\relax 
\citation{mSUGRA}
\citation{history}
\citation{BNL}
\citation{Feng,Nath,Nanopoulos,Arnowitt,Choi,Martin,Gomez,Kim,Sven,Barger, Fauzi,Roszkowski,Lahanas}
\citation{Masiero}
\citation{Masiero}
\citation{Babu,Chankowski,Urban}
\citation{Babu,Chankowski,Urban}
\citation{cgnw}
\citation{cgnw}
\citation{fbs}
\citation{Nierste}
\citation{Urban}
\citation{Buchalla}
\citation{CDFbmumu}
\citation{fnalbrep}
\citation{Nierste}
\citation{Babu,Chankowski,Urban}
\citation{Babu,Chankowski,Urban}
\citation{REWSB}
\citation{ASBS}
\citation{Ellis}
\citation{BNL}
\citation{Nierste}
\newlabel{brancing}{{1}{2}}
\newlabel{expbmumu}{{2}{2}}
\newlabel{damu}{{3}{2}}
\citation{LEPhiggs}
\citation{Roszkowski}
\citation{Shadmi}
\citation{Stuart,Baer}
\citation{Stuart}
\citation{CDFbmumu}
\citation{BNL}
\bibcite{BNL}{1}
\bibcite{LEPhiggs}{2}
\bibcite{mSUGRA}{3}
\bibcite{history}{4}
\citation{mSUGRA}
\bibcite{Feng}{5}
\bibcite{Nath}{6}
\bibcite{Nanopoulos}{7}
\bibcite{Arnowitt}{8}
\bibcite{Choi}{9}
\bibcite{Martin}{10}
\bibcite{Gomez}{11}
\bibcite{Kim}{12}
\bibcite{Sven}{13}
\bibcite{Barger}{14}
\bibcite{Fauzi}{15}
\bibcite{Roszkowski}{16}
\bibcite{Lahanas}{17}
\bibcite{cgnw}{18}
\bibcite{ASBS}{19}
\bibcite{Burasreview}{20}
\bibcite{fbs}{21}
\bibcite{CDFbmumu}{22}
\bibcite{fnalbrep}{23}
\bibcite{LHCb}{24}
\bibcite{Inami}{25}
\bibcite{Krawczyk}{26}
\bibcite{Buchalla}{27}
\bibcite{He}{28}
\bibcite{Nierste}{29}
\bibcite{Urban}{30}
\bibcite{Choudhury}{31}
\bibcite{Babu}{32}
\bibcite{Chankowski}{33}
\bibcite{Maxim}{34}
\bibcite{Masiero}{35}
\bibcite{Ali}{36}
\bibcite{REWSB}{37}
\bibcite{Ellis}{38}
\bibcite{Shadmi}{39}
\bibcite{Stuart}{40}
\bibcite{Baer}{41}
\citation{CDFbmumu}
\citation{BNL}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces The predicted SUSY contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic $\delta a_\mu $ (bottom), versus the predicted branching ratio $B_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-$\nobreakspace  {} (left) for the input values of $\mathop {\mathgroup \symoperators tan}\nolimits \beta $ (top) in an indicative mSUGRA point [$M_{1/2}=450, M_0=350, A_0=0, \mu >0, m_t=175$ GeV]. We plot the both LO and NLO corrections to $B_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-$\nobreakspace  {} together with the SM prediction and the present bound by CDF\nobreakspace  {}\cite {CDFbmumu}, $B_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-$$ < 2.6\times 10^{-6}$ at 95\% CL. The regions where the SUSY contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment is such that the present deviation with the SM is recovered at $1\sigma $ and $2\sigma $ is also shown. $f_{B_s}$ has been chosen to be 230 MeV.}}{5}}
\newlabel{fig1}{{1}{5}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Contour plots (solid lines) of the predicted Branching Ratio $B_s\rightarrow \mu ^+\mu ^-$on the plane $M_{0},M_{1/2}$ in the mSUGRA scenario and for $\mathop {\mathgroup \symoperators tan}\nolimits \beta =50, A_0=0, \mu >0, m_t=175$ GeV. The fully shaded region is excluded from both theoretical [REWSB(left-upper corner),not neutralino LSP(down)] and experimental [susy and higgs searches (mainly left strip till 1 TeV $M_0$ approximately)] facts. The shaded-dotted region shows the prediction of this mSUGRA point for the muon anomalous magnetic moment [in units $10^{-10}$] being within $2 \sigma $ of the value reported in \cite {BNL}. Contours with the light Higgs boson mass equal to 115,120,121 are also shown (dotted-dashed lines). Here $f_{B_s}=230$ MeV. }}{5}}
\newlabel{fig2}{{2}{5}}