 assumption (the so-called no-conspiracy assumption) it was found that ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. Relaxing this assumption one can, in principle, construct models of the CMSSM with large negative contributions coming, say, from NRO’s which could decrease the value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by $\sim 10\%$ [@lp:new; @urano]. (Alternatively, one can entertain the possibility of an intermediate scale [@mohapatra] around $10^{11}{\rm\,GeV}$ whose existence is motivated by other reasons. In this case, however, many more unknowns affect the running of the gauge couplings and one cannot really talk about [*predicting*]{} ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$.) None of these possibilities seem particularly appealing to us. Although it may well happen that the GUT-scale and NRO corrections are abnormally large, the guiding idea of grand unification becomes much less appealing in this case, and the predicitive power is essentially lost. Indeed, by appropriately complicating GUT-scale physics one could, perhaps, achieve gauge coupling unification even in the Standard Model.

Below we will discuss an alternative route. We will adopt a down-to-earth, purely phenomenological attitude, with no assumptions about mechanisms of SUSY breaking. We do not assume $N=1$ supergravity, nor any mass relations associated with this scheme, for instance, the equality of the gaugino masses at the GUT scale. If no theoretical scheme for the mass generation of SUSY partners is specified one is free to consider any values of these masses. Our task is to try to find out what pattern of masses is preferred by phenomenology. We consider the MSSM and limit ourselves to a “minimal set" of assumptions: (i) all gauge coupling constants are exactly equal to each other at the GUT scale; (ii) the breaking of supersymmetry occurs below 1[TeV]{}.

We will show that by relaxing the CMSSM to the MSSM one can easily descend to ${\alpha_s(m_Z)} \approx 0.11$. The only effect which is actually important in dramatically reducing the minimal value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ is untying the gluino and wino masses. One firm conclusion is a relatively light gluino (in the ballpark of 100[GeV]{}, and typically below 200[GeV]{}) and a relatively heavy w
assumption (the so - called no - conspiracy assumption) it was find oneself that $ { \alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. loosen this assumption one can, in principle, construct model of the CMSSM with large negative contribution fall, say, from NRO ’s which could decrease the value of $ { \alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by $ \sim 10\%$   [ @lp: new; @urano ]. (Alternatively, one can harbor the hypothesis of an intermediate scale   [ @mohapatra ] around $ 10^{11}{\rm\,GeV}$ whose universe is motivated by other reasons. In this shell, however, many more unknowns affect the running of the gauge couplings and one cannot truly talk about [ * predicting * ] { } $ { \alpha_s(m_Z)}$.) None of these possibilities appear particularly appealing to us. Although it may well happen that the GUT - scale and NRO correction are abnormally large, the guiding idea of grand unification become much less appealing in this case, and the predicitive power is essentially lost. Indeed, by appropriately complicating GUT - scale physics one could, perhaps, achieve gauge coupling unification even in the Standard Model. 

 Below we will discuss an alternative route. We will adopt a down - to - land, purely phenomenological attitude, with no assumption about mechanisms of SUSY breaking. We do not assume $ N=1 $ supergravity, nor any mass sexual intercourse consociate with this scheme, for instance, the equality of the gaugino multitude at the GUT scale. If no theoretical scheme for the mass generation of SUSY partners is specified one is detached to consider any values of these masses. Our task is to judge to witness out what radiation pattern of masses is preferred by phenomenology. We consider the MSSM and restrict ourselves to a “ minimal set " of assumptions: (i) all bore coupling constant are exactly equal to each early at the GUT scale; (ii) the breaking of supersymmetry occurs below 1[TeV ] { }. 

 We will show that by relaxing the CMSSM to the MSSM one can well descend to $ { \alpha_s(m_Z) } \approx 0.11$. The only effect which is actually important in dramatically reduce the minimal value of $ { \alpha_s(m_Z)}$ is untying the gluino and drunkard masses. One firm conclusion is a relatively abstemious gluino (in the ballpark of 100[GeV ] { }, and typically below 200[GeV ] { }) and a relatively big w
 asdumption (the so-called no-gonspiracy assumktuon) it was fkund thag ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. Relaxing this assnmptuon obe can, in principle, covstruct mldels of the XMSSM with large ncyativs concrmbutions coming, say, from TRO’s which cound dzcrease the value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by $\sim 10\%$ [@lp:new; @irwno]. (Alternativgly, omq cah entertain the possibility of an jntermeviate scale [@mohalatra] around $10^{11}{\rm\,GeV}$ whose edistfnce is motivated hy other reqsonf. In this casd, however, many more uninowns affect the running of thd gauye couplingw qnd mne cannot ceally talk about [*igedictitg*]{} ${\alphs_s(m_Z)}$.) None of tmese 'ossubilities seem particnlarly appealing to os. Althougv nt may well happen thqt the CUT-swale qnd NRK rordectiojs ere abnormamly large, tye guiding idea of brwbd unificatioh becoief much less appealing in this case, and uhe pdedicitive power is esswntially lost. Indeed, hy appropwiately complicating GUT-scale physics one could, parhapa, acklcve equhe coupling unification even in the Standard Ikdtl.

Bvlow we will discmss an alternative rluyg. We will adopj a dowu-fo-sarth, purely phenolenologycal qttitude, rith no assumptions about mechabisms of SUSJ brwaking. We do not adsume $N=1$ supzrgravoty, npr any mass relations arsocjated with hhis schejd, for instance, tfe vquanity of ufe gaugino masses at the GNT sccle. If nu thgoreticwl scheme vor tma mass generation lf SUDY partners ls specified one is free to consider any valugs mf nhese masfes. Omr task is to twy to find out what pcttern of masses is preherred by phqnomenology. Wa consider thx MSSM anq linit iurselvdr to a “minimal set" of assumptions: (i) all gauge coupllng cuhstants are exaeuly equal to each pthdr wt tie GUE scale; (ii) tha brdakkmg of supersymmebry occirs below 1[TeV]{}.

We will shos that by relaxing tme CMSSM jo the MSFM one can eaxily descend to ${\alkha_s(m_Z)} \ap'rox 0.11$. Yhe only effect which is actually importanh ik dramaticallr reeucing the mnnimal value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ is untying the jluino and wino masses. Ine firm conclusion ls a relativxly lidht gluinm (in the ballpark of 100[GeV]{}, and typicalln below 200[GeV]{}) and a relafively heavj w
assumption (the so-called no-conspiracy assumption) it was ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. this assumption can, in principle, with negative contributions coming, from NRO’s which decrease the value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by 10\%$ [@lp:new; @urano]. (Alternatively, one can entertain the possibility of an intermediate scale around $10^{11}{\rm\,GeV}$ whose existence is motivated by other reasons. In this case, however, more affect running the gauge couplings and one cannot really talk about [*predicting*]{} ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$.) None of these possibilities seem appealing to us. Although it may well happen the GUT-scale and NRO are abnormally large, the guiding of unification becomes less in case, and the power is essentially lost. Indeed, by appropriately complicating GUT-scale physics one could, perhaps, achieve gauge coupling unification in the Below we discuss alternative We will adopt purely phenomenological attitude, with no assumptions SUSY breaking. We do not assume $N=1$ supergravity, any mass associated with this scheme, for instance, equality of the gaugino masses at the GUT If no theoretical scheme for the mass generation of SUSY partners is specified one is consider any values of masses. Our task to to out pattern of is preferred by phenomenology. We consider the MSSM and limit ourselves a “minimal set" of assumptions: (i) all gauge coupling constants equal each other at GUT scale; (ii) the of occurs below 1[TeV]{}. We that relaxing the one easily descend to ${\alpha_s(m_Z)} 0.11$. The only effect which actually important in dramatically ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ is untying the gluino and wino masses. firm conclusion is a relatively light gluino the ballpark of 100[GeV]{}, and typically below 200[GeV]{}) and a relatively heavy
 assumption (the so-called no-coNspiracy asSumptIon) It wAs FounD thaT ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. RelaxINg thIs assumption one can, in prIncipLe, COnstRUcT modeLs of the cmSsm WitH lArGe nEgATiVe conTriButions Coming, say, fRom nRo’s which could DEcRease the vaLue Of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by $\Sim 10\%$ [@Lp:new; @uRaNo]. (ALTernaTivEly, onE can enTErtain The possibIlITy of an INtermedIATe ScalE [@mohapatra] around $10^{11}{\rM\,gev}$ Whose existence Is motiVaTEd BY OthEr rEasons. In thIs Case, hOWever, maNY mORE UnkNOwns affect the Running of thE GauGe coupLiNgs ANd one cAnnot ReALly Talk about [*prEdicTing*]{} ${\alpha_S(m_Z)}$.) NonE Of these POssibilIties sEem ParTicuLArLy AppEaLIng TO uS. AlTHouGh it may wElL hAppen That THE guT-scAle And NrO corRections are abNorMallY LarGe, the GuidiNg idEa Of graNd unifIcatiOn Becomes much less AppeAling in thIs cAsE, anD tHe preDIcitivE poWer Is essenTially lOSt. INdEED, By Appropriately complIcATInG GUT-scalE physiCS oNe COuld, perhApS, acHievE GAuge cOuplINg UnificatIon eveN In ThE StandaRd model.

BElOw wE wiLl disCUss aN alterNative roUte. We WIll adopt a down-tO-Earth, purely phENoMENoLOgicAl aTtitude, with No asSUmptIons ABoUt mEChaniSms of sUsy bREaking. We do not assume $n=1$ sUpergrAvity, Nor any mass relAtions assoCIATed with tHis sCHeME, for instance, thE equaLity of the gAUgino masSes at The GUT scAle. If no thEORetical sCheMe fOr tHe mASS gEneration of SUsy PartNeRs is speCifIed one iS frEe tO coNsiDeR any valueS of these MaSsEs. ouR taSk is tO Try to finD oUt wHaT paTtern OF masseS is prEferReD bY PheNomenolOGy. wE ConsIdEr The MsSM AnD limiT ourSElvEs to a “miNimal set" oF asSUmptIoNs: (I) all gauGe coupling conStAnts are exaCtLy eQual to EACh other aT the GUT scale; (ii) the breakiNG of supeRsyMmetrY occUrs below 1[TEV]{}.

WE will sHow THat by rElaxinG the CmSsM tO THe MSSm ONe Can EaSily descenD TO ${\alPha_s(m_z)} \aPproX 0.11$. The onlY effect which is actuALly Important in drAmaTicaLLY rEduCInG The MiNImaL VAlue of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ iS untying thE gLUiNo and wino mASseS. ONe firm cOnclusiOn is a RElativeLy light glUino (in the BaLlpaRK Of 100[GEV]{}, and typicAlly beloW 200[GeV]{}) and a rELativELy Heavy W
 assumption (the so-called  no-conspi racyass ump ti on)it w as found that$ {\al pha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$. Rel axing  t h is a s su mptio n one c a n, i n p ri nc ipl e, co nstru ctmodelsof the CMS SMwi th large neg a ti ve contrib uti ons coming,say , from  N RO’ s  whic h c oulddecrea s e thevalue of${ \ alpha_ s (m_Z)}$ b y$\si m 10\%$ [@lp:new; @u r ano]. (Alterna tively ,o ne c anent ertain the  p ossib i lity of an i n ter m ediate scale[@mohapatra ]  ar ound $ 10 ^{1 1 }{\rm\ ,GeV} $w hos e existence  ismotivated  by ot h er reas o ns. Inthis c ase , h owev e r,  m any  m o reu nk now n s a ffect th eru nning  oft h e gaug e c oupl ingsand one canno t r eall y  ta lk ab out [ *pre di cting *]{} $ {\alp ha _s(m_Z)}$.) Non e of  these po ssi bi lit ie s see m  parti cul arl y appea ling to us.  A l t h ou gh it may well hap pe n th at the G UT-sca l ean d  NRO cor re cti onsa r e abn orma l ly  large,the gu i di ng  idea o fgrandun ifi cat ion b e come s much  less ap peali n g in this case ,  and the pred i ci t i ve powe r i s essential ly l o st.Inde e d,  by appro priat el y  c o mplicating GUT-scal ephysic s one  could, perha ps, achiev e g auge cou plin g  u n ification even  in t he Standar d  Model.
Belo w we wil l discuss a n altern ati verou te. W ewill adopt ad o wn-t o- earth,pur ely phe nom eno log ica lattitude,  with no  a ss um pt ion s abo u t mechan is msof  SU SY br e aking.  We d o no tas s ume  $N=1$s up e r grav it y,  nor  an ymassrela t ion s assoc iated wit h t h is s ch em e, forinstance, the  e quality of  t hegaugin o masses a t the GUT scale. If not heoreti cal  sche me f or the ma ssgenera tio n  of SU SY par tners  i s s p e cifie d on e i sfree to co n s ide r any  v alue s of th ese masses. Our ta s k i s to try to f ind  out w ha t p a tt e rnof mas s e s is preferredby phenome no l og y. We cons i der  t he MSSM  and li mit o u rselves  to a “mi nimal set "of a s s ump tions: (i)  all gau ge coupli n g con s ta nts a reexactl yequ al to  eacho the r atthe GU Tscale;  (ii)  t he break ing of supersymmetry oc curs b elow1[T eV]{}.

W e w i llshow that  byrelaxing t heCMS SM to  th e  MSSM  one ca n e a silydesc e nd to ${\ a lp ha_ s ( m_ Z)} \approx 0 . 11$ . The  on l y effe ct w hich is actuallyi mportant in dr amat i c all y r e duci ng  the minimal v alu eo f  ${\alph a_ s(m_Z)}$ is  untying  t h e glu ino an d wino  masses . On e  firmconc lus ion is arel at i vely li gh tg luino(inth e ball park o f  100 [ G eV]{}, and typic allyb e low 2 0 0[G eV]{} )and a r e lati vely heavy  w
 assumption_(the so-called_no-conspiracy assumption) it was_found that_${\alpha_s(m_Z)}>0.12$._Relaxing this_assumption_one can, in_principle, construct models_of the CMSSM with_large negative contributions_coming,_say, from NRO’s which could decrease the value of ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ by $\sim 10\%$ [@lp:new; @urano]._(Alternatively,_one can_entertain_the_possibility of an intermediate scale [@mohapatra]_around $10^{11}{\rm\,GeV}$ whose existence is_motivated by_other reasons. In this case, however, many more_unknowns_affect the running_of the gauge couplings and one cannot really talk_about [*predicting*]{} ${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$.) None of these_possibilities seem particularly_appealing_to_us. Although it may_well happen that the GUT-scale and_NRO corrections are abnormally large, the_guiding idea of grand unification becomes much_less appealing in this case, and_the predicitive power is essentially_lost. Indeed,_by appropriately complicating GUT-scale physics_one could, perhaps,_achieve gauge_coupling unification even_in the Standard Model.

Below we will_discuss an alternative_route. We will adopt a down-to-earth,_purely_phenomenological attitude, with_no_assumptions_about mechanisms_of SUSY breaking._We_do not_assume_$N=1$ supergravity, nor any mass relations_associated_with this scheme, for instance, the equality_of the gaugino masses_at_the GUT scale. If_no theoretical scheme for the_mass generation of SUSY partners is_specified one_is free_to consider any values of these masses. Our task is to_try to find out what pattern_of masses is preferred_by phenomenology._We_consider the MSSM_and_limit ourselves_to a “minimal set" of assumptions: (i)_all gauge_coupling constants are exactly equal to_each other at the_GUT_scale; (ii) the breaking of supersymmetry_occurs below 1[TeV]{}.

We will show that_by relaxing the CMSSM to_the_MSSM_one can easily descend to_${\alpha_s(m_Z)} \approx 0.11$. The only effect_which is actually_important in dramatically reducing the minimal value_of_${\alpha_s(m_Z)}$ is untying the gluino and_wino_masses. One firm conclusion is a_relatively_light_gluino (in the ballpark of_100[GeV]{}, and typically below 200[GeV]{}) and_a relatively heavy w