau which leads to reducing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ through coannihilation. Second, if $`m_A`$ is not too large, neutralino pair–annihilation into Higgs boson pairs $`AA`$ and $`HH`$ opens up. Finally, at $`\mu M_{1/2}`$, the relic abundance is strongly reduced due to the increasing higgsino component of the LSP.

Finally, the spin independent neutralino cross–section $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ in the lower right window of Fig. 2 is predominantly determined by the contribution of the heavy CP even scalar $`t`$–channel exchange to both tree–level and one–loop diagrams. Note that in the preferred region of $`\chi ^2<2`$ and $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$ we find $`10^9\mathrm{pb}\text{ }<\sigma _p^{SI}\text{ }<10^7\mathrm{pb}`$. We will comment further on our predictions for $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ below.

In Fig. 3 we display the dependence of our constraints, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ and $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ on $`m_{16}`$ and $`m_A`$. By comparing the upper two windows with Fig. 1 we can see that, as $`m_{16}`$ increases, the region with $`\chi ^2<2`$ rapidly grows. Note, the dominant pull in $`\chi ^2`$ is due to the bottom quark mass. In order to fit the data, the total SUSY corrections to $`m_b(m_b)`$ must be of order $`(24)\%`$ . In addition there are three dominant contributions to these SUSY corrections, a gluino loop contribution $`\alpha _3\mu M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{tan}\beta /m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}^2`$, a chargino loop contribution $`\lambda _t^2\mu A_t\mathrm{tan}\beta /m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2`$, and a term $`\mathrm{log}M_{SUSY}^2`$. When $`m_{16}`$ increases (with $`M_{1/2}`$ fixed) the parameter $`A_t`$ becomes more negative, since $`A_02m_{16}`$ and $`A_t3M_{1/2}+ϵA_0`$ where $`ϵ1`$. Also, larger values of $`m_{16}`$ permit a larger range for the ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{b}_1}/m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$. Thus larger values of $`m_{16}`$ allows more freedom in parameter space for fitting the data at both smaller or larger values of $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$.

In the lower two windows in Fig. 3 we consider two regions with $`m_A=300`$ GeV with $`m_{16}=2.5`$ TeV (lower left) and $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV (lower right). The blue regions are excluded by the CDF bound $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<2.6\times 10^6`$ . Note for $`m_{16}=2.5`$ TeV, the region with $`\chi ^2<2`$ does not overlap the region with acceptable dark matter abundance (green shaded). However for $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV, $`m_A=300`$ GeV, Fig. 3 (lower right), we find a small region with acceptable $`\chi ^2<1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$. Moreover the branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ is now close to the CDF bound. On the other hand for $`m_{16}=5`$ TeV, $`m_A=500`$ GeV, in Fig. 3 (upper right), a new region of parameter space consistent with all the data now opens up with larger $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$. This new region becomes cosmologically allowed due to neutralino annihilation into Higgs boson pairs $`AA`$ and $`HH`$ and due to coannihilation with the lighter stau.

Hence we see that increasing $`m_A`$ has two effects. It suppresses the branching fraction $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. At the same time it moves the s–channel neutralino annihilation channel to larger values of $`M_{1/2}`$; hence providing larger regions with $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$ (compare Figs. 1 and 3 (lower right) or Figs. 3 (upper and lower left)). In fact, the two (green) branches of the preferred range $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$ correspond to the two sides (except for the upper left window of Fig. 3 where just one side is evident) of the wide $`A`$ resonance in the neutralino pair–annihilation. On the other hand, increasing $`m_A`$ above 1 TeV or so would move the regions of preferred $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2`$ too far to the right, in potential conflict with a lower bound on $`m_h`$.

Finally, we comment on $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$. The current experimental range  is $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )_{\mathrm{expt}}=(3.41\pm 0.36)\times 10^4`$, while the SM prediction, including full NLO QCD corrections , is $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )_{\mathrm{SM}}=(3.70\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$. In computing the SUSY contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ we further include full LO and dominant NLO–level $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$–enhanced contributions . Conservatively allowing for the SM+SUSY contribution to be in the range $`\left(3.41\pm 0.67\right)\times 10^4`$  selects a band $`300\mathrm{GeV}\text{ }<\mu \text{ }<400\mathrm{GeV}`$ which slowly decreases with increasing $`M_{1/2}`$. (This remains approximately true for all the cases that we have analyzed except $`m_{16}=5`$ TeV and $`m_A=500`$ GeV where one finds a narrower range at $`\mu \text{ }<200`$ GeV.) However, $`\mathrm{BR}(BX_s\gamma )`$ is strongly sensitive to the 2–3 generation down–type squark mixings  which are model dependent and which we do not include here. In summary, the process is generally consistent with the most preferred regions of $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`\mu `$ but we do not use it here as a constraint, since it can be easily relaxed by employing parameters which are less relevant for our analysis.

To summarize, we find that regions satisfying all three constraints exist for $`m_{16}3`$ TeV and $`m_A300`$ GeV. The acceptable range for $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ grows with increasing $`m_A`$ (for fixed $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV) from approximately $`260\mathrm{GeV}\mu 295\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`140\mathrm{GeV}M_{1/2}200\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_A=300\mathrm{GeV}`$ to $`160\mathrm{GeV}\mu 520\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`140\mathrm{GeV}M_{1/2}530\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`m_A=500\mathrm{GeV}`$. In addition, the allowed regions grow as $`m_{16}`$ increases and for $`m_A=500\mathrm{GeV},m_{16}=5\mathrm{TeV}`$ there is also a large $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ solution satisfying $`480\mathrm{GeV}\mu 820\mathrm{GeV},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}640}\mathrm{GeV}M_{1/2}1020\mathrm{GeV}`$. In the Table we present the input and output data from the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis for three points satisfying all the phenomenological constraints.

## 4  Predictions and Summary

In this paper we have analyzed the MSO10SM and found regions of soft SUSY breaking parameter space which fit precision electroweak data, including the top, bottom and tau masses and, in addition, fit the cosmological dark matter abundance for the neutralino LSP and satisfy $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. Generically, we find solutions to all the constraints with $`m_{16}3`$ TeV. The squark and slepton masses have an inverted scalar mass hierarchy with the first and second generation scalar masses of order $`m_{16}`$, while the third generation has mass less than 1.3 TeV for $`m_{16}=5`$ TeV. This nice feature of the model suppresses SUSY CP and flavor problems. In addition the gaugino masses are typically much lighter, except for the large $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ region for $`m_{16}=5`$ TeV with a gluino mass of order 1.7 TeV (see spectrum in Table for selected acceptable points).

Note an immediate consequence of such heavy first and second generation sleptons is the suppression of the SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. We find $`a_\mu ^{SUSY}2.8\times 10^{10}`$ (see Table). This is consistent with the most recent experimental  and theoretical results at $`1\sigma `$ if one uses $`\tau `$–based analysis . However it is only consistent with an $`e^+e^{}`$–based analysis at 3 $`\sigma `$.

Another interesting result is the enhanced branching ratio for the process $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. In Fig. 4 we show the ranges of values of $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ in the low $`\mu ,M_{1/2}`$ region of parameter space satisfying all the phenomenological constraints with $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$ and $`\chi ^2<2`$ as a function of $`m_A`$ for fixed $`m_{16}=3`$ TeV. The horizontal red line is the CDF bound. Over a significant region of parameter space $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})>1\times 10^7`$ and may be observable at the Tevatron (Run II) .

Finally in Fig. 5 we present the cross–section for elastic neutralino–proton scattering due to scalar interactions $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ for all regions satisfying the collider constraints, $`0.095<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.13`$ and $`\chi ^2<2`$. The green bands are for $`m_{16}=2.5`$ TeV, the red for 3 TeV and the blue for 5 TeV. The lighter shading is for $`m_A=300`$ GeV, the darker for $`m_A=500`$ GeV. In the last case ($`m_{16}=5`$ TeV and $`m_A=500`$ GeV) there are two branches which correspond to the two cosmologically preferred regions in the upper right panel in Fig. 3. Note that lower $`m_A`$ generally gives larger $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ as expected. For comparison, we also show the bounds from the present dark matter searches and the predictions of the general MSSM . (Other recent studies of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$ in the case of non–universal Higgs mass in a variant of the CMSSM can be found in .) Over the next two to five years the experimental sensitivity is expected to gradually improve by some three orders of magnitude. This will cover large parts of the predicted ranges of $`\sigma _p^{SI}`$, especially at lower values of $`m_A`$ where $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ will be accessible at the Tevatron (Run II).

###### Acknowledgments.

We gratefully acknowledge the use of the GUT $`\chi ^2`$ analysis code developed by T. Blažek and a contribution from Y.G. Kim to a routine for computing $`\mathrm{BR}(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$. L.R. is grateful to A. Melchiorri for helpful comments regarding the recent WMAP analysis. R.D. is supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract DE-FG03-91ER-40674 and the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics. S.R. received partial support from DOE grant# DOE/ER/01545-841 and from a grant in aid from the Monell Foundation. He is also grateful to the hospitality shown to him by the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study. RRdA and LR are supported in part by the EU Fifth Framework network ”Supersymmetry and the Early Universe” (HPRN-CT-2000-00152).