1: %
2: \documentclass[preprint,notoc]{JHEP3}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
5: \def\to{\rightarrow}
6: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}
7: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
8: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
9: \def\te{\tilde e}
10: \def\tl{\tilde l}
11: \def\tu{\tilde u}
12: \def\ts{\tilde s}
13: \def\tb{\tilde b}
14: \def\tf{\tilde f}
15: \def\td{\tilde d}
16: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}
17: \def\tL{\tilde L}
18: \def\tH{\tilde H}
19: \def\tst{\tilde t}
20: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}
21: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
22: \def\tg{\tilde g}
23: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}
24: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}
25: \def\tq{\tilde q}
26: \def\tw{\widetilde W}
27: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}
28: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
29: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
30:
31: \title{
32: Reach of the Fermilab Tevatron for minimal
33: supergravity in the region of large scalar masses
34: }
35:
36: \author{Howard Baer and Tadas Krupovnickas
37: \\ Department of Physics, Florida State University\\
38: Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA\\
39: E-mail: \email{baer@hep.fsu.edu}, \email{tadas@hep.fsu.edu}}
40: \author{Xerxes Tata
41: \\ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii,\\
42: Honolulu, HI 96822, USA \\
43: E-mail: \email{tata@phys.hawaii.edu}}
44:
45: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{FSU-HEP-030530} \vspace{0.2cm}
46: \hbox{UH-511-1028-03}}}
47:
48: %\preprint{FSU-HEP-030530}
49:
50: \abstract{
51: The reach of the Fermilab Tevatron for supersymmetric matter has been
52: calculated in the framework of the minimal supergravity model
53: in the trilepton channel. Previous analyses of this
54: channel were restricted to scalar masses
55: $m_0\le 1$ TeV. We extend the analysis
56: to large values of scalar masses $m_0\sim 3.5$ TeV, in order to probe
57: the compelling hyperbolic branch/focus point (HB/FP) region,
58: where the superpotential $\mu$ parameter becomes small, and
59: which is one of the mSUGRA parameter space
60: regions consistent with WMAP data. In this region,
61: assuming a $5\sigma$ ($3\sigma$) signal with 10 (25) fb$^{-1}$
62: of integrated luminosity, the Tevatron reach in the
63: trilepton channel extends up to
64: $m_{1/2}\sim 190$ (270) GeV independent of $\tan\beta$.
65: This corresponds to a reach in terms of the gluino mass of
66: $m_{\tg}\sim 575$ (750) GeV.
67: }
68:
69: \keywords{Supersymmetry Phenomenology, Supersymmetric Standard Model, %
70: Hadronic colliders}
71:
72: \begin{document}
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75: \label{sec:intro}
76:
77: Run 2 of the Fermilab Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider has begun
78: at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV, and already
79: the CDF and D0 experiments have gathered over 100 pb$^{-1}$
80: of integrated luminosity. Projections are to acquire anywhere from
81: 2-25 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity before turn on of the
82: CERN LHC. One prominent goal of Tevatron experiments is to
83: discover the Higgs boson, which may well be within reach according to
84: analyses of electroweak radiative corrections. Another prominent goal
85: is to obtain evidence for weak scale supersymmetric matter.
86:
87: The search for supersymetry is somewhat model dependent.
88: In this paper, we adopt the paradigm
89: minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA)\cite{msugra},
90: with parameters
91: %
92: \begin{equation}
93: m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign(\mu ) .
94: \end{equation}
95: In
96: models such as mSUGRA, with gaugino mass unification and a
97: weak scale gravitino mass, the gluino to chargino mass ratio is
98: $m_{\tg}/m_{\tw_1}\sim 3.7$, so that
99: bounds from LEP2 ($m_{\tw_1}>103.5$ GeV)\cite{lep2} likely place
100: gluino pair production out of reach of Tevatron experiments.
101: Since squark masses are usually comparable to or greater
102: than $m_{\tg}$, it is likely that squark pair production is
103: beyond the Tevatron reach as well. An exception occurs for
104: third generation squarks- the top and bottom squarks- since these
105: might have much lower masses\cite{stops}.
106: In addition, slepton pair production occurs at
107: low enough rates in these models that they are unlikely to be
108: directly observable\cite{sleptons}.
109:
110: However, charginos and neutralinos may well be within the kinematic
111: reach of the Tevatron, and can be produced with observable cross sections.
112: Importnat pair production reactions include
113: \begin{itemize}
114: \item $p\bar{p}\to \tw_1\tz_1 X$,
115: \item $p\bar{p}\to\tw_1^+\tw_1^- X$ and
116: \item $p\bar{p}\to\tw_1\tz_2 X$,
117: \end{itemize}
118: where $X$ represents assorted hadronic debris. The purely hadronic
119: final states suffer large QCD backgrounds, while the leptonic final
120: states have more manageable electroweak backgrounds. The first of these
121: reactions can lead to single lepton plus missing energy states, which
122: suffer large backgrounds from $W\to \ell\nu_\ell$
123: production (here, $\ell = e,\ \mu$ and $\tau$). The second
124: chargino pair reaction suffers large backgrounds from $WW$ and
125: $Z\to\tau\bar{\tau}$ production. The last of these--
126: $\tw_1\tz_2$ production-- can lead
127: to clean (non-jetty) trilepton plus $\eslt$ final states which can
128: be above SM background levels for significant regions of model parameter
129: space.
130:
131: The clean trilepton signature was suggested as long ago as 1983\cite{dicus},
132: and explicit collider calculations for production via
133: on-shell gauge bosons were performed in Refs.\cite{bt1,bht},
134: including spin correlations between initial and final states.
135: Arnowitt and Nath pointed out that rates may be detectable even for
136: production via off-shell gauge bosons\cite{an}. More detailed
137: projections (based on partial neutralino branching fraction
138: calculations) yielded a pessimistic assessment of the Tevatron reach\cite{bm}.
139: Improved sparticle production and decay calculations however
140: showed that in fact
141: the reach of Fermilab Tevatron experiments could extend well past
142: LEP2 for significant regions of model parameter space\cite{bt}.
143: This was followed by a number of calculations\cite{dimitri}
144: and collider simulations of
145: clean trilepton detection rates considered against SM backgrounds
146: arising mainly from $WZ$ production\cite{bkt,kane,tevreach,mp1},
147: with results being extended to large $\tan\beta$ in Ref. \cite{ltanb}.
148: Especially for large $\tan\beta$, it was found that the greatest reach
149: was obtained via the inclusive trilepton channel, with jetty events
150: allowed into the trilepton sample\cite{bdpqt,bkao}.
151: At the Fermilab Tevatron SUSY/Higgs workshop (concluded in year
152: 2000), it was found that in fact the largest backgrounds came from
153: off-shell $W^*Z^*$ and $W^*\gamma^*$ production\cite{campbell}. These backgrounds were
154: calculated, and cuts were modified to show that in fact the inclusive trilepton
155: signal was still observable over large portions of mSUGRA model
156: parameter space\cite{bdpqt,bkao,mp2,sugra_report,dedes}.
157: Reach calculations were made in the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane
158: extending out to $m_0$ values as high as 1 TeV.
159:
160: Since these previous calculations, a greater emphasis has been placed
161: on mSUGRA model parameter space at large $m_0$ values. It has been
162: noticed that as $m_0$ increases, ultimately the superpotential
163: $\mu$ parameter, as derived from radiative electroweak symmetry
164: breaking (REWSB), becomes small in magnitude shortly before
165: encountering the region where REWSB breaks down\cite{bcpt}.
166: Chan {\it et al.}\cite{ccn},
167: adopting effectively $\mu^2/M_Z^2$ as a fine-tuning parameter,
168: emphasized that the entire region of small $\mu^2$ at
169: large $m_0$ may be considered to
170: have low fine tuning; they dubbed the region as the ``hyperbolic branch''.
171: Later, using more sophisticated fine tuning calculations,
172: Feng {\it et al.}\cite{fmm}
173: showed that just the low $m_{1/2}$ portion of the hyperbolic branch
174: has low fine tuning. The peculiar focussing behavior of the RG running
175: of the soft breaking
176: Higgs mass $m_{H_u}^2$ in this region led to the characterization
177: as the ``focus point'' region.
178: In this paper, we will refer to the
179: large $m_0$ region with small $|\mu |$ as the hyperbolic branch/focus point
180: (HB/FP) region.
181:
182: The large $m_0$ region of parameter space has received renewed attention
183: as well due to several experimental developments. First,
184: improved evaluations of the neutralino relic
185: density\cite{ellis_co,Afunnel,fmw,st_co,relic}
186: show four viable
187: regions of mSUGRA model parameter space consistent with recent WMAP and
188: other data sets\cite{wmap}.
189: These include 1.) the bulk region at low $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$
190: where neutralinos may annihilate in the early universe via $t$-channel
191: slepton exchange, 2.) the stau co-annihilation region where
192: $m_{\tz_1}\simeq m_{\ttau_1}$\cite{ellis_co},
193: 3.) the axial Higgs $A$ annihilation
194: corridor at large $\tan\beta$\cite{Afunnel} and 4.)
195: the HB/FP region where the neutralino
196: has a significant higgsino component and can readily annihilate to
197: $WW$ and $ZZ$ pairs in the early universe\cite{fmw}.
198: A fifth region of
199: squark-neutralino co-annihilation can exist as well for particular
200: values of the $A_0$ parameter that give rise, for instance, to
201: $m_{\tst_1}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$\cite{st_co}.
202:
203: The bulk region of relic density, which originally seemed most compelling,
204: is difficult to reconcile with LEP2 limits on the Higgs mass, the
205: $b\to s\gamma$ branching fraction, and for $\mu <0$, the muon
206: anomalous magnetic moment\cite{constr,sug_chi2}.
207: The stau co-annihilation region is viable,
208: but
209: %if parameters such as $m_0$ change slightly,
210: unless the parameters are just right, the relic density can
211: become either too large or too small.
212: The $A$-annihilation corridor is also viable, but requires large
213: $\tan\beta$, and usually sparticle masses are beyond the reach of
214: Tevatron searches. The HB/FP region remains viable for almost all $\tan\beta$
215: values, and since scalar sparticles are typically in the multi-TeV regime,
216: gives a value of $b\to s\gamma$ and $a_\mu$ in close accord with SM
217: predictions\cite{constr,sug_chi2}.
218: Since $|\mu |$ is small in the HB/FP region, then charginos and
219: neutralinos are expected to be light, and hence signals such as the
220: trilepton one may be accessible to Tevatron collider searches.
221:
222: For these reasons, in this paper we extend the trilepton search results
223: presented in Ref. \cite{bdpqt} to large values of $m_0>1$ TeV, including the
224: HB/FP region. For our signal calculations, we use Isajet v7.66\cite{isajet}.
225: This version of Isajet contains 1-loop corrections to all sparticle
226: masses\cite{pierce}, and treats the Higgs potential in the RG-improved one loop
227: effective potential approximation. It yields good overall agreement
228: with other publicly available codes, as documented by
229: Allanach {\it et al.}\cite{kraml}, including the location of the HB/FP region.
230: We note, however, that the location of the HB/FP region is very sensitive
231: to the value of $m_t$ adopted in the calculation.
232: To illustrate this, we show in Fig. \ref{fig:10ptop} the boundary of
233: parameter space in the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane for $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$,
234: $\mu >0$, and for $m_t=172.5,\ 175,\ 177.5$ and 180 GeV. The right-hand
235: boundary, which dictates the location of the HB/FP region,
236: ranges from 2-20 TeV depending on $m_t$ and $m_{1/2}$.
237: %
238: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=10ptop.eps,width=15cm}
239: \caption{Boundary of the
240: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ parameter plane
241: of the mSUGRA model, with
242: $\tan\beta =10$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$,
243: for $m_t=172.5,\ 175,\ 177.5$ and 180 GeV.
244: }
245: \label{fig:10ptop}}
246:
247:
248: We adopt the SM background calculation as presented in Ref. \cite{bdpqt}.
249: The backgrounds evaluated include $WZ\ (Z\to\tau\bar{\tau})$
250: production, $Z^*Z^*$ production, $t\bar{t}$ production
251: and trilepton production through
252: a variety of $2\to 4$ Feynman graphs including $W^*\gamma^*$
253: and $W^*Z^*$ production, as calculated using Madgraph\cite{madgraph}.
254: In Ref. \cite{bdpqt}, a variety of cuts were proposed to reduce
255: background compared to signal. Here, we adopt set SC2 from Ref. \cite{bdpqt},
256: which generally gave a reach in accord with calculations from
257: Refs. \cite{bkao,mp2}. For these cuts, the total $3\ell +\eslt$
258: background level was found to be 1.05 fb.
259:
260: Our first results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:10p},
261: where we show the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane for $\tan\beta =10$,
262: $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. Here, and in the rest of this
263: paper, we fix $m_t=175$~GeV. The red regions are excluded
264: by lack of REWSB (right side) and presence of a stau LSP (left side).
265: The magenta shaded regions are excluded by the LEP2 bound
266: $m_{\tw_1}>103.5$ GeV.\footnote{LEP experiments
267: exclude charginos up to 91.9~GeV even if $m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1}$ is as
268: small as 3~GeV, so that the LEP excluded region is unlikely to be much
269: altered even in the FP/HB part of parameter space.} In addition, the region below the magenta contour
270: has $m_h<114.1$ GeV, in violation of LEP2 limits on the search for
271: a SM Higgs boson. We also show the Tevatron reach contours
272: requiring a $5\sigma$ signal for 10 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
273: luminosity (solid contour),
274: and a more optimistic contour for a $3\sigma$ signal for
275: 25 fb$^{-1}$ (dashed contour).
276: These correspond to signal cross sections rates of 1.62 fb and
277: 0.61 fb, respectively, after application of cuts SC2 of Ref.~\cite{bdpqt}.
278:
279: The first feature to note is that the LEP2 bound on $m_h$
280: now excludes essentially all the region that was previously mapped
281: out in Refs.~\cite{bdpqt,bkao,mp2}. There is some uncertainty
282: of a few GeV with respect to the calculation of
283: $m_h$ (see {\it e.g.} Ref.~\cite{kraml}), so the magenta contour is
284: not a solid bound on mSUGRA parameter space.
285: In any case, the reach region of the Fermilab Tevatron separates into
286: two regions. The first, for very low $m_0$ values where sleptons are light,
287: has the $\tz_2\to\tell\ell$ and $\tw_1\to\tell\nu$ two body
288: decay modes allowed,
289: which dominate the $\tz_2$ and $\tw_1$
290: branching fractions. The large leptonic branching fractions
291: give rise to high rates for trileptons.
292: The second region occurs for $m_0\agt 300$ GeV.
293: As $m_0$ increases, the slepton masses also increase so that
294: two-body chargino and neutralino decay modes become forbidden.
295: In the region of moderate $m_0\sim 200$ GeV, three-body
296: decays such as $\tz_2\to\ell\bar{\ell}\tz_1$ can occur, but
297: interference between slepton- and $Z$-mediated decay graphs
298: give rise\cite{bt} to a very tiny leptonic branching fraction for
299: the $\tz_2$, and hence a sharp drop in the Tevatron
300: reach for SUSY via trileptons. As $m_0$ increases further, the slepton
301: mediated decay diagrams for $\tz_2$ three-body decay are
302: increasingly suppressed, and the decay rate becomes dominated by the
303: $Z$ exchange graph. Ultimately, the branching fraction
304: $\tz_2\to e^+e^-\tz_1$ increases to $\sim 3\%$, {\it i.e.} the same as
305: the $Z$ branching fraction to electrons. Thus the reach of
306: Fermilab Tevatron experiments increases and levels off as
307: $m_0$ becomes large. However, for very large $m_0$ values,
308: then we enter the HB/FP region, where $|\mu|$ become small. In this case,
309: chargino and neutralino masses decrease, and the production cross sections
310: rise, yielding an increased reach at very large $m_0$.
311: From Fig.~\ref{fig:10p}, we see that the $5\sigma$ reach for 10 fb$^{-1}$
312: reaches $m_{1/2}\sim 175$ GeV for $m_0\sim 1000-2000$ GeV, corresponding
313: to a reach in $m_{\tw_1}$ ($m_{\tg}$) of 125 (525) GeV.
314: The observability of the $3\sigma$ signal for 25 fb$^{-1}$ of
315: integrated luminosity extends to values of $m_{1/2}\sim 210$ GeV,
316: corresponding to values of $m_{\tw_1}$ ($m_{\tg}$) $\sim 150$ (600) GeV.
317: In the HB/FP region, this extends to
318: $m_{1/2}\sim 270$ GeV, corresponding to a reach in
319: $m_{\tg}\sim 750$ GeV.
320: %
321: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=10ptev.eps,width=15cm}
322: \caption{The reach of Fermilab Tevatron in the
323: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ parameter plane
324: of the mSUGRA model, with
325: $\tan\beta =10$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$,
326: assuming a $5\sigma$ signal at 10 fb$^{-1}$ (solid) and a $3\sigma$
327: signal with 25 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity (dashed). The red
328: (magenta) region is
329: excluded by theoretical (experimental) constraints. The region below
330: the magenta contour has $m_h <114.1$ GeV, in violation of Higgs mass
331: limits from LEP2.
332: }
333: \label{fig:10p}}
334:
335: To gain a better understanding of what's happening in the HB/FP region,
336: in Fig.~\ref{fig:mcs}{\it a.}) we plot the masses of various charginos and
337: neutralinos and the $\mu$ parameter as a function of $m_0$
338: for fixed $m_{1/2}=225$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =30$ and $\mu >0$.
339: Initially, for $m_0\sim 1500-1700$ GeV, the $\tw_1$, $\tz_1$ and
340: $\tz_2$ masses are essentially constant
341: with $m_0$, as might be expected. As we approach the large $m_0$
342: HB/FP region, the value of $\mu$ drops, and consequently the light
343: chargino and neutralino masses drop, as they become increasingly
344: higgsino-like. As $\mu \to 0$, $m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1}$ also approaches
345: zero. However, the LEP2 limit of $m_{\tw_1}=103.5$ is reached before
346: the $\tw_1$ and $\tz_1$ become nearly degenerate.
347:
348:
349: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=30ptevmasscross.eps,width=15cm}
350: \caption{In {\it a.}), we show selected sparticle masses versus $m_0$
351: in the HB/FP region. In {\it b.}), the corresponding total cross sections
352: are shown.
353: %The line labelled $\sigma_{heavy}$ denotes the total cross
354: %section from remaining chargino/neutralino production processes
355: %involving heavier charginos and neutralinos.
356: }
357: \label{fig:mcs}}
358:
359: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mcs}{\it b}.), we also show various chargino and neutralino
360: cross sections versus $m_0$ for the same parameters as
361: in Fig.~\ref{fig:mcs}{\it a}.).
362: For intermediate values of $m_0$, $\sigma (\tw_1\tz_2)$ and
363: $\sigma (\tw_1^+\tw_1^-)$
364: are dominant.
365: As one increases $m_0$ and approaches the HB/FP region, the various
366: chargino and neutralino masses drop, and the production cross sections
367: increase, giving rise to an increased reach by Tevatron experiments.
368: At the highest $m_0$ values, actually $\sigma (\tw_1\tz_1)$ production has
369: become dominant. In addition, a variety of cross sections such
370: as $\sigma (\tz_1\tz_3)$, $\sigma (\tz_2\tz_3)$, $\sigma (\tw_2\tz_4)$,
371: $\cdots$ are
372: increasing, and their sum can be non-negligible. These heavier -ino
373: states in general have lengthier cascade decays, and can lead to
374: complicated signals including multileptons which may be
375: at the edge of observability.
376:
377: Fig.~\ref{fig:30p} shows the Tevatron reach
378: in the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane for $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$
379: and $\mu >0$. In this case, the reach at large $m_0$ remains
380: large as in the $\tan\beta =10$ case from Fig.~\ref{fig:10p}.
381: However, the reach at low $m_0$ has diminished somewhat,
382: which is an effect of large $\tan\beta$ where the $\tau$ and
383: $b$ Yukawa couplings become large, and the $\ttau_1$ mass
384: becomes lighter than that of other sleptons.
385: The enhanced chargino and neutralino decays to taus in this region
386: comes at the expense of decays to $e$s and $\mu$s, so that the
387: low $m_0$ $3\ell$ reach is diminished\cite{ltanb}.
388:
389: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=30ptev.eps,width=15cm}
390: \caption{The reach of Fermilab Tevatron in the
391: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ parameter plane
392: of the mSUGRA model, with
393: $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.
394: The red (magenta) region is
395: excluded by theoretical (experimental) constraints. The region below
396: the magenta contour has $m_h <114.1$ GeV, in violation of Higgs mass
397: limits from LEP2.
398: }
399: \label{fig:30p}}
400:
401: The $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane is shown for $\tan\beta =45$,
402: with $\mu <0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:45m}. The plot shows even greater
403: reach suppression at low $m_0$ due to the increase in $\tan\beta$,
404: where an even greater suppression of chargino and neutralino decays to
405: $e$s and $\mu$s occurs at the expense of decays to $\tau$s. Irregardless,
406: as $m_0$ increases, sleptons, smuons and staus all decouple from the
407: decay calculations, so that results are relatively insensitive to
408: $\tan\beta$, and the reach remains large in the HB/FP region.
409:
410: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=45mtev.eps,width=15cm}
411: \caption{The reach of Fermilab Tevatron in the
412: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ parameter plane
413: of the mSUGRA model, with
414: $\tan\beta =45$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu <0$.
415: The red (magenta) region is
416: excluded by theoretical (experimental) constraints. The region below
417: the magenta contour has $m_h <114.1$ GeV, in violation of Higgs mass
418: limits from LEP2.
419: }
420: \label{fig:45m}}
421:
422: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:52p}, we show the mSUGRA plane for
423: $\tan\beta =52$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. Again, the reach is diminished
424: for low $m_0$, but remains substantial for large $m_0$,
425: especially in the HB/FP region. As with the previous figures, the
426: reach extends to $m_{1/2}\sim 270$ GeV, corrresponding to
427: a value of $m_{\tg}\sim 750$ GeV.
428:
429: \FIGURE[t]{\epsfig{file=52ptev.eps,width=15cm}
430: \caption{The reach of Fermilab Tevatron in the
431: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ parameter plane
432: of the mSUGRA model, with
433: $\tan\beta =52$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.
434: The red (magenta) region is
435: excluded by theoretical (experimental) constraints. The region below
436: the magenta contour has $m_h <114.1$ GeV, in violation of Higgs mass
437: limits from LEP2.
438: }
439: \label{fig:52p}}
440:
441: {\it Summary:} In summary, we have evaluated the reach of the
442: Fermilab Tevatron collider for supersymmetry in the framework of the mSUGRA
443: model. The best signature for SUSY appears to be trilepton
444: events orginating from chargino/neutralino production, with subsequent
445: leptonic decays. We have extended previous analyses into the large
446: $m_0$ region, where significant regions of parameter
447: space are accessible to Tevatron search experiments. This region
448: includes the intriguing HB/FP region, where squarks and sleptons
449: are heavy (thus ameliorating the SUSY flavor and CP problems),
450: while possibly maintaining naturalness\cite{fmm}.
451: In this region, since $\mu$ is decreasing, sparticle production
452: cross sections increase, and
453: %there is an enhanced reach to
454: Tevatron experiments may be able to find evidence for SUSY out to
455: $m_{1/2}$ values as high as 200-280 GeV depending on
456: the ultimate integrated luminosity which is achieved.
457:
458:
459: \section*{Acknowledgments}
460:
461: We thank K. Matchev for discussions.
462: This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
463: under contracts number DE-FG02-97ER41022 and DE-FG03-94ER40833.
464:
465: % ---- Bibliography ----
466: %
467: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
468:
469: \bibitem{msugra} A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
470: \prl{49}{1982}{970};
471: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy,
472: \plb{119}{1982}{343};
473: L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, \prd{27}{1983}{2359};
474: for a review, see H.~P.~Nilles, \prep{110}{1984}{1}.
475: %
476: \bibitem{lep2} Joint LEP2 Supersymmetry Working Group, {\it Combined
477: Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV},\break
478: \verb|http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/inos_moriond01/charginos_pub.html.|
479: %Joint HEP2 Supersymmetry Working Group, {\it Combined
480: %Chargino Results, up to 208 GeV},\break
481: %\verb|http://alephwww.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inos_moriond01/charginos.pub.html.|
482: %
483: \bibitem{stops} H. Baer, M. Drees, R. Godbole, J. Gunion and X. Tata,
484: \prd{44}{1991}{725}; H. Baer, J. Sender and X. Tata,
485: \prd{50}{1994}{4517}; H. Baer, P. Mercadante and X. Tata,
486: \prd{59}{1999}{015010}; R. Demina, J. Lykken, K. Matchev
487: and A. Nomerotski, \prd{62}{2000}{035011}.
488: %
489: \bibitem{sleptons} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata,
490: \prd{49}{1994}{3283}; H. Baer, B. Harris and M. H. Reno,
491: \prd{57}{1998}{5871}.
492: %
493: \bibitem{dicus} D. Dicus, S. Nandi and X. Tata, \plb{129}{1983}{451};
494: A. Chamseddine, P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, \plb{129}{1983}{445}.
495: %
496: \bibitem{bt1} H. Baer and X. Tata,\plb{155}{1985}{278}.
497: %
498: \bibitem{bht} H. Baer, K. Hagiwara and X. Tata, \prl{57}{1986}{294}
499: and \prd{35}{1987}{1598}.
500: %
501: \bibitem{an} R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, \mpla{2}{1987}{331}.
502: %
503: \bibitem{bm} R. Barbieri, F. Caravaglios, M. Frigeni and M. Mangano,
504: \npb{367}{1991}{28}.
505: %
506: \bibitem{bt} H. Baer and X. Tata, \prd{47}{1993}{2739}.
507: %
508: \bibitem{dimitri} J. Lopez, D. Nanopoulos, X. Wang and A. Zichichi,
509: \prd{48}{1993}{2062} and \prd{52}{1995}{142}.
510: %
511: \bibitem{bkt} H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, \prd{48}{1993}{5175}.
512: %
513: \bibitem{kane} S. Mrenna, G. Kane, G. Kribs and J. Wells, \prd{53}{1996}{1168}.
514: %
515: \bibitem{tevreach} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata,
516: \prd{54}{1996}{5866}.
517: %
518: \bibitem{mp1} K. Matchev and D. Pierce, \prd{60}{1999}{075004}.
519: %
520: \bibitem{ltanb} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, M. Drees, F. Paige and X. Tata,
521: \prl{79}{1997}{986} and \prd{58}{1998}{075008};
522: J. Lykken and K. Matchev, \prd{61}{2000}{015001}.
523: %
524: \bibitem{bdpqt} H. Baer, M. Drees, F. Paige, P. Quintana and X. Tata,
525: \prd{61}{2000}{095007}.
526: %
527: \bibitem{bkao} V. Barger, C. Kao and T. Li,\plb{433}{1998}{328};
528: V. Barger and C. Kao, \prd{60}{1999}{115015}.
529: %
530: \bibitem{campbell}The background was also independently computed by
531: J.~M.~Campbell and R.~K.~Ellis, \prd{60}{1999}{113006}.
532: %
533: \bibitem{mp2} K. Matchev and D. Pierce, \plb{467}{1999}{225}.
534: %
535: \bibitem{sugra_report} S. Abel {\it et al.} (SUGRA Working Group
536: Collaboration), \hepph{0003154}.
537: %
538: \bibitem{dedes} A. Dedes, H. Dreiner, U. Nierste and P. Richardson,
539: \hepph{0207026}.
540: %
541: \bibitem{bcpt} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata,
542: \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and \prd{53}{1996}{6241}.
543: %
544: \bibitem{ccn} K. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath,
545: \prd{58}{1998}{096004}.
546: %
547: \bibitem{fmm} J. Feng, K. Matchev and T. Moroi,
548: \prl{84}{2000}{2322} and \prd{61}{2000}{075005}.
549: %
550: \bibitem{ellis_co} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. Olive,
551: \plb{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
552: \app{13}{2000}{181}.
553: %
554: \bibitem{Afunnel}
555: M. Drees and M. Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{376};
556: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597} and \prd{57}{1998}{567};
557: H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante,
558: P. Quintana and X. Tata, \prd{63}{2001}{015007};
559: J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
560: \plb{510}{2001}{236}; A. Lahanas and V. Spanos, \epjc{23}{2002}{185}.
561: %
562: \bibitem{fmw} J. Feng, K. Matchev and F. Wilczek,
563: \plb{482}{2000}{388}; see also H. Baer and M. Brhlik,
564: \prd{57}{1998}{567}.
565: %
566: \bibitem{st_co} C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees,
567: \prd{62}{2000}{035012}; J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso,
568: \app{18}{2003}{395}.
569: %
570: \bibitem{relic} See also
571: G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, \cpc{149}{2002}{103};
572: H. Baer, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev,
573: \jhep{0203}{2002}{042} and \hepph{0211213};
574: J. Edsjo, M. Schelke, P. Ullio and P. Gondolo,
575: JCAP {\bf 0304} (2003) 001.
576: %
577: \bibitem{wmap} D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
578: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:
579: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''
580: arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.
581: %
582: \bibitem{constr} H. Baer, C. Bal\'azs, A. Belyaev, J. K. Mizukoshi,
583: X. Tata and Y. Wang, \jhep{0207}{2002}{050} and \hepph{0210441};
584: for a review, see G. Eigen, R. Gaitskell, G. Kribs and K. Matchev,
585: \hepph{0112312}.
586: %
587: \bibitem{sug_chi2} H. Baer and C. Bal\'azs,
588: JCAP {\bf 0305} (2003) 006.
589: %
590: \bibitem{isajet} H.~Baer, F.~Paige, S.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,
591: \hepph{0001086}.
592: %
593: \bibitem{pierce} D. Pierce, J. Bagger, K. Matchev and R. Zhang,
594: \npb{491}{1997}{3}.
595: %
596: \bibitem{kraml} B. Allanach, S. Kraml and W. Porod,
597: \jhep{0303}{2003}{016}.
598: %
599: \bibitem{madgraph} F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, \jhep{0302}{2003}{027}.
600:
601: \end{thebibliography}
602:
603: \end{document}
604: