1: %%\documentstyle[eqsecnum,prd,aps,epsfig]{revtex}
2: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,prl,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
3: %
4: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,prc,floats,epsfig]{revtex}
5: %
6: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,floats,epsfig,twocolumn]{revtex}
7: \tighten
8: \let\jnfont=\rm
9: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B#1},}
10: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
11: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
12: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
13: \def\ZPC#1,{{\jnfont Z.~Phys.\ C }{\bf #1},}
14: %
15: \def\gev{\rm GeV}
16: \def\etmiss{{\overlay{/}{E}}_T}
17: \def\ptmiss{{\overlay{/}{p}}_T}
18: %\def\ptmiss{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $p_T$}}}
19: %\def\ETslash{\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $E_T$}}}
20: %\newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\hskip-12.5pt\raise1.6pt\hbox{$<$}\;}
21: %\newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\hskip-12.5pt\raise1.6pt\hbox{$>$}\;}
22: %
23: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\oversim<}}
24: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\oversim>}}
25: \def\oversim#1#2{\lower0.5ex\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip0pt
26: \lineskiplimit0pt\everycr{}\tabskip0pt
27: \halign{$\mathsurround0pt #1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr #2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
28: %
29: \begin{document}
30: \draft
31: \preprint{}
32:
33: \preprint{
34: \vbox{\hbox{\bf MADPH--03--1358}
35: \hbox{\bf TU-701}
36: \hbox{\bf hep-ph/0312129}
37: }}
38:
39: \title{ The FCNC top-squark decay as a probe of squark mixing}
40:
41: \author{\ \\[2mm] Tao Han$^{1,2}$, Ken-ichi Hikasa$^3$,
42: Jin Min Yang$^{2,3}$, Xinmin Zhang$^4$ }
43:
44: \address{ \ \\[2mm]
45: $^1$ {\it Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin,
46: Madison, WI 53706, USA}\\
47: $^2$ {\it Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica,
48: Beijing 100080, China}\\
49: $^3$ {\it Department of Physics, Tohoku University,
50: Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8578, Japan}\\
51: $^4$ {\it Institute of High Energy Physics, Academia Sinica,
52: Beijing 100039, China }}
53:
54: \maketitle
55:
56: \begin{abstract}
57: In supersymmetry (SUSY) the flavor mixing between top-squark (stop)
58: and charm-squark (scharm)
59: induces the flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) stop decay
60: $\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$.
61: Searching for this decay serves as a probe of soft SUSY breaking
62: parameters. Focusing on the stop pair production followed by the FCNC decay
63: of one stop and the charge-current decay of the other stop, we investigate
64: the potential of detecting this FCNC stop decay at the Fermilab Tevatron,
65: the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the next-generation $e^+e^-$ linear
66: collider (LC). We find that this decay may not be accessible at the Tevatron,
67: but could be observable at the LHC and the LC with high sensitivity
68: for some part of parameter space.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \pacs{14.80.Ly, 11.30.Hv}
72:
73: %\medskip
74: \section{ Introduction}
75:
76: Flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) interactions are strongly
77: suppressed in the Standard Model (SM) by the GIM mechanism, which
78: is consistent with the current experimental observation. In theories
79: beyond the SM the FCNC interactions are not generally suppressed,
80: and thus are subject to stringent constraints from experiments \cite{fcp}.
81: On the other hand, the study of FCNC interactions, especially related
82: to the top quark \cite{hpz}, will play an important
83: role in testing the SM and probing new physics.
84:
85: Weak scale supersymmetry (SUSY) as a leading candidate for
86: new physics beyond the SM provides no further understanding
87: about the origin of flavor. In fact, it extends the mystery of flavor
88: by necessarily adding three families of squarks and sleptons.
89: Without additional assumptions for flavor structure of the soft SUSY
90: breaking, supersymmetric theories often encounter phenomenological
91: difficulties, known as the SUSY flavor problem \cite{susyf}.
92: This in turn implies that
93: there may exist rich FCNC phenomenology. Some highly suppressed
94: FCNC processes in the SM may be enhanced in
95: supersymmetric models to a level accessible in the
96: future experiments, such as $t\to cV$ ($V=\gamma, Z,g$)
97: and $t\to ch$ \cite{tcvh_sm,tcv_mssm,tch_mssm}.
98: On the other hand, sfermions may have large flavor mixings
99: via the soft SUSY breaking terms.
100: Even if the flavor-diagonality is assumed for sfermions at the
101: grand unification scale,
102: the flavor mixings at weak scale are naturally
103: generated through renormalization group equations \cite{duncan}.
104: Therefore, hunting for the exotic FCNC processes predicted
105: by SUSY would be one of the important aspects in SUSY
106: searches at the upcoming colliders.
107:
108: There have been intensive studies for the FCNC phenomenology
109: in the slepton sector \cite{hall}. In the squark sector, some
110: interesting FCNC phenomena may arise from the mixing between
111: the stop and scharm.
112: On the experimental side, we note that despite of the strong
113: constraints on the mixing between first and second generation squarks
114: from $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ mixing, the mixing between stop and scharm is
115: subject to less low-energy constraints and could be maximal \cite{review}
116: although a recent analysis \cite{Endo} of electric dipole moment of
117: mercury atom indicated a nontrivial constraint on
118: the $\tilde t_L-\tilde c_L$ mixing.
119: Such a large mixing would
120: reveal itself in some processes or subject to some constraints in future
121: collider experiments. On the theoretical side, in the Minimal Supersymmetric
122: Standard Model (MSSM) the stop-scharm
123: mixing is likely to be large even if there is no mixing at tree level,
124: as first realized in \cite{hikasa}.
125: The stop-scharm mixing induces the FCNC stop decay
126: $\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$, where $\tilde t_1$ is the
127: lighter one of the stop mass eigenstates and
128: $\tilde \chi^0_1$ is the lightest neutralino assumed
129: to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP).
130: Early searches for this channel at the Tevatron experiments
131: have set the bounds $ m_{\tilde t_1} \gsim 120$ GeV for
132: $m_{\tilde \chi^0_1}\sim 40$ GeV \cite{FCNC}. However,
133: if kinematically accessible, the tree-level charged-current (CC) decay mode
134: $\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde \chi^+_1$, where $\tilde \chi^+_1$ is
135: the lighter chargino, will be most likely dominant although it may be
136: via a three-body decay with $\tilde \chi^{+*}_1 \to \ell^+ \tilde\nu$
137: \cite{stop-3-body}.
138: Experimental searches for this mode have also been performed
139: at the Tevatron \cite{FCCC}, and the current bounds are
140: $ m_{\tilde t_1} \gsim 135$ GeV for $m_{\tilde \nu}\sim 80$ GeV.
141: In their analyses, however, the decay branching fraction of $\tilde t_1$
142: has been simply assumed to be $100\%$ for each channel under
143: their consideration. There have also been studies \cite{hosch}
144: on the possibility of finding the FCNC stop decay from top
145: quark pair production followed by the decay
146: $t\to \tilde t_1 \chi^0_1\to c \tilde \chi^0_1 \tilde \chi^0_1$
147: of one top and the SM decay of the other top.
148: It is shown that such a decay mode, if realized in the $t\bar t$
149: pair events with a substantial branching fraction, could be
150: observable in some part of the SUSY parameter space
151: at Run 2 of the Tevatron collider \cite{cdf-tt}.
152:
153: In this article, we focus on the direct stop pair production followed by the
154: FCNC decay of one stop ($\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$) and the
155: charge-current decay of the other stop ($\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde \chi^+_1$).
156: We allow arbitrary branching fractions for these two channels.
157: By simulating both the signal and the SM backgrounds, we examine
158: to what levels the branching ratio and the stop-scharm mixing parameter
159: can be probed at the Tevatron collider, the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
160: and the 500 GeV next-generation $e^+e^-$ linear collider (LC).
161:
162: \section{ Stop-scharm Mixing and FCNC Stop Decay}
163:
164: Following Ref.~\cite{hikasa}, we start in the framework of the MSSM
165: and assume that the tree level interactions are flavor
166: diagonal for stops and scharms. The flavor mixing between stops and
167: scharms is then induced via loops. The dominant effects are from the
168: logarithmic divergences caused by soft breaking terms. Such divergences
169: must be subtracted using a soft counter-term at the SUSY breaking scale,
170: such as the Plank scale $M_p$ in supergravity (SUGRA) models. Thus a large
171: logarithmic factor $(1/16\pi^2)\ln (M_p^2/m_W^2)\approx 0.5$ remains
172: after renormalization\footnote{For some mechanisms of
173: SUSY breaking other than gravity mediation,
174: such as gauge mediation, the SUSY breaking scale can be much lower than
175: the Plank scale and thus this factor may be smaller.}.
176: In the approximation of neglecting
177: the charm quark mass, $\tilde c_R$ does not mix with stops. The mixing
178: of $\tilde c_L$ with stops result in the physical states given approximately
179: by
180: \begin{eqnarray} \label{mix}
181: \left (\begin{array}{l}
182: \tilde t_1\\ \tilde t_2\\ \tilde c_L
183: \end{array} \right )_{\rm phys}=\left (\begin{array}{lll}
184: 1 & 0 & \epsilon \\
185: 0 & 1 & \epsilon' \\
186: -\epsilon & -\epsilon' &1
187: \end{array} \right )
188: \left (\begin{array}{l}
189: \tilde t_1\\ \tilde t_2\\ \tilde c_L \end{array} \right ),
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: where
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \label{eps}
194: \epsilon = \frac{\Delta_L \cos\theta_t+\Delta_R \sin\theta_t}
195: {m^2_{\tilde t_1}-m^2_{\tilde c_L}},\qquad
196: \epsilon' = \frac{\Delta_R \cos\theta_t-\Delta_L \sin\theta_t}
197: {m^2_{\tilde t_2}-m^2_{\tilde c_L}},
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: with $\Delta_{L,R}$ given by
200: \begin{eqnarray}
201: \label{dl}
202: \Delta_L&=& -\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\ln \frac{M_p^2}{m_W^2}
203: \frac{V_{tb}^*V_{cb}m_b^2}{2m_W^2s_W^2}(1+\tan^2\beta)
204: \left ( \tilde M^2_Q+\tilde M^2_D+\tilde M^2_{H_1}
205: +\vert A_d\vert^2 \right ),\\
206: \label{dr}
207: \Delta_R&=& -\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\ln \frac{M_p^2}{m_W^2}
208: \frac{V_{tb}^*V_{cb}m_b^2}{2m_W^2s_W^2}(1+\tan^2\beta)\
209: m_t A_d^*.
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: $\theta_t$ is the mixing angle\footnote{Note that our definition of
212: $\theta_t$ differs from that in Ref.~\cite{hikasa} by a minus sign. }
213: between left- and right-handed stops,
214: defined by
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: \left( \begin{array}{l} \tilde t_1 \\ \tilde t_2 \end{array} \right)
217: =\left( \begin{array}{ll} \cos\theta_t & \sin\theta_t \\
218: -\sin\theta_t & \cos\theta_t \end{array} \right)
219: \left( \begin{array}{l} \tilde t_L \\ \tilde t_R \end{array} \right).
220: \end{eqnarray}
221:
222: In the above, we have adopted the notation in Ref.~\cite{gunion}, with
223: $m_{\tilde t_1}<m_{\tilde t_2}$.
224: $\tilde M^2_Q$, $\tilde M^2_D$ and $\tilde M^2_{H_1}$ are soft-breaking
225: mass terms for left-handed squark doublet $\tilde Q$, right-handed down
226: squark $\tilde D$ and Higgs doublet $H_1$, respectively.
227: $A_d$ is the coefficient of the trilinear term $H_1 \tilde Q \tilde D$
228: in soft-breaking terms and $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ is ratio of the vacuum
229: expectation values of the two Higgs doublets. Note that $\tilde c_L$ is
230: a mass eigenstate in our analysis since we do not consider the mixing
231: between $\tilde c_L$ and $\tilde c_R$, which is proportional to
232: the charm quark mass.
233:
234: From the above equations, we note that besides the large logarithmic
235: factor $\ln (M_p^2/m_W^2)$, the mixings are proportional to $\tan^2\beta$
236: and thus can be further enhanced at large $\tan\beta$.
237: If we assume that all soft SUSY-breaking parameters are of
238: the same orders in magnitude, we then have typically
239: $\epsilon\approx 0.01(\tan\beta/10)^2$ and thus $\epsilon$
240: is much smaller than unity. (Note that to make the approximate
241: expansion of Eq.~(\ref{mix}) valid, $\epsilon$ should be much
242: smaller than unity.)
243: Without such an assumption, $\epsilon$ can be larger
244: because in the sum
245: $\tilde M^2_Q+\tilde M^2_D+\tilde M^2_{H_1}+\vert A_d\vert^2$
246: only $\tilde M_Q$ is related to stop and scharm masses while other
247: parameters are independently free in the MSSM.
248:
249: The stop mass $m_{\tilde t_1}$ is particularly important for our study and will be
250: retained as a free parameter in our numerical calculations.
251: The lightness of the stop is quite well motivated in some SUSY models
252: like SUGRA and is also preferred by electroweak baryogenesis \cite{Carena}.
253: On the other hand, the current lower bound on its mass is about
254: 135 GeV \cite{FCCC}, albeit under some assumptions.
255: We will thus explore the mass range
256: \begin{equation}
257: \label{stop-range}
258: 150\ {\gev} < m_{\tilde t_1} < 250\ {\gev}
259: \end{equation}
260: where the upper end is the kinematic limit for a 500 GeV linear collider.
261: So we assume an upper bound of about 250 GeV in our numerical analysis.
262:
263: The flavor mixing between stop and scharm will induce the FCNC
264: stop decay $\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$.
265: Since the charge-current decay $\tilde t_1\to b \tilde \chi^+_1$
266: can be the other important decay mode,
267: the branching ratio of the FCNC decay is obtained by
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: \label{bf}
270: BF=\frac{\Gamma(\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1)}
271: {\Gamma(\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1)
272: + \Gamma(\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde \chi^+_1)}
273: \end{eqnarray}
274: with
275: \begin{eqnarray}\label{width1}
276: & &\Gamma(\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_j)
277: =\frac{\alpha}{2} \vert \epsilon\vert^2
278: m_{\tilde t_1}
279: \left (1-\frac{m^2_{\tilde \chi^0_1}}{m^2_{\tilde t_1}}\right )^2 \
280: \left\vert e_c N'_{j1}+\frac{1}{s_W c_W}(\frac{1}{2}-e_c s_W^2) N'_{j2}
281: \right \vert^2 \, ,\\
282: \label{width2}
283: & & \Gamma(\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde \chi^+_j)
284: =\frac{\alpha}{4} m_{\tilde t_1}
285: \left (1-\frac{m^2_{\tilde \chi^+_1}}{m^2_{\tilde t_1}}\right )^2 \
286: \left |-\frac{V_{j1}^*}{s_W}\cos\theta_t
287: +\frac{m_t V_{j2}^*}{\sqrt{2} m_W s_W \sin\beta}\sin\theta_t\right |^2\, .
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: Here, $N'_{ij}$ denotes the matrix element projecting the $i$-th neutralino
290: into photino ($j=1$), zino ($j=2$), and two neutral Higgsinos ($j=3,4$).
291: $V_{ij}$ is the matrix element projecting the $i$-th left-handed chargino
292: into wino ($j=1$) and the charged Higgsino ($j=2$).
293: The gaugino masses and mixing are determined by the soft
294: SUSY-breaking parameters $M_1, M_2$, as well as $\mu,\ \tan\beta$.
295: There are strong theoretical motivations to further constrain these
296: parameters \cite{run2}.
297: First of all, the supergravity models predict the unification relation
298: $M_1=\frac{5}{3}M_2\tan^2\theta_W\simeq 0.5 M_2$. Radiative electroweak
299: symmetry breaking generally yields a large $\mu$ parameter, although the
300: naturalness arguments prefer a lower value of $\mu$. This
301: scenario leads to the LSP $\tilde \chi^0_1$ bino-like, and
302: $\tilde \chi^+_1$ wino-like, which is also favored for a SUSY
303: dark matter interpretation. Regarding the other parameter $\tan\beta$,
304: the LEP experiments excluded small values $\tan\beta<2$ \cite{LEP_higgs}.
305: For the sake of illustraton, we thus choose the following representative
306: set of parameters
307: \begin{eqnarray} \label{para}
308: M_2=150 {\rm ~GeV},\ \mu=300 {\rm ~GeV},\ \tan\beta=10.
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: The chargino and neutralino masses in units of GeV are then given by
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: & & m_{\tilde\chi^+_1}=133,\ ~m_{\tilde\chi^+_2}=328,~\nonumber\\
313: \label{char-mass}
314: & & m_{\tilde\chi^0_1}=72,\ ~m_{\tilde\chi^0_2}=134,\
315: ~m_{\tilde\chi^0_3}=308,\ ~m_{\tilde\chi^0_4}=327.
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: In our analysis the chargino
318: $\tilde \chi^+_1$ must be lighter than stop $\tilde t_1$. Such a light
319: chargino decays into $f f' \tilde \chi^0_1$ ($f$ is a quark or lepton)
320: through exchanging a $W$-boson, or a charged Higgs boson,
321: a slepton, a squark \cite{hikasa2}.
322: Since, typically, the charged Higgs, sleptons and squarks are much heavier
323: than the $W$-boson, such decays occur dominantly through the
324: $W$-exchange diagram and the branching ratio for the clean
325: channels $\tilde \chi^+_1\to \ell^+ \nu\chi^0$ ($\ell=e$ and $\mu$)
326: is thus approximately 2/9.
327:
328: With the parameters in Eq.~(\ref{para}), the branching fraction
329: $B(\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1)$ in the no mixing limit
330: is approximately given by
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: BF \approx \left \{ \begin{array} {ll}
333: 1.3 \vert \epsilon\vert^2, &{~~{\rm for}~ m_{\tilde t_1}=150~\gev } , \\
334: 0.16 \vert \epsilon\vert^2,& { ~~{\rm for}~ m_{\tilde t_1}=250~\gev }.
335: \end{array} \right.
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: For a lighter $m_{\tilde t_1}$, the decay $\tilde t_1 \to b \tilde \chi^+_1$
338: is kinematically suppressed; and for a heavier $m_{\tilde t_1}$,
339: this charged-current channel becomes dominant.
340:
341: Note that our
342: choice of parameters in Eq.~(\ref{para}) is rather representative
343: for which the decay modes $\tilde t_1\to c\tilde \chi^0_1$
344: and $b \tilde \chi^+_1$ are both kinematically accessible.
345: The exception is in the Higgsino-like region ($M_2>|\mu|$).
346: In this case, both the LSP and $\tilde \chi^+_1$ are mainly
347: Higgsino-like, and are about degenerate in mass close to $\mu$.
348: The lepton produced in the decay
349: $\tilde \chi^+_1\to \tilde\chi^0_1 \ell^+ \nu$ will be too soft to
350: be experimentally identifiable, making the signal difficult to
351: observe. As we indicated earlier, this situation is disfavored
352: by the arguments of SUSY-GUT and dark matter. We will thus not
353: pursue this special case further.
354:
355: \section{ Observability of FCNC Stop Decay at Colliders}
356:
357: Since the stop $\tilde t_1$ is likely to be significantly
358: lighter than any other squark and thus the production rate
359: of $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1}$ is larger than other squark
360: pairs, as well as than $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_2}$ or
361: $\tilde t_2 \tilde{\bar t_2}$, we only consider the
362: production of $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1}$ in our analysis.
363: Inclusion of the channels $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_2}$ and
364: $\tilde t_2 \tilde{\bar t_2}$ would enhance the signal observability
365: although the kinematics of the final states would be more involved to study.
366: For a light stop with a mass close to the top
367: quark, the QCD corrections enhance the total cross section of stop pair
368: by a factor of about $1.2$ at the Tevatron energy and $1.4$ at the LHC
369: energy~\cite{zerwas}. This enhancement (the so-called $K$ factor)
370: will be taken into account
371: in our calculation. The one-loop corrections to stop pair production in
372: a 500 GeV $e^+e^-$ collider were found to increase the cross section by
373: 10--20\%\ \cite{stop_NLC} and we assume an enhancement
374: factor $K=1.1$ in our analyses.
375: Going beyond the crude assumption on the branching fractions of the
376: $\tilde t_1$ decay in the Tevatron studies \cite{FCNC,FCCC}, we consider
377: the FCNC decay of one stop $\tilde{\bar t_1} \to \bar c
378: \tilde \chi^0_1$, and the charge-current decay of the other one,
379: $\tilde t_1\to b \tilde \chi^+_1 \to b \ell^+ \nu \tilde\chi^0_1$.
380: The signal we are proposing to look for is a
381: $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1}$ event giving rise to
382: an energetic isolated charged lepton ($e$ or $\mu$),
383: a $b$-quark jet, a (charm) jet and missing transverse energy,
384: denoted by $j b \ell+\etmiss$.
385:
386: First, we consider the search at hadron colliders. To simulate the acceptance
387: of the detectors, we impose some
388: kinematical cuts on the transverse momentum ($p_{T}$), the pseudo-rapidity
389: ($\eta$), and the separation in the azimuthal angle-pseudo rapidity plane
390: ($\Delta R= \sqrt{(\Delta \phi)^2 +(\Delta \eta)^2})$ between
391: a jet and a lepton or between two jets. We choose the basic
392: acceptance cuts for the Tevatron
393: %
394: \begin{eqnarray}
395: \nonumber
396: &&p_T^{\ell},\ p_T^{\rm jet},\ {\etmiss}\ge 20 {\rm~GeV},\\
397: &&\eta_{\rm jet},\ \eta_{\ell} \le 2.5,\\
398: &&\Delta R_{jj},~\Delta R_{j\ell} \ge 0.5.
399: \nonumber
400: \end{eqnarray}
401: %
402: We increase the threshold for the LHC as
403: %
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \nonumber
406: &&p_T^{\ell}\ge 20~ {\gev},\ p_T^{\rm jet}\ge 35~ {\gev},\
407: {\etmiss}\ge 30 {\rm~GeV},\\
408: &&\eta_{\rm jet},\ \eta_{\ell} \le 3,\\
409: &&\Delta R_{jj},~\Delta R_{j\ell} \ge 0.4.
410: \nonumber
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: %
413: Furthermore, we assume the tagging of a $b$-quark jet
414: with $50 \%$ efficiency and the probability of 0.4\% (15\%)
415: for a light quark ($c$-quark) jet to be mis-identified as a $b$-jet.
416:
417: To make the analyses more realistic, we simulate the energy resolution
418: of the calorimeters by assuming a Gaussian smearing on the energy
419: of the final state particles, given by
420: %
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: &&{\Delta E \over E} =
423: {30\% \over \sqrt{E}} \oplus 1\% \quad {\rm for\ leptons},\\
424: &&{\Delta E \over E} =
425: {80\% \over \sqrt{E}} \oplus 5\% \quad {\rm for\ hadrons},
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: %
428: where $E$ is in GeV.
429:
430: The potential SM backgrounds at hadron colliders are
431: \begin{itemize}
432: \item[1)] $bq (\bar q) \rightarrow tq'(\bar q')$;
433: \item[2)] $q\bar q' \rightarrow W^* \rightarrow t\bar b$;
434: \item[3)] $Wb\bar b;\ Wc\bar c;\ Wcj;\ Wjj$;
435: \item[4)] $t\bar t\rightarrow W^-W^+b\bar b$;
436: \item[5)] $gb\rightarrow tW$;
437: \item[6)] $qg\rightarrow q't\bar b$.
438: \end{itemize}
439: The backgrounds 5) and 6) are of modest rates and can mimic our
440: signal only if the extra jet is missed in detection. After vetoing the
441: extra central jet, these backgrounds are effectively suppressed.
442: The $t\bar t$ background 4) is of a large production cross
443: section, especially at the LHC. It can mimic our signal if
444: both $W$'s decay leptonically and one of the charged leptons is not
445: detected, which is assumed to occur if
446: the lepton pseudo-rapidity and transverse momentum are
447: in the range $\vert\eta(\ell)\vert>3$ and $p_T(\ell)<10$ GeV.
448: In addition, we also have some SUSY backgrounds. In case of $\tilde t_1$
449: being significantly lighter than other squarks, the dominant SUSY background
450: is the pure charged-current decay
451: $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1} \to \tilde \chi^+_1 \tilde \chi^-_1 b \bar b$.
452: Also, at the high end of the top squark mass range considered in our analysis,
453: $\tilde t_1$ can decay to $t^* + \tilde \chi^0_1$ or even $t + \tilde \chi^0_1$.
454: All these processes give a $t\bar t$-like signature \cite{stop_mc} and
455: can mimic our signal just like the SM production of $t\bar t$.
456: However, compared with $t\bar t$ background 4),
457: such backgrounds are much smaller since their production rates are much lower
458: than the $t\bar t$ background.
459:
460: %%%%%Table1 %
461: \begin{table}[tb]
462: \begin{center}
463: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
464: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Tevatron 2 TeV} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{LHC 14 TeV} \\ \cline{2-5}
465: & ~basic~cuts &~basic~+~$m_T$ & ~basic cuts~ & ~basic~+~$m_T$\\\hline
466:
467: signal & 23 & 6.6 & 720 & 220 \\\hline
468: ~~$qb\to q^\prime t$~~ & 120 & 5.0 & 7400 & 400 \\\hline
469: $q\bar q^\prime \to t\bar b$ & 39 & 2.3 & 280 & 17 \\\hline
470: $Wb\bar b$ & 130 & 2.5 & 570 & 45 \\\hline
471: $Wc\bar c$ & 80 & 1.5 & 450 & 36 \\\hline
472: $Wcj$ & 670 & 3.8 & 7600 & 650 \\\hline
473: $Wjj$ & 500 & 2.9 & 1700 & 150 \\\hline
474: $t\bar t$ & 7.9 & 3.8 & 600 & 300 \\
475: \end{tabular}
476: \vskip 0.3cm
477: \caption{Signal $\tilde t_1 \bar{\tilde t_1}\to \ell b c\ \etmiss$
478: and background cross sections in units of fb.
479: The signal results were calculated by assuming $m_{\tilde t_1}=150$ GeV
480: and other parameters are in Eq.~(\ref{para}).
481: The charge conjugate channels have been included.
482: The signal results do not include the branching fraction factor $2 BF(1-BF)$,
483: which should be multiplied to obtain the actual signal rate for a given value
484: of $BF$.
485: \label{tab1} }
486: \end{center}
487: \end{table}
488: %%%%%%%%%%%%
489:
490: We notice that for most of the background events the missing energy comes
491: only from neutrinos in $W$ decay, while for the signal the missing energy
492: contains the extra contribution from the neutralinos.
493: From the transverse momentum of the lepton ${\vec p}_T^{\ell}$
494: and the missing transverse momentum $\vec \ptmiss$,
495: we construct the transverse mass as
496: \begin{equation}
497: m_T = \sqrt{ (|\vec p_T^{\ell}|+|\vec \ptmiss|)^2
498: - (\vec p_T^{\ell}+\vec \ptmiss)^2}.
499: \end{equation}
500: For the background events where the only missing energy comes from
501: a neutrino from $W$ decay, $m_T$ is always less than $M_W$ (and peaks
502: just below $M_W$) without energy smearing. Smearing pushes some of the
503: events above $M_W$.
504: For the signal $m_T$ is spread out widely above and below $M_W$,
505: due to the extra missing energy of the neutralinos.
506: In order to substantially enhance the signal-to-background ratio ($S/B$),
507: we apply a cut
508: \begin{equation}
509: m_T > 90 {\rm~ GeV}.
510: \end{equation}
511:
512: %
513: \begin{figure}[tb]
514: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=4in,angle=0} }
515: \vspace*{0.5cm}
516: \caption{Discovery limits of the branching ratio of the FCNC stop decay
517: $\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$ versus the stop mass. The region above
518: each curve is the corresponding observable region. }
519: \label{fig1}
520: \end{figure}
521: %
522:
523: We first present the signal and background cross sections at the
524: Tevatron (2 TeV) and LHC (14 TeV) under various cuts in Table \ref{tab1}.
525: One sees that with only the basic acceptance cuts, the various SM
526: backgrounds can overwhelm the signal. The implementation of
527: the $m_T$ cut reduces the backgrounds $Wb\bar b$,
528: $Wc\bar c$, $Wjj$ and $Wcj$ efficiently.
529: The production rate of the signal
530: $b$+jet$+\ell\ \etmiss$ can be obtained by multiplying the
531: $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1}$ cross section
532: by the branching fraction factor $({2}/{9})2BF(1-BF)$ for
533: a given value of $BF$,
534: Our results for the $2\sigma$ sensitivity on $BF$
535: at the Tevatron versus the stop mass are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} (the top curve).
536: We find that due to limited statistics, Tevatron
537: Run 2 with a luminosity of 2 fb$^{-1}$ is not able to discover
538: the signal nor even set any significant bounds on the branching
539: fraction $BF$. A bound at $2\sigma$ level could be reached at the Tevatron energy
540: with a luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$ for $m_{\tilde t_1}<180$ GeV,
541: corresponding to $BF\sim 20\%$.
542: At the LHC the $5\sigma$-discovery is accessible, reaching the branching fraction
543: below $1\%$ even for a low luminosity 100 fb$^{-1}$.
544: From Fig.~\ref{fig1} one sees that the detection sensitivity for hadron colliders
545: does not monotonously increase as the stop mass
546: decreases. Instead, when the stop becomes too light, the detection sensitivity
547: decreases. This is the effect of the cuts applied in our
548: simulation and can be understood as follows. As the stop mass decreases,
549: the stop pair production rate increases. However, when the stop becomes too light,
550: the $b$-jet from $\tilde t_1\to \tilde \chi^+_1 b$ becomes very soft
551: and thus failed to pass the selection cuts so that it decreases the
552: detection sensitivity.
553:
554: The results at the LHC are obtained by applying the basic and the $m_T$
555: cuts. The signal significance is obtained in terms of Gaussian statistics,
556: given by the signal and background events $S/\sqrt B$.
557: Although the sensitivity reach at the LHC is impressive as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1},
558: the signal-to-background ratio $S/B$ becomes rather low when reaching the
559: small branching fraction. Thus the sensitivity relies on the successful control of
560: the systematics in the experiments.
561:
562: %
563: \begin{figure}
564: %\vspace*{-2cm}
565: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=11cm,height=9cm,angle=0} }
566: \vspace*{0.5cm}
567: \caption{ $5\sigma$ discovery limits of the stop-scharm mixing parameter $\epsilon$
568: versus the stop mass with the stop mixing angle $\theta_t=\pi/10$.
569: The region above each curve is the corresponding observable region.}
570: \label{fig2}
571: \end{figure}
572: %
573:
574: It is known that the experimental environment is much cleaner at an
575: $e^+e^-$ collider.
576: Now we recapitulate our analyses for an $e^+e^-$ linear collider with
577: C.~M.~energy of 500 GeV.
578: Since the environment of $e^+e^-$ colliders is much cleaner,
579: we will evaluate the production rate of the signal
580: $b$+jet$+\ell\ \etmiss$ simply by multiplying the cross section
581: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to \tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1})$,
582: the branching ratio $({4}/{9})BF(1-BF)$,
583: the $b$-tagging efficiency assumed to be $50\%$,
584: and the detection efficiency of kinematics assumed to be $80\%$.
585: The possible SM backgrounds are
586: \begin{eqnarray}
587: & & e^+e^-\to W^+W^-\to j j' \ell \nu,\\
588: & & e^+e^-\to t\bar t\to bW^+ \bar b W^-\to b\bar b jj' \ell \nu.
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: However, these backgrounds can be effectively separated due to
591: the rather different kinematical features from the signal.
592: If we define the recoil mass as
593: \begin{equation}
594: m_r^2 = (P_{e^+}+P_{e^-}- \sum P_{\rm obs})^2,
595: \end{equation}
596: where the sum is over all momenta of the observed final state
597: particles, then we notice that the backgrounds have rather
598: small recoil mass from the single missing neutrino.
599: The recoil mass for the signal on the other hand
600: is quite large since the neutralino is very massive.
601: Similar to the case of hadron colliders, the dominant SUSY background
602: is $\tilde t_1 \tilde{\bar t_1}
603: \to \tilde \chi^+_1 \tilde \chi^-_1 b \bar b$, which is small
604: and neglected in our numerical analysis. For a stop $m_{\tilde t_1}\lsim 230$ GeV
605: when the threshold is sufficiently open for $\sqrt s=500$ GeV, one can reach
606: a $5\sigma$ observation at the LC with a branching fraction of 1--5\%\
607: even for a luminosity of only 100 fb$^{-1}$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
608: %
609:
610: \begin{figure}
611: %\vspace*{-2cm}
612: \centerline{\psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=11cm,height=9cm,angle=0} }
613: \vspace*{0.5cm}
614: \caption{ $5\sigma$ discovery limits of the stop-scharm mixing parameter $\epsilon$
615: versus the stop mixing angle $\theta_t$ for $m_{\tilde t_1}= 170$ GeV.
616: The region above each curve is the corresponding observable region.}
617: \label{fig3}
618: \end{figure}
619: %
620:
621: The exclusion and discovery limits of the branching fraction can be translated
622: into the limits on the stop-scharm mixing parameter $\epsilon$, which can
623: be predicted for a specific SUSY model. At this stage, the
624: stop mixing angle $\theta_t$ needs
625: to be specified. For illustration, we first fix
626: $\theta_t=\pi/10$ and the resulting limits on $\epsilon$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2},
627: corresponding to the results of Fig.~\ref{fig1}. For stop mass of 150 GeV
628: the $5\sigma$ discovery limit with a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$
629: is $\epsilon \gsim 0.09$ at the LC, and
630: $\epsilon \gsim 0.20$ at the LHC. For a heavier stop, the
631: detection sensitivity at the LC drops much more rapidly than that at the
632: LHC due to the limited C.M. energy of the LC.
633: Note that although Run 2 with 20 fb$^{-1}$ has a $2\sigma$ sensitivity
634: (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}) to the decay branching ratio, it has no sensitivity
635: to $\epsilon<0.3$. When the $2\sigma$ sensitivity limits of Run 2 in
636: Fig.~\ref{fig1} are translated to the mixing parameter $\epsilon$, rather large
637: $\epsilon$ values ($\gsim 0.5$) are obtained.
638: A large $\epsilon$ is not theoretically favored, as implied in Eqs.~($1-4$).
639:
640: The obtained limits on $\epsilon$ are sensitive to the mixing angle $\theta_t$,
641: which controls the partial width for the CC decay as seen in Eq.~(\ref{width2}).
642: The dependence of $\epsilon$ limits on $\theta_t$ is
643: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3} for a fixed value of stop mass $m_{\tilde t_1}= 170$ GeV.
644: For the mixing angle to be near a certain value,
645: $\tan\theta_t \approx (\sqrt2 m_W \sin\beta/m_t) (V_{11}/V_{12}) $,
646: the CC mode is suppressed and the sensitivity to the FCNC mode is greatly
647: enhanced. For our choice of the SUSY parameters, this occurs near
648: $\theta_t\approx 9^\circ$. The $5\sigma$ sensitivity with 500 fb$^{-1}$ for
649: the LHC and LC could reach as far as $\epsilon\approx 0.01$. For nearly
650: maximal mixing $\theta_t\approx 45^\circ$, on the other hand, the sensitivity
651: could be reduced to about $\epsilon\approx 0.4$.
652:
653: Furthermore, the limits or observation of the mixing parameter $\epsilon$ can be
654: translated into some knowledge on certain soft SUSY breaking parameters.
655: From Eqs.~(\ref{eps}) and (\ref{dl}), we see that the mixings are proportional
656: to a sum of certain parameters, typically like
657: $(\tilde M_Q^2+\tilde M_D^2+\tilde M_{H_1}^2+|A_d|^2)/(m_{\tilde t}^2-m_{\tilde c_L}^2)$.
658: This can vary independently of
659: $m_{\tilde t}$ and $m_{\tilde c_L}$ since only $\tilde M_Q$
660: in this sum is related to $m_{\tilde t}$ and $m_{\tilde c_L}$.
661: For the purpose of illustration, taking $m_{\tilde t_1}=150$ GeV, $\theta_t=\pi/10$,
662: $m_{\tilde c_L}=200$ GeV and other SUSY parameters given in Eq.~(\ref{para}),
663: we obtain the LHC discovery ($5\sigma$) limit
664: with a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$
665: \begin{eqnarray}
666: \label{soft-limit1}
667: \sqrt{\tilde M_Q^2+\tilde M_D^2+\tilde M_{H_1}^2+|A_d|^2+0.3 m_t A_d^* } \gsim 1.4 {\rm~TeV},
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: or, in case of non-observation, the $2\sigma$ bound given by
670: \begin{eqnarray}
671: \label{soft-limit2}
672: \sqrt{\tilde M_Q^2+\tilde M_D^2+\tilde M_{H_1}^2+|A_d|^2+0.3 m_t A_d^* }
673: \lsim 1.0 {\rm~TeV}.
674: \end{eqnarray}
675: Due to the nature of the multiple parameters as a combination
676: involved in the expression, more comprehensive
677: analyses would be needed, possibly to combine with other experimental knowledge
678: on the SUSY parameters, in order to extract the information for the theory parameter
679: space.
680:
681: \section{Conclusions}
682:
683: In summary, we studied the potential of detecting
684: the FCNC stop decay $\tilde t_1 \to c \tilde \chi^0_1$, as a probe of
685: stop-scharm mixing, at the upgraded Tevatron, the LHC and the LC.
686: Rather than performing an exhaustive scan of the SUSY parameters,
687: we chose a representative set of the relevant parameters to
688: demonstrate the possibility of observation.
689: Through Monte Carlo simulation,
690: we found that the signal at the Tevatron is too weak to be observable
691: for the choice of well-motivated SUSY parameters.
692: At the LHC on the other hand, with judicial kinematical cuts,
693: it is quite possible to observe a $5\sigma$
694: signal with a branching fraction as low as $1\%$ even for a luminosity of
695: 100 fb$^{-1}$. However, it should be noted that systematic effects in the
696: experiments must be under control.
697: At an LC of $\sqrt s=500$ GeV, one can reach a $5\sigma$ observation
698: with a branching fraction of $1-5\%$ for a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$.
699: The limits or observation of this important decay mode can be
700: translated into some knowledge on certain soft SUSY breaking parameters.
701: We finally note that in our study we have chosen a representative scenario for relevant
702: SUSY parameters in which the lightest neutralino and chargino
703: are gaugino-like. In the region of SUSY parameters where
704: the lightest neutralino and chargino are Higgsino-like,
705: the signal would be more difficult to observe.
706:
707: \bigskip
708: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
709:
710: The work of T.H. is supported in part by the US Department of Energy
711: under grant DE-FG02-95ER40896,
712: in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, and in part by
713: National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC). The work of K.H. is
714: supported in
715: part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No.~12640248 and 14046201)
716: from the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and
717: Technology. X.Z. is supported by NNSFC.
718:
719: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
720:
721: \bibitem{fcp} A. Masiero and O. Vives, Ann.~Rev.~Nucl.~Part.~Sci.~{\bf 51}, 161 (2001).
722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104027;%%
723: \bibitem{hpz} R.~D.~Peccei and X.~Zhang, \NPB337, 269 (1990);
724: T.~Han, R.~D.~Peccei and X.~Zhang, \NPB454, 527 (1995).
725: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B337,269;%%
726: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B454,527;%%
727: \bibitem{susyf} For a comprehensive analysis, see, {\it e.~g.},
728: S. Dimopoulos and D. Sutter, \NPB452, 496 (1996);
729: F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini,
730: \NPB477, 321 (1996); and references therein.
731: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B452,496;%%
732: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B477,321;%%
733: \bibitem{tcvh_sm} For top FCNC decays in the SM, see,
734: G.~Eilam, J.~L.~Hewett and A.~Soni, \PRD44, 1473 (1991);
735: B.~Mele, S.~Petrarca, A.~Soddu, \PLB435, 401 (1998).
736: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
737: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B435,401;%%
738: \bibitem{tcv_mssm} For $t \to cV$ in the MSSM, see, {\it e.~g.},
739: C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes and J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
740: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui and H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
741: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
742: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and L.~Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997);
743: J.~M.~Yang, B.-L.~Young and X.~Zhang, \PRD58, 055001 (1998);
744: J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J. M. Yang, \NPB651, 87 (2003).
745: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
746: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
747: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
748: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
749: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,055001;%%
750: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
751: \bibitem{tch_mssm} For $t \to ch$ in the MSSM, see, {\it e.~g.},
752: J.~M.~Yang and C.~S.~Li, \PRD49, 3412 (1994);
753: J.~Guasch and J.~S\`{o}la, \NPB562, 3 (1999);
754: S.~B\'{e}jar, J.~Guasch and J.~S\`{o}la, hep-ph/0101294;
755: G.~Eilam, {\it et al.}, \PLB510, 227 (2001);
756: J.~L.~Diaz-Cruz, H.-J.~He, and C.-P.~Yuan, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B530}, 179 (2002).
757: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
758: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B562,3;%%
759: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101294;%%
760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102037;%%
761: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103178;%%
762: \bibitem{duncan} See, {\it e.~g.}, M. J. Duncan, \NPB221, 285 (1983).
763: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B221,285;%%
764: \bibitem{hall} See, {\it e.~g.}, N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.-C.~Cheng, J.~L.~Feng
765: and L.~J.~Hall, \PRL77, 1937 (1996); \NPB505, 3 (1997);
766: J.~Cao, T.~Han, X.~Zhang and G.~Lu, \PRD59, 095001 (1999).
767: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603431;%%
768: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B505,3;%%
769: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,095001;%%
770: \bibitem{review} For a review, see, {\it e.~g.},
771: M.~Misiak, S.~Pokorski, J.~Rosiek, hep-ph/9703442.
772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703442;%%
773: \bibitem{Endo} M.~Endo, M.~Kakizaki, and M.~Yamaguchi, hep-ph/0311072.
774: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311072;%%
775: \bibitem{hikasa} K. Hikasa and M. Kobayashi, \PRD36, 724 (1987).
776: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,724;%%
777: \bibitem{FCNC}
778: D0 Collaboration: S.~Abachi {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 76}, 2222 (1996);
779: CDF Collaboration: T.~Affolder {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 84}, 5704 (2000).
780: %%CITATION = PRLTA,76,2222;%%
781: %%CITATION = PRLTA,84,5704;%%
782: \bibitem{stop-3-body} W. Porod, T. Wohrmann, \PRD55, 2907 (1997);
783: W. Porod, \PRD 59, 095009 (1999);
784: A. Djouadi and Y. Mambrini, \PRD63, 115005 (2001).
785: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,2907;%%
786: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,095009;%%
787: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,115005;%%
788: \bibitem{FCCC}
789: D0 Collaboration: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 88}, 171802 (2002);
790: CDF Collaboration: D.~Acosta {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 90}, 251801 (2003).
791: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,171802;%%
792: %%CITATION = PRLTA,90,251801;%%
793: \bibitem{hosch} S. Mrenna and C.-P. Yuan, \PLB367, 188 (1996);
794: M. Hosch {\it et al.,} \PRD58, 034002 (1998).
795: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,034002;%%
796: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B367,188;%%
797: \bibitem{cdf-tt} CDF Collaboration: T.~Affolder {\it et al.}, \PRD63, 091101 (2001).
798: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,091101;%%
799: \bibitem{gunion} H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rep. {\bf 117}, 75 (1985);
800: J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, \NPB272, 1 (1986).
801: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
802: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B272,1;%%
803: \bibitem{Carena}
804: M.~Carena, M.~Quiros and C.E.~Wagner,
805: \PLB380, 81 (1996); \NPB503, 387 (1997);
806: \NPB524, 3 (1998);
807: D.~Delepine, J.M.~Gerard, R.~Gonzalez Felipe and J.~Weyers,
808: \PLB386, 183 (1996); J.~McDonald, \PLB413, 30 (1997);
809: J.M.~Cline and G.D.~Moore, \PRL181, 3315 (1998).
810: \bibitem{run2} See, {\it e.~g.}, V.~Barger, C.E.M.~Wagner {\it et al.},
811: Tevatron Run-II Workshop report, hep-ph/0003154.
812: %
813: \bibitem{LEP_higgs} See, {\it e.~g.},
814: P.~A.~McNamara and S.~L.~Wu, Rept.~Prog.~Phys.~{\bf 65}, 465 (2002).
815: %%CITATION = RPPHA,65,465;%%
816: \bibitem{hikasa2} K. Hikasa and T. Nagano, \PLB435, 67 (1998);
817: N. Oshimo and Y. Kizukuri, \PLB186, 217 (1987).
818: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B435,67;%%
819: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B186,217;%%
820: \bibitem{zerwas} W.~Beenakker, M.~Kramer, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira, and
821: P.~M.~Zerwas, \NPB515, 3 (1998).
822: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B515,3;%%
823: \bibitem{stop_NLC} H. Eberl, A. Bartl, and W. Majerotto, \NPB472, 481 (1996);
824: X.-J. Bi, Y.-B. Dai, and X.-Y. Qi, \PRD62, 115004 (2000).
825: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B472,481;%%
826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001055;%%
827: \bibitem{stop_mc} R. Demina, J. D. Lykken, K. T. Matchev and A. Nomerotski,
828: \PRD62, 035011 (2000);
829: J.~M.~Yang and B.-L.~Young, \PRD62, 115002 (2000);
830: A. Djouadi, M. Guchait, Y. Mambrini, \PRD64, 095014 (2001);
831: E. L. Berger and T. M. P. Tait, hep-ph/0002305.
832: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,035011;%%
833: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,115002;%%
834: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,095014;%%
835: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002305.%%
836: \end{thebibliography}
837: \end{document}
838:
839: Since multi parameters involved in our above numerical study, we make
840: some clarifications on them at the end of our analyses.
841: Clearly, our numerical calculations consists of three steps: the first step is obtaining
842: collider sensitivities to BF through Monte Carlo study (shown in Fig. 1),
843: the second step is translating the BF limits into the mixing parameter $\epsilon$ (shown in Figs. 2,3),
844: and the third step is translating $\epsilon$ limits into some soft SUSY breaking parameters
845: (shown in Eqs. (\ref{soft-limit1},\ref{soft-limit2})). More and more parameters come into play
846: as we go ahead step by step:
847: \begin{itemize}
848: \item[(1)] In the first step, i.e., obtaining collider sensitivities to BF shown in Fig. 1,
849: the involved parameters are the masses of stop, chargino and neutralino.
850: We let the stop mass vary in the range shown in Eq.~(\ref{stop-range}) and fixed
851: the chargino and neutralino masses in Eq. (\ref{char-mass}).
852: Since the chargino and neutralino masses are determined by the parameters $M_1$, $M_2$,
853: $\mu$ and $\tan\beta$, we used an unification relation $M_1=\frac{5}{3}M_2\tan^2\theta_W$
854: to reduce one parameter and fixed the remaining three parameters in Eq. (\ref{para}), which
855: give rise to the chargino and neutralino masses in Eq. (\ref{char-mass}).
856: We pointed out that the parameter values in Eq. (\ref{para}) are just a representative set,
857: which is favorable for signal detection.
858: We did not intend to perform an exhaustive scan over the parameter space.
859: \item[(2)] In the second step, i.e., translating the BF limits into the $\epsilon$ limits shown in Figs. 2 and 3,
860: one more parameter, the stop mixing angle $\theta_t$, is involed, as shown by
861: Eq.(\ref{width2}). We regarded it as a free parameter and showed the dependence of $\epsilon$ limits
862: on it in Fig. 3.
863: \item[(3)] In the third step, i.e., translating $\epsilon$ limits into soft SUSY breaking parameters,
864: besides the soft parameters themselves, another parameter comes into play, i.e., the
865: scharm mass. We fixed scharm mass to be 200 GeV to obatin the illustrative bounds
866: on soft parameters in Eqs. (\ref{soft-limit1},\ref{soft-limit2}).
867: Since we took stop mass $m_{\tilde t_1}$, scharm mass $m_{\tilde c_L}$ and stop mixing angle
868: $\theta_t$ as independent free parameters, it seems inconsistent if we also took
869: soft parameters as free ones and then derive limits on them. Actually, this is not
870: a problem. The reason is that the limits are derived for a combination of soft parameters,
871: i.e., $\sqrt{\tilde M_Q^2+\tilde M_D^2+\tilde M_{H_1}^2+|A_d|^2+0.3 m_t A_d^* }$, in
872: which only $\tilde M_Q$ is related to $m_{\tilde t_1}$, $m_{\tilde c_L}$ and $\theta_t$
873: while other parameters are independently free in the MSSM.
874: \end{itemize}
875: It is clear that we did not restrain our numerical study in the mSUGRA model,
876: which only has four continuous and one discrete free parameters not present in the SM.
877: We pointed out at the begining of Sec. II that we perform our analyses in the framework
878: of the MSSM, which has the full parameter space freedom. We merely used the unification
879: relation between $M_1$ and $M_2$, and assumed that the SUSY breaking scale is Planck scale
880: as in SUGRA models.
881:
882: One more point we should be aware of is that we assumed stop $\tilde t_1$ to be significantly lighter
883: than other squarks including $\tilde t_2$, which implies that the stop mixing angle $\theta_t$ should
884: not be too small. $\theta_t$ is in the range of $0^{\circ}$ (no mixing) to $45^{\circ}$ (maximal mixing).
885: For illustration in Fig.2 we fixed it to be $18^{\circ}$. But later we varied it and showed the dependence
886: on it in Fig. 3.
887: