the addition of a @xmath0 gauge singlet supermultiplet to the mssm ( minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model ) has been motivated by several issues : ( i ) the solution of the so - called @xmath1-problem ; ( ii ) the possibility of spontaneous breaking of the cp symmetry ; ( iii ) the upper limits on the higgs mass that are relatively low in the mssm could be relaxed ; ( iv ) the neutral particle spectrum is enriched by two scalars and one fermion , which could mix with other higgs bosons and neutralinos and modify their physical properties ; ( v ) possible deviations from the mssm could urge to enlarge the experimental searches , which have been centred upon the mssm .
we refer here to the supersymmetric model with a gauge singlet in its simplest version , as defined below , as the ( m+1)ssm .
however , according to our analysis , the strong constraints from lep experiments , when combined with theoretical and phenomenological requirements , select the ( m+1)ssm parameters in such a way that the gauge singlet scalars and fermions are basically decoupled and the rest of the spectrum effectively reproduces a restricted class of the mssm . because of this similarity , the motivations ( ii)-(v ) fade out as these issues are excluded or diminished after such a detailed investigation .
nevertheless , this also means that phenomenological analyses of the mssm apply to a large extent to the ( m+1)ssm as well !
still , if supersymmetry is found , one can go further and look for some peculiarites that could distinguish the two kind of models , specially in the case in which the lightest supersymmetric particle is the singlet fermion , or singlino .
the ( m+1)ssm can also be experimentally tested from the fact that the effective parameters in the equivalent mssm are very constrained .
the present paper is devoted to a thorough discussion of the model in its version with only dimensionless couplings in its superpotential , and universal boundary conditions for the soft supersymmetric breaking terms at the gut scale . with these assumptions , the dimensionality of the parameter space of the ( m+1)ssm equals that of the mssm .
our aim is to understand the pattern of the particle spectrum , correlations among the particle masses , and features which are in common with or different from the mssm .
an analysis of the complete parameters space of the model requires numerical methods , as a scanning over the independent parameters at the gut scale , their subsequent evolution using the rge down to the weak scale , the minimization of the higgs potential , the implementation of theoretical and experimental constraints and finally the computation of the particle masses and some mixing angles .
many phenomenological analyses of the model have appeared before @xcite .
the purpose of the present work is twofold .
first , we implement the most recent experimental constraints on sparticles , higgs and top quark masses from the lep and the tevatron @xcite .
second , we explain the results of our numerical procedure with the help of analytic approximations and inequalities among the parameters . once the vacua which break colour , electromagnetism or correspond to @xmath2 are forbidden and the experimental constraints are imposed , these formulae allow us to understand the essential features of the bounds on and correlations among some particle masses .
quite a lot of attention is paid to the property found in @xcite , namely , that the singlet scalar acquires a v.e.v . which is much larger than the higgs ones .
indeed , this has the important consequence that the singlet fermion and scalars quite decouple from the the other multiplets as already mentioned .    in section [ sec : properties ] we review the motivations for the model , its essential differences with respect to the mssm due to the enlargement of higgs sector and the status of the spontaneous cp violation .
the universality assumption for the soft terms and some of its consequences are explained in section [ sec : universal ] .
section [ sec : mass ] contains the minimum conditions for the scalar potential as well as the scalar higgs masses with the radiative corrections included in an approximation that is generally good , though we use the full expressions @xcite in our numerical calculations . in section [ sec : stability ]
we derive some approximate constraints from the stability of the vacuum to understand the pattern of the physical predictions . in section [ sec : inos ] we discuss some correlations in the mass spectrum along the same approximations
. then we summarize our implementation of the experimental and theoretical constraints on the model , in section [ sec : cuts ] .
the main results of the careful scanning of the parameter space are displayed in the figures in section [ sec : spectrum ] , with some emphasis on the sparticles more likely to be discovered at the colliders , with the exception of the higgs sector that has been already presented @xcite .
the results are summarized in the last section .
some useful solutions of the rge for the soft terms ( with generic boundary conditions , for completeness ) are listed in the appendix .
the superpotential of the ( m+1)ssm ( where family mixing is neglected and irrelevant for the analysis in this paper ) is given by    @xmath3    where the chiral superfields are denoted as follows : @xmath4 ( singlet ) , @xmath5 and @xmath6 ( higgs doublets ) , @xmath7 ( antitop ) , @xmath8 ( antibottom ) , @xmath9 ( antitau ) , @xmath10 ( top - bottom doublet ) , @xmath11 ( tau - neutrino doublet ) . let us briefly review the present status of these motivations for the ( m+1)ssm .    a supersymmetric mass term @xmath12 is added to the mssm superpotential in order to avoid a potentially dangerous peccei - quinn symmetry and to allow for an acceptable minimum of the higgs potential .
the analysis of the @xmath13 breaking then requires @xmath1 to be roughly of the same order of magnitude as the soft terms that embody the supersymmetry breaking effects in the two higgs sectors .
this interesting hierarchy problem , the so - called @xmath1-puzzle , has motivated many a suggestion to link the supersymmetric mass @xmath1 to supersymmetry breaking @xcite .  in any instance , some kind of new physics is requested and in this sense the mssm that looks mostly economical at low energies is not necessarily so at the unification @xmath14 level .
a natural solution @xcite is provided by the addition of a singlet @xmath15 soft terms that break supersymmetry can induce a v.e.v . for @xmath4 and an effective supersymmetric mass @xmath16 of the right order magnitude .
this mechanism asks for the @xmath17 self - coupling in the superpotential which also breaks the unwanted peccei - quinn symmetry .
however , this coupling would be forbidden and the singlet model inoperative if @xmath4 has non - trivial quantum numbers with respect to broken symmetries beyond those of the standard model .
this phenomenon is frequently found in superstring compactifications .
we take here the pragmatic viewpoint that all the dimension three interactions that preserve the low - energy local and global symmetries are to be included .
as we shall discuss later , very low values of the coupling @xmath18 are consistent with the phenomenological constraints . in this case
, it could be a relic of non - renormalizable interactions after the decoupling of , @xmath19 extra @xmath20 gauge symmetries . actually , the `` sliding '' singlet v.e.v .
compensates for the smallness of the couplings @xmath18 and @xmath21 and this considerably reduces the fine - tuning problem of the @xmath1-term . such a possibility is indeed supported by our analysis .
supersymmetric mass terms are forbidden by the @xmath22 symmetry of the purely cubic superpotential assumed in ( [ a ] ) .
this discrete symmetry also prevents @xmath4 from getting a large v.e.v . through large radiative corrections
to singlet tadpole terms , which invalidate other supersymmetric models with gauge singlets @xcite . on the other hand
, the @xmath23 symmetry can give rise to cosmological problems in the form of domain walls which are produced during the electroweak phase transition @xcite .
possible solutions to this problem have been discussed in @xcite and include inflation of the weak scale , embedding of the discrete symmetry into a gauge symmetry at the planck scale or re - introducing of the @xmath24-term in the superpotential .
( in the presence of the singlet , @xmath24 can be orders of magnitudes smaller than the weak scale , in which case our subsequent analysis is not affected ; however , the @xmath24-problem was part of the motivations of the model . ) in any case , since we concentrate in this paper on the particle physics aspects of the model and do not discuss cosmological issues , our results will be independent of the form of the solutions of the domain wall problem .
the study of spontaneous cp breaking in the ( m+1)ssm also differs from the mssm . indeed ,
cp violating vacua can be induced only if there are more than one phase - dependent interaction in the scalar potential .  in the mssm ,
the only tree - level term is the soft scalar mass term @xmath25 .
analytic terms of higher dimensions generated at the one loop level can conspirate with the tree - level one to induce spontaneous cp violation .
however , this has been shown @xcite to entail a very low upper limit on one of the scalar masses which is inconsistent with present experiments at lep .
the classical scalar potential processes a richer structure in the ( m+1)ssm , with three additional complex scalar couplings ( one of dimension four , two cubic soft terms , see next section ) .
the conditions for cp spontaneous breaking in this type of models have been shown @xcite to imply a negative eigenvalue in the scalar ( mass@xmath26 matrix .
however , top quark - squark loop corrections could shift this eigenvalue to positive values .
thus spontaneous cp violation would occur for appropriate values of the parameters and one or two light scalars are predicted @xcite .
this issue certainly deserves a more detailed comparison with phenomenology ; it lies outside the purview of the present investigation .
because the very small region in the ( m+1)ssm parameter space consistent with spontaneous cp violation and those selected by our cp conserving solutions are apart , we disregard _
ab initio _ the question of non - trivial phase vacua .
upper bounds have been derived for the mass of the lightest higgs scalar in the mssm that take into account the large one loop corrections @xcite as well as some two - loop effects @xcite .
this prediction is of paramount importance in view of the experimental searches of the higgs scalar in the lep 200 and the lhc .
the ( m+1)ssm has an additional contribution @xmath27 to the higgs ( mass@xmath28 it has been shown @xcite that requiring the theory to remain perturbative up to the gut scale reduces this additional contribution to @xmath29(30 gev ) .
the upper bounds on the lightest higgs boson mass are considerably lowered if one also imposes all phenomenological constraints needed for the model to be realistic .
this has been done in the case of universal supergravity couplings @xcite and also for some special non - universal models @xcite .
note that a relatively small increase in the higgs mass may affect the experimental signatures .
since the predictions of the phenomenologically constrained ( m+1)ssm for the higgs sector has been the subject of a recent publication @xcite , we shall only give a short account of this important matter here .
as for the particle spectrum , this model presents several new features as compared to the mssm .
the supermultiplet @xmath4 consists of two scalars of opposite cp and one majorana fermion . after the @xmath13 breaking ,
these states get mixed with the neutral states in the higgs doublet and gauge supermultiplets , leading to a slightly richer spectrum . in particular
, since the visibility of physical states depends on their couplings to the gauge bosons and to matter , some particles could be relatively light if they are mainly gauge singlets .
thus , some of the limits on neutral particles obtained at lep in the mssm framework do not immediately apply to the alternative ( m+1)ssm .
the discussion in this paper as well as in our previous ones @xcite is also aimed to persuade experimentalists to analyze their data on a more general basis .    in the @xmath30 limit , the gauge singlet decouples and the remaining theory looks like the mssm @xcite . however
, this limit leads to a particular version of the mssm with a strong correlation among the soft parameters , as we shall discuss later on .
the singlet scalar takes a very large v.e.v .
of @xmath31 , but the fermion singlet and both scalar singlets are rather light .    of course , the large dimension of the scalar field manifold allows for a rich structure in the overall scalar potential and leads to the existence of many local extrema @xcite .
one has to carefully check that the phenomenologically viable vacuum is favoured with respect to the unwanted ones . among these
there are the usual @xmath32 breaking ones , corresponding to vacua with quark and lepton quantum numbers @xcite , @xcite , @xcite .
in the ( m+1)ssm there is the additional possibility of a non - vanishing charged higgs field vacuum .
however , the necessary condition for this particular charge violating classical solution is a relatively large coupling of the higgses to the singlet @xcite , so that this situation is quite naturally avoided by a bound on that coupling.our theoretical and experimental constraints turn out to automatically selected the right region of the parameter space .
actually , as we shall discuss here below , an acceptable minimum of the potential requires some inequalities among the soft supersymmetry breaking terms which would tend to induce @xmath32 breaking vacua as well .  the radiative corrections due to the gauge interactions then allow for a compromise while restricting the useful region in the parameter space . since the electroweak gauge symmetry breaking is induced by radiative corrections involving the top yukawa coupling  a well - known property in supersymmetric extensions of the standard model  the existence of a physically acceptable vacuum in the ( m+1)ssm is a purely quantum effect .
the supersymmetric part of the scalar potential is obtained from the superpotential through the well - known expression as a sum of @xmath33 and @xmath34 terms . the supersymmetry breaking part of the lagrangian
contains all soft terms consistent with the symmetries of the superpotential : gaugino masses , trilinear analytic scalar couplings and scalar mass terms .  in the ( m+1)ssm they are as follows ( with the same notation for the chiral matter supermultiplets and their first component complex scalars ) : @xmath35 where @xmath36 are the gauginos associated to the @xmath37 and @xmath38 gauge symmetries .
only the terms involving the top scalars have been retained in ( [ b ] ) , with @xmath39 but similar interactions for all other squarks and sleptons are to be understood .
all the parameters are taken to be real ( up to irrelevant phases ) and flavour mixing is neglected .
notice that these soft terms contain all the dimensionful parameters of the model , which are all naturally related to the supersymmetry breaking scale @xmath40 . in order to study the particle spectrum and @xmath13 symmetry breaking in the ( m+1)ssm
, one should take the parameters in ( [ a ] ) and ( [ b ] ) at the relevant scales , the fermi scale @xmath41 gev or @xmath42 instead , it is natural to fix these parameters at the level of the underlying supergravity theory .
we shall consider here the unification scale @xmath43 gev to define them .
this is just a few orders of magnitude below the planck mass and one can presumable assume an effective renormalizable theory at @xmath44 once the parameters are given at @xmath45 their corresponding values at @xmath46 or @xmath47 are calculated by the integration of the renormalization group equations ( rge ) for the ( m+1)ssm @xcite .
we present in the appendix the analytic solutions of the ( m+1)ssm rge in the approximation @xmath48 which turns out to be good for most of the set of parameters that will be selected on a phenomenological basis .
however , for the sake of precision , we numerically integrate the rge in our analysis , the expressions in the appendix being reserved for analytical discussions of the numerical results . in practice , we renormalize the parameters down to the scale @xmath46 through the supersymmetric rge , and then apply the coleman - weinberg corrections to the higgs potential to take into account the decoupling of the stops at @xmath40 .
the important hypothesis to be made in this paper is the so - called `` universality '' or flavour - independence for the soft - terms in ( [ b ] ) . for the supersymmetry breaking scalar interactions it amounts to assume a common value for all the parameters @xmath49 in ( [ b ] ) @xmath50    @xmath51    and the same values ( at @xmath52 ) for the scalar masses in ( [ b ] ) ,    @xmath53    this universality follows if the direction of supersymmetry breaking , characterized by the goldstino components , corresponds to fields with purely gravitational couplings to the relevant chiral superfields ( for instance , if it is along the dilaton - axion direction in superstring inspired theories @xcite ) .
of course , it follows in general if the goldstino components have equal couplings to all relevant chiral superfields ; an example is given by the `` large radius limits '' of orbifold compactifications in string theory if supersymmetry breaking occur along the modulus direction @xcite .    as for gaugino masses , the universality hypothesis at @xmath52 reads
@xmath54    in grand unified gauge theories many of these relations will be required by the enlarged gauge group at the tree - level .  at the one loop level one
expects some threshold corrections to the universality of the soft terms already at the reference scale @xmath55 the deviations from ( [ c ] ) - ( [ e ] ) in the matter sector can be phenomenologically important because of the existent experimental bounds on fcnc effects but they are less relevant to our discussion in this paper .
deviations from the universality assumption are also possible in the framework of superstring theory , since the moduli sector can couple differently to the various chiral fields . since the assumptions @xmath56 and @xmath57 play an important role in our phenomenological analysis , some of our results depend on the universality of the supersymmetry breaking parameters .
however a similar analysis of the ( m+1)ssm has been published @xcite for the case of non - universal soft terms in the framework of an orbifold compactification of the superstring , and these results are quite analogous to those presented here .
the most important consequences of the flavour independence of soft terms concern the @xmath13 symmetry breaking .
it could be induced by a negative value of @xmath58 , but for the potential to be bounded from below and to avoid colour or @xmath59 symmetry breaking the universal parameter @xmath60 has to be positive , so that @xmath61 .
for this reason , @xmath62 has to be enforced by renormalization effects .
this is a well - known feature of the mssm as well , entailing a lower limit on the top yukawa coupling . in the ( m+1)ssm
, the sign of @xmath58 could be made to flip by the coupling of the singlet fields even for a light top quark @xcite .
the experimental value of top quark mass is perfectly consistent , however , with a negative @xmath58 at low energies from the effects of top - stop quantum loops .
furthermore the cubic soft terms can also induce spontaneous symmetry breaking if the value of the parameter @xmath63 in ( [ c ] ) is large enough .
hence large values of @xmath64 are preferred to give the singlet scalar a v.e.v .. however , with the universality assumption ( [ c ] ) , the squark and sleptons could also get non - vanishing v.e.v.s @xcite .
interestingly enough , the gauge interactions reduce the @xmath63-parameters for matter fields while preserving the value of @xmath65 as can be seen from the expressions in the appendix . thus ,
phenomenologically consistent ( m+1)ssm s with the condition ( [ c]),([d]),([e ] ) , can be build at the price of restricting the space of the supersymmetry breaking parameters .
this is the most important restriction imposed on the model by the universality hypothesis , as compared to the mssm @xcite .
otherwise , the effects of this universality on the @xmath13 spontaneous breaking are similar to those in the mssm .
another consequence of this assumption is to reduce the number of free bare parameters in the ( m+1)ssm to five ( before imposing the physical constraints ) just like in the mssm : the dimensionful parameters @xmath8 and @xmath1 of the latter are replaced in the former by the dimensionless parameters @xmath21 and @xmath66 .    at low energies , the soft terms as obtained from the rge depend on the parameters @xmath67 on the choice of the gut scale ,
@xmath68 through @xmath69 @xmath70 ( a typical value being @xmath71 and on the gauge and yukawa couplings .
this calculation has to be done numerically in general .
however , from the dimensionality of these running parameters , they can be generically expressed at low energy in terms of their universal initial values as    @xmath72    where the coefficients depend on the various gauge and yukawa couplings .
for the simple case where the top yukawa coupling dominates over the others , the dependence on the latter reduces to simple expressions in terms of the ratio @xmath73 where @xmath74 is the fixed point value of the top yukawa coupling .
the results of this approximation are presented in the appendix and are used for the sake of some qualitative understanding of the numerical results . with the recent measurements of the top quark mass , @xmath75 is bounded by @xmath76 ( this is higher than the minimum value required to induce mediative @xmath13 breaking ) .
as an example , we list the low energy soft parameters at the fixed point value @xmath77 the coefficients are approximated to a reasonable precision .
@xmath78    1truecm
let us first restrict the discussion to the physically relevant vacua with ( real ) v.e.v.s for the field @xmath79 the scalar potential restricted to this sector reads @xmath80    @xmath81    where @xmath82 is the quantum correction to the effective scalar potential beyond the rge effects included in the running parameters of ( [ f ] ) .
these radiative corrections are important , in particular in the evaluation of the lightest higgs boson mass .
the relevant contribution comes from the top - stop sector because of the relatively large value of the top yukawa coupling .
hence we only include the top quark and the two stop states , @xmath83 in the usual coleman - weinberg expression ,    @xmath84    the appropriate mass terms in ( [ g ] ) are then the top quark mass @xmath85 and the stop masses    @xmath86    all the parameters in ( [ f ] ) and ( [ g ] ) are to be taken at the scale @xmath87    these radiative corrections are mostly due to the splitting between the quarks and the squarks .
however , even if one starts from universal parameters at @xmath45 the rge running introduce some asymmetry in the stop sector as can be seen from the formulae in the appendix .
the resulting splitting in @xmath88 produces a sizeable effect in @xmath89 and in the scalar mass spectrum .
the full one loop expressions for the mass matrices and the potential minimization are available in the literature .
all the numerical calculations in the present paper are performed by using the formulae in @xcite . however , for the sake of the analytic approximations discussed below we use a simple approximation by keeping only the lowest relevant order in the development in terms of the stop splitting , @xmath90 the minimization of the scalar potential amounts to the following conditions    @xmath91 $ } & $ = $ & $ 0 $ \\   &   &   \\   $ h_{2}\left [ m_{2}^{2}+\hat{\mu}^{2}\left ( 1+\frac{h_{1}^{2}}{s^{2}}\right ) -% \frac{1}{2}\overline{g}^{2}\left ( h_{1}^{2}-h_{2}^{2}\right ) \right ] + $ &   &   \\   &   &   \\   $ + \hat{b}\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}}{h_{2}}+\beta _ { t}\left [ \left ( m_{t}^{2}+m_{q_{3}}^{2}+a_{t}^{2}\right ) \left ( l+\varepsilon \right ) \right .
$ &   &   \\   &   &   \\   \multicolumn{1}{r}{$\left . -\left
( m_{t}^{2}+m_{q_{3}}^{2}\right ) + 2m_{t}^{2}l\right ] $ } & $ = $ & $ 0 $ \\   &   &   \\   $ s\left [ m_{s}^{2}+\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}{s^{2}}+2\nu ^{2}+a_{\kappa } \nu + \left ( \hat{b}+\nu \right ) \hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}h_{2}}{% s^{2}}+\right .
$ &   &   \\   &   &   \\   \multicolumn{1}{r}{$\left .
+ \beta _ { t}\hat{\mu}^{2}\left ( \frac{h_{2}}{s}% \right ) ^{2}\left ( l+\varepsilon \right ) \right ] $ } & $ = $ & $ 0$% \end{tabular } \label{i}\ ] ]    where    @xmath92    and the variables    @xmath93    have been introduced .
an one loop term has been conveniently included in the definition of the effective parameter @xmath94 ( of the mssm ) .
the @xmath95 mass matrix for the cp even scalars ( in the same approximation ) has the following matrix elements    @xmath96    the parameter l characterizes the top - stop mass splitting and can be relatively large , while @xmath97 depends on the low energy scale chosen to define the running parameters  we take @xmath98 in this paper so that @xmath99    the cp odd scalar ( mass)@xmath100 matrix with the would - be goldstone boson projected out is as follows ,    @xmath101    the minimization of the potential fixes @xmath102 and @xmath103 to be negative , so that the diagonal entries in ( [ m ] ) are positive .
the ( mass)@xmath100 of the charged scalar reads    @xmath104    the radiative corrections are incorporated into the cp odd neutral and charged scalar masses through the shift of the @xmath105 parameter as defined in ( [ k ] ) @xcite .
although all the numerical results in this paper are obtained by numerical minimization of the complete one loop potential ( [ f ] ) , ( [ g ] ) and the numerical determination of the mass eigenvalues , it is interesting to get some insight into the results through simple analytic approximations .
indeed , many features of the particle spectrum of the ( m+1)ssm are related to an important property , first noticed in @xcite , namely : the only physically acceptable solutions of the vacuum equations ( [ i ] ) are large singlet solutions : @xmath106 indeed , solutions with @xmath107 lead to one or more light states in the spectrum that are excluded by experiments , specially by lep experiments .
examples can be found in @xcite , where the parameters have been chosen to yield light spectrum .
the general character of this feature of the ( m+1)ssm has been carefully checked in our numerical analysis .
having settled this fact one can go on to establish several approximate consequences .
\(a ) the @xmath4 v.e.v is approximately obtained from the third equation in ( [ i ] ) with @xmath108 ,    @xmath109    the potential at this value of @xmath110 has also to be negative in the allowed region of the parameter space , as discussed in more detail in section [ sec : stability ] .
this additional condition requires @xmath111 this approximation turns out to be very accurate .
the parameters @xmath112 and @xmath113 are only slightly renormalized if @xmath114 actually , these relatively low values of the couplings are also required by our numerical study of the model , so that the condition ( [ neccon ] ) approximately applies to the bare universal parameters @xmath115 yielding the strong constraint in the parameter space : @xmath116    the @xmath4 v.e.v . in ( [ o ] ) defines the effective parameters @xmath105 and @xmath117 analogous to those often denoted @xmath8 and @xmath1 in the mssm .
indeed , up to corrections of @xmath118 the first two equations in ( [ i ] ) are the same as in the mssm with the introduction of these parameters .
notice that @xmath119 should be of @xmath120 hence the well  known `` fine - tuning '' on the mssm free parameter , @xmath121 is replaced here by the requirement of no strong hierarchy between the @xmath21 and @xmath122 yukawa couplings , as the @xmath13 invariant scale of the singlet field is dynamically fixed by supersymmetry breaking , accordingly to ( [ o ] ) .    with @xmath123 one recovers , in this approximation ,
the mssm relation @xmath124    only the dominant terms of the radiative corrections are retained . because the denominator in ( [ p ] ) has terms of either sign @xmath125 it is relatively sensitive to radiative corrections which tend to decrease @xmath126 with respect to the tree - level approximation .
\(b ) in the neutral scalar mass matrices ( [ l],[m ] ) as well as in the neutralino mass matrices , the mixing of the singlet fields to the others is always proportional to @xmath127 and @xmath128 , hence small .
this is the reason why , in most of the allowed points of the parameter space , the singlet sector of the theory , after dynamically producing the effective parameters ( [ k ] ) , is almost decoupled from the rest of the theory that resembles to the mssm .
\(c ) the mssm is formally obtained in the limit @xmath129 with @xmath130 and @xmath117 fixed @xmath131 in this limit the singlet sector decouples from the doublet higgs sector , and the singlet masses are : .5 truecm    @xmath132    .5 truecm the singlet particles become light in the small @xmath133 limit .
we argue in section [ sec : stability ] that this limit is always associated to the singlet decoupling limit    @xmath134 some of the physical consequences of a light singlino are discussed in section [ sec : inos ] .
the neutral and charged higgs ) there is a negative contribution @xmath135 to @xmath136 this is the origin of the condition @xmath137 which is sufficient to avoid @xmath59 charge breaking through @xmath138 which is satisfied anyway by the models that are consistent with the other phenomenological constraints . ] sector , as well as other neutralinos and charginos follow the mssm pattern . in this sense
the ( m+1)ssm reduces to the mssm in this limit but with an important restriction in the parameter space needed to dynamically implement the physically acceptable vacuum .
the spontaneous breaking of @xmath13 symmetry in the ( m+1)ssm restricts even more the @xmath139 parameter subspace than in the mssm under the same assumption of universality .
the minimum discussed in section 3 has to be cosmologically flavourless and stable with respect to other possible minima .
the first constraint comes from the fact that the @xmath140 v.e.v .
is induced through the `` @xmath63-mechanism '' @xcite with @xmath141 as given in ( [ neccon1 ] ) .
it is well known that large @xmath133 values may induce charged and coloured vacua .    in order to avoid slepton
v.e.v.s one has to impose    @xmath142    at a scale @xmath143 where @xmath144 characterizes the scale of the would - be slepton @xmath145 from the rge solutions in the appendix this implies @xmath146 @xmath147 .
\label{s}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the most dangerous v.e.v.s comes from the electron sector with the smallest yukawa and the largest scale @xmath148 , and ( [ r ] ) at this scale finally becomes    @xmath149    this can be combined with the condition @xmath150 to obtain restrictions on the ratio @xmath151 for this purpose we introduce a parameter to characterize the fine - tuning of @xmath152 with respect to @xmath153    @xmath154    and obtain from ( [ t ] ) the upper bound on @xmath155    @xmath156    for @xmath157 ( [ t ] ) yields the limit    @xmath158    for @xmath159 can become much larger than @xmath160 at the price of a fine - tuning of @xmath161 corresponding to @xmath162 of @xmath163 though these conditions are only valid under the universality assumption for soft terms , analogous ones can be derived along the same lines for other models ( see , @xmath19 @xcite ) . ( strictly speaking , ( [ t ] ) can only be analytically derived @xcite if the scalars are relatively degenerate . but
recent numerical studies suggest that it is approximatelly valid under more general conditions @xcite )    the next step is to avoid minima with @xmath164 with @xmath165 in this analysis the radiative corrections discussed in section 3 can be relevant . of course ,
in our numerical analysis they are included , but in order to understand the origin of some of the constraints on the ( m+1)ssm parameter space , they are neglected in some of the expressions here below . in the effective two - step minimization of the scalar potential , one finds for the phenomenologically acceptable solution discussed in the previous section the approximate value at the minimum    @xmath166    where the first term comes from the pure singlet sector and the last one from the effective mssm potential defined with the parameters given by ( [ k ] ) .
this physical minimum has to be compared with another one , with @xmath167 and @xmath168 the potential at this minimum is    @xmath169    in principle one should look for the cosmological formation and stability of the minimum ( [ x ] ) with respect to ( [ y ] ) . for simplicity
we replace the rigorous constraints by the simpler condition that @xmath170 _ i.e. , _ that the absolute minimum is the physical one.this stability condition differs from the corresponding one within the mssm in two respects : ( i ) the presence of the pure singlet negative term in ( [ x ] ) favours @xmath171 ( ii ) in the mssm , @xmath172 is replaced by @xmath173 in ( [ y ] ) , so that @xmath174 is more dangerous in the ( m+1)ssm .
the comparison of ( [ x ] ) and ( [ y ] ) leads to the condition ( at the scale @xmath46 ) ,    @xmath175    on the other hand , from the rge solution in the appendix one gets    @xmath176    and the measured values of the top mass does not allow for small @xmath177 so that @xmath178 .
in addition , in the next section we derive from the experimental limits on the chargino masses a bound on @xmath179    @xmath180    ( at this point , one is introducing experimental information on the spectrum . as already stressed , it is the interplay between the lep bounds on sparticle masses and the vacuum conditions that constrains the parameter space . ) now , from ( [ minm0 ] ) and ( [ a1 ] ) , ( [ z ] ) can be well approximated by    @xmath181    notice that the necessary condition @xmath182 , which follows from ( [ minm0 ] ) and ( [ z ] ) , implies @xmath183 namely , the condition ( [ neccon1 ] ) .    for @xmath184 one obtains from ( [ v ] ) and ( [ a2 ] ) the bound    @xmath185    so that @xmath18 is always relatively small , @xmath186 this is related to the large values taken by the @xmath4 v.e.v .. indeed by replacing ( [ o ] ) and ( [ minm0 ] ) in ( [ a2 ] ) , we obtain    @xmath187    of course , the limits ( [ a3 ] ) and ( [ a4 ] ) are relatively loose bounds and most of the solutions of our numerical studies correspond to smaller ( larger ) values of @xmath18 ( @xmath188 respectively ) . also to be noticed
is the behaviour of @xmath110 for fine - tuning of the parameter @xmath162 in ( [ u ] ) : @xmath189 as @xmath190 while @xmath18 decreases as @xmath191    for @xmath192 the situation is more involved since one can allow for large values of @xmath133 with some fine - tuning of the @xmath161 ratio .
the relations corresponding to ( [ a3 ] ) and ( [ a4 ] ) are respectively    @xmath193    for moderate values of @xmath194 ( [ a5 ] ) corroborate our conclusions from ( [ a3 ] ) and ( [ a4 ] ) . in the fine - tuning limit , @xmath195 ,
the singular behaviour of @xmath18 in the parameter @xmath162 is apparent .
however , in this case our approximations are not powerful enough to explain the lower bound @xcite @xmath196 that is found in our numerical analysis .
another interesting constraint follows from ( [ p ] ) which implies @xmath197 neglecting the top - stop radiative corrections and using ( [ a1 ] ) and ( [ minm0 ] ) yields ,    @xmath198    from ( [ o ] ) and ( [ v ] ) , one derives the limits : @xmath199    for moderate values of @xmath162 this implies @xmath200 at the price of some fine - tuning and @xmath201 one can obtain @xmath18 slightly larger than @xmath202    concerning the important parameter @xmath203 some simple qualitative predictions can be obtained from the following expression ,    @xmath204    which is equivalent to ( [ p ] ) by the minimum conditions ( [ i ] ) .
notice that @xmath205 . from the renormalized expression ( [ z6 ] ) in the appendix , one sees that for @xmath206 the sign of @xmath105 is preserved and its magnitude increased by the gauge renormalisation proportional to @xmath207 which increases the numerator in ( [ q ] ) .
therefore , in this case , @xmath208 and it can take relatively small values for @xmath209 instead , for @xmath210 where ( [ w ] ) also applies , the @xmath207 term in ( [ z6 ] ) tends to exceed the @xmath211 term so that in most cases @xmath212 and its magnitude is relatively large .
( exceptions are the special cases with small @xmath75 and @xmath213 with a positive large @xmath214 . )
therefore , with these simple analytic approximations for the vacuum conditions , together with the approximated condition from the experimental limits on the gauginos ( to be discussed later on ) , one easily understands the qualitative pattern of the allowed parameter space as obtained from the detailed numerical investigation .
for instance , ( [ a4 ] ) and ( [ a5 ] ) are related to the decoupling of the singlet sector , whereas sizeable mixing - which requires @xmath215 - is possible only with the fine - tuning ( and signs ) discussed below ( [ a5 ] ) .
let us first consider the chargino masses given by the expression    @xmath216    with @xmath217 for the lep experimental limit we take @xmath218 gev .
of course , the constraints from this limit on the parameters are the same as in the mssm ( with @xmath214 in the more restricted range determined by the ( m+1)ssm as discussed in section [ sec : spectrum ] ) . on the other hand , this constraint plays an important role in the discussion of the previous section as well as in this section .    because the scale of the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters is set by the weak scale , we conveniently express the dimensionful parameters in terms of @xmath219 in this section .
one can use the experimental bound , together with ( [ p ] ) and the ( [ a1 ] ) , to deduce the relations    @xmath220    let us now define a parameter @xmath221 by , @xmath222 which , for @xmath223 ( which turns out to be always the case in our numerical analysis ) , satisfies the approximate inequalities @xmath224 then , from ( [ e1 ] ) and ( [ e2 ] ) one gets the following expression for the lightest chargino mass ,    @xmath225    so that the approximate bounds ,    @xmath226    are obtained by varying the parameters @xmath227 and @xmath203 and by using the relation between the gluino and wino masses @xmath228 this defines a relatively narrow band for @xmath229 as a function of the gluino mass @xmath230 , that is reasonably reproduced in our numerical analysis .
it just expresses the fact that the lightest chargino is mostly a wino , with a component of @xmath231 of the higgsino .
now , from ( [ e5 ] ) and the experimental lep bound , @xmath232 one gets a limit on the gluino mass , @xmath233 gev ( from the previous lep bound , @xmath234 the corresponding result was @xmath235 gev , but needed a more detailed approximation than ( [ e5 ] ) ) .
this corresponds to @xmath236 gev .
notice that these are only approximations aimed to explain rather than predict the numerical results that take all the parameters into account .
as already stressed , this result is analogous to the limits on the chargino masses in the mssm .
for @xmath237 the off - diagonal terms become relatively unimportant and @xmath238 therefore the lightest chargino is mostly a wino with @xmath239 and the other chargino has mass @xmath240    we next consider the neutralino sector , with five majorana fermions .
it is particularly important since it includes the lightest odd r - parity state , or lsp , and since its phenomenology can deviate from that predicted in the mssm because of the presence of the singlet fermion ( singlino ,  @xmath241   the mass terms for the neutralinos are ,    @xmath242+\hat{\mu}\widetilde{h}_{1}\widetilde{h}_{2}\nonumber   + m_{1}\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}+m_{2}\widetilde{w}_{3}\widetilde{w}_{3}\\ & & + m_{z}\left ( \widetilde{b } \sin \theta _ { \mathrm{w}}+ \widetilde{w}_{3}\cos \theta _ { \mathrm{w}}\right )   \left ( \widetilde{h}_{1}\cos \beta + \widetilde{h}_{2}\sin \beta \right )    \label{e6 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    the point to be stressed is the relatively small mixing of the singlino to the higgsinos .
this is because @xmath243 and @xmath244 , @xmath245 hence the singlino remains an almost pure state of mass @xmath246 , and the higgsino - gaugino sector is analogous to the charged one .
the experimental constraints on the chargino imply , as just discussed , that the lightest chargino is mostly a gaugino , which will also imply an analogous situation in the non - singlet neutralino sector .
one finds indeed that the lightest states are : than a `` bino '' @xmath247 but this can be easily incorporated in the discussion that follows where a @xmath248-state is assumed for simplicity .
] one which is mostly @xmath249 with a mass @xmath250 , and another one , mostly @xmath251 with mass @xmath252 from the bound on the chargino mass one has @xmath253 the most important difference between the ( m+1)ssm and the mssm could be in the lsp character : unless one badly violates the universality assumption for the scalar masses , the lsp is mostly a @xmath248 in the mssm , while the @xmath254 is also a lsp candidate in the ( m+1)ssm .
let us consider the condition for a _ singlino _ lsp ,    @xmath255    which in terms of the bare parameters yields :    @xmath256    this corresponds to some constraints in the coupling constants as well.from ( [ a3 ] ) one infers @xmath257 the @xmath4 v.e.v
. has to be relatively large because of ( [ a7 ] ) , which gives @xmath258 from ( [ a6 ] ) and ( [ e8 ] ) one derives the constraint , @xmath259 on the other hand , ( [ e8 ] ) also implies @xmath260 @xmath261 . in other words , the light singlino scenario corresponds to gaugino masses being the largest soft terms , a `` gaugino dominated scenario '' .
this implies many correlations between sparticle masses .
if the singlino is the lsp , the second lightest neutralino being mostly a @xmath262 should be quite long - lived .
indeed , its decay into @xmath263 has to go through its mixing to higgsinos
. then the decay @xmath264 is proportional to @xmath265 conversely , if ( [ e8 ] ) is not realized , then @xmath254 will decay into the lsp , mostly @xmath266 with a similar coupling ( @xmath254 would be produced in higgs or higgsino decays ) .
let us now turn to the slepton sector .
the lowest lying states are the @xmath267 sneutrinos @xmath268 and the `` right - handed '' sleptons , @xmath269 .
context , the @xmath270 superpartners can become considerably splitted and much lighter than the other sleptons , as a consequence of renormalization between the planck and @xmath271 scales , as noticed in @xcite .
however in this paper we are assuming @xmath272 at @xmath273 and we consistently neglect this possibility .
] this follows from the assumption of universality for the soft terms .
the approximated expressions for the slepton masses as given in the appendix are    @xmath274    searches at lep 1 put a limit of roughly @xmath275 on both of them . for the relatively large values of @xmath126 that tend to prevail in the ( m+1)ssm @xmath276 with the lep 1 results on the chargino masses , as pointed out above , one had a bound @xmath277 and the bounds on @xmath278 gave some useful information .  with the lep 1.5 results ,
the limit on @xmath160 implied by ( [ e6 ] ) is enough to ensure @xmath279    a more interesting issue is provided by the interplay between chargino and slepton searches at lep 200 . in order to compare their masses , we first replace @xmath207 in ( [ e9 ] ) in terms of the lightest chargino mass in ( [ e4 ] ) to obtain    @xmath280    which gives a qualitative explanation of figure ( 2 ) in the next section .
the difference between @xmath281 and @xmath282 is almost a measure of the parameter @xmath283 in the future searches for these particles at relatively high energies . as a matter of fact , this reverses the situation at lep 1 , where the chargino was expected to be lighter than the selectron . indeed by comparing ( [ e9 ] ) and ( [ e4 ] ) , we find that the chargino is always lighter than the selectron if @xmath284 or , equivalently , as @xmath285 this is quite well reproduced by our numerical results .    in particular , in the light singlino scenario
, the term @xmath60 can be almost neglected in ( [ e11 ] ) so that the selectron and chargino masses are strongly correlated .
in this section we describe the numerical procedure employed to produce the figures ( 1 ) - ( 6 ) .
as mentioned above , the essential independent parameters of the model are ( apart from the lepton and light quark yukawa couplings and the known gauge couplings ) three yukawa couplings @xmath286 , @xmath287 and @xmath66 and , under the universality hypothesis at @xmath288 , the three soft parameters @xmath207 , @xmath289 and @xmath211 .
since these are the only dimensionful parameters in the theory and the scale is finally set by the experimental value of @xmath219 , the true independent parameters are the five dimensionless quantities @xmath290 , @xmath291 , @xmath292 , @xmath293 and @xmath294 .
the numerical results presented here have been obtained by scanning over @xmath295 points in this five dimensional parameter space .
( here we used a logarithmic measure , but we have checked the results with different measures as well .
a lot of scanning of particular regions of the parameter space has been carried out in order to verify the boundaries of the parameter space and the mass ranges , but the results of these scannings are not shown in the figures . ) in each case we integrate the one loop renormalization group equations down to the electroweak scale @xmath41 gev . to one loop accuracy
it is sufficient to use @xmath46 as the low energy scale , independently from the exact particle masses of @xmath296 . at the one loop level
, one can also take advantage of ( [ obvious ] ) and compute the coefficients in these equations , what saves a lot of computer time to be used for a better scanning .    actually ,
also two loop renormalization group equations have been considered in @xcite . in this case
, however , the low energy scale has to be defined more precisely : the decoupling of particles with masses of @xmath296 has to be properly taken into account ; these masses , in turn , are only known once the higgs potential ( which depends on these masses via the radiative corrections ) has been minimized . as a consequence ,
the numerical procedure becomes much more envolved and allows only to study much less points in the parameter space . on the other hand ,
the corresponding numerical results hardly deviate from ours .
individual points in the parameter space may well lead to somewhat different particle masses , once two loop contributions have been taken into account .
allowed mass ranges and correlations , however , remain practically unchanged .
we found it much more important numerically to minimize the full one loop coleman - weinberg higgs potential including the non - logarithmic contributions than to include two loop logarithms .
having obtained the parameters at low energy it is most convenient to check first the absence of slepton v.e.v.s according to eq .
( [ t ] ) at the scale @xmath297 .
next we minimize in each remaining case the effective potential ( [ f ] ) including the coleman - weinberg radiative corrections ( [ g]),([h ] ) , numerically .
we test , whether the minimum with @xmath298 , @xmath299 and @xmath300 is the lowest one , and dismiss the corresponding set of parameters otherwise .
we calculate @xmath126 and discard the initial conditions that lead to @xmath301 ( since we assume @xmath302 in the present work ; larger values turn out to be somewhat disfavoured in the model ) .    in the remaining cases
we determine the overall scale of the dimensionful parameters by identifying @xmath303 with @xmath304 , and compute the physical masses of all particles .
then we impose the following experimental constraints : for the top quark pole mass @xmath305 ( where we take the leading @xmath306 corrections to the pole mass into account @xcite ) we require @xmath307 @xcite .
next we impose the lep @xmath308 lower bound on the lightest chargino mass @xmath229 : @xmath309 gev @xcite . as a result
, nearly all other experimental bounds on new particles turn out to be satisfied automatically , with some exceptions discussed in section [ sec : spectrum ] . indeed , though the experimental bounds on sleptons , stop , gluinos , as well as on the decays of the @xmath310 into neutralinos and higgs scalars are implemented in our code , these conditions only eliminate a few marginal points in the parameter space .
this remarkable property also can be seen from the plots in the next section .
let us briefly discuss the range of the bare parameters , which turns out to be consistent with our theoretical and experimental constraints .
concerning the yukawa couplings we first remark that , as in the mssm , the known range of the top quark mass together with the solution of the rge for @xmath286 as given in the appendix allows easily to obtain the allowed range for @xmath290 : @xmath311 gev leads to @xmath312 .
the other two bare yukawa couplings @xmath291 and @xmath292 turn out to be fairly small , @xmath313 and @xmath314 , and relatively closely related , @xmath315 .    as already remarked below eq .
( [ e5 ] ) , the experimental lower limit on @xmath229 implies a lower limit on the soft susy breaking parameter @xmath207 .
the numerical analysis is in good agreement with the approximate analytic result and leads to @xmath316 .
no strict upper limits ( in the absence of fine tuning constraints ) on the soft susy breaking parameters have been obtained .
the scalar mass term @xmath60 turned out to be unconstrained by our analysis ; we assumed , however , @xmath317 .
the numerical analysis also confirms the allowed range for the third susy breaking parameter @xmath211 as a function of @xmath207 and @xmath289 , eq .
the corresponding lower limit on @xmath211 is a particularity of the ( m+1)ssm , since it is required by the need to destabilize the scalar potential in the singlet direction .
the correlations between the particle masses and the bare parameters can finally be obtained from the approximate analytic solutions given in sect ( 6 ) and the appendix ; in table 1 we present the precise numerical parameters and masses for two particular generic cases : one with @xmath211 negative and a non - singlet lsp , and one with @xmath211 positive and a singlet lsp .
in order to allow to study the correlations among the particle masses we choose to plot all masses against the lightest chargino mass @xmath229 . each point in these plots corresponds to one of the @xmath318 points in the parameter space , which satisfy all our theoretical and phenomenological constraints .
the density of points in the plots is clearly not uniform ; regions of low density ( if not completely empty and hence forbidden ) , typically towards larger particle masses , correspond to regions where more and more fine tuning is required .
we will not , however , employ quantitative `` fine tuning constraints '' in this paper in order to constrain the particle masses from above ; a reader , who is interested in `` probable particle masses '' , can obtain them by investigating the relative densities in our plots . let us first consider the gluino mass @xmath230 , fig .
1 . as already noted in eq .
( [ e5 ] ) , given the present experimental bounds , @xmath319 and @xmath230 turn out to be strongly correlated .
1 agrees well with the approximate analytic relation ( [ e5 ] ) , and one sees that the lower experimental bound on @xmath229 turns into a lower bound @xmath320 gev on the gluino mass within our model . for large masses ,
the ratio between the lightest chargino and the gluino is close to @xmath321 as predited by the chargino being a wino , but slightly smaller as the parameters in the chargino mass matrices are dynamically correlated ( as discussed in section [ sec : inos ] ) .
next we turn to the slepton masses .
the lightest charged `` right - handed '' slepton mass @xmath322 is plotted against @xmath229 in fig .
we see that @xmath309 gev implies @xmath323 gev in our model . in most cases ,
as noted below ( [ e11 ] ) , the charged slepton mass @xmath324 has the tendency to be smaller than @xmath229 ( except for large values of the bare scalar mass @xmath289 ) , although it always satisfies @xmath325 in agreement with the analytic approximation ( [ e11 ] ) . in fig .
3 we plot the sneutrino mass @xmath326 against @xmath229 .
given @xmath309 gev , the lep 1 lower limit on @xmath326 only eliminates a tiny additional corner in the parameter space .
the neutral scalar higgs sector has already been discussed in detail in ref .
@xcite , in particular with respect to future experiments at lep @xmath327 .
although in @xcite only the lep @xmath328 bound on the chargino mass @xmath229 had been taken into account , the results concerning the neutral higgs sector remain essentially unchanged .
therefore we briefly repeat only the essential features . in order to take the experimental constraints on neutral higgs bosons properly into account
both their masses @xmath329 their couplings to the @xmath310 bosons have to be evaluated .
in fact , the negative lep @xmath328 results on neutral cp - even higgs scalars @xcite eliminate only a tiny region of the parameter space of the present model , corresponding to @xmath330 gev and a coupling @xmath331 as large as in the non - supersymmetric standard model . on the other hand , a large region with smaller values of @xmath332 , but small couplings
@xmath331 remains unconstrained by lep @xmath328 . in this region
the lightest cp - even higgs scalar is essentially a gauge singlet and hence decoupled . in view of this possibility
the experimental searches for and the theoretical upper limits on the masses of the lightest cp - even higgs scalar have to be turned into considerations of the `` lightest visible cp - even higgs scalar '' .
fortunately it turns out within the present model @xcite , that upper limits exist also on the lightest visible cp - even higgs scalar ( which could be the second lightest ) , varying from @xmath333 to @xmath334 gev for gluino masses ( as a measure of the susy breaking scale ) from @xmath328 to @xmath335 tev .
similar complications arise also in the cp - odd higgs sector , which contains a gauge singlet state as well . here
no upper limit can be derived , and we just remark that a visible cp - odd higgs scalar below @xmath336 gev is impossible within the present model and the present experimental constraints on @xmath229 .    as in the mssm the mass of the visible ( non - singlet ) cp - odd higgs scalar is actually just somewhat below the mass @xmath337 of the charged higgs ; cf .
the upper left entry of the cp - odd mass matrix eq .
( 15 ) and eq .
( 16 ) . in fig .
4 we plot @xmath337 against @xmath229 , and we see that the present lower limit on @xmath229 implies @xmath338 ( increasing rapidly with increasing lower limits on @xmath229 )
.    the range of @xmath339 is fairly restricted , and depends strongly on the sign of the bare susy breaking parameter @xmath211 : for @xmath340 we have @xmath341 , whereas for @xmath342 we find both signs , but large absolute values for @xmath343 : @xmath344 or @xmath345 .
since these inequalities hardly depend on the mass of the chargino , a figure does not provide additional information .
next we turn to the squarks . because of renormalization effects between @xmath346 and @xmath219 ( cf .
the appendix ) the lightest stop eigenstate is the lightest of all squarks ; subsequently we concentrate on this particle . in fig .
5 we plot its mass @xmath347 against @xmath229 , and we see that the present lower limit on @xmath229 implies @xmath348 gev . a possible `` supersymmetric ''
top quark decay mode is thus practically excluded within the present model .
finally we consider the neutralino sector . as discussed in chapter ( 6 ) ,
two different scenarios are possible within the present model , depending on the mass of the nearly pure singlino : in the case of a heavy singlino , the two lightest neutralino states are a practically pure bino with a mass @xmath349 and a practically pure wino with a mass @xmath350 .
the numerical procedure confirms this approximate analytic result to a very high accuracy .
since furthermore the chargino mass @xmath229 is close to @xmath351 , cf .
( [ e5 ] ) , the two lightest neutralino masses can easily be obtained as a function of @xmath229 and a figure is of no further use . here
the lsp is , of course , the bino , and the supersymmetric decays of all sparticles will proceed as in the mssm with a suitable set of parameters .
the case of a light singlino is actually more interesting . from the numerical analysis we find ,
that now the second and third neutralinos correspond to the above mentioned nearly pure bino and wino states . in fig .
6 we plot the mass of the lightest singlino , @xmath352 , against the bino mass @xmath349 ( for those parameters where @xmath353 ) .
now supersymmetric decays of all sparticles will start as in the mssm , until the bino state is produced .
( a direct decay into the singlino lsp will be heavily suppressed due to its tiny coupling . )
finally the bino will decay into the singlino lsp , producing an additional cascade , whose consequences on experimental susy searches still have to be worked out in more detail .    1truecm
in the present paper we have presented an exhaustive overview over the parameter space and the particle spectra , which are consistent with the correct vacuum structure and present experimental constraints , within the ( m+1)ssm under the universality hypothesis . since the scalar potential and the corresponding minimization conditions differ considerably from the mssm due to the presence of the additional singlet superfield , the outcome of this analysis was far from predictable .
we have seen that still a large region in the parameter space consistent with all constraints exists .
this region is characterized , however , by a ) small values of the new yukawa couplings @xmath287 and @xmath66 , b ) a large value of the scalar singlet @xmath354 , c ) a strong tendency of the singlet states to decouple from the rest of the spectrum . in spite of the complexity of the model this region allows for fairly accurate analytical approximations to the vacuum minimization conditions and particle masses , which we have worked out and presented in some detail .
the near decoupling of the singlet states leads to a particle spectrum , which is close to the mssm for a suitable set of the corresponding parameters .
our figures show strong correlations or inequalities among the particle masses , which allow for experimental falsifications of our underlying hypothesises .
for instance , as in the mssm with the universality hypothesis , sparticles are not light enough to play an important role for the radiative corrections to @xmath355 @xcite .
only the higgs boson , the lightest chargino , sleptons and neutralinos could be light enough to be discovered at lep 2 ; gluinos , squarks and charged or cp - odd higgs scalars are necessarily too heavy in our model .
our approximate analytic results allow to translate future possibly negative sparticle searches into constraints on the soft susy breaking parameters .
obvious are lower limits on the universal gaugino mass @xmath207 from negative chargino searches ( cf .
( [ e5 ] ) ) and , of course , negative gluino searches . from eqs .
( 50 ) , one can furthermore easily deduce excluded regions in the @xmath356 plane from negative `` right - handed '' slepton and sneutrino searches .
these relations are actually not different from the mssm .
( 28 ) , however , allows to turn these constraints on @xmath289 and @xmath207 into constraints on @xmath211 , which is a particular feature of the ( m+1)ssm .
if future sparticle searches turn out to be successful , and the mass pattern predicted by our model turns out to be confirmed , the question arises whether the model can be distinguished from the mssm with corresponding parameters .
the answer depends on the corresponding parameters of the ( m+1)ssm .
first , there still exist small corners in the parameter space , where mixing with the singlet states either in the neutral higgs sector or in the neutralino sector could be possible ; in this case the couplings of the corresponding visible particles could be substantially and hence measurably smaller than in the mssm .
a more likely possibility - but by no means certain - is the singlino lsp scenario .
as discussed in the previous section , in this case sparticle decays will produce an additional cascade with respect to the mssm .
this scenario desserves further phenomenological investigations .
in this appendix we list the analytic solutions of the rge for soft susy breaking terms in the approximation where the dependence on all yukawa couplings but the top one , @xmath357 are neglected .
also , flavour mixing is neglected in these expressions ( see @xcite ) for solutions that fully take family mixing into account ) . however , for the sake of generality , universality is _ not _ assumed for the soft terms at the unification scale , @xmath358 all quantities are defined at the scale @xmath359 ( unless stated otherwise ) and the boundary conditions at the scale @xmath360 are generally denoted as @xmath361 we define the following quantities :    @xmath362    the index @xmath363 refers to the @xmath364 and @xmath365 gauge groups , respectively , and @xmath366 is the sum of the their quadratic casimir eigenvalues for the three fields in the i - th yukawa coupling . we replace the integral @xmath367 by the value @xmath368 of @xmath369 at the scale @xmath359 corresponding to a landau pole at @xmath370 by defining    @xmath371    the solutions for the yukawa coupling are then as follows    @xmath372    the soft trilinear terms are as follows :    @xmath373    soft supersymmetry breaking scalar masses can also be written in terms of @xmath374 and j ( or @xmath375 as follows :    @xmath376 _ { t=0 }   \nonumber \\ \overline{m}_{0}^{2 } & = & \frac{1}{3}\left ( m_{2}^{2}+m_{t}^{2}+m_{q}^{2}\right ) _
{ t=0 }   \nonumber \\ k   & = & \left ( 1-\rho \right ) \left ( a_{t_{0}}+\xi m_{0}\right ) ^{2}-\xi ^{2}m_{0}^{2}+   \nonumber \\ & & + 2\left ( \frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{13}{9}g_{1}^{2}\right ) \left ( \xi + 1\right ) tm_{0}^{2 }     \label{z5}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    finally , let us recall that the renormalization effects on the effective variables @xmath105 and @xmath377 are easily obtained by taking the limit in which the singlet fields are decoupled at its classical value . then ,    @xmath378    99 j.  ellis , j. f. gunion , h. e. haber , l. roszkowski , f. zwirner , _ _ phys . rev .  _ _ * * d 39 * * ( 1989 ) 844;l .
durand and j. l. lopez , _ phys .
* b 217 * ( 1989 ) 463;m .
drees , _ int
. j.  mod .
phys . _ * a 4 * ( 1989 ) 3635 .
u. ellwanger , m. rausch de traubenberg , c. a. savoy , _ phys .
* b 315 * ( 1993 ) 331 .
t. elliott , s. f. king and p. l. white , _ phys .
* b 305 * ( 1993 ) 71;t .
elliott , s. f. king and p. l. white , _ phys .
* b 314 * ( 1993 ) 56;t .
elliott , s. f. king , p. l.  white , _ _ phys .
_ _ * *  d 49 * * ( 1994 ) 2435 .    s. f. king and p. l. white , _ _ phys .
_ _ * *  d 52 * * ( 1995 ) 4183 .
u. ellwanger , m. rausch de traubenberg and c. a. savoy , _ _ z .
phys.__**c 67 * * ( 1995 ) 665 .
r. m. barnett et al . , _ _ phys .
_ _ * *  d 54 * * ( 1996 ) 1 .
aleph collaboration , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * b 373 * * ( 1996 ) 246 .
u. ellwanger , _ _ phys
.  lett .  _ _ * * b 303 * * ( 1993 ) 271 .    g. f. giudice and a. masiero , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * b 206 * * ( 1988 ) 480 .
nilles , m. srednicki , d. wyler , _ phys .
* b 120 * ( 1983 ) 346 .
h. nilles , m. srednicki , and d. wyler , _ phys .
* b 124 * ( 1983 ) 337 .
a. lahanas , _ phys .
* b 124 * ( 1983 ) 341 .
u. ellwanger , _ phys .
* b 133 * ( 1983 ) 187;j .
bagger , e. poppitz , _ phys .
lett . _ * 71 * ( 1993 ) 2380;j .
bagger , e. poppitz , l. randall , _ nucl .
* b 455 * ( 1995 ) 59 .
s. a. abel , s. sarkar and p. l. white , _ _ nucl .
_ _ * *  b 454 * * ( 1995 ) 663 , s. a. abel , preprints hep - ph 9603301 and hep - ph 9609323 .
a. pomarol , _ phys .
_ * b 287 * ( 1992 ) 331 .
j. romo , _ phys .
_ * b 173 * ( 1986 ) 309 .
k. s. babu and s. m. barr , _ phys .
_ * d49 * ( 1994 ) 2156 .
y. okada , m. yamaguchi and t. yanagida , _ progr .
* 85 * ( 1991 ) 1 , _ phys .
* b 262 * ( 1991 ) 54 .
j. ellis , g. ridolfi and f. zwirner , _ phys .
* b 257 * ( 1991 ) 83 , _ phys .
_ * b 262 * ( 1991 ) 474 .
h. haber and r. hempfling , _ phys .
* 66 * ( 1991 ) 1815.p .
chankowski , s. pokorski and j. rosiek , _ phys .
_ * b 274 * ( 1992 ) 191 .    j. a. casas , j. r. espinosa , m. quiros and a. riotto , _ nucl . phys .  _
* b 436 * ( 1995 ) 3 .
m. carena , j. espinosa , m. quiros , c. wagner , _ phys .
* b 335 * ( 1995 ) 209 .
u. ellwanger , m. rausch de traubenberg , _ z. phys . _
* c 53 * ( 1992 ) 521 ; p. binetruy and c. a. savoy , _ phys .
* b 277 * ( 1992 ) 453.j .
r. espinosa and m. quiros , _ phys .
* b 279 * ( 1992 ) 92;g .
kane , c. kolda and j. wells , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * 70 * * ( 1993 ) 2686;j .
r. espinosa and m. quiros , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * b 302 * * ( 1993 ) 51.u .
ellwanger and m. lindner , _ _ phys
.  lett .  _ _ * * b 301 * * ( 1993 ) 365 ;    ph .
brax , u. ellwanger and c. a. savoy , _ phys .
* b 347 * ( 1995 ) 269 .
derendinger , c. a. savoy , _ nucl .
_ * b 237 * ( 1984 ) 307 .
frre , d. r. t. jones , s. raby , _ _ nucl.phys .  _ _ * * b 222 * * ( 1983 ) 11 .
g. gamberini , g. ridolfi and f. zwirner,__nucl.phys .  _ _ * * b 331 * * ( 1990 ) 331 .
m. olechowski and s. pokorski , _ _ phys .  lett .
_ _ * * b 214 * * ( 1988 ) 393 .
j. a. casas , a. lleyda and c. muoz , _
_ nucl.phys .
_ _ * * b 471 * * ( 1996 ) 3.a .
j. borner , hep - ph/9506409 .
r. barbieri , s. ferrara and c. a. savoy , _ phys .
* b 119 * ( 1982 ) 343.r .
arnowitt , a. chamseddine and p. nath , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * d 49 * * ( 1982 ) 970.l
. hall , j. lykken and s. weinberg , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * d 27**(1983 ) 2359 .
v. s. kaplunovski and j. louis , _ _ phys .
_ _ * * b**306 ( 1993 ) 269.r .
barbieri , j. louis and m. moretti , _
_ _ * * b**312 ( 1993 ) 451.a .
brignole , l. e. ibez and c. muoz , _ _ nucl .
_ _ * * b**422 ( 1994 ) 235 .
r. tarrach , _ _ nucl .
phys.__**b 183 * * ( 1981 ) 384 .
j. kamoshita , y. okada and m. tanaka , _ phys .
* b 328 * ( 1994 ) 67 .
j. d. wells , c. kolda and g. l. kane , _ phys .
* b 338 * ( 1994 ) 219 .
g. l. kane , r. g. stuart , j. d. wells _ phys .
* b 354 * ( 1995 ) 350 .
d. garcia and j. sola , _ _ phys .
lett.__**b 354 * * ( 1995 ) 335 .
p. h. chankowski and s. pokorski , _ phys .
* b 366 * ( 1996 ) 188 .
j. ellis , j. l. lopez and d. v. nanopoulos , _ phys .
* b 372 * ( 1996 ) 95 .
r. barbieri , l. hall and a. strumia , _ phys .
_    ph . brax and c. a. savoy , _ nucl .
* b 447 * ( 1995 ) 227 .
= 25 truecm
* figure :*    gluino mass @xmath230 versus the chargino mass @xmath229 ( all in gev )    slepton mass @xmath324 versus @xmath229    sneutrino mass @xmath379 versus @xmath229    lightest stop mass @xmath347 versus @xmath229    charged higgs mass @xmath337 versus @xmath229    mass of the second lightest neutralino @xmath380 versus the mass of the lightest neutralino @xmath381 in those cases where @xmath382 is essentially a singlino
* table :*    parameters and particle masses ( in gev ) for two particular cases ( with @xmath383 not too large ) .
the three neutral cp even higgs scalars are denoted by @xmath384 , @xmath385 and @xmath386 ( in the order of increasing masses ) , the two neutral cp odd higgs scalars by @xmath387 and @xmath388 , and the two lightest neutralinos by @xmath382 and @xmath389 , respectively . in the first case
@xmath382 is essentially a non - singlet , in the second case it practically a pure singlino .