1: \def\bq{\begin{equation}}
2: \def\eq{\end{equation}}
3: \def\bqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
4: \def\eqa{\end{eqnarray}}
5: \def\bqb{\begin{eqnarray*}}
6: \def\eqb{\end{eqnarray*}}
7:
8: \begin{center}
9:
10: {\large \bf
11: The finite width effect on neutralino production } \\
12:
13: \vspace*{3mm}
14:
15: {\sc T. KON, Y. KURIHARA, M. KURODA and K. ODAGIRI}
16:
17: \end{center}
18:
19: \vspace*{3mm}
20:
21: \newdimen\nude\newbox\chek
22: \def\slash#1{\setbox\chek=\hbox{$#1$}\nude=\wd\chek#1{\kern-\nude/}}
23: \def\up#1{$^{\left.#1\right)}$}
24: \def\to{\rightarrow}
25: \def\dag{\dagger}
26: \def\llgm{\left\lgroup\matrix}
27: \def\rrgm{\right\rgroup}
28: \def\vectrl #1{\buildrel\leftrightarrow \over #1}
29: \def\partrl{\vectrl{\partial}}
30:
31:
32: It has been proposed in \cite{atlas} that neutralino mass differences
33: can be determined fairly accurately through the $\mu$-pair invariant
34: mass distribution $d\sigma/d M_{\mu\mu}$ of the process
35: \bq
36: pp \to \tilde\chi_1^+\tilde\chi_2^0X\to \tilde\chi_1^+ (\mu\tilde\mu)X
37: \to \tilde\chi_1^+\mu (\tilde\chi_1^0 \mu)X,
38: \eq
39: as the distribution exhibits a sharp decrease at its
40: kinematic endpoint. When, however, the width of
41: the neutralino is taken into account, the smearing of the cross
42: section might make this observation obsolete and less appealing
43: for the determination of the neutralino mass. Therefore, it is
44: important to know to what extent the width of neutralino makes
45: the mass determination less accurate.\par
46: We have investigated this problem by comparing the muon-pair
47: invariant mass distribution in the following three cases.\par
48: \noindent{(case~1)} Zero width approximation for $\tilde\chi_2^0$.
49: Only those diagrams which proceed via the chain decay (1) are taken into
50: account.\par
51: \noindent{(case~2)} Same as (1) but finite width of $\tilde\chi_2^0$
52: is used. Only those diagrams that proceed via resonances as shown in (1)
53: are
54: considered.\par
55: \noindent{(case~3)} Finite width of $\tilde\chi_2^0$ as well as the entire
56: set of diagrams (165 diagrams in unitary gauge) that creates
57: the final state $\tilde\chi_1^+\tilde\chi_1^0\mu\mu$ are taken into
58: account.
59: The diagrams which are considered in case 3 but not in case 2 constitute
60: the background to this process.\par
61:
62: \medskip
63: In the numerical evaluation of the muon pair distribution, we have used the
64: following set of SUSY parameters,
65: \bq
66: \tan\beta =12,~~~~~M_2 = 200 GeV, ~~~~\mu = -500 GeV,
67: \eq
68: which results in the following masses for charginos and neutralinos,
69: \bqa
70: m_{\tilde\chi_i^0} &=& ( 97, 197, 507, 511),\\
71: m_{\tilde\chi_i^+} &=& ( 197, 514).
72: \eqa
73: In particular, in the present set of parameters we are considering,
74: $\tilde\chi_1^0$ is almost purely bino (the SUSY partner of the $U(1)$
75: gauge boson,
76: $B_\mu$), while $\tilde\chi_2^0$ is almost purely neutral wino (the SUSY
77: partner of the
78: neutral $SU(2)_L$ gauge-boson, $W_3^\mu$).
79: As for the slepton masses, we have used the common mass
80: $m_{\tilde\ell}$ = 150 GeV.\par
81: Assuming that other SUSY particles are heavy so that $\tilde\chi_2^0$ decays
82: dominantly into $\ell \tilde\ell$,
83: we have evaluated the width of $\tilde\chi_2^0$ as
84: \bq
85: \Gamma_{\tilde\chi_2^0} = 1.25GeV.
86: \eq
87: The process is described by the subprocess
88: \bq
89: q \bar q' \to \tilde\chi_1^+\tilde\chi_2^0\to \tilde\chi_1^+
90: (\mu\tilde\mu)
91: \to \tilde\chi_1^+\mu (\tilde\chi_1^0 \mu).
92: \eq
93: For the quark distribution functions, we have used
94: QTEC-3D \cite{pdflib}.\par
95:
96: The numerical evaluation was performed by {\tt HERWIG} \cite{herwig_ko}
97: in case 1 and case 2,
98: while the case 3 was calculated by {\tt GRACE} \cite{grace}.\par
99: Results are shown in Fig.1(a) and (b),
100: where the distributions of the invariant mass
101: $M_{\mu\mu}$ in the second neutralino decay are shown.
102: In Fig.1(a), the dashed line
103: represents the zero width approximation (case 1), the dotted line
104: represents the distribution for the finite $\tilde\chi_2^0$ width
105: but with only the resonance diagrams (case 2),
106: while the solid line
107: represents the distribution for the finite $\tilde\chi_2^0$ width and
108: full set of
109: diagrams which give the final states
110: $\tilde\chi^+_1\tilde\chi_1^0\mu\mu$ (case 3).
111: We show a detailed comparison between case 2 and case 3 around the end
112: point region of $M_{\mu\mu}$ in Fig.1(b).
113: %There is a small difference in the threshold behavior of the
114: %{\tt GRACE} and {\tt HERWIG} distributions which shifts the
115: %{\tt HERWIG} curve higher than {\tt GRACE} by about 3 GeV.
116: As one sees from the figures, the edge of the
117: distribution at the end point of the phase space remains, although it is
118: broadened by the finite width effect. As a result, the exact position of
119: the end point acquires an ambiguity of about 5 GeV, although the precision
120: of mass determination, which may additionally make use of
121: the shape of the distribution, can presumably be made much less
122: than this. A full analysis will need to take into account
123: the experimental resolutions and signal selection efficiency,
124: and this is beyond the scope of our study.
125: The total cross section of the signal process (1) is 0.015 pb.
126:
127: \vspace*{3mm}
128: {\bf Acknowledgements}
129: %------------------------------------------------------------------
130: One of the authors, K.O., would like to thank Drs. J. Kanzaki and
131: P. Richardson for their computing help.
132: %========================================================
133: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
134:
135: \bibitem{atlas}
136: I. Hinchliffe, F.E. Paige, M.D. Shapiro, J. Soderqvist and W. Yao,
137: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 5520 (1997).
138:
139: \bibitem{pdflib}
140: H. Plothow-Besch, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 75}, 396 (1993).
141:
142: \bibitem{herwig_ko}
143: G. Corcella, I.G. Knowles, G. Marchesini, S. Moretti,
144: K. Odagiri, P. Richardson, M.H. Seymour and B.R. Webber,
145: hep--ph/9912396.
146:
147: \bibitem{grace}
148: T.Tanaka, T.Kaneko and Y.Shimizu, Comp. Phys. Commun. {\bf 64}, 149
149: (1991);
150: T.Ishikawa et al, {\it GRACE manual}, KEK Report 92-19, 1993;
151: H.Tanaka et al, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. {\bf A389}, 295 (1997).
152: \end{thebibliography}
153:
154:
155: %======================================
156: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
157: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
158: \begin{center}
159: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=kon1.eps,height=15cm,angle=0}}
160: \caption{ Distribution of the invariant mass
161: $M_{\mu\mu}$ in the second neutralino decay from the
162: $\tilde\chi_1^+ \tilde\chi_2^0$
163: associated production. In (a) a comparison is made among the full
164: calculation
165: using {\tt GRACE} (continuous line, case 3),
166: the calculation with {\tt HERWIG} assuming a narrow
167: width and an isotropic decay (dashed line, case 1),
168: and another calculation using
169: {\tt HERWIG} incorporating a finite $\tilde\chi_2^0$
170: width (dotted line, case 2).
171: (b) corresponds to the detailed comparison between case 2 and case 3
172: around the end point region of $M_{\mu\mu}$.
173: \label{fig:GH}}
174: \end{center}
175: \end{figure}
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177: