1: %

2: \documentclass[preprint,notoc]{JHEP3}

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}

5: \def\mslash{\not\!\!{m}}

6: \def\to{\rightarrow}

7: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}

8: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}

9: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}

10: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

11: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

12: \def\te{\tilde e}

13: \def\tl{\tilde l}

14: \def\tu{\tilde u}

15: \def\ts{\tilde s}

16: \def\tb{\tilde b}

17: \def\tf{\tilde f}

18: \def\td{\tilde d}

19: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}

20: \def\tL{\tilde L}

21: \def\tH{\tilde H}

22: \def\tst{\tilde t}

23: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}

24: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}

25: \def\tg{\tilde g}

26: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}

27: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}

28: \def\tq{\tilde q}

29: \def\tw{\widetilde W}

30: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}

31: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}

32: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}

33: 

34: \title{

35: Linear Collider Capabilities for Supersymmetry \\

36: %in the Hyperbolic Branch/Focus Point Region

37: in Dark Matter Allowed Regions\\ 

38: of the mSUGRA Model

39: }

40: 

41: \author{Howard Baer, Alexander Belyaev and Tadas Krupovnickas

42: \\ Department of Physics, Florida State University\\ 

43: Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA\\

44: E-mail: \email{baer@hep.fsu.edu}, \email{belyaev@hep.fsu.edu}, 

45: \email{tadas@hep.fsu.edu}}

46: \author{Xerxes Tata

47: \\ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Hawaii,\\

48: Honolulu, HI 96822, USA \\ 

49: E-mail: \email{tata@phys.hawaii.edu}}

50: 

51: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{FSU-HEP-031104} \vspace{0.2cm}

52:                 \hbox{UH-511-1040-03}}} 

53: 

54: %\preprint{FSU-HEP-030530}

55: 

56: \abstract{

57: Recent comparisons of minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model predictions with

58: WMAP measurements of the neutralino relic density

59: point to preferred regions

60: of model parameter space.

61: We investigate the reach of linear colliders (LC) with

62: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV for SUSY in the 

63: framework of the mSUGRA model.

64: We find that LCs can cover the entire stau co-annihilation 

65: region provided $\tan\beta \alt 30$.

66: In the hyperbolic branch/focus point (HB/FP) region of parameter space,

67: specialized cuts are suggested to increase the reach in this important

68: ``dark matter allowed'' area. 

69: In the case of the HB/FP region, the reach of a LC 

70: extends well past the reach of the CERN LHC.

71: We examine a case study in the HB/FP region, and show that

72: the MSSM parameters $\mu$ and $M_2$ can be sufficiently well-measured

73:  to demonstrate that one would indeed be in the HB/FP region, 

74: where the lightest chargino and neutralino have a substantial

75: higgsino component.

76: }

77: 

78: \keywords{Supersymmetry Phenomenology, e+e- Experiments, %

79: Dark Matter, Supersymmetric Standard Model}

80: 

81: \begin{document}

82: 

83: \section{Introduction}

84: \label{sec:intro}

85: %

86: 

87: In recent years, supersymmetric models have become increasingly constrained

88: by a variety of measurements~\cite{constraints}. 

89: These include determination of the

90: branching fraction $BF(b\to s\gamma )$~\cite{bsg}, the muon anomalous

91: magnetic moment $a_\mu =(g-2)_\mu/2$ \cite{e821} and most recently, 

92: the tight restriction on the density of relic dark matter from the Big Bang, 

93: as determined by the WMAP experiment\cite{wmap}.

94: Analysis of WMAP and other data sets have determined a preferred range for

95: the abundance of cold dark matter\cite{wmap,dimitri}:

96: %

97: \be

98: \Omega_{CDM}h^2=0.1126^{+0.0161}_{-0.0181},\ \ \ \ 2\sigma\ {\rm level}.

99: \label{wmaprange}

100: \ee  

101: %

102: %

103: 

104: Within the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) framework\cite{msugra}, the

105: lightest neutralino is usually the lightest SUSY particle. Since

106: $R$-parity is assumed to be conserved, this neutralino is stable and

107: provides a good candidate for cold dark matter\cite{haim}. While it is

108: possible that the relic density of neutralinos may make up almost all the

109: cosmological dark matter, the possibility that dark matter, like visible

110: matter, is made up of several components cannot be excluded at this point.

111: In our analysis we will, therefore, interpret the WMAP measurement

112: (\ref{wmaprange}) as an {\it upper} bound, $$\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2 < 0.129,$$

113: on the relic density in neutralinos.

114: The mSUGRA model is characterized by four SUSY

115: parameters together with a sign choice,

116: %

117: \be

118: m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta\ \ {\rm and}\ sign(\mu ).

119: \ee

120: %

121: Here $m_0$ is the common mass

122: of all scalar particles at $M_{GUT}$, $m_{1/2}$ is the common 

123: gaugino mass at $M_{GUT}$, $A_0$ is the common trilinear soft term at

124: $M_{GUT}$, $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of Higgs field vacuum expectation 

125: values at the scale $M_Z$, and

126: finally the magnitude -- but not the sign -- of the superpotential

127: $\mu$ term is determined by the requirement of radiative electroweak 

128: symmetry breaking (REWSB). In addition, we take $m_t=175$~GeV.

129: 

130: The recent measurements of $\Omega_{CDM}h^2$, 

131: $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ and $a_{\mu}$ 

132: have considerably modified our expectations for the regions of

133: mSUGRA model parameter space that may be realized 

134: in nature. 

135: Several years ago, relatively low values of $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$

136: appeared to be 

137: preferred because these led to sufficiently light sleptons which

138: in turn led to efficient neutralino annihilation in the early universe 

139: via $t$-channel sfermion exchange diagrams; this

140: resulted in values of $\Omega_{CDM} h^2<1$, and a universe

141: at least as old as its oldest constituents\cite{gjk,bb}.

142: The low $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ region of parameter space has been dubbed

143: by Ellis {\it et al.} as the ``bulk'' annihilation region\cite{ellis}. 

144: The bulk annihilation region was also favored by fine-tuning 

145: estimates in the mSUGRA model\cite{diego}.

146: 

147: Currently, the bulk annihilation region of the mSUGRA model is disfavored by:

148: \begin{enumerate}

149: \item a value of $m_h$ typically below bounds from LEP2, which require

150: $m_h>114.4$~GeV in the case of a SM-like light Higgs scalar

151: $h$\cite{lep2h};

152: \item a value of $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ that is either above ($\mu <0$) or

153: below ($\mu >0$) current measurements\footnote{A combination of

154: measurements from the ALEPH, BELLE and CLEO experiments yield $BF(b\to

155: s\gamma )= (3.25\pm 0.54)\times 10^{-4}$, while the SM prediction is

156: $(3.6\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}$~\cite{bsg}.};

157: \item for larger values of $\tan\beta$, 

158: the bulk region leads to large negative ($\mu <0$) or large 

159: positive ($\mu >0$) contributions to the muon magnetic dipole moment.

160: Because of uncertainty

161: in the SM prediction of $a_{\mu}$,

162: caution is advised in the interpretation of what the E821 data tell us

163: about the existence of physics beyond the SM.\footnote{

164: In a recent analysis, Davier {\it et al.}\cite{davier} find 

165: $\Delta a_\mu =(22.1\pm 11.3)\times 10^{-10}$

166: ($(7.4\pm 10.5)\times 10^{-10}$) [errors added in quadrature] 

167: depending on whether the hadronic vacuum polarization is

168: estimated using $e^+e^-\to hadrons$ ($\tau$ decay) data.}

169: \end{enumerate}

170: %The latter limit is still in a state of flux while further 

171: %refinements in data and calculations are being made.

172: 

173: The favored regions of mSUGRA parameter space now 

174: include\cite{wmap_pap,sug_chi2,ellis_likely}

175: \begin{itemize}

176: \item the stau co-annihilation region at low $m_0$ 

177: where $m_{\ttau_1}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$, and where

178: $\ttau_1 -\tz_1$ and $\ttau_1-\bar{\ttau}_1$ 

179: annihilation in the early universe also serve to 

180: reduce the neutralino relic density to sufficiently low values\cite{stau},

181: \item the $A$-annihilation funnel at large $\tan\beta$ where

182: $m_H$ and $m_A\simeq 2m_{\tz_1}$ and $\tz_1\tz_1\to A,\ H\to f\bar{f}$ 

183: ($f$'s are

184: SM fermions) through the very broad $A$ and $H$ 

185: resonances\cite{Afunnel}, and

186: \item the hyperbolic branch/focus point region\cite{ccn,fmm,bcpt} (HB/FP) at

187: large $m_0$ near the edge of parameter space where $\mu$ becomes

188: small, and the $\tz_1$ has a significant higgsino component which

189: facilitates a large annihilation rate\cite{bb2,fmw,bb}. The location of

190: this region is very sensitive to the value of $m_t$ \cite{bktsens}.

191: \end{itemize}

192: The HB/FP region predicts multi-TeV squark and slepton masses so

193: that supersymmetric contributions to $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ and $a_\mu$ 

194: are suppressed; these measurements are thus expected to be close

195: to the SM predictions.

196: Furthermore, the relatively high scalar masses help suppress 

197: potential flavor changing and $CP$-violating supersymmetric processes,

198: and offer at least a partial decoupling solution to the SUSY flavor and $CP$

199: problems\cite{fmm}. 

200: Finally, Feng {\it et al.} have shown that 

201: %(except for sensitivity for $m_t$) 

202: the low $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch has relatively 

203: low fine-tuning\cite{fmm}, in spite of $m_0$ being very large. 

204: %If

205: %$|\mu|$ is used as a measure of fine-tuning as advocated in

206: %Ref.\cite{ccn}, then the entire HB/FP strip has limited fine-tuning.

207: 

208: Given these expectations for where supersymmetry might lie, it makes

209: sense to re-evaluate the prospects for SUSY searches at various collider

210: and dark matter search experiments. In Ref. \cite{bkt}, the reach of 

211: the Fermilab Tevatron for isolated trilepton events from $\tw_1\tz_2$ 

212: production was extended to very large $m_0$ values to

213: include the HB/FP region. In the HB/FP region, production cross sections 

214: increase due to decreased chargino and neutralino masses, but the visible

215: energy from $\tw_1\to f\bar{f}'\tz_1$ and $\tz_2\to f\bar{f}\tz_1$

216: decays also decreases, reducing detection efficiency. It was 

217: shown that the Tevatron reach in $m_{1/2}$ for isolated $3\ell$ events did in

218: fact {\it increase} in the HB/FP region. 

219: The reach of the CERN LHC was also

220: worked out in Ref. \cite{bbbkt}, where it was found that 

221: values of $m_{1/2}\sim 1400$~GeV ($\sim 700$~GeV) 

222: could be probed in the stau co-annihilation region 

223: (HB/FP region) with an integrated luminosity of  100 fb$^{-1}$. 

224: For higher values of $m_{1/2}$ in the

225: HB/FP region, $m_{\tg}$ becomes very large while the visible energy from 

226: $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$ decays becomes small,  so that signal detection 

227: becomes difficult. Thus, the high $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch

228: currently seems beyond LHC reach.

229: It is interesting to note that in the HB/FP region of the mSUGRA

230: model, the higgsino component of the $\tz_1$ is sufficiently large to

231: yield direct neutralino-nucleus scattering rates within the

232: reach of Stage 3 direct dark matter detection experiments such as

233: Genius, Cryoarray and Zeplin-4\cite{ddmsearch}.

234: In addition, in the HB/FP region one may expect detectable rates for

235: detection of neutrinos arising from neutralino annihilation in the 

236: core of the sun or the earth, and also large rates for cosmic

237: photons, positrons and antiprotons due to DM annihilation 

238: in the galactic halo\cite{fmw,deboer}.

239: 

240: In the HB/FP region, since $|\mu|$ becomes small, 

241: charginos are light. This then implies that there 

242: would be a large rate for chargino pair production at 

243: $e^+e^-$ linear colliders (LCs) operating with center-of-mass energy

244: $\sqrt{s}\simeq 0.5-1$ TeV over

245: most of the HB/FP region. However, since the $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass

246: gap also becomes small, it is not clear that linear collider

247: experiments would access the entire kinematically allowed chargino pair

248: production region. 

249: 

250: Our main goal in this paper is to assess the reach of linear colliders

251: for SUSY in the mSUGRA model\cite{bmt,nlcreach}, 

252: paying particular attention to the HB/FP

253: region. We note here that previous reach estimates of linear colliders

254: for SUSY in the mSUGRA model extended only up to $m_0$ values as high as

255: 800~GeV\cite{bmt}-- well below the HB/FP region. 

256: We find that a linear collider, using

257: standard cuts for chargino pair events, can explore the low $m_{1/2}$ 

258: portion of the HB/FP region. 

259: To explore the high $m_{1/2}$ part of the 

260: hyperbolic branch, new specialized cuts are suggested. With these

261: cuts, it appears possible to probe

262: essentially all of the HB/FP region (up to $m_{1/2}= 1.6$~TeV)

263: where charginos satisfy the LEP2 bounds,

264: and where chargino pairs are 

265: kinematically accessible

266: at a linear collider (LC).

267: %In this paper, we advocate specialized cuts

268: %which allow almost all of the kinematically accessible parameter

269: %space to be explored by LCs. 

270: This then provides the first example of a SUSY parameter space region 

271: which is accessible to linear $e^+e^-$ colliders, while likely 

272: remaining out of reach of LHC experiments! This is especially interesting

273: since the HB/FP region is one of the three qualitatively

274: different  mSUGRA parameter space regions allowed 

275: by dark matter and other constraints.

276: 

277: If indeed a SUSY signal from charginos is detected, the next step would be 

278: to try and determine the associated weak scale parameters:

279: $\mu$, $M_2$ and $\tan\beta$\cite{jlc1}. 

280: We explore a particular 

281: case study in the low $m_{1/2}$ region of the HB/FP region, and show that

282: at least in this case $\mu$ and $M_2$ should be measurable. This measurement

283: would give a firm indication of the large higgsino content of the 

284: light chargino and $\tz_1$ and, together with the 

285: fact that sfermions are not detected either at the LC or at the LHC, 

286: provide a strong indication that SUSY in fact 

287: lies in the HB/FP region.

288: 

289: The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~2, 

290: we examine the problems associated with

291: detecting SUSY in mSUGRA parameter space at an $e^+e^-$ LC, 

292: with special emphasis on the 

293: HB/FP region, and show that these can be overcome. 

294: We propose novel cuts that allow the large

295: $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch to be explored via chargino pair

296: production. We then show our projections for the SUSY 

297: reach of a LC operating at $\sqrt{s}=0.5$~TeV or $\sqrt{s}=1$~TeV,

298: assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

299: In Sec.~3, we compare the reach of a LC

300: with the reach of Fermilab Tevatron luminosity upgrades

301: and of the CERN LHC. Furthermore, we

302: also show the dark matter allowed region of

303: mSUGRA parameter space to elucidate the performance of these experiments

304: in this preferred region of parameter space.

305: In Sec.~4, we perform a case study in the HB/FP region, 

306: where chargino pair production is accessible to a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV LC.

307: The masses $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ can be measured via 

308: energy distribution end-points. We find that these measurements,

309: along with measurement of the total chargino pair cross section, allow 

310: a determination of the underlying SUSY parameters $\mu$ and $M_2$,

311: although $\tan\beta$ remains relatively undetermined. 

312: In Sec.~5, we present our conclusions. 

313: 

314: 

315: \section{Reach of a Linear Collider in the mSUGRA model}

316: %

317: 

318: In our signal and background computations, we use ISAJET

319: 7.69\cite{isajet} which allows for the use of polarized beams, and also

320: allows for convolution of subprocess cross sections with electron parton

321: distribution functions (PDFs) arising from both initial state

322: bremsstrahlung and also beamstrahlung\cite{PChen}.  We use the ISAJET

323: toy detector CALSIM with calorimetry covering the regions $-4<\eta <4$

324: with cell size $\Delta\eta\times\Delta\phi = 0.05\times

325: 0.05$. Electromagnetic energy resolution is given by $\Delta

326: E_{em}/E_{em}=0.15/\sqrt{E_{em}}\oplus 0.01$, while hadronic resolution

327: is given by $\Delta E_h/E_h=0.5\sqrt{E_h}\oplus 0.02$, where $\oplus$

328: denotes addition in quadrature.  Jets are

329: identified using the ISAJET jet finding algorithm GETJET using a fixed

330: cone size of $\Delta R=\sqrt{\Delta\eta^2+\Delta\phi^2}=0.6$, modified

331: to cluster on energy rather than transverse energy.  Clusters with

332: $E>5$~GeV and $|\eta (jet)|<2.5$ are labeled as jets.  Muons and

333: electrons are classified as isolated if they have $E>5$~GeV, $|\eta_\ell

334: |<2.5$, and the visible activity within a cone of $R=0.5$ about the

335: lepton direction is less than $max(E_\ell/10\ {\rm~GeV},1\

336: {\rm~GeV})$. Finally, jets originating from $b$-quarks are tagged as

337: $b$-jets with an efficiency of 50\%.

338: %

339: \subsection{Review of previous reach assessment} 

340: %

341: 

342: The reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV LC for supersymmetry 

343: has previously been evaluated in

344: Ref.~\cite{bmt} assuming an integrated luminosity of

345: 20 fb$^{-1}$. Reach contours were presented for the case 

346: of the mSUGRA model in the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$

347: plane for $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =2$ and 10, and $\mu {>\atop <}0$. 

348: The reach plots in that study were limited to $m_{1/2}<600$~GeV and

349: $m_0<800$~GeV, {\it i.e.} well outside the HB/FP region. 

350: 

351: The region of the $m_0-m_{1/2}$ plane where there should be an

352: observable SUSY signal in LC experiments 

353: consists of three distinct pieces.

354: %

355: \bi

356: \item At low $m_0$ with $m_{1/2}\sim 300-500$~GeV, slepton pair

357: production occurs at large rates. The signal is a pair of opposite

358: sign/same flavor leptons plus missing energy.  Tsukamoto {\it et

359: al.}\cite{jlc1} suggested cuts of {\it i}) 5~GeV $<E(\ell )<$ 200~GeV,

360: {\it ii}) 20~GeV $<E_{vis.}<\sqrt{s}-100$~GeV, {\it iii})

361: $|m(\ell\bar{\ell})-M_Z|>10$ GeV, {\it iv}) $|\cos\theta (\ell^\pm

362: )|<0.9$, {\it v}) $-Q_\ell\cos\theta_\ell <0.75$, {\it vi})

363: $\theta_{acop}>30^\circ$, {\it vii}) $E_T^{mis}>25$~GeV and {\it viii})

364: veto events with any jet activity.  Here, $\theta_{acop} \equiv \pi -

365: \cos^{-1}(\hat{p}^+_x \hat{p}^-_x + \hat{p}^+_y \hat{p}^-_y)$.  The

366: reach was evaluated by running with right-polarized electron beams where

367: $P_L(e^- )=-0.9$.  The beam polarization maximizes

368: $\tell_R\bar{\tell}_R$ pair production, while minimizing background from

369: $W^+W^-$ production. 

370: 

371: \item At low $m_{1/2}$ values, chargino pair production occurs at a large

372: rate. To search for chargino pairs, one may look for 

373: $1\ell +2j +E^{mis}$ events. Following Ref. \cite{jlc1}, 

374: it was required in Ref.~\cite{bmt} 

375: to have one isolated lepton plus two jets with

376: {\it i}) 20~GeV $<E_{vis}<\sqrt{s}-100$~GeV, {\it ii}) if $E_{jj}>200$~GeV, 

377: then $m(jj)<68$~GeV, {\it iii}) $E_T^{mis}>25$~GeV, {\it iv}) 

378: $|m(\ell \nu )-M_W|>10$~GeV for a $W$ pair hypothesis, 

379: {\it v}) $|\cos\theta(j)|<0.9$, $|\cos\theta (\ell )|<0.9$,

380: $-Q_\ell\cos\theta_\ell <0.75$ and $Q_\ell\cos\theta (jj)<0.75$, 

381: {\it vi}) $\theta_{acop}(WW)>30^\circ$ for a $W$ pair hypothesis.

382: The reach for $1\ell +2j +\eslt $  events from chargino pair

383: production was evaluated using a left polarized beam with 

384: $P_L=+0.9$.

385: \item Finally, there exists a small region around $m_0\sim 200-500$~GeV

386: and $m_{1/2}\sim 300-350$~GeV where neither slepton pairs nor

387: chargino pairs are kinematically accessible, but where $e^+e^-\to\tz_1\tz_2$

388: is. In this case, the decay $\tz_2\to\tz_1 h$ was usually

389: found to be dominant. Since $h\to b\bar{b}$ with a large branching fraction,

390: $b\bar{b}+\eslt $ events were searched 

391: for with two tagged $b$-jets, $E_T^{mis}>25$~GeV and 

392: $30^\circ <\Delta\phi_{b\bar b}<150^\circ $. Imposing a missing mass

393: cut $\mslash>340$~GeV eliminated almost all SM backgrounds, so that

394: a signal cross section of 10 fb would yield 10 signal events for

395: integrated luminosity 20~fb$^{-1}$, where the signal efficiency was found to 

396: be 6\%. Beam polarization of $P_L=+0.9$ was used.

397: \ei

398: In the following, we refer to these as the ``standard cuts''.

399: 

400: 

401: The ultimate reach contours found in Ref. \cite{bmt} generally track

402: the boundary of the kinematically 

403: allowed regions for $\tw_1$ and $\te_R$ pair

404: production. An exception occurs at low $m_0$ values where selectron

405: pair production is dominant, but where $m_{\te_R}\simeq m_{\tz_1}$. 

406: Then, the mass gap

407: $m_{\te_R}-m_{\tz_1}$ becomes so small that there was very little

408: visible energy in the slepton pair events, resulting in

409: very low detection efficiency, causing a turnover in the reach contours.

410: For $\tan\beta$ values larger than those explored in Ref. \cite{bmt}, 

411: the large $\tau$ Yukawa coupling makes

412: $\ttau_1$ significantly lighter than $\te_R$  so that

413: close to the boundary of excluded region at small $m_0$ 

414: $\te_R\bar{\te}_R$ events may still be observable, 

415: while $\ttau_1\bar{\ttau_1}$ events are not.

416: %

417: \subsection{Updated reach results}

418: %

419: 

420: In this section, we update our earlier

421: reach projections\cite{bmt} for a linear collider.

422: We present reach projections for linear colliders with 

423: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV of energy in the CM frame. 

424: We also expand the

425: range of $m_{1/2}$ (to 1.6 TeV) and $m_0$ (to 8 TeV) beyond the values

426: presented in Ref. \cite{bmt}. This allows us to explore the

427: %the WMAP favored regions, including the 

428: entire stau co-annihilation strip, 

429: the $A$-annihilation funnel and the HB/FP region. 

430: In our analysis, we restrict ourselves to the trilinear SSB term $A_0=0$.

431: For the most part, our results are qualitatively insensitive to variations 

432: in $A_0$. An exception occurs for particular $A_0$ choices which may greatly

433: reduce the value of $m_{\tst_1}$, and lead to a top squark-neutralino

434: co-annihilation region\cite{stop}.

435: 

436: Our first results are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}, 

437: where we show the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane for $\tan\beta =30$, 

438: $\mu >0$ and $A_0=0$. The left-most red region at low $m_0$ is disallowed 

439: because the LSP would become a stau.

440: The right-most red region (large $m_0$) is mainly excluded by a 

441: lack of appropriate REWSB, although this includes as well points

442: with no convergent RGE solution as generated by ISAJET.

443: The precise location of the boundary of the large $m_0$ red region 

444: depends somewhat on the computer code, and also on the assumed fermion 

445: masses.

446: The lower yellow region is excluded by LEP2 chargino 

447: searches, which require $m_{\tw_1}>103.5$~GeV. In addition, the region 

448: below the yellow contour gives a light (SM-like) Higgs boson with

449: $m_h<114.4$~GeV. 

450: %The yellow region on the boundary of parameter space at large

451: %$m_0$ denotes points where ISAJET did not find a convergent solution to

452: %the sparticle mass spectrum in the mSUGRA model. 

453: 

454: Using the standard dilepton cuts as described above, we find a SM

455: background level of $\sigma_{SM}=1.79$ fb (0.045 fb) for a LC with

456: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV (1.0 TeV) with right polarized beams using $P_L(e^-

457: )=-0.9$.\footnote{In our assessment of SM backgrounds, we have evaluated

458: only the backgrounds from $2\to 2$ processes.} It has been shown in

459: Ref. \cite{jlc1} that backgrounds from $2 \to 3$ processes such as

460: $e^+e^- \to \nu\nu Z, e^+e^- Z$ or $e^{\pm}\nu W^{\mp}$ production or 

461: $2 \to 4$ processes such as $e^+e^- \to W^+W^-$ production are also

462: efficiently removed by these cuts, at least for

463: $\sqrt{s}=500$~GeV. Although the cross sections for these processes grow

464: with energy, we expect that these cuts will remove the {\it bulk} of

465: these backgrounds also at $\sqrt{s}=1000$~GeV; for instance, the

466: dominant portion of the $eeWW$ background that comes from

467: ``$\gamma\gamma$'' collisions will be removed by the acoplanarity and

468: other cuts; much of the remaining cross section will have $p_T(WW) \leq

469: M_W$ and will also be reduced, though not eliminated by these cuts.

470: However, since these backgrounds have not been included in our

471: evaluation it is possible that the statistical significance of the

472: signal may be somewhat over-estimated for $\sqrt{s}=1000$~GeV.  The

473: regions to the left of the lower (upper) blue contour yield a

474: supersymmetric signal at the $5\sigma$ level assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of

475: integrated luminosity at the 0.5 (1) TeV LC. An increased reach for

476: slepton pairs may be obtained by searching for ditau events originating

477: from stau pair production.  While we did not perform a detailed

478: signal-to-background analysis for this channel, we do show the

479: kinematic limit for stau pair production by a dashed light-blue contour,

480: which for $\tan\beta =30$, lies somewhat above the blue dilepton reach

481: contour.

482: Thus, a significant gain in reach might be acquired by

483: searching for acollinear di-tau events arising from stau pair production.

484: In particular, this signal may give access to the large $m_{1/2}$

485: part of the stau co-annihilation region. 

486: 

487: 

488: The green contour denotes the reach of a 0.5 or 1~TeV LC for SUSY via

489: the $1\ell +2j+\eslt$ channel arising from chargino pair production,

490: using the standard cuts given above. Unlike Ref.\cite{bmt}, we use

491: $P_L=0$, and find a background level of 15.5 fb (2.1 fb) for

492: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ (1)~TeV (the beam polarization is not important for this

493: reach contour).  For most of parameter space, the reach contours follow

494: closely along the $m_{\tw_1}=250$ (500)~GeV mass contours, indicating

495: that chargino pair production can be seen with standard cuts almost to

496: the kinematical limit for chargino pair production.

497: %

498: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=30plc.eps,width=14cm} 

499: \vspace*{-0.8cm}

500: \caption{Reach of a linear collider for supersymmetry in the mSUGRA

501: model for $\sqrt{s}=500$ and $1000$~GeV, 

502: %We also show

503: %the corresponding reach of the Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider at

504: %$\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV 

505: %and the CERN LHC $pp$ collider at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV,

506: for $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. The reach via slepton pair 

507: production is denoted by the blue contour, while standard cuts for 

508: chargino pair production yield the green contour. Special chargino pair

509: cuts yield the black contour in the HB/FP region. The red region is 

510: theoretically excluded, while the yellow region 

511: is excluded by LEP2 measurements. Below the yellow contour, $m_h \leq

512: 114.4$~GeV. 

513: }

514: \label{fig:30plc}

515: }

516: %

517: An exception occurs when $m_0$ becomes

518: very large, in the HB/FP region. Around $m_0\sim 4000$~GeV 

519: ($m_0\sim 6000$~GeV) for $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV (1~TeV), the reach contour departs

520: from the kinematic limit. The termination of the reach contour

521: occurs because in this region, the superpotential parameter $\mu$

522: becomes very small, and the light chargino $\tw_1$ and neutralino $\tz_1$

523: become higgsino-like, and increasingly mass degenerate. The $Q$-value from

524: $\tw_1\to \tz_1 f\bar{f}'$ decay (the $f$s are light SM fermions)

525: becomes very small, and very little visible energy is released by the 

526: chargino decays. This causes the detection efficiency for 

527: $1\ell +2j +\eslt$ events to decrease sharply, 

528: leading to a corresponding reduction in the reach

529: using the standard cuts. 

530: %This situation persists for all

531: %$\tan\beta$ values as we will see later.

532: 

533: To understand what is happening in the HB/FP region, we

534: show relevant sparticle  masses in Fig.~\ref{fig:30p225}{\it a})

535: for $m_{1/2}=225$~GeV, $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$ versus

536: the parameter $m_0$.

537: As $m_0$ varies from 1400~GeV to nearly 2200 GeV, 

538: {\it i.e.} as we approach the HB/FP region for fixed $m_{1/2}$

539: with increasing $m_0$. As $m_0$ increases, $|\mu |$ is seen to be decreasing.

540: Since the value of $SU(2)$ gaugino mass $M_2$ is essentially fixed, 

541: the various chargino and neutralino masses also decrease, with the lighter

542: ones becoming increasingly higgsino-like. The plot is terminated when

543: the LEP2 limit $m_{\tw_1} \ge 103.5$~GeV 

544: %($m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1} \ge 10$~GeV) 

545: is reached. Of great importance is that

546: the $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass gap is also decreasing, although in this case

547: it remains substantial out to the edge of parameter space.

548: 

549: In Fig.~\ref{fig:30p225}{\it b}), we show the total cross section 

550: for various chargino and neutralino production reactions versus $m_0$ 

551: as in frame {\it a}). At the lower $m_0$ values, $\sigma (\tw_1^+\tw_1^-)$

552: pair production dominates the total SUSY production cross section.

553: As $m_0$ increases, and $|\mu |$ decreases, the other charginos and 

554: neutralinos become light as well, and many more reactions ``turn on''

555: in the HB/FP region. Although we will focus mainly on $\tw_1^+\tw_1^-$

556: pair production, it is important to note that

557: many SUSY production reactions can occur in the HB/FP region,

558: and can lead to an assortment of SUSY events from the

559: production and cascade decays of the heavier chargino and neutralino

560: states.

561: %

562: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=30p225_h.eps,width=14cm}

563: \vspace*{-0.8cm}

564: \caption{Plot of {\it a}). sparticle masses and {\it b}).

565: sparticle pair production cross sections 

566: versus $m_0$ in the

567: HB/FP region for $m_{1/2}=225$~GeV, $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and

568: $\mu >0$ for a $\sqrt{s}=500$~GeV $e^+e^-$ collider.

569: }

570: \label{fig:30p225}

571: }

572: 

573: A similar plot is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:30p900}, except this time

574: for $m_{1/2}=900$~GeV, {\it i.e.} in the upper regions of the

575: hyperbolic branch. In this case, $M_2$ is much larger than the case 

576: %

577: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=30p900.eps,width=14cm} 

578: \vspace*{-0.5cm}

579: \caption{Plot of {\it a}). sparticle masses and {\it b}).

580: sparticle pair production cross sections versus $m_0$ in the

581: HB/FP region for $m_{1/2}=900$~GeV, $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and

582: $\mu >0$ for a $\sqrt{s}=500$~GeV $e^+e^-$ collider.

583: }

584: \label{fig:30p900}}

585: %

586: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:30p225}, and so the heavier charginos and neutralinos

587: remain inaccessible to a LC. As $m_0$ increases, again

588: $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ decrease.\footnote{Since $|\mu|$ decreases

589: very rapidly as $m_0$ increases and approaches the theoretical

590: boundary of the HB/FP region, its precise value is not easy to obtain using

591: numerical methods. The value of $\mu$, of course, directly affects the 

592: chargino and neutralino masses. In this figure, we have smoothed out

593: what appeared to be rather large numerical fluctuations in two of the bins.} 

594:  But in this case the $\tw_1 -\tz_1$

595: mass gap is much smaller, reaching only several~GeV at the limit of

596: parameter space. Clearly, in this upper $m_{1/2}$ region of the 

597: hyperbolic branch, there will be little visible energy

598: emerging from chargino 3-body decays, making detection of chargino pair

599: events difficult using standard cuts. In addition, as shown in frame 

600: {\it b}), only $\tw_1^+\tw_1^-$ and $\tz_1\tz_2$ pair 

601: production occur, so fewer anomalous events are expected in the upper

602: HB/FP region. Since $m_{\tz_2}\sim m_{\tw_1}$,

603: there will also be little visible energy from $\tz_2\to\tz_1 f\bar{f}$

604: decay, so that $\tz_1\tz_2$ production will also be more difficult to observe.

605: In the deep HB/FP region where $|\mu| \ll M_{1,2}$, one of the neutralinos

606: is mainly higgsino-like with roughly equal components of ${\tilde h}_u$ and

607: ${\tilde h}_d$. The other neutralinos, being orthogonal to these, thus

608: either have equal magnitudes for their ${\tilde h}_u$ and ${\tilde h}_d$

609: content, or this content is small. In either case, the $Z\tz_i\tz_i$

610: coupling is dynamically suppressed\cite{dkt} in this region. This accounts

611: for the strong suppression of $\sigma ({\tz_2\tz_2})$ (recall that the

612: electron sneutrino is very heavy) in Fig.~\ref{fig:30p900}{\it b}.

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: Coincidentally,

617: the reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$~TeV LC in the

618: $1\ell +2j +\eslt$ channel 

619: using the standard cuts terminates in the HB/FP region

620: at nearly the same $m_{1/2}$ value as does the reach of the CERN LHC

621: shown in Ref. \cite{bbbkt}, and again in Sec.~4 of this paper. 

622: Meanwhile, the contour of chargino pair kinematic accessibility extends to

623: much higher $m_{1/2}$ values, along the hyperbolic branch.

624: This motivated us to examine strategies to extend 

625: the reach of a LC

626: to the large $m_{1/2}$ part of the HB/FP region.

627: 

628: To find better suited

629: signal selection cuts for the HB/FP region, we examine

630: a particular case study for the mSUGRA point which is beyond the

631: projected reach of the LHC\cite{bbbkt}: 

632: \be

633: m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign (\mu ) =

634: \ 4625\ {\rm~GeV},\ 885\ {\rm~GeV}, 0,\ 30,\ +1 ,

635: \ee

636: for which various sparticle masses and 

637: parameters are listed in Table~\ref{tab:cs1}. We will refer to this as

638: case 1. Not only is this point inaccessible at the LHC, but 

639: most of the sparticles are also inaccessible to a LC,

640: with the exception being the lighter charginos and neutralinos.

641: While $m_{\tw_1}=195.8$~GeV, so that $\tw_1^+\tw_1^-$ pair production

642: occurs at a large rate at a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV $e^+e^-$ collider, 

643: the $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass gap is only 14.2~GeV, so little visible energy

644: is released in chargino pair production events.

645: 

646: With this in mind, we generate SUSY events for this case study

647: using ISAJET 7.69 for a linear collider with $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV and

648: unpolarized beams, 

649: including bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung

650: for background events.  

651: The beamstrahlung parameters,

652: defined in Ref. \cite{PChen},

653: are taken to be $\Upsilon =0.1072$ with beam length $\sigma_z =0.12$~mm.

654: 

655: %The beamstrahlung parameters are defined by P. Chen.

656: 

657: \TABLE{

658: \begin{tabular}{lc}

659: \hline

660: parameter & value (GeV) \\

661: \hline

662: $M_2$ & 705.8 \\

663: $M_1$ & 372.2 \\

664: $\mu$ & 185.9 \\

665: $m_{\tg}$ & 2182.7 \\

666: $m_{\tu_L}$ & 4893.9 \\

667: $m_{\te_L}$ & 4656.1 \\

668: $m_{\tw_1}$ & 195.8 \\

669: $m_{\tw_2}$ & 743.5 \\

670: $m_{\tz_1}$ & 181.6 \\

671: $m_{\tz_2}$ & 196.2 \\ 

672: $m_{\tz_3}$ & 377.3 \\

673: $m_{\tz_4}$ & 760.0 \\

674: $m_A$ & 3998.3 \\

675: $m_h$ & 122.0 \\

676: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$& 0.0104\\

677: $BF(b\to s\gamma)$ & $3.34\times 10^{-4}  $\\

678: $\Delta a_\mu    $ & $0.6 \times  10^{-10}$\\

679: \hline

680: \label{tab:cs1}

681: \end{tabular}

682: \caption{Masses and parameters in~GeV units for case 1 

683: for $m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign\mu =$

684: 4625~GeV, 885~GeV, 0, 30, +1 in the mSUGRA model.

685: The spectrum is obtained using ISAJET v7.69.}

686: }

687: %

688: 

689: 

690: 

691: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}{\it a}) we show the distribution of

692: $E_{visible}$ from events with 1-lepton and two jets expected at a

693: $\sqrt{s}=500$~GeV LC. 

694: The solid black histogram represents the SUSY case study, 

695: which peaks at very low $E_{visible}$, as expected from the low energy release

696: from chargino decays. The small number of events around $E_{visible} =

697: 250$~GeV is from $Zh$ production. 

698: %

699: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=dist.eps,width=14cm} 

700: \vspace*{-0.8cm} 

701: \caption{Distribution in {\it a}) $E_{visible}$ for mSUGRA signal

702: (black histogram) with 

703: ($m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta,\ sign(\mu )=4625$~GeV, 885~GeV, 0, 30, 1)

704: after cuts  in the first row of Table~\ref{tab:cuts}. 

705: We take $\sqrt{s}= 500$~GeV and an integrated

706: luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$,

707: and adopt beamstrahlung parameters $\Upsilon =0.1072$ and 

708: $\sigma_z=0.12$ mm.

709: The ISAJET SM background is shown by the green histogram, while

710: the background from $\gamma\gamma\to c\bar{c},\ b\bar{b}$ is shown in red.

711: In {\it b}), we show the distribution in transverse plane dijet opening angle

712: requiring, in addition, that 

713: 20~GeV$<E_{visible}<100$~GeV. In {\it c}), we show the

714: distribution in $m(\ell j)$, after the aditional requirement 

715: $\cos\phi (jj)>-0.6$.

716: The jet entering the $m(\ell j)$ distribution is the one that is 

717: closest in angle to the

718: lepton direction.

719: \label{fig:dist}

720: }

721: }

722: %

723: The green histogram shows the sum of all $2\to2$ SM backgrounds

724: as generated by ISAJET. The large $E_{visible}$ component of these

725: arises from $WW$, $ZZ$ and $t\bar{t}$ production, where some

726: energy is lost due to associated neutrino emissions. The SM background 

727: distribution extends to low $E_{visible}$ values, and has a visible

728: shoulder at $E_{visible}\sim M_Z$ due to processes such as 

729: $e^+e^-\to Z\to b\bar{b}, c\bar{c}$, where the $Z$ can be made by 

730: convoluting the subprocess reaction with the electron PDF, and the

731: lepton from the decay of the heavy flavor is accidently isolated.

732: The bulk of the $2\to 2$ 

733: SM background can be eliminated by requiring low values of

734: $E_{visible}$. In this case we require 

735: %

736: \be

737: 20\ GeV <E_{visible}< 100\ GeV.

738: \ee

739: The upper limit is chosen to be well above the case 1 signal distribution 

740: endpoint to accommodate later scans over all mSUGRA parameter space, 

741: including points which allow larger $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass gaps, and

742: somewhat harder $E_{visible}$ distributions. We also show a red 

743: histogram which shows the results of the evaluation of the background 

744: from

745: %which arises from the $\gamma\gamma \to c\bar{c},\ b\bar{b}$

746: %subprocesses convoluted with the photon PDF distribution function.

747: %These processes represents the effective photon approximation for 

748: $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-  c\bar{c},\ e^+e^-  b\bar{b}$ processes

749: when both initial leptons escape detection

750: when being scattered at a very small angle.

751: We evaluated this background, which mainly arises from photon photon

752: collisions,  

753: using the PYTHIA event generator\cite{pythia}.

754: %at the parton

755: %level using the CompHEP program\cite{comphep}

756: %which uses photon PDF given by Budnev {\it et al.}\cite{budnev}.

757: In the case of $b\bar{b}$ production, the isolated

758: lepton arises from semi-leptonic $b\to c\ell\nu$ decay, and the jets come

759: one from a $b$ quark, and the other from the charm quark.

760: %The 2-photon subprocess comprises the dominant background after 

761: %implementing the $E_{visible}$ cut.

762: 

763: In $\gamma\gamma\to b\bar{b}$ events, the $b$ and $\bar{b}$

764: will typically emerge back-to-back in the transverse plane.

765: Thus, in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}{\it b}) we plot the distribution in

766: $\cos\phi (jj)$, where $\phi (jj)$ is the transverse dijet opening angle.

767: The signal is distributed over a range of $\cos\phi (jj)$ values, and actually

768: peaks at $\cos\phi (jj)\sim 1$. The background peaks at $\cos\phi (jj)\sim -1$,

769: so we require a cut of 

770: %

771: \be

772: \cos\phi (jj)> -0.6 .

773: \ee

774: 

775: Finally, any surviving background arising from $b\bar{b}$ or

776: $c\bar{c}$ production followed by semileptonic heavy flavor decay 

777: is likely to 

778: have a jet-lepton invariant mass bounded by the heavy flavor

779: mass (at least at parton level).

780: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dist}{\it c}) we show the distribution in 

781: $m(\ell j)$ where we form the invariant mass from the jet which is closest 

782: to the isolated lepton in space angle. 

783: %The $\gamma\gamma\to b\bar{b}$

784: %background has a peak in $m(\ell j)$ below $m_b$, so we further

785: Some additional background removal at low cost to signal is gained by

786: requiring

787: %

788: \be

789: m(\ell j_{near}) >5\ GeV.

790: \ee

791: 

792: At this point, the distribution is clearly dominated by

793: signal.

794: %\footnote{We have performed the calculation of the 

795: %$\gamma\gamma \to b\bar{b}$ background at the parton

796: %level in the Weiszacker-Williams approximation. While we expect this

797: %to be reasonable, it remains to be checked that the elimination of both the

798: %$\gamma\gamma \to b\bar{b}$ and also the initially larger $\gamma\gamma

799: %\to c\bar{c}$ backgrounds would survive a complete simulation, as well

800: %as full matrix element effects which would give a transverse momentum to

801: %the heavy flavor pair.}  

802: The cross sections in fb after each cut for

803: signal and background are shown in Table~\ref{tab:cuts}, where we

804: include in addition background from the $2\to 4$ process $e^+e^-\to

805: \ell\nu q\bar{q}'$ (evaluated using CompHEP\cite{comphep}). In the $2\to 4$

806: calculation we eliminate Feynman diagrams such as $WW$ pair production

807: which are already accounted for as $2\to 2$ processes in ISAJET.  The

808: $2\to 4$ processes are negligible after the $E_{visible}$ cut.  For all

809: frames of Fig.~\ref{fig:dist} we have assumed 100 fb$^{-1}$ total

810: integrated luminosity. We recognize that the dominant background to the 

811: rather soft signal which comes from two photon collisions will be sensitive

812: to the beamstrahlung parameters, and hence to the shape of the

813: beams. Nevertheless, the large signal to background ratio that we find

814: encourages us to expect that our conclusions about the large reach of LC

815: will be qualitatively unaltered.

816: 

817: %

818: %

819: %

820: \TABLE{

821: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}

822: \hline

823: cuts & case 1 & ISAJET BG & $\gamma\gamma\to c\bar{c},b\bar{b}$ & 

824: $\ell\nu q\bar{q}'$  \\

825: \hline

826: $\eta,\ E,\ \Delta R$ & 16.2 & 897.1 (483) & 9.2 (6.2) & 448 (712)  \\

827: $20~GeV<E_{vis}<100$~GeV & 14.4 & 12.6 (3.5) & 5.4 (4.9) & 0.16 (0.08)  \\

828: $\cos\phi (jj)>-0.6$ & 13.5 & 0.34 (0.2) & 1.1 (1.1) & 0.04 (0.02) \\

829: $m(\ell j)>5$~GeV & 12.9 & 0.17 (0.1) & 0.8 (0.8) & 0.04 (0.02) \\ 

830: \hline

831: \label{tab:cuts}

832: \end{tabular}

833: \vspace*{-0.4cm}

834: \caption{Cross section after cuts in fb for mSUGRA case 1 signal and

835: ISAJET SM backgrounds, two photon background $\gamma\gamma\to c\bar{c},\ 

836: b\bar{b}$

837: and the $2\to 4$ process $e^+e^-\to \ell\nu_\ell q\bar{q}'$.

838: We take $\sqrt{s} =0.5$ TeV collider CM energy. The corresponding 

839: background for $\sqrt{s}= 1$~TeV case is listed in 

840: parenthesis.}

841: %

842: }

843: We now require a $5\sigma$ signal for SUSY events above the total

844: SM background as listed in Table~\ref{tab:cuts}, for 100 fb$^{-1}$

845: of integrated luminosity and  scan mSUGRA points in the HB/FP region of

846: Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}. The new result is 

847: the black contour, below which the mSUGRA parameter space is accessible 

848: by the LC at 5$\sigma$ level.

849: One can see that this contour pushes the reach of the LC to much higher values

850: of $m_{1/2}$.

851: The contour 

852: peters out at low $m_{1/2}$ values, where the visible energy arising from

853: chargino pair production is typically much higher than the 100~GeV maximum

854: required by our cuts. However, this low $m_{1/2}$ region is already well

855: covered by the standard chargino search cuts listed at the beginning 

856: of this section. 

857: The new cuts for the far HB/FP region work for 

858: $e^+e^-$ colliders with $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV as well.

859: The $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV reach contour extends even beyond the

860: limits of parameter space shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}.

861: 

862: To complete our SUSY reach contours, we also examined the 

863: reach of a LC for SUSY via the $e^+e^-\to \tz_1\tz_2$ reaction

864: in the non-HB/FP part of parameter space, where neither

865: chargino pair production nor slepton pair production is

866: kinematically accessible. In this case, we follow Ref. \cite{bmt}

867: in asking for $b\bar{b}+\eslt$ events from $e^+e^-\to \tz_1\tz_2$

868: production followed by $\tz_2\to \tz_1 h$, where $h\to b\bar{b}$.

869: In Ref. \cite{bmt}, no background was found after a series of cuts

870: listed at the beginning of this section. Here, we do not perform

871: complete event generation at every point in parameter space, but instead

872: require that 

873: %

874: \be

875: \sigma (e^+e^-\to\tz_1\tz_2 )\times BF(\tz_2\to\tz_1 h)> 2\ {\rm fb} ,

876: \ee

877: %  

878: which should yield $\sim 10$ signal events for 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated 

879: luminosity assuming an efficiency of $5-6\%$ as found in Ref. \cite{bmt}.

880: The resulting reach contour is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc} as the black

881: contour linking the slepton pair reach to the chargino reach contour.

882: It gives some additional parameter space reach to a LC, although it is

883: in a dark matter {\it disfavored} region of parameter space (unless

884: $\tan\beta$ is large, and the $H,A$-annihilation funnel cuts through

885: it). 

886: There is a 

887: turnover in the $e^+e^-\to\tz_1\tz_2$ reach contour at low $m_0$;

888: this occurs because in this region, $\tz_2\to\ttau_1\bar{\tau}$ decay

889: becomes accessible, resulting in a suppression of the $\tz_2\to\tz_1 h$

890: branching fraction.

891: However, the $\tz_2\to\ttau_1\bar{\tau}$ signal may also be detectable; if so,

892: the gap caused by the turn-over just mentioned would be filled.

893: 

894: 

895: Finally, we show the kinematic limit for $e^+e^-\to ZH$ (green-dashed or 

896: dotted contours),

897: $e^+e^-\to Ah$ (orange dashed or dotted contours) and $e^+e^-\to H^+H^-$

898: (purple dashed or dotted contours). The dashes are for $\sqrt{s}=0.5$

899: TeV, while dotted are for $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV. For $\tan\beta =30$,

900: these contours always lie below the sparticle reach contours,

901: so if heavier SUSY Higgs bosons are seen (at least in the channels 

902: mentioned above), 

903: sparticles should also be seen if SUSY is realized as in the mSUGRA 

904: framework.

905:  

906: In Fig.~\ref{fig:10plc}, we show LC reach contours for the same 

907: mSUGRA parameter plane as in Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}, except this time

908: $\tan\beta =10$. Qualitatively, many of the reach contours are similar to the

909: $\tan\beta =30$ case of Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}, and in particular, the new cuts

910: %

911: %

912: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=10plc.eps,width=14cm} 

913: \vspace*{-0.5cm} 

914: \caption{Reach of a linear collider for supersymmetry in the mSUGRA

915: model for $\sqrt{s}=500$ and $1000$~GeV, 

916: for $\tan\beta =10$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. The colors on the various

917: regions and on the different contours are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:30plc}.

918: }

919: \label{fig:10plc}}

920: %

921: designed to access the far HB/FP region again allow the LC reach to extend

922: into the high $m_{1/2}$ section of the hyperbolic branch.

923: One difference for $\tan\beta =10$ results is that the $\ttau_1^+\ttau_1^-$

924: kinematic reach contour now lies nearly atop the selectron/smuon

925: reach contour using the dilepton cuts described at the beginning of 

926: this section. 

927: 

928: In Fig.~\ref{fig:45mlc}, we show the same reach contours in the 

929: $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane, but this time for $\tan\beta =45$ and $\mu <0$.

930: The standard slepton pair and chargino pair production reach contours 

931: are similar to the low $\tan\beta$ cases. In this case, the 

932: far HB/FP region cuts allow the reach to be extended, although

933: the reach contour terminates in the part of the red region

934: where the numerical solutions

935: to the renormalization group equations do not converge as per

936: %

937: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=45mlc.eps,width=14cm} 

938: \vspace*{-1cm} 

939: \caption{Reach of a linear collider for supersymmetry in the mSUGRA

940: model for $\sqrt{s}=500$ and $1000$~GeV, 

941: for $\tan\beta =45$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu <0$. The colors on the various

942: regions and on the different contours are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:10plc}.

943: }

944: \label{fig:45mlc}}

945: %

946: the criteria in ISAJET.

947: A tiny region remains inaccessible to our new cuts, between the black 

948: solid contours  and the dashed contours that depicts the kinematic limit

949: for chargino pair production.

950: %In this region, the 

951: %$\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass gap becomes extremely small, and an analysis

952: %along the lines of Ref.\cite{chen} 

953: %may be possible, though the cross section may well turn out to be too 

954: %small.  

955: Another feature of the $\tan\beta =45$ plot is that the stau pair

956: kinematic region has expanded even more beyond where signals for $\te_R$

957: and $\tmu_R$ may be accessible in the dilepton channel.

958: %This is due to the largeness of $\tan\beta$, where the

959: %$\tau$ Yukawa coupling becomes large, and also substantial $\ttau_L-\ttau_R$

960: %mixing occurs to reduce $m_{\ttau_1}$ to significantly lower values than

961: %$m_{\te_R}$. 

962: In addition, for this large value of $\tan\beta$, the

963: heavy Higgs bosons are much lighter than the low $\tan\beta$

964: cases\cite{ltanb}, 

965: and now there exist regions of parameter space where $ZH$ and

966: $Ah$ production may be accessible, while sparticles are not: 

967: indeed such a situation would point to a large value of $\tan\beta$

968: which would of course be independently measureable from the properties of

969: the detected Higgs bosons\cite{barger}. 

970: These regions

971: all occur well below the reach of the LHC for SUSY, which will be shown 

972: in Sec.~4. Thus, if nature chooses $\tan\beta =45$ in an mSUGRA-like

973: model, and the LC sees only Higgs bosons beyond the SM, it is likely that

974: the existence of SUSY would already have been

975: established by LHC experiments. 

976: 

977: In Fig.~\ref{fig:52plc}, we show our final LC reach plot, taking

978: $\tan\beta =52$ with $\mu >0$. In this case, there is still substantial

979: reach for chargino pairs via the standard cuts, and the special cuts for

980: the far HB/FP region again allow extended reach into this area. For this

981: large a value of $\tan\beta$, the dilepton reach contour has been

982: completely consumed by the expanding forbidden region on the left where

983: $\ttau_1$ becomes the LSP.  In addition, the $e^+e^-\to\tz_1\tz_2$ reach

984: region has shrunk due to the increased branching fraction for

985: $\tz_2\to\ttau_1\tau$ decay.  However, the kinematic reach for stau

986: pairs has greatly increased, and becomes especially important for very

987: large $\tan\beta$, especially if nature has chosen to reduce LSP

988: dark matter

989: from the early universe via co-annihilation with staus.

990: %

991: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=52plc.eps,width=14cm} 

992: \vspace*{-1cm} 

993: \caption{Reach of a linear collider for supersymmetry in the mSUGRA

994: model for $\sqrt{s}=500$ and $1000$~GeV, 

995: for $\tan\beta =52$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$. The colors on the various

996: regions and on the different contours are as in Fig.~\ref{fig:10plc}.

997: }

998: \label{fig:52plc}}

999: 

1000: %

1001: \section{Comparison of LC reach with Tevatron, LHC and $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$}

1002: 

1003: In this section, we present an overview of the reach of

1004: a LC in comparison to the reach for sparticles that can be obtained by

1005: the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN LHC. In addition, we show

1006: regions of relic neutralino dark matter density in accord with

1007: the recent WMAP measurements.

1008: 

1009: Our first results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:10plcall} which shows

1010: the same parameter space plane as in Fig.~\ref{fig:10plc}.

1011: In this case, however, we plot the composite

1012: reach plot of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC for discovery of sparticles

1013: assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The LC reach plots now

1014: consist of combined 1.) slepton pair reach via dileptons 

1015: (we also show the 

1016: kinematically accesible stau pair production contour, if it is

1017: beyond the slepton  

1018: reach), 

1019: 2.) the chargino pair 

1020: reach via $1\ell +2j +\eslt$ events, with either the standard cuts

1021: or the cuts specialized for searches in the HB/FP region, and 3.) the 

1022: region of $\tz_1\tz_2 \to b\bar{b} +\eslt$. In addition, we superimpose 

1023: on this plot the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron for SUSY via the

1024: clean trilepton signal originating from $p\bar{p}\to\tw_1\tz_2 X

1025: \to 3\ell +\eslt +X$, where $X$ denotes assorted hadronic debris.

1026: The Tevatron reach was extended into the HB/FP region in Ref. \cite{bkt}; 

1027: we show the optimistic reach assuming a $3\sigma$ signal with 

1028: 25 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1029: In addition, we show the reach of the CERN LHC as derived in

1030: Ref. \cite{bbbkt}, assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1031: We have also added to the plot the green region, which denotes

1032: parameter space points with relic density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2<0.129$,

1033: as required by the recent WMAP measurements.\footnote{The WMAP

1034: allowed region including the lower bound would appear as a very narrow strip 

1035: following the border of the green region.} For our relic density 

1036: calculation\cite{bbb} we

1037: have evaluated all relevant neutralino annihilation and co-annihilation

1038: processes in the early universe using the CompHEP program.

1039: We have implemented relativistic thermal averaging of the 

1040: annihilation cross section times velocity, which is useful to get

1041: the appropriate relic density in the vicinity of $s$-channel

1042: poles (where the annihilating neutralinos may have substantial

1043: velocities) using the formulae of Gondolo and Edsjo\cite{gondolo}.

1044: 

1045: The dark matter allowed region splits into three distinct regions

1046: for $\tan\beta =10$. On the far left of the plot at low $m_0$

1047: is the stau co-annihilation region, which blends into the

1048: bulk annihilation region at low $m_{1/2}$ values. Note that the

1049: bulk region is largely below the LEP2 $m_h=114.4$~GeV contour.

1050: We also see that the stau co-annihilation region extends to

1051: $m_{1/2}$ values as high as $\sim 900$~GeV.

1052: For $\tan\beta =10$, we see that a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV

1053: $e^+e^-$ collider should be able to scan much of the stau 

1054: co-annihilation region, while a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV machine can 

1055: cover it entirely (as can the LHC). Another region of relic density is

1056: the small strip at constant $m_{1/2}\sim 100$~GeV, where neutralinos

1057: can annihilate through the narrow $s$-channel pole from the light Higgs 

1058: boson $h$. This region can be covered by all the colliders, including the

1059: Fermilab Tevatron. Finally, adjacent to the REWSB excluded region

1060: at large $m_0$ is shown the dark matter allowed region in the

1061: HB/FP region, where the LSP has a significant higgsino component, which

1062: facilitates neutralino annihilation to $WW$ and $ZZ$ pairs in the

1063: early universe. The Fermilab Tevatron reach does not extend 

1064: into this regime. The $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV LC can 

1065: explore the kinematically allowed portion of the 

1066: lower HB/FP region (which is the region favored by

1067: the fine-tuning analysis of Ref.\cite{fmm}) 

1068: via standard cuts and the cuts specialized to the far HB/FP region.

1069: The $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV colider can explore {\it all} the HB/FP

1070: region which is dark matter allowed, until $m_{1/2}$ becomes

1071: greater than $\sim 900$~GeV. The portion of the HB/FP region

1072: with $m_{1/2}>900$~GeV, while allowed by dark matter as well as  other

1073: experimental constraints, becomes more difficult to reconcile with

1074: fine-tuning considerations.

1075: %

1076: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=10plcall.eps,width=14cm} 

1077: \vspace*{-1cm} 

1078: \caption{Reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC for sparticles

1079: in the mSUGRA model for $\tan\beta =10$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.

1080: We also show the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron assuming 10 fb$^{-1}$

1081: of integrated luminosity (for isolated trileptons) and the reach of 

1082: the CERN LHC assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1083: Finally, the green shaded region shows points where the relic

1084: density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2<0.129$ as dictated by WMAP.

1085: }

1086: \label{fig:10plcall}}

1087: %

1088: The new cuts proposed in Sec.~2 allow the LC SUSY search region to extend 

1089: well beyond the reach of the CERN LHC, which extends only to

1090: $m_{1/2}\sim 700$~GeV. The LHC reach is limited in the high $m_{1/2}$

1091: part of the hyperbolic branch because sfermions and gluinos are too heavy

1092: to be produced at an appreciable rate. Chargino and neutralino pairs

1093: can still be produced at the LHC 

1094: in the high $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch,

1095: but the soft visible energy emanating from chargino and neutralino decay 

1096: makes detection above background very difficult.

1097: The high $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch yields a 

1098: first example of a region of mSUGRA

1099: model parameter space where {\it sparticles can be discovered at a LC, 

1100: whereas 

1101: the CERN LHC reach for sparticles has petered out.} Moreover, this

1102: additional reach area comes in precisely at a very compelling dark matter

1103: allowed region of the mSUGRA model.

1104: 

1105: In Fig.~\ref{fig:30plcall}, we show the same plot, except this time

1106: for $\tan\beta =30$. Many features of the plot are 

1107: qualitatively similar to the 

1108: $\tan\beta =10$ case. 

1109: In this case, the stau co-annihilation

1110: corridor now extends up to $m_{1/2}$ values as high as

1111: $1050$~GeV. The entire stau co-annihilation corridor can potentially be 

1112: explored by a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV LC, but only if a stau pair search

1113: is made in addition to the dilepton search. 

1114: In this case, the Tevatron reach extends just to the tip

1115: of the dark matter allowed HB/FP region. The LHC reach in the HB/FP 

1116: region is again limited to $m_{1/2}<700$~GeV values, while

1117: the $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and especially the $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV LC

1118: can explore much of the HB/FP region, even for 

1119: $m_{1/2}$ values far in excess of 700~GeV.

1120: %

1121: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=30plcall.eps,width=14cm} 

1122: \vspace*{-1cm} 

1123: \caption{Reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC for sparticles

1124: in the mSUGRA model for $\tan\beta =30$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.

1125: We also show the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron assuming 10 fb$^{-1}$

1126: of integrated luminosity (for isolated trileptons) and the reach of 

1127: the CERN LHC assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1128: Finally, the green shaded region shows points where the relic

1129: density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2<0.129$ as dictated by WMAP.

1130: We denote the kinematic limit for stau pair production at LCs

1131: by a dashed black contour.

1132: }

1133: \label{fig:30plcall}}

1134: %

1135: 

1136: The dark matter relic density is qualitatively different for

1137: the case of $\tan\beta =45$, $\mu <0$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:45mlcall}.

1138: Here, a large new dark matter allowed region has emerged, namely the

1139: $A$-annihilation funnel which is characteristic of the mSUGRA model at very 

1140: large $\tan\beta$. As $\tan\beta$ increases, the derived value

1141: of $m_A$ decreases, until a region where $m_A\simeq 2m_{\tz_1}$

1142: arises, where neutralinos can efficiently annihilate

1143: through the very broad $A$ and also the $H$ $s$-channel

1144: resonances. It can be seen from the figure that the 

1145: $A$-annihilation funnel region extends well beyond the reach of both 

1146: the $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC. In addition, the stau

1147: co-annihilation strip rises to $m_{1/2}$ values that are also beyond the reach

1148: of a 1~TeV LC.  The CERN LHC can explore

1149: essentially all of the $A$-annihilation funnel for this

1150: particular value of $\tan\beta$ and sign of $\mu$.

1151: Also, in this case, the $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV LC can explore

1152: the HB/FP region only up to $m_{1/2}\sim 600$~GeV where the

1153: $m_{\tw_1}=250$~GeV contour intersects the excluded region.

1154: The 1~TeV LC has a reach that extends again well beyond the limit of

1155: the LHC reach in the HB/FP region.

1156: %

1157: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=45mlcall.eps,width=14cm} 

1158: \vspace*{-1cm} 

1159: \caption{Reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC for sparticles

1160: in the mSUGRA model for $\tan\beta =45$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu <0$.

1161: We also show the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron assuming 10 fb$^{-1}$

1162: of integrated luminosity (for isolated trileptons) and the reach of 

1163: the CERN LHC assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1164: Finally, the green shaded region shows points where the relic

1165: density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2<0.129$ as dictated by WMAP.

1166: We denote the kinematic limit for stau pair production at LCs

1167: by a dashed black contour.}

1168: \label{fig:45mlcall}}

1169: 

1170: 

1171: 

1172: %

1173: In Fig.~\ref{fig:52plcall}, we show the $\tan\beta =52$ mSUGRA plane

1174: for $\mu >0$. In this case, the effect of the $A$-annihilation funnel is just 

1175: beginning to enter the $m_0\ vs.\ m_{1/2}$ plane from the left, so that

1176: points along the low $m_0$ forbidden region have a low relic density because

1177: neutralinos can annihilate via stau coannihilation, via $t$-channel

1178: slepton (mainly stau) exchange (low $m_{1/2}$) {\it and} partly due to

1179: annihilation through the $s$-channel $A$ resonance. In this case, the $A$

1180: resonance corridor is actually off the plot, but since the $A$ width is 

1181: so large ($\Gamma_A\sim 25$~GeV for $m_{1/2}\sim 600$~GeV), the

1182: value of $2m_{\tz_1}$ can be a few partial widths away from resonance and

1183: still give significant contributions to the neutralino annihilation

1184: rate.

1185: For this large a $\tan\beta$ value, the stau co-annihilation strip

1186: reaches $m_{1/2}$ values far beyond the reach of LCs or even the LHC.

1187: In the HB/FP region, the new cuts presented in Sec.~2 again give the LCs

1188: a reach well beyond the LHC for $m_{1/2}>700$~GeV.

1189: %

1190: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=52plcall.eps,width=14cm} 

1191: \vspace*{-1cm} 

1192: \caption{Reach of a $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV LC for sparticles

1193: in the mSUGRA model for $\tan\beta =52$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu >0$.

1194: We also show the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron assuming 10 fb$^{-1}$

1195: of integrated luminosity (for isolated trileptons) and the reach of 

1196: the CERN LHC assuming 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1197: Finally, the green shaded region shows points where the relic

1198: density $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2<0.129$ as dictated by WMAP.

1199: We denote the kinematic limit for stau pair production at LCs

1200: by a dashed black contour.}

1201: \label{fig:52plcall}}

1202: %

1203: 

1204: \section{Determination of Model Parameters in the HB/FP Region}

1205: 

1206: Once a signal for supersymmetry is established at a LC, then

1207: the next task will be to scrutinize the signal to 

1208: elucidate production and decay processes, extract sparticle  

1209: masses, spins and other quantum numbers, and ultimately

1210: to determine parameters of the underlying model.

1211: Many groups have examined different case 

1212: studies\cite{lcstudies}. 

1213: In this section, we will examine a

1214: case study in the low $m_{1/2}$ part of the HB/FP region in an

1215: attempt to extract the underlying parameters of the MSSM, which

1216: may in turn point to nature actually being described by parameters

1217: in the HB/FP region. 

1218: 

1219: Toward this end, we consider Case 2, with the mSUGRA parameters set

1220: given by

1221: $$m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign(\mu ) = 

1222: 2500 \ {\rm GeV}, 300 \ {\rm GeV}, 0, 30, +1 .$$ 

1223: Sample sparticle masses and parameters

1224: are given in Table~\ref{tab:cs2}. For these parameter choices, 

1225: $|\mu |< M_2$, so that the light chargino and lightest neutralino have

1226: significant higgsino components. The chargino mass

1227: $m_{\tw_1}=113.1$~GeV, and is just beyond the reach of LEP2. The LSP mass is

1228: $m_{\tz_1}=85.6$~GeV, so that the mass gap 

1229: $m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1}=27.5$~GeV. The $\tw_1$ decays via 3-body modes

1230: into $\tz_1 f\bar{f}'$, where $f$ and $f'$ are SM fermions. 

1231: The decays are dominated by the $W$ boson exchange graphs, so that decays

1232: $\tw_1\to\tz_1 f\bar{f}'$ have similar branching fractions to

1233: $W\to f\bar{f}'$ decays.

1234: 

1235: We begin by generating $e^+e^-\to$ all SUSY particles for the signal,

1236: and generate SM backgrounds using all ISAJET SM processes.

1237: We first require all events to pass the standard chargino pair cuts for

1238: $1\ell +2j +\eslt$ events as detailed at the beginning of Sec.~2.

1239: Next, following case study 4 of Ref. \cite{bmt}, we require

1240: missing mass $\mslash >240$~GeV. The resulting signal and also background

1241: events are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:ejjmjj} in the $E(jj)\ vs.\ m(jj)$ plane.

1242: SUSY and Higgs boson

1243: %

1244: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=mjjejj.eps,width=10cm} 

1245: \vspace*{-1.cm}

1246: \caption{Scatter plot of SUSY signal events (black dots) 

1247: and SM background (red x's) 

1248: after standard cuts plus $\mslash >240$~GeV cuts, in the

1249: $E_{jj}\ vs.\ m(jj)$ plane. Chargino pair events occupy

1250: the low $m(jj)$ region.

1251: }

1252: \label{fig:ejjmjj}}

1253: %

1254: events are denoted by black dots, while SM background events are

1255: denoted by red crosses. The chargino pair events populate the cluster

1256: at low $m(jj)$, since the dijet mass from chargino decay is bounded by

1257: the $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass difference. If the chargino decays  via

1258: $\tw_1 \to W\tz_1 \to q\bar{q}'\tz_1$, we would expect that 

1259: the $E(jj)$ distribution 

1260: would have well-defined upper and lower endpoints that depend only

1261: on $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ (and, of course $M_W$), 

1262: as in case study 1 of Ref. \cite{jlc1}.

1263: 

1264: 

1265: 

1266: In the HB/FP region, the $\tw_1-\tz_1$ mass gap is small, and the 

1267: decay to on-shell $W$ is kinematically inaccessible. We can, however,

1268: adapt this strategy by forcing ``two-body kinematics'' on these 

1269: events by first selecting events in narrow bins in $m(jj)$ and studying

1270: separately their $E(jj)$ distributions. This is done 

1271: in Fig.~\ref{fig:ejjbins}, where we show the $E(jj)$ distribution for

1272: $m(jj)$ bins of width 4~GeV, centered at 8, 12, 16 and 20~GeV,

1273: corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 100~fb$^{-1}$. This 

1274: is the ``data''.

1275: The energy of the dijet cluster is bounded by

1276: %

1277: \be

1278: \gamma (E_{jj}^*-\beta p_{jj}^*)\le E(jj)\le\gamma (E_{jj}^*+\beta p_{jj}^*),

1279: \label{eminemax}

1280: \ee  

1281: %

1282: where $E_{jj}^*=(m_{\tw_1}^2+m^2(jj)-m_{\tz_1}^2)/2m_{\tw_1}$, 

1283: $p_{jj}^*=\sqrt{E_{jj}^{*2}-m^2(jj)}$, $\gamma =E_{\tw_1}/m_{\tw_1}$, 

1284: $\beta =p_{jj}^*/ E_{jj}^*$ and 

1285: $E_{\tw_1}=\sqrt{s}/2$, up to 

1286: energy mismeasurement errors, jet clustering, particle losses,

1287: bremsstrahlung and finite width bins in $m(jj)$. 

1288: The corresponding ``theoretical predictions'' shown by the smooth curve

1289: are obtained by generating a much larger sample of the same events and 

1290: fitting this larger sample (corresponding to an integrated luminosity of

1291: 600~fb$^{-1}$) to the function,

1292: %We fit each distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:ejjbins} using the method of 

1293: %least squares by the function

1294: %

1295: {\small

1296: \be

1297: F(E,m_{\tw_1},m_{\tz_1};A,B,C,D)=N\left\{1+\exp\left [\frac{E_{min}+A-E}{B\sigma_{E_{min}}}\right ]\right\}^{-1}\left\{1+\exp\left [\frac{-E_{max}+C+E}{D\sigma_{E_{max}}}\right ]\right\}^{-1},

1298: \label{fitfun}

1299: \ee

1300: }

1301: %

1302: where $E_{min}$ and $E_{max}$ are calculated for each bin in $m(jj)$ taking 

1303: the central $m(jj)$ value in that bin, and input values for $m_{\tw_1}$ and 

1304: $m_{\tz_1}$; $\sigma_{E_{min}}$ 

1305: ($\sigma_{E_{max}}$) is the absolute value of the difference between 

1306: $E_{min}$ ($E_{max}$) at the highest $m(jj)$ value in each $m(jj)$ bin and 

1307: $E_{min}$ ($E_{max}$) for $m(jj)$ at the center of this bin. The small

1308: contribution from the SM background has also been included.

1309: %

1310: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=ejjbins.eps,width=14.5cm} 

1311: \vspace*{-1.cm}

1312: \caption{Distribution of $E_{jj}$ for $\ell +2-jet$ events after

1313: standard cuts together with $\mslash >240$~GeV, with events restricted to

1314: narrow bins of $m(jj)$. The histograms show these distributions for

1315: the synthetic data sample while the solid line shows the corresponding

1316: theoretical expectation obtained as described in the text.}

1317: \label{fig:ejjbins}}

1318: %

1319: The parameters  $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ are separately 

1320: determined for each bin 

1321: in $m(jj)$ and serve to fit the shapes of the corresponding

1322: distributions, while 

1323: $N$ is adjusted to give the normalization 

1324: near the maximum of $E_{jj}$ distribution

1325: corresponding to an 

1326: integrated luminosity of 100~fb$^{-1}$. 

1327: 

1328: 

1329: Next, we proceed to perform a $\chi^2$ fit to obtain $m_{\tw_1}$ and

1330: $m_{\tz_1}$ from our synthetic data sample, using the fitted function

1331: (\ref{fitfun}) for the theoretical prediction \footnote{Of course, the 

1332: parameters $E_{min}$, $\sigma_{E_{min}}$, $E_{max}$ and 

1333: $\sigma_{E_{max}}$ depend on $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ via (\ref{eminemax}) 

1334: and the equations following that. We assume that the parameters $A, B,

1335: C$ and $D$ do not change.}

1336: for chargino and neutralino

1337: masses close to those for Case 2. In other words, for a grid of points 

1338: in the ($m_{\tw_1}, m_{\tz_1}$) plane, we evaluate,

1339: %

1340: {\small

1341: \be

1342: \chi^2(m_{\tw_1},m_{\tz_1})

1343: =\sum_{bins}\sum_{E}\left (\frac{F(E,m_{\tw_1}(inp), m_{\tz_1}(inp))

1344: -F(E,m_{\tw_1},m_{\tz_1})}{\sqrt{F(E,m_{\tw_1},m_{\tz_1})}}\right )^2

1345: \ee

1346: }

1347: %

1348: where $\sum_{bins}$ means that we sum over all four bins in $m(jj)$, and 

1349: $\sum_{E}$ denotes the summation over all bins in $E_{jj}$ and find 

1350: the values of chargino and neutralino masses for which this quantity is

1351: minimized.  

1352: These best fit values, together with the regions where $\Delta \chi^2 \le

1353: 2.3$~(68.3\% CL) and $\le 4.6$ (90\% CL)  

1354: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mz1mw1}. We see that it is possible to

1355: determine $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ at approximately the 10\% level. 

1356: %

1357: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=mz1mw1.eps,width=9cm} 

1358: \vspace*{-1.cm}

1359: \caption{Fits to $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ and the associated error 

1360: ellipses for Case 2 in the text.

1361: }

1362: \label{fig:mz1mw1}}

1363: %

1364: 

1365: Having determined the values of $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$, 

1366: the next step is to examine what we can say about 

1367: the underlying MSSM parameters $\mu$, $M_2$ and $\tan\beta$ that enter

1368: the chargino mass matrix. To determine three unknowns, we need to 

1369: experimentally determine one more quantity which we take to be 

1370: the 

1371: cross section for $1\ell+ 2j+\eslt$ events from

1372: chargino pair production. Almost all the signal arises from

1373: chargino pair production  if we

1374: require $m(jj)<25$~GeV and $E(jj)<100$~GeV as in 

1375: Fig.~\ref{fig:ejjmjj}. For 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity,

1376: we find 1649 events, which translates to a measurement of

1377: $\sigma (e^+e^-\to\tw_1^+\tw_1^- )=16.5\pm 0.4$~fb (after all the cuts), 

1378: or 2.5\% statistical error.

1379: Other systematic errors will be present, although these may be 

1380: controllable by precision measurement of many SM processes.

1381: %Next, we form a $\chi^2$ value 

1382: We perform a fit to the MSSM parameters

1383: using the values of 

1384: $m_{\tw_1}$, $m_{\tz_1}$ and $\sigma (\tw_1^+\tw_1^- )$ as determined

1385: above. 

1386: We scan over MSSM

1387: model parameters, using 1-loop corrected mass relations for

1388: $m_{\tw_1}$ and $m_{\tz_1}$ as given by ISAJET 7.69. In

1389: Fig.~\ref{fig:m2mutanb},

1390: we show the regions of

1391: {\it a}) the $\mu\ vs.\ M_2$ plane, {\it b}) the 

1392: $\mu\ vs.\ \tan\beta$ plane and {\it c}) the $M_2\ vs.\ \tan\beta$ plane

1393: that are allowed at the 68.3\% and 90\% CL. In each case, we have 

1394: held the parameter not shown in the plane fixed at its input value.

1395: %Evidently from frame {\it a}) 

1396: %we find that $\mu =119.2^{+7.6}_{-7.8}$~GeV, and

1397: %$M_2=234.5^{+61.5}_{-30.8}$~GeV(at $68.3\%$~CL). $\mu$ and $M_2$

1398: The result in frame {\it a}) clearly shows that indeed $|\mu |<<M_2$,

1399: providing strong support that the model parameters 

1400: lie in the HB/FP region, and

1401: that the LSP has a significant higgsino component, enhancing the

1402: neutralino pair annihilation in the early universe.\footnote{That

1403: $|\mu|$ is small can presumably also be determined by studying chargino

1404: production using polarized beams. Note that our determination does not

1405: require this capability.} While $\mu$ and $M_2$ can be well determined

1406: (at least for this case study), it is also evident from the figure that

1407: a precise determination of $\tan\beta$ is not possible in this case.

1408: This may not be so surprising, since in the HB/FP region, SUSY scalar

1409: masses that depend on Yukawa couplings and hence $\tan\beta$ are so

1410: heavy that they essentially decouple from observable physics, and the

1411: region is relatively invariant under changes in $\tan\beta$.

1412: 

1413: 

1414: %

1415: \TABLE{

1416: \begin{tabular}{lc}

1417: \hline

1418: parameter & value (GeV) \\

1419: \hline

1420: $M_2$ & 236.5 \\

1421: $M_1$ & 122.0 \\

1422: $\mu$ & 121.6 \\

1423: $m_{\tg}$ & 833.2 \\

1424: $m_{\tu_L}$ & 2548.1 \\

1425: $m_{\te_L}$ & 2503.9 \\

1426: $m_{\tw_1}$ & 113.1 \\

1427: $m_{\tw_2}$ & 274.8 \\

1428: $m_{\tz_1}$ & 85.6 \\

1429: $m_{\tz_2}$ & 135.0 \\ 

1430: $m_{\tz_3}$ & 142.2 \\

1431: $m_{\tz_4}$ & 281.5 \\

1432: $m_A$ & 2129.4 \\

1433: $m_h$ & 118.8 \\

1434: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$& 0.0423\\

1435: $\scriptsize BF(b\to s\gamma)$ & $3.84\times 10^{-4}  $\\

1436: $\Delta a_\mu                $ & $2.3 \times  10^{-10}$\\ 

1437: \hline

1438: \label{tab:cs2}

1439: \end{tabular}

1440: \vspace*{-0.4cm}

1441: %

1442: \caption{Masses and parameters in~GeV units for Case 2 

1443: for $m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta ,\ sign\mu =$

1444: 2500~GeV, 300~GeV, 0, 30, +1 in the mSUGRA model.

1445: The spectra is obtained using ISAJET v7.69.}

1446: }

1447: %

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: %

1452: \FIGURE{\epsfig{file=m2mutanb.eps,width=11cm} 

1453: \vspace*{-1.cm}

1454: \caption{Fits to $\mu$, $M_2$ and $\tan\beta$

1455: from the measured values of $m_{\tw_1}$, $m_{\tz_1}$ and

1456: $\sigma (\tw_1^+\tw_1^- )$, and the associated 68.3\% and 90\% CL

1457: regions for Case 2. The green squares denote the fitted values

1458: while the white squares show the corresponding input values of the parameters.

1459: }

1460: \label{fig:m2mutanb}}

1461: %

1462: 

1463: \section{Summary and conclusions}

1464: 

1465: The recent constraint on the relic density of 

1466: neutralinos obtained from WMAP measurements, together with earlier

1467: determinations of 

1468: $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ and $(g-2)_\mu$ select out regions

1469: of parameter space of the mSUGRA model. In the stau co-annihilation

1470: region, the $H,A$-annihilation funnel and in the HB/FP regions, 

1471: very high values of $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ consistent

1472: with all constraints are possible: moreover, the so-called bulk region where 

1473: sparticles are light is disfavored.

1474: These considerations motivated us to re-assess the

1475: reach of various collider and non-accelerator search experiments for

1476: supersymmetry. In this paper, we re-evaluate the reach of a 

1477: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1~TeV linear $e^+e^-$ collider for SUSY in the

1478: context of the mSUGRA model, examining for the first time the reach

1479: in the HB/FP region. We find that a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV LC can explore

1480: most of the stau co-annihilation region if $\tan\beta \alt 30$,

1481: although along with a dilepton search,  a ditau search will 

1482: also be needed. The $H,A$-annihilation funnel typically extends beyond 

1483: the maximum reach of a LC. In the HB/FP region, chargino pairs may be

1484: kinematically accessible to a LC, but the energy release in chargino

1485: pairs can be small, reducing detection efficiency. Nonetheless,

1486: LCs should be able to probe much of the lower HB/FP region with 

1487: standard chargino searches. In the upper HB/FP region, new cuts are proposed

1488: to allow signals from 

1489: much of the small $\tw_1 -\tz_1$ mass gap region to be

1490: observable above SM backgrounds. 

1491: %Beam polarization is not necessary, and does not appear to help.

1492: In this region, the reach of even a 500~GeV LC can

1493: exceed that of the CERN LHC! This is all the more important in that it 

1494: occurs in a region of model parameter space which is allowed by all

1495: constraints, including those imposed by WMAP.

1496: 

1497: One should also stress that the LCs reach is also complimentary

1498: to reach of direct dark matter search experiments (DDMS)

1499: even though both kinds of experiments 

1500: similarly cover much of the HB/FP region~\cite{ddmsearch}.

1501: The complementarity of a LC occurs for the region 

1502: which is very close to the no REWSB border.

1503: In this region, the neutralino relic density is so low that DDMS experiments

1504: are  not able to cover this part of the parameter space

1505: even though the higgsino component 

1506: of neutralino is significant. 

1507: This region can be probed by experiments at a LC.

1508: 

1509: 

1510: If a supersymmetric signal is found, then the next obvious step will be

1511: to determine the

1512: underlying MSSM parameters. We have performed a case study in the 

1513: low $m_{1/2}$ part of the hyperbolic branch.

1514: %where fine-tuning is claimed

1515: %to be low. 

1516: In this region, we show that a measurement of $m_{\tw_1}$

1517: and $m_{\tz_1}$ is possible at the 10\% level. A measurement of the 

1518: total chargino pair cross section to 2.5\% allows a 

1519: determination of MSSM parameters $M_2$ and $\mu$, although 

1520: $\tan\beta$ is more difficult to pin down. The resulting determination

1521: of $M_2$ and $\mu$

1522: would point to a model with higgsino-like charginos and 

1523: neutralinos. Together with absence (or low levels)

1524: of squark signals at the LHC,

1525: and the agreement of the chargino cross section with the expected

1526: $s$-channel contribution (pointing to heavy sneutrinos) these measurements

1527: would be indicative of an mSUGRA-type model

1528: in the HB/FP region.  In  case parameters are in the upper

1529: part of the hyperbolic branch, LC event characteristics may be 

1530: sufficient at least to establish the production of massive particles,

1531: with associated decay products that are quite soft. An examination  

1532: of how one would obtain information about the underlying scenario

1533: would be worthy of exploration. 

1534: 

1535: \acknowledgments

1536:  

1537: This research was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy

1538: under contracts number DE-FG02-97ER41022 and DE-FG03-94ER40833.

1539: 	

1540: % ---- Bibliography ----

1541: %

1542: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1543: %

1544: \bibitem{constraints} H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. Mizukoshi,

1545: X. Tata and Y. Wang, \jhep{0207}{2002}{050} and \hepph{0210441};

1546: for a review, see G. Eigen, R. Gaitskell, G. Kribs and K. Matchev,

1547: \hepph{0112312}.

1548: %

1549: \bibitem{bsg} R.~Barate {\it et al.} (Aleph Collaboration),

1550: \plb{429}{1998}{169}; D.~Cronin-Hennessy {\it et al.} (Cleo Collaboration),

1551: \prl{87}{2001}{251808}; K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), 

1552: \plb{511}{2001}{151}; theoretical results for $BF(b\to s\gamma )$ in 

1553: the SM are contained in

1554: {\it e.g.} P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak, \npb{611}{2001}{338};

1555: supersymmetric contributions are shown in {\it e.g.}

1556: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{55}{1997}{3201} 

1557: and H. Baer, M. Brhlik, D. Castano and

1558: X. Tata, \prd{58}{1998}{015007}. 

1559: %

1560: \bibitem{e821} G. Bennett {\it et al.} (E821 Collaboration),

1561: \prl{89}{2002}{101804}; a recent theoretical evaluation is given in

1562: M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. Hocker and Z. Zhang, \epjc{31}{2003}{503};

1563: a survey of contributions from supersymmetric models can be found in

1564: H. Baer, C. Balazs, J. Ferrandis and X. Tata, \prd{64}{2001}{035004}.

1565: %

1566: \bibitem{wmap} D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

1567: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: 

1568: Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1569: arXiv:astro-ph/0302209.

1570: %

1571: \bibitem{dimitri} For a review of WMAP implications for supersymmetric models, 

1572: see A. Lahanas, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, 

1573: \ijmpd{12}{2003}{1529}.

1574: %

1575: \bibitem{msugra} A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath, 

1576: \prl{49}{1982}{970};

1577: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy, 

1578: \plb{119}{1982}{343};

1579: N. Ohta, \ptp{70}{1983}{542};

1580: L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, \prd{27}{1983}{2359};

1581: for reviews, see H.~P.~Nilles, {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1, and

1582: P. Nath, \hepph{0307123}.

1583: %

1584: \bibitem{haim} H. Goldberg, \prl{50}{1983}{1419}; J. Ellis, J. Hagelin, 

1585: D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive and M. Srednicki, \npb{238}{1984}{453}.

1586: %

1587: \bibitem{gjk} G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest,

1588: \prep{267}{1996}{195}.

1589: %

1590: \bibitem{bb} H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597}.

1591: %

1592: \bibitem{ellis} J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,

1593: \plb{510}{2001}{236}.

1594: %

1595: \bibitem{diego} G. Anderson and D. Castano,

1596: \prd{52}{1995}{1693} and \plb{347}{1995}{300}.

1597: %

1598: \bibitem{lep2h} ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Colaborations, 

1599: \plb{565}{2003}{61}.

1600: %

1601: \bibitem{davier} See M. Davier {\it et al.}, Ref. \cite{e821}.

1602: %

1603: \bibitem{wmap_pap} J. Ellis, K. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. Spanos,

1604: \plb{565}{2003}{176}; U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti and P. Nath,

1605: \prd{68}{2003}{035005}; A. Lahanas and D. V. Nanopoulos, \plb{568}{2003}{55}.

1606: %

1607: \bibitem{sug_chi2} H. Baer and C. Bal\'azs, 

1608: JCAP{\bf 0305} (2003) 006.

1609: %

1610: \bibitem{ellis_likely} J. Ellis, K. Olive, Y. Santoso and V. Spanos, 

1611: \hepph{0310356} (2003).

1612: %

1613: \bibitem{stau} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. Olive, 

1614: \plb{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,

1615: \app{13}{2000}{181}.

1616: %

1617: \bibitem{Afunnel} M. Drees and M. Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{376}; 

1618: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{57}{1998}{567};

1619: H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante,

1620: P. Quintana and X. Tata, \prd{63}{2001}{015007};

1621: A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. Kneur, \jhep{0108}{2001}{055};

1622: J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,

1623: \plb{510}{2001}{236}; L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and T. Nihei,

1624: \jhep{0108}{2001}{024}; 

1625: A. Lahanas and V. Spanos, \epjc{23}{2002}{185}.

1626: %

1627: \bibitem{ccn} K. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, 

1628: \prd{58}{1998}{096004}.

1629: %

1630: \bibitem{fmm} J. Feng, K. Matchev and T. Moroi, 

1631: \prl{84}{2000}{2322} and \prd{61}{2000}{075005}.

1632: %

1633: \bibitem{bcpt} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata,

1634: \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and \prd{53}{1996}{6241}.

1635: %

1636: \bibitem{bb2} See H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Ref. \cite{Afunnel}

1637: %

1638: \bibitem{fmw} J. Feng, K. Matchev and F. Wilczek,

1639: \plb{482}{2000}{388} and \prd{63}{2001}{045024}.

1640: %

1641: \bibitem{deboer} W. de Boer, M. Herold, C. Sander and V. Zhukov,

1642: \hepph{0309029}.

1643: %

1644: \bibitem{bktsens} H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata,

1645: \jhep{0307}{2003}{020}.

1646: %

1647: \bibitem{bkt}  H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata, Ref.\cite{bktsens};

1648: see also H. Baer, M. Drees, F. Paige, P. Quintana and X. Tata,

1649: \prd{61}{2000}{095007}; V. Barger and C. Kao, \prd{60}{1999}{115015};

1650: K. Matchev and D. Pierce, \plb{467}{1999}{225} for earlier work on the

1651: trilepton signal.

1652: %

1653: \bibitem{bbbkt} H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas

1654: and X. Tata, \jhep{0306}{2003}{054}. For earlier work, see

1655: H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and 

1656: \prd{53}{1996}{6241}; H. Baer, C. H. Chen, M. Drees, F. Paige and X. Tata, 

1657: \prd{59}{1999}{055014}; S. Abdullin and F. Charles, \npb{547}{1999}{60};

1658: S. Abdullin {\it et al.} (CMS Collaboration), \hepph{9806366};

1659: B. Allanach, J. Hetherington, A. Parker and B. Webber, 

1660: \jhep{08}{2000}{017}.

1661: %

1662: \bibitem{ddmsearch} H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev and J. O'Farrill,

1663: JCAP{\bf 0309} (2003) 007; see also 

1664: V.~A.~Bednyakov, H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and S.~Kovalenko,

1665: %``On Susy Dark Matter Detection With Spinless Nuclei,''

1666: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 7128 (1994)

1667: [arXiv:hep-ph/9401262];

1668: E.~Diehl, G.~L.~Kane, C.~F.~Kolda and J.~D.~Wells,

1669: %``Theory, phenomenology, and prospects for detection of supersymmetric dark matter,''

1670: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 4223 (1995)

1671: [arXiv:hep-ph/9502399];

1672: R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,

1673: %``Predictions of neutralino dark matter event rates in minimal supergravity unification,''

1674: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 2374 (1996)

1675: [arXiv:hep-ph/9509260];

1676: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, Ref. \cite{Afunnel};

1677: M. Drees, M. Nojiri, D. P. Roy and Y. Yamada, \prd{56}{1997}{276}; 

1678: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,

1679: %``Probing the supersymmetric parameter space by WIMP direct detection,''

1680: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 125003 (2001)

1681: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010203]; J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Ferstl and K.~A.~Olive,

1682: %``Exploration of elastic scattering rates for supersymmetric dark matter,''

1683: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 065016 (2001)

1684: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007113]; E.~Accomando, R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,

1685: %``Neutralino proton cross sections in supergravity models,''

1686: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 585}, 124 (2000)

1687: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001019];

1688: M.~E.~Gomez and J.~D.~Vergados,

1689: %``Cold dark matter detection in SUSY models at large tan(beta),''

1690: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 512}, 252 (2001)

1691: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012020];A.~B.~Lahanas, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and V.~C.~Spanos,

1692: %``Dark matter direct searches and the anomalous magnetic moment of muon,''

1693: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 94 (2001)

1694: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107151];E.~A.~Baltz and P.~Gondolo,

1695: %``Implications of muon anomalous magnetic moment for supersymmetric dark  matter,''

1696: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 5004 (2001)

1697: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102147]; 

1698: Y.~G.~Kim, T.~Nihei, L.~Roszkowski and R.~Ruiz de Austri,

1699: %``Upper and lower limits on neutralino WIMP mass and spin-independent scattering cross section, and impact of new (g-2)(mu) measurement,''

1700: JHEP {\bf 0212}, 034 (2002)

1701: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208069];

1702: for a recent review and further references, 

1703: see the review by C. Munoz, \hepph{0309346}.

1704: %

1705: \bibitem{bmt} H. Baer, R. Munroe and X. Tata, \prd{54}{1996}{6735}.

1706: %

1707: \bibitem{nlcreach} A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. L. Kneur, 

1708: Ref. \cite{Afunnel}; 

1709: See also R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta, T. Kamon and V. Khotilovich, 

1710: \hepph{0308159}.

1711: %

1712: \bibitem{jlc1} T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi and

1713: Y. Okada, \prd{51}{1995}{3153}; see also JLC-1, KEK Report 92-16 (1992).

1714: %

1715: \bibitem{isajet} H.~Baer, F.~Paige, S.~Protopopescu and X.~Tata,

1716: \hepph{0312045}.

1717: %

1718: \bibitem{PChen} P. Chen, \prd{46}{1992}{1186}.

1719: %

1720: \bibitem{stop} 

1721: This region appears in H. Baer, C. H. Chen, R. Munroe, F. Paige and X. Tata,

1722: \prd{51}{1995}{1046}. Co-annihilation calculations may be found in

1723: C. Boehm, A. Djouadi and M. Drees, \prd{62}{2000}{035012};

1724: J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso, \app{18}{2003}{395};

1725: J. Edsjo, M. Schelke, P. Ullio and P. Gondolo,

1726: JCAP{\bf 0304} (2003) 001.

1727: %

1728: \bibitem{dkt} M.~Drees, C.~S.~Kim and X.~Tata, \prd{37}{1988}{784}.

1729: %

1730: \bibitem{pythia} T. Sjostrand {\it et al.}, \cpc{135}{2001}{238}.

1731: %

1732: \bibitem{comphep} CompHEP~v.33.23, 

1733: by A. Pukhov {\it et al.}, hep-ph/9908288 (1999)

1734: %

1735: \bibitem{ltanb} H. Baer, C. H. Chen, M. Drees, F. Paige and X. Tata,

1736: \prl{79}{1997}{986}. 

1737: %

1738: %\bibitem{chen} C. H. Chen, M. Drees and J. F. Gunion, 

1739: %\prd{55}{1997}{330} [Erratum-{\it ibid.}  {\bf D60}, (1999) 039901].

1740: %

1741: \bibitem{barger} V.~Barger, T.~Han and J.~Jiang, \prd{63}{2001}{075002}.

1742: %

1743: \bibitem{bbb} H. Baer, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev, 

1744: \jhep{0203}{2002}{042}. 

1745: %

1746: \bibitem{gondolo} J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, \prd{56}{1997}{1879}; this is based

1747: on earlier work by G. Gelmini and P. Gondolo, 

1748: \npb{351}{1991}{623}.

1749: %

1750: \bibitem{lcstudies} See Ref. \cite{jlc1, bmt} and also M. Nojiri,

1751: K. Fujii and T. Tsukamoto, \prd{54}{1996}{6756}; M.~N.~Danielson {\it et

1752: al.}, SLAC-REPRINT-1996-010

1753: \href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=slac-reprint-1996-010}{SPIRES

1754: entry} {\it Prepared for 1996 DPF / DPB Summer Study on New Directions

1755: for High-Energy Physics (Snowmass 96), Snowmass, Colorado, 25 Jun - 12

1756: Jul 1996}; see also J. Feng and M. Nojiri, \hepph{0210390}

1757: and R. Godbole, \hepph{0102191}.

1758: 

1759: 

1760: 

1761: 

1762: 

1763: 

1764: 

1765: \end{thebibliography}

1766: 

1767: \end{document}

1768: