1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
4: %\usepackage{showkeys}
5: \usepackage{t1enc}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7: % juan's stuff
8: \newcommand{\ptmiss}{p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}
9: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
10: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
11: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
12: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
13: \parskip=1.0ex
14: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
15: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
16: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
17:
18: \textwidth=15.5cm
19: \textheight=22cm
20: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
21: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
22: \topmargin=-1cm
23:
24:
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28: \vspace*{-3cm}
29: \begin{flushright}
30: hep-ph/0404104 \\
31: April 2004
32: \end{flushright}
33:
34: \begin{center}
35: \begin{Large}
36: {\bf CP violation in $\boldsymbol{\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0}$ production
37: at a linear collider}
38: \end{Large}
39:
40: \vspace{0.5cm}
41: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra \\[0.2cm]
42: {\it Departamento de Física and GTFP, \\
43: Instituto Superior Técnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal} \\
44: \end{center}
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We discuss the observability of CP-violating asymmetries in the process
48: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde
49: \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$, with $\ell = e,\mu$. We consider two examples of
50: supersymmetric scenarios: ({\em i\/}) with decays
51: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+
52: \ell^-$; ({\em ii\/}) with $\tilde \chi_2^0$ three-body decays.
53: The asymmetries can be of order 0.1 but they are partially
54: washed out by the large backgrounds from $W^+ W^-$ and slepton
55: pair production, being the observed asymmetries one order of magnitude
56: smaller. However, with appropriate kinematical cuts
57: they can be observed at an $e^+ e^-$ collider with a centre of mass
58: energy of 500 GeV and high luminosity.
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: % 12.60.Jv,13.10.+q,13.88.+e,14.80.Ly
62:
63: % 12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
64: % 13.10.+q Weak and electromagnetic interactions of leptons
65: % 13.88.+e Polarization in interactions and scattering
66: % 14.80.Ly Supersymmetric partners of known particles
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69: \label{sec:1}
70:
71: There are several motivations to consider further CP violation
72: sources in addition to the CP-violating phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
73: matrix. From
74: the experimental point of view, the Standard Model (SM) is unable to explain the
75: observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. From the theoretical side, most SM
76: extensions introduce new CP violation sources. The Minimal Supersymmetric
77: Standard Model (MSSM) \cite{susy2,susy3} contains several new phases which can
78: lead to observable
79: effects at high energy colliders. In the neutralino sector these are the phases
80: of the parameters $M_1$ and $\mu$,
81: $\phi_1$ and $\phi_\mu$ respectively. Large phases $\phi_1$ and/or
82: $\phi_\mu$ lead to supersymmetric contributions
83: to electric dipole moments (EDMs) far above present limits. However, these two
84: phases can be large without
85: necessarily yielding unacceptably large EDMs, if there are large
86: cancellations between the different contributions \cite{pr1,pr2,kane}.
87: One of the tasks to be accomplished at a future linear collider is to
88: explore the effects of these phases in phenomenology, in order to determine
89: if they vanish or not.
90:
91: In this paper we study the process of $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$
92: production with subsequent leptonic decay of the second neutralino
93: \cite{choi0,bartl1,bartl2},
94: \begin{align}
95: e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde
96: \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^- \,,
97: \label{ec:XX}
98: \end{align}
99: with $\ell = e,\mu$.\footnote{We do not consider $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde
100: \chi_1^0 \tau^+ \tau^-$, which is the dominant channel in some cases, because
101: each of the $\tau$ leptons decays producing one or two undetected neutrinos and
102: the reconstruction of the $\tau$ momenta is not possible. The study of a
103: CP-violating asymmetry involving the $\tau$ decay products requires a simulation
104: of the $\tau$ decay and is beyond the scope of this work.}
105: In this process, it is possible to have a CP asymmetry in the
106: triple product $\vec p_{e^+} \cdot ( \vec p_{\ell^-} \times \vec p_{\ell^+} )$
107: of order
108: 0.1 for adequate choices of beam polarisations. This asymmetry is sensitive to
109: the phases of $M_1$ and $\mu$ and is due to of the influence
110: of $\tilde \chi_2^0$ polarisation in the $l^+$, $l^-$ angular
111: distributions (the expressions of the polarised matrix
112: elements for $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production and $\tilde \chi_2^0$
113: decay can be found in Refs.~\cite{gudrid1,gudrid2}).
114: However, its experimental detection
115: is jeopardized by the presence of huge backgrounds from the
116: production of $W^+ W^-$, selectron/smuon and, to a lesser extent, chargino
117: pairs,
118: \begin{align}
119: e^+ e^- & \to W^+ W^- \to \ell^+ \nu_\ell \, \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell \,,
120: \nonumber \\
121: e^+ e^- & \to \tilde \ell_{R,L}^+ \, \tilde \ell_{R,L}^- \to \ell^+ \tilde
122: \chi_1^0 \, \ell^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \,, \nonumber \\
123: e^+ e^- & \to \tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^- \to \ell^+ \nu_\ell \tilde
124: \chi_1^0 \, \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell \tilde \chi_1^0 \,,
125: \label{ec:XXb}
126: \end{align}
127: which give the same experimental signature of two oppositely charged leptons
128: $\ell^+ \ell^-$ plus missing energy and momentum. A realistic analysis taking
129: these backgrounds into account is compulsory in order to draw a conclusion
130: on the observability of this CP asymmetry.
131:
132: We analyse two kinds of supersymmetry (SUSY) scenarios, depending on the
133: dominant channel contributing to the decay of the second neutralino:
134: ({\em i\/}) scenarios with decays
135: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+
136: \ell^-$; ({\em ii\/}) scenarios where $\tilde \chi_2^0$ has three-body decays.
137: The case of $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_L^\pm \ell^\mp \to \tilde
138: \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ is similar to the decay
139: to $\tilde \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp$ but involves a heavier neutralino spectrum,
140: for which the signal cross sections are smaller.
141: We do not study scenarios with decays $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde
142: \chi_1^0 Z \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ because the asymmetries are
143: rather small \cite{bartl2}, and turn out to be unobservable due to the large
144: backgrounds. Instead of performing a scan over some region of the SUSY
145: parameter space (for such analysis see
146: Ref. \cite{bartl1}, where a study complementary to this one is
147: performed but
148: without including backgrounds nor the effect of ISR and beamstrahlung), we
149: concentrate on the detailed analysis of two specific
150: examples, to illustrate each of the two situations.
151: We consider $e^+ e^-$ annihilation at a centre of mass (CM) energy of 500 GeV,
152: as proposed for the first phase of TESLA.
153:
154: This paper is organised as follows. In Section \ref{sec:2} we examine how
155: CP asymmetries can be defined in $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$
156: production, and fix the SUSY
157: scenarios to be discussed. In Section \ref{sec:3} we analyse in detail the
158: triple product CP asymmetry in two scenarios. The results
159: for other scenarios are also commented. In Section \ref{sec:4} we
160: summarise our results and compare with other CP violation asymmetry which is
161: also sensitive to the phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$. In the Appendix we collect
162: some Lagrangian terms required for our calculations.
163:
164:
165: \section{CP asymmetries in $\boldsymbol{\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0}$
166: production and decay}
167: \label{sec:2}
168:
169: The process of neutralino production in Eq.~(\ref{ec:XX}) takes place through
170: the diagrams depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:XXprod}. The Lagrangian terms and
171: conventions used can be found in Ref.~\cite{npb} and the Appendix.
172: From inspection of the diagrams and interactions involved we can notice that
173: only $e^+$ and $e^-$ with
174: opposite helicities give non-vanishing contributions to the amplitude
175: (neglecting selectron mixing), what constitutes a crucial point for the
176: construction of our CP asymmetries. The decay of $\tilde \chi_2^0$
177: is mediated by the diagrams in Fig. \ref{fig:X2decay} (production and decay
178: diagrams are shown separately only for clarity, in our computations we calculate
179: the complete matrix elements for the resonant process).
180: We have omitted the diagrams with neutral scalars, which are
181: proportional to $m_\ell$ and thus irrelevant for $\ell=e,\mu$.
182:
183: \noindent
184: \begin{figure}[htb]
185: \begin{center}
186: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
187: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/x1x2_s.eps,width=3.8cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
188: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/x1x2_t.eps,width=3.8cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
189: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/x1x2_u.eps,width=3.8cm,clip=}}
190: % \\ (a) & & (b) & & (c)
191: \end{tabular}
192: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production
193: in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation.}
194: \label{fig:XXprod}
195: \end{center}
196: \end{figure}
197:
198:
199: \begin{figure}[htb]
200: \begin{center}
201: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
202: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/diag_Z.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
203: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/diag_f.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
204: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/diag_fc.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} \\
205: (a) & & (b) & & (c)
206: \end{tabular}
207: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the decay $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0
208: \ell^+ \ell^-$.}
209: \label{fig:X2decay}
210: \end{center}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: In the CM system the process of $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production
214: looks as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:xxprod}, with the
215: 3-momenta in obvious notation and $\lambda_- = \pm 1$, $\lambda_+ = -\lambda_-$
216: the electron and positron helicities, respectively.
217: The momenta of the two final state neutralinos
218: cannot be reconstructed because of the insufficient number of kinematical
219: constraints available for this process, thus we do not use them in our analysis.
220: Under CP, the momenta and helicities transform as
221: \begin{align}
222: & \vec p_{e^+} \to - \vec p_{e^-} = \vec p_{e^+} \,, \quad
223: \vec p_{e^-} \to - \vec p_{e^+} = \vec p_{e^-} \,, \quad
224: \vec p_{\ell^+} \to - \vec p_{\ell^-} \,, \quad
225: \vec p_{\ell^-} \to - \vec p_{\ell^+} \, \nonumber \\
226: & \lambda_+ \to -\lambda_- = \lambda_+ \,, \quad
227: \lambda_- \to -\lambda_+ = \lambda_-
228: \label{ec:trans}
229: \end{align}
230: (remember that in the CM frame $\vec p_{e^+} = - \vec p_{e^-}$). The
231: initial state is CP-symmetric independently of the possible beam polarisations,
232: owing to the fact that $\lambda_+ = - \lambda_-$. Therefore, the quantities
233: \begin{eqnarray}
234: Q_1 & = & \vec p_{e^+} \cdot \left( \vec p_{\ell^-} \times \vec p_{\ell^+}
235: \right) \,, \nonumber \\
236: Q_2 & = & \vec p_{e^+} \cdot \left( \vec p_{\ell^-} + \vec p_{\ell^+}
237: \right)
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: are CP-odd (other higher-order CP-odd quantities may also be built
240: using the vectors in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:trans})).
241: For $Q_{1,2}$ we define the asymmetries
242: \begin{equation}
243: A_i \equiv \frac{N(Q_i > 0) - N(Q_i < 0)}{N(Q_i > 0) + N(Q_i < 0)} \,,
244: \label{ec:asim}
245: \end{equation}
246: where $N$ denotes the number of events. These asymmetries must vanish if
247: CP is conserved, and are genuine signals of CP violation. Since $Q_2$ is
248: even under naive time reversal T, in order to have a nonvanishing asymmetry
249: $A_2$ the presence of CP-conserving phases in the amplitude is needed. In the
250: process under consideration, and neglecting the small phases originated from
251: particle widths, a nonzero $A_2$ arises from the interference of a
252: dominant tree-level and a subleading loop diagram mediating the decay.
253: Thus, $A_2$ is expected to be very small. On the other hand
254: $Q_1$ is T-odd, and relatively large asymmetries $A_1$ are possible already at
255: the tree level. We focus our analysis on the asymmetry $A_1$.
256: We note that particle-antiparticle identification is necessary in order to build
257: a triple product CP asymmetry in this process. In hadronic decays
258: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 q \bar q$ one could try to build an
259: analogous asymmetry distinguishing the
260: two quark jets by their energy. However, a triple product such as
261: $\vec p_{e^+} \cdot \left( \vec p_{q_1} \times \vec p_{q_2} \right)$ is CP-even,
262: and at least three untagged jets in the final state are required to construct
263: a CP-odd triple product.
264:
265: \begin{figure}[htb]
266: \begin{center}
267: \epsfig{file=Figs/xxprod.eps,width=5cm,clip=}
268: \caption{Schematic picture of the process $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0
269: \tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ in the CM
270: frame.}
271: \label{fig:xxprod}
272: \end{center}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275:
276: In the presence of a ``symmetric'' background the observed asymmetry
277: $A_1^\mathrm{eff}$ is smaller than $A_1$
278: because the background does not contribute to the numerator of
279: Eq.~(\ref{ec:asim}) but contributes to the denominator. If we define the ratio
280: \begin{equation}
281: r = \frac{S}{S+B} \,,
282: \label{ec:r}
283: \end{equation}
284: $S$ and $B$ denoting the number of signal and background events, respectively,
285: the effective asymmetry and its statistical error are
286: \begin{equation}
287: A_1^\mathrm{eff} = r A_1 \,, \quad \Delta A_1^\mathrm{eff} \simeq \sqrt r
288: \Delta A_1 \,,
289: \label{ec:eff}
290: \end{equation}
291: where the statistical error of the signal alone is
292: $\Delta A_1 = \sqrt{(1-A_1^2)/S}$. The second relation in Eq.~(\ref{ec:eff})
293: holds to a very good accuracy for the values of $A_1$
294: found in this work. Then, with the presence of a background which
295: does not have a CP asymmetry, the statistical significance $A_1/\Delta A_1$
296: decreases by a factor $\sqrt r$.
297:
298:
299: Our first supersymmetric scenario is very similar to the scenario SPS1a
300: in Ref.~\cite{sps}. The parameters relevant for our analysis are collected in
301: Table~\ref{tab:sc}. They approximately correspond to $m_{1/2} = 250$ GeV,
302: $m_{\tilde E} = m_{\tilde L} = m_{H_i} = 100$ GeV, $A_E = -100$ GeV at the
303: unification scale, and $\tan \beta = 10$. In this scenario, the
304: diagrams dominating $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ are
305: those with decay to on-shell sleptons $\tilde \ell_R^\pm$ in
306: Fig.~\ref{fig:X2decay}c, \ref{fig:X2decay}b.
307: For a heavier slepton spectrum (and the same $\tilde \chi_2^0$ mass) two-body
308: decays are not kinematically allowed, and $\tilde \chi_2^0$ has three-body
309: decays. This corresponds to our second scenario, with
310: $m_{\tilde E} = m_{\tilde L} = m_{H_i} = 200$ GeV, $A_E = -200$ GeV.
311: In both scenarios $\tilde \chi_1^0$ and $\tilde \chi_2^0$ are gaugino-like and
312: $\tilde \chi_1^0$ is mainly a bino. We also comment on the the situation when
313: there is more mixing in the neutralino sector, so that $\tilde \chi_1^0$ has a
314: sizeable wino component.
315:
316:
317: \begin{table}[htb]
318: \begin{center}
319: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
320: Parameter & ~ & Scenario 1 & ~ & Scenario 2 \\
321: \hline
322: $M_1$ & & 101.8 $e^{i \phi_1}$ & & 102.0 $e^{i \phi_1}$ \\
323: $M_2$ & & 191.8 & & 192.0 \\
324: $\mu$ & & 358.5 $e^{i \phi_\mu}$ & & 377.5 $e^{i \phi_\mu}$ \\
325: $\tan \beta$ & & 10 & & 10 \\
326: $m_{\tilde e_R},m_{\tilde \mu_R}$ & & 142.5 & & 224.0 \\
327: $m_{\tilde e_L},m_{\tilde \mu_L}$ & & 200.7 & & 264.5 \\
328: $m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$ & & 98.7 & & 99.1 \\
329: $m_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$ & & 176.4 & & 178.1
330: \end{tabular}
331: \caption{Low-energy parameters (at the scale $M_Z$) for the two SUSY scenarios
332: discussed.
333: The dimensionful parameters are in GeV. The neutralino masses correspond to
334: $\phi_1=0$, $\phi_\mu=0$, and differ less than $\pm 3$ GeV for other phases.
335: \label{tab:sc}}
336: \end{center}
337: \end{table}
338:
339: We have checked that in both scenarios it is possible to have the electron EDM
340: $d_e$ below the present experimental limit
341: $d_e^\mathrm{\,exp} = (0.079 \pm 0.074) \times 10^{-26} ~ e$ cm
342: \cite{pdb}.\footnote{The neutron and Mercury atom EDMs do not impose a
343: constraint on our analysis, since the phase of the gluino mass $M_3$ is not
344: involved, and additionally because the experimental limits on these quantities
345: can be satisfied if the quark spectrum is heavy enough.}
346: Using the expressions for the electron EDM in Ref.~\cite{arnowitt}, we find that
347: for each value of $\phi_1$ between 0 and $2\pi$ it is possible to find a narrow
348: interval for $\phi_\mu$ (which can be chosen such that $|\phi_\mu| \leq
349: 0.08$ in scenario 1 and $|\phi_\mu| \leq 0.12$ in scenario 2) in which
350: the chargino and neutralino contributions to $d_e$ cancel, resulting in a
351: value compatible with experiment. In our numerical calculations we let
352: $\phi_1$ vary freely and set $\phi_\mu = 0$, bearing in mind that their values
353: are strongly correlated but our CP asymmetries and cross sections
354: are insensitive to the small variation of $\phi_\mu$ in the ranges required for
355: the cancellations of the EDMs ($|\phi_\mu| \leq 0.08$, $|\phi_\mu| \leq 0.12$).
356:
357:
358:
359: \section{Results}
360: \label{sec:3}
361:
362:
363: We calculate the matrix elements for the resonant processes in
364: Eqs.~(\ref{ec:XX},\ref{ec:XXb})
365: using {\tt HELAS} \cite{helas}, so as to include all spin correlations and
366: finite width effects. We assume a CM energy of 500 GeV
367: and an integrated luminosity of 345 fb$^{-1}$ per year
368: \cite{lum}. In our calculation we take into account the
369: effects of initial state radiation (ISR) \cite{isr} and beamstrahlung
370: \cite{peskin,BS2}, using for the latter the
371: design parameters $\Upsilon = 0.05$, $N = 1.56$ \cite{lum}.\footnote{The actual
372: expressions for ISR and beamstrahlung used in our calculation can be found in
373: Ref.~\cite{npb}.}
374: We also include a beam energy spread of 1\%.
375: In order to simulate the calorimeter and tracking resolution, we perform a
376: Gaussian smearing
377: of the energies of electrons and muons using the
378: specifications in the TESLA Technical Design Report \cite{tesla2}
379: \begin{equation}
380: \frac{\Delta E^e}{E^e} = \frac{10\%}{\sqrt{E^e}} \oplus 1 \% \;, \quad
381: \frac{\Delta E^\mu}{E^\mu} = 0.02 \% \, E^\mu \;,
382: \end{equation}
383: where the energies are in GeV and the two terms are added in quadrature. We
384: apply ``detector'' cuts on transverse momenta, $p_T \geq 10$ GeV, and
385: pseudorapidities $|\eta| \leq 2.5$, the latter corresponding to polar angles
386: $10^\circ \leq \theta \leq 170^\circ$. We also reject events in which the
387: leptons are not isolated, requiring a ``lego-plot'' separation
388: $\Delta R = \sqrt{\Delta \eta^2+\Delta \phi^2} \geq 0.4$.
389: We do not require specific trigger conditions, and we assume that the
390: presence of charged leptons with high transverse momentum will suffice.
391: For the Monte Carlo integration in 6-body phase space we use
392: {\tt RAMBO} \cite{rambo}.
393:
394:
395: \subsection{Scenarios 1 and 2}
396:
397: The dependence of the asymmetry $A_1$ on the phase $\phi_1$ (taking $\phi_\mu =
398: 0$) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:aXX} for the two scenarios under study
399: and three polarisation choices. In these plots we consider ISR,
400: beamstrahlung, beam spread and detector effects, but do not include backgrounds.
401: We observe that for $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$ the asymmetry is
402: slightly larger than in the unpolarised case, while it is significantly reduced
403: for $P_{e^+}=-0.6$, $P_{e^-}=0.8$. For completeness, we show in
404: Fig.~\ref{fig:aXX-mu} the dependence of $A_1$ on $\phi_\mu$ for $\phi_1 = 0$.
405: For the two polarisation choices which turn out to be of interest for this
406: process ($P_{00}$ and $P_{+-}$) the asymmetry is virtually independent of
407: $\phi_\mu$. The cross sections of the signal and
408: backgrounds are plotted in Figs.~\ref{fig:cr00}--\ref{fig:crmp} as a function of
409: $\phi_1$. $\tilde
410: \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production is
411: largest for $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$ because the dominant contributions to
412: the amplitude are from $\tilde e_L$ exchange diagrams in both scenarios.
413: These polarisations enhance the $W^+ W^-$ cross section, which is the
414: largest background, but reduce $\tilde \ell_R \tilde \ell_R$ production which
415: is the second one in importance. It is clear from
416: Figs.~\ref{fig:aXX}--\ref{fig:crmp} that in both scenarios this polarisation
417: choice yields the best sensitivity for the measurement of $A_1$. We note here
418: that the determination of $\phi_1$ from a cross section measurement does not
419: seem possible, due not only to the small relative variation of the total
420: (signal plus background) cross section but also to the theoretical uncertainties
421: regarding neutralino mixing, sparticle mass spectrum, scale dependence of the
422: cross sections, etc.
423:
424:
425: \begin{figure}[htb]
426: \begin{center}
427: \begin{tabular}{cc}
428: \epsfig{file=Figs/asimXX-2R.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
429: & \epsfig{file=Figs/asimXX-3.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
430: (a) & (b)
431: \end{tabular}
432: \caption{Dependence of the asymmetry $A_1$ on the phase $\phi_1$ in scenario 1
433: (a) and scenario 2 (b). Backgrounds are not included. We consider unpolarised
434: beams ($P_{00}$), $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$ ($P_{+-}$) and
435: $P_{e^+}=-0.6$, $P_{e^-}=0.8$ ($P_{-+}$).}
436: \label{fig:aXX}
437: \end{center}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: \begin{figure}[htb]
441: \begin{center}
442: \begin{tabular}{cc}
443: \epsfig{file=Figs/asimXX-mu-2R.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
444: & \epsfig{file=Figs/asimXX-mu-3.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
445: (a) & (b)
446: \end{tabular}
447: \caption{Dependence of the asymmetry $A_1$ on the phase $\phi_\mu$ in scenario 1
448: (a) and scenario 2 (b). Backgrounds are not included. We consider unpolarised
449: beams ($P_{00}$), $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$ ($P_{+-}$) and
450: $P_{e^+}=-0.6$, $P_{e^-}=0.8$ ($P_{-+}$).}
451: \label{fig:aXX-mu}
452: \end{center}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455: \begin{figure}[htb]
456: \begin{center}
457: \begin{tabular}{cc}
458: \epsfig{file=Figs/cross2R00.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
459: & \epsfig{file=Figs/cross300.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
460: (a) & (b)
461: \end{tabular}
462: \caption{Dependence of the signal and background cross sections on the phase
463: $\phi_1$ in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b), for unpolarised beams.}
464: \label{fig:cr00}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468: \begin{figure}[htb]
469: \begin{center}
470: \begin{tabular}{cc}
471: \epsfig{file=Figs/cross2R+-.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
472: & \epsfig{file=Figs/cross3+-.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
473: (a) & (b)
474: \end{tabular}
475: \caption{Dependence of the signal and background cross sections on the phase
476: $\phi_1$ in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b), for $P_{e^+}=0.6$,
477: $P_{e^-}=-0.8$.}
478: \label{fig:crpm}
479: \end{center}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: \begin{figure}[htb]
483: \begin{center}
484: \begin{tabular}{cc}
485: \epsfig{file=Figs/cross2R-+.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
486: & \epsfig{file=Figs/cross3-+.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
487: (a) & (b)
488: \end{tabular}
489: \caption{Dependence of the signal and background cross sections on the phase
490: $\phi_1$ in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b), for $P_{e^+}=-0.6$,
491: $P_{e^-}=0.8$.}
492: \label{fig:crmp}
493: \end{center}
494: \end{figure}
495:
496: The $W^+ W^-$ background can be effectively reduced requiring that the angle
497: $\theta$ between the two final state charged leptons is smaller than, for
498: instance,
499: $90^\circ$ (we have not attempted to optimise the signal to background ratio
500: but rather we have chosen $\theta \leq 90^\circ$ in all cases for simplicity).
501: The kinematical distribution of the signal and backgrounds
502: with respect to $\cos \theta$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:th}, with all cross
503: sections normalised to unity. The total cross sections are: $\sigma_{W^+ W^-} =
504: 318$ fb; $\sigma_{\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0} =6.2 ~ (2.2)$ fb,
505: $\sigma_{\tilde \ell \tilde \ell} = 52.1 ~ (3.0)$ fb,
506: $\sigma_{\tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^-} = 1.2 \times 10^{-3} ~ (2.9)$ fb
507: in scenario 1 (scenario 2).
508: $W^+ W^-$ production is strongly peaked at $\theta = 180^\circ$, because $W^+
509: W^-$ pairs are produced with high momentum in the CM frame and
510: in the $W$ rest frame the charged lepton is preferrably emitted in the
511: direction of the $W$ boson CM momentum.
512: Slepton decays are isotropic, thus the only dependence on the angle $\theta$ of
513: the $\tilde \ell \tilde \ell$ cross section is kinematical. It can be noticed
514: that the decrease with $\cos \theta$ of their cross section is more pronounced
515: in scenario 1 (in this case the sleptons
516: are lighter and then produced with larger energy and momentum).
517:
518:
519: \begin{figure}[tb]
520: \begin{center}
521: \begin{tabular}{cc}
522: \epsfig{file=Figs/costh-2R.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
523: & \epsfig{file=Figs/costh-3.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
524: (a) & (b)
525: \end{tabular}
526: \caption{Dependence of the signal and background cross sections on the angle
527: $\theta$ between $\ell^+$ and $\ell^-$ in
528: scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b). We have set $\phi_1 = 0$ and
529: $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$. All cross sections are normalised to unity.}
530: \label{fig:th}
531: \end{center}
532: \end{figure}
533:
534: One could expect that the $W^+ W^-$ background had smaller values of the missing
535: transverse momentum $\ptmiss$ than SUSY processes, in which there is a pair of
536: heavy undetected $\tilde \chi_1^0$ in the final state. However, as we observe in
537: Fig.~\ref{fig:ptmiss}, the kinematical distributions are not so different, and
538: trying to reduce the background requiring large $\ptmiss$ eliminates a large
539: fraction of the signal. The results for the observed asymmetry
540: $A_1^\mathrm{eff}$ (including backgrounds) are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:asim}
541: for both scenarios, using $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$, which give the
542: best results, and requiring $\theta \leq 90^\circ$. We also show the statistical
543: error for two years with a luminosity of 345 fb$^{-1}$ per year. Comparing with
544: Fig.~\ref{fig:aXX} we see that the asymmetry roughly decreases by a factor
545: $r \sim 1/10$ due to the backgrounds, but it can be observed after a few
546: years of running for wide ranges of $\phi_1$. We remark that detector and
547: kinematical cuts do not generate by themselves a ``fake'' asymmetry $A_1$ (the
548: asymmetry goes to zero when CP is conserved). Still, the cut $\theta \leq
549: 90^\circ$ slightly enhances the values of $A_1$ when they are nonzero.
550:
551: \begin{figure}[htb]
552: \begin{center}
553: \begin{tabular}{cc}
554: \epsfig{file=Figs/ptmiss-2R.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=}
555: & \epsfig{file=Figs/ptmiss-3.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
556: (a) & (b)
557: \end{tabular}
558: \caption{Kinematical distribution of the missing transverse momentum $\ptmiss$
559: in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b). We have set $\phi_1=0$ and $P_{e^+}=0.6$,
560: $P_{e^-}=-0.8$. All cross sections are normalised to unity.}
561: \label{fig:ptmiss}
562: \end{center}
563: \end{figure}
564:
565:
566: \begin{figure}[htb]
567: \begin{center}
568: \begin{tabular}{cc}
569: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-2R.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} &
570: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-3.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
571: (a) & (b)
572: \end{tabular}
573: \caption{Dependence of the observed asymmetry $A_1^\mathrm{eff}$ (including
574: backgrounds) on the phase $\phi_1$ in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b), for
575: $P_{e^+}=0.6$ and $P_{e^-}=-0.8$. The shaded area represents the statistical
576: error for two years of running.}
577: \label{fig:asim}
578: \end{center}
579: \end{figure}
580:
581: We collect in Table~\ref{tab:cross} the signal and background cross sections for
582: two examples in which the observability of the CP asymmetry is nearly maximal:
583: $\phi_1 = \pi/3$ in scenario 1 and $\phi_1 = 3 \pi/4$ in scenario 2. The
584: kinematical cut on $\theta$ reduces $W^+ W^-$ and $\tilde \ell \tilde \ell$
585: production by factors of 6 and $2-3$, respectively, while keeping approximately
586: 70\% of the signal. The CP asymmetries before cuts in these scenarios
587: are $A_1 = 0.101$, $A_1 =
588: 0.066$, and after cuts they are $A_1 = 0.108$, $A_1 = 0.074$. The ratio $r$
589: after cuts is $r = 0.074$, $r = 0.097$, yielding effective asymmetries
590: $A_1^\mathrm{eff} = 0.0080$, $A_1^\mathrm{eff} = 0.0072$.
591: These asymmetries can be observed with statistical significances of $1.8 \,
592: \sigma$ and $1.5 \, \sigma$, respectively, after two years of running.
593:
594: \begin{table}[htb]
595: \begin{center}
596: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
597: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Scenario 1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Scenario 2} \\
598: & before & after & before & after \\
599: \hline
600: $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ & 8.18 & 5.49 & 7.83 & 6.01 \\
601: $W^+ W^-$ & 318.0 & 54.3 & 318.0 & 54.3 \\
602: $\tilde \ell^+ \tilde \ell^-$ & 53.1 & 14.2 & 3.11 & 1.33 \\
603: $\tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\sim 10^{-3}$}
604: & 2.96 & 0.56
605: \end{tabular}
606: \caption{Cross sections (in fb) before and after kinematical cuts of the signal
607: and backgrounds in scenario 1 (a) and scenario 2 (b). In the first scenario we
608: choose $\phi_1 = \pi/3$, and in the second $\phi_1 = 3 \pi/4$.}
609: \label{tab:cross}
610: \end{center}
611: \end{table}
612:
613: \subsection{Other SUSY scenarios}
614:
615: In the two scenarios analysed in detail the asymmetry $A_1$ is difficult to
616: observe due to the fact that the same beam polarisations
617: $P_{e^+}=0.6$, $P_{e^-}=-0.8$ which make the signal largest also enhance the
618: most important background, which is $W^+ W^-$ production, and for
619: $P_{e^+}=-0.6$, $P_{e^-}=0.8$ the signal is small, because $\tilde e_L$
620: exchange dominates the amplitudes of $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde
621: \chi_2^0$. One can then
622: wonder what is the situation in SUSY scenarios where $\tilde e_R$ exchange is
623: important, so that $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production is large
624: with the latter choice of beam polarisations.
625: The situation does not improve however, because these polarisations increase the
626: cross section for $\tilde \ell_R \tilde \ell_R$ production, which is the second
627: largest background and more difficult to remove with kinematical cuts
628: (see Figs.~\ref{fig:th},\ref{fig:ptmiss}). We have explicitly analysed one
629: scenario with large neutralino mixing, finding results very similar
630: to those presented in the previous subsection. The parameters for this scenario
631: are: $M_1 = 105.8 \, e^{i \phi_1}$ GeV, $M_2 = 199.3$ GeV, $\mu = 263.5 \,
632: e^{i \phi_\mu}$ GeV, $m_{\tilde L} = m_{\tilde E} = 100$ GeV,
633: $A_E = 0$, $\tan \beta = 10$. The relevant sparticle
634: masses are $m_{\tilde e_R,\tilde \mu_R} = 147.5$ GeV,
635: $m_{\tilde e_L,\tilde \mu_L} = 211.5$ GeV,
636: $m_{\tilde \chi_1^0} \simeq 103$ GeV, $m_{\tilde \chi_2^0} \simeq 174$ GeV,
637: close to the values for scenario 1. We have found that in the best case the
638: asymmetry can be observed with $1.2 \, \sigma$ after two years of running.
639: More favourable SUSY scenarios may be found, but the general
640: trend is that the CP asymmetry $A_1$ is difficult to observe, due either to the
641: $W^+ W^-$ background or the $\tilde \ell_R \tilde \ell_R$ background.
642:
643:
644: \section{Summary and conclusions}
645: \label{sec:4}
646:
647: The determination of the presence (or not) of complex phases in the neutralino
648: sector is one of the tasks that must be carried out at a future linear collider.
649: This will be done following two different approaches: with a precise analysis
650: of CP-conserving quantities (see e.g, Refs.~\cite{CPcon1,CPcon2,choi}) and
651: through the investigation
652: of CP-violating asymmetries. We have shown that in $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde
653: \chi_2^0$ production it is possible to have a CP asymmetry in the triple product
654: $\vec p_{e^+} \cdot ( \vec p_{\ell^-} \times \vec p_{\ell^+} )$
655: which is very sensitive to the phase $\phi_1$ of the gaugino mass $M_1$.
656: We have studied two SUSY scenarios, one with $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde
657: \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp$ and the other with three-body decays of $\tilde \chi_2^0$.
658: In both scenarios the neutralinos are light enough to be accessible at a
659: CM energy of 500 GeV, as proposed for the first phase of TESLA and NLC.
660: The CP asymmetries in $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production are of order
661: 0.1, and the ``effective'' asymmetries observed (which include the backgrounds)
662: are roughly one order of magnitude smaller. At any rate, asymmetries of order
663: 0.01 can be observed after a few years of running with the planned luminosity,
664: for wide intervals of $\phi_1$.
665: The results for a heavier SUSY spectrum are similar, and could be experimentally
666: studied with higher CM energies and luminosities.
667:
668: It should be emphasised that this study is complementary to
669: the analysis of CP asymmetries in other processes.
670: Selectron cascade decays $\tilde e_L \to e \tilde \chi_2^0 \to e \tilde
671: \chi_1^0 \mu^+ \mu^-$ are one example, where there may exist a CP
672: asymmetry in the triple product
673: $\vec s \cdot (\vec p_{\mu^-} \times \vec p_{\mu^+})$, with $\vec s$
674: the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ spin \cite{casc}. In the scenario with $\tilde \chi_2^0$
675: three-body
676: decays discussed, it is easier to observe a CP asymmetry in the latter process.
677: In particular, the asymmetry in $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production
678: is negligible for $\phi_1=\pi/2$, $\phi_1 = 3 \pi/2$, whereas in selectron
679: decays it is nearly maximal. The reverse situation occurs in the scenario with
680: decays $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp$: the asymmetry in
681: selectron decays is very small, while it could be observable in
682: $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ production for values of $\phi_1$ around
683: $\pm 1$. The combined analysis of these and other processes, together with the
684: constraints from EDMs, may allow the determination of the CP-violating phases
685: in the neutralino sector.
686:
687: %\newpage
688: \vspace{1cm}
689: \noindent
690: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
691:
692: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
693: This work has been supported
694: by the European Community's Human Potential Programme under contract
695: HTRN--CT--2000--00149 Physics at Colliders and by FCT
696: through projects POCTI/FNU/43793/2002, CFIF--Plurianual (2/91) and
697: grant SFRH/ BPD/12603/2003.
698:
699: \appendix
700: \section{Notation and conventions}
701: \label{sec:A}
702: \setcounter{equation}{0}
703: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
704:
705: We list here some of the mass matrices and interactions used in this work,
706: (see also Ref.~\cite{npb}) following the conventions of Ref.~\cite{romao}.
707: We neglect flavour mixing and assume that the trilinear terms are real.
708:
709: The relation between slepton
710: mass eigenstates $\tilde \ell = ( \tilde \ell_1 ~ \tilde \ell_2 )^T$
711: (with $m_{\tilde \ell_1} < m_{\tilde \ell_2}$)
712: and weak interaction eigenstates $\tilde \ell' = ( \tilde \ell_L ~ \tilde
713: \ell_R )^T$
714: can be written as $\tilde \ell = R^{\tilde \ell} \, \tilde \ell'$, with
715: \begin{equation}
716: R^{\tilde \ell} =
717: \left( \begin{array}{cc} \sin\theta_{\tilde \ell} & \cos \theta_{\tilde \ell}
718: \\
719: -\cos \theta_{\tilde \ell} & \sin \theta_{\tilde \ell} \end{array} \right) \,.
720: \end{equation}
721: In the basis where $\psi^+ = (\tilde W^+,\tilde H_2^+)^T$,
722: $\psi^- = (\tilde W^-,\tilde H_1^+)^T$, the chargino mass term is
723: \begin{equation}
724: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde \chi^\pm}^\mathrm{mass} = - (\psi^-)^T M_{\tilde \chi^\pm}
725: \, \psi^+ + \mathrm{H.c.} \,,
726: \end{equation}
727: being the chargino mass matrix
728: \begin{equation}
729: M_{\tilde \chi^\pm} = \left( \begin{tabular}{cc}
730: $M_2$ & $\sqrt 2 \, m_W \sin \beta$ \\ $\sqrt 2 \, m_W \cos \beta$ & $\mu$
731: \end{tabular} \right) \,.
732: \end{equation}
733: This matrix can be diagonalised with two unitary matrices $U$ and $V$,
734: \begin{equation}
735: U^* M_{\tilde \chi^\pm} V^\dagger = M_{\tilde \chi^\pm}^\mathrm{diag} \,.
736: \end{equation}
737: The physical chargino fields are $\tilde \chi_i^- = \left( \chi_i^- ~
738: \overline{\chi_i^+} \right)^T$,
739: with $\chi^- = U \psi^-$, $\chi^+ = V \psi^+$.
740: Their couplings to leptons are
741: \begin{eqnarray}
742: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde \nu_\ell \ell \tilde \chi_j^-} & = & \tilde \nu_\ell \; \bar
743: \ell \left[ B_{Lj}^\ell P_L + B_{Rj}^\ell P_R \right] \tilde \chi_j^-
744: + \mathrm{H.c.} \,, \nonumber \\
745: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde \ell_i \nu_\ell \tilde \chi_j^-} & = & \tilde \ell_i^*
746: \; \bar \nu_\ell \left[ B_{Lij}^\nu P_L \right] \tilde \chi_j^-
747: + \mathrm{H.c.} \,,
748: \end{eqnarray}
749: with
750: \begin{eqnarray}
751: B_{Lj}^\ell & = & Y_\ell \, U_{j2}^* \,, \nonumber \\
752: B_{Rj}^\ell & = & -g \, V_{j1} \,, \nonumber \\
753: B_{Lij}^\nu & = & -g \, U_{j1}^* \, R_{i1}^{\tilde \ell} + Y_\ell \, U_{j2}^* \,
754: R_{i2}^{\tilde \ell} \,.
755: \end{eqnarray}
756: For $\ell = e,\mu$ the terms with the Yukawa coupling $Y_\ell$ can be safely
757: neglected. The chargino interactions with the gauge bosons are
758: \begin{eqnarray}
759: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma \tilde \chi_i^- \tilde \chi_i^-} & = & e \, A_\mu \,
760: \overline{\tilde \chi_i^-} \gamma^\mu \tilde \chi_i^- \,, \nonumber \\
761: \mathcal{L}_{Z \tilde \chi_i^- \tilde \chi_j^-} & = & \frac{g}{2 \cos \theta_W}
762: \, Z_\mu \left[ \overline{\tilde \chi_i^-} \gamma^\mu \left( E_L^{ij} P_L +
763: E_R^{ij} P_R \right) \tilde \chi_j^- \right] \,, \nonumber \\
764: \mathcal{L}_{W \tilde \chi_i^0 \tilde \chi_j^-} & = & g \, W_\mu^\dagger
765: \left[ \overline{\tilde \chi_i^0} \gamma^\mu \left( O_L^{ij} P_L + O_R^{ij}
766: P_R \right) \tilde \chi_j^- \right] + \mathrm{H.c.} \,,
767: \end{eqnarray}
768: with
769: \begin{eqnarray}
770: E_L^{ij} & = & U_{i2} \, U_{j2}^* + 2 U_{i1} \, U_{j1}^* - 2 \delta_{ij} \,
771: \sin^2 \theta_W \,, \nonumber \\
772: E_R^{ij} & = & V_{j2} \, V_{i2}^* + 2 V_{j1} \, V_{i1}^* - 2 \delta_{ij} \,
773: \sin^2 \theta_W \,, \nonumber \\
774: O_L^{ij} & = & -N_{i2} \, U_{j1}^* - \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} N_{i3} \, U_{j2}^* \,,
775: \nonumber \\
776: O_R^{ij} & = & -N_{i2}^* \, V_{j1} + \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} N_{i4}^* \, V_{j2}
777: \end{eqnarray}
778: and $\theta_W$ the weak mixing angle.
779: Slepton couplings to the neutral gauge bosons are given by
780: \begin{eqnarray}
781: \mathcal{L}_{\gamma \tilde \ell_i \tilde \ell_i} & = & -i e \, A_\mu \, \left[
782: \tilde \ell_i^* \, \overleftrightarrow{\partial_\mu} \, \tilde \ell_i
783: \right] \,, \nonumber \\
784: \mathcal{L}_{Z \tilde \ell_i \tilde \ell_i} & = & -i \frac{g}{2 \cos \theta_W}
785: \, Z_\mu \left[
786: z^\ell_{ij} \, \tilde \ell_i^* \, \overleftrightarrow{\partial_\mu} \,
787: \tilde \ell_j
788: \right] \,, \nonumber \\
789: \mathcal{L}_{Z \tilde \nu_\ell \tilde \nu_\ell} & = & -i \frac{g}{2 \cos
790: \theta_W} \, Z_\mu \left[ \tilde \nu_\ell^* \,
791: \overleftrightarrow{\partial_\mu} \, \tilde \nu_\ell \right] \,.
792: \end{eqnarray}
793: The $z^{\ell}_{ij}$ mixing parameters read
794: \begin{eqnarray}
795: z^\ell_{11} & = & \left( -1+2 \sin^2 \theta_W \right) |R_{11}^{\tilde \ell}|^2
796: + 2 \sin^2 \theta_W |R_{12}^{\tilde \ell}|^2 \,, \nonumber \\
797: z^\ell_{22} & = & \left( -1+2 \sin^2 \theta_W \right) |R_{21}^{\tilde \ell}|^2
798: + 2 \sin^2 \theta_W |R_{22}^{\tilde \ell}|^2 \,, \nonumber \\
799: z^\ell_{12} & = & - R^{\tilde \ell}_{11} R^{\tilde \ell *}_{21} \,, \nonumber \\
800: z^\ell_{21} & = & z^{\ell*}_{12} \,.
801: \end{eqnarray}
802: Finally, the neutrino--sneutrino--neutralino couplings are
803: \begin{equation}
804: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde \nu_\ell \nu_\ell \tilde{\chi}_j^0} = \tilde \nu_\ell^* \,
805: \overline{\tilde \chi_j^0} \left[ C^\nu_{Lij} \, P_L \right] \nu_\ell +
806: \tilde \nu_\ell \, \bar \nu_\ell \left[ C^{\nu*}_{Lij} \, P_R \right]
807: \tilde \chi_j^0 \,,
808: \end{equation}
809: where
810: \begin{equation}
811: C^\nu_{Lij} = -\frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \left( N^*_{j2} - \tan \theta_W N^*_{j1}
812: \right) \,.
813: \end{equation}
814:
815:
816:
817:
818: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
819:
820: \bibitem{susy2}
821: H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rept. {\bf 117} (1985) 75
822: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
823:
824: \bibitem{susy3}
825: S. P. Martin, in {\em ``Perspectives on supersymmetry''}, G. L. Kane (ed.),
826: hep-ph/9709356
827: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%
828:
829: \bibitem{pr1}
830: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
831: %``The neutron and the electron electric dipole moment in N = 1 supergravity
832: %unification,''
833: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 478
834: [Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 58} (1998) 019901, Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 60} (1999) 079903,
835: Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 60} (1999) 019901]
836: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708456;%%
837:
838: \bibitem{pr2}
839: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
840: %``The neutron and the lepton EDMs in MSSM, large CP violating phases, and the
841: %cancellation mechanism,''
842: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 111301 [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 099902]
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807501;%%
844:
845: \bibitem{kane}
846: M. Brhlik, G. J. Good and G. L. Kane,
847: %``Electric dipole moments do not require the CP-violating phases of
848: %supersymmetry to be small,''
849: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 115004
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810457;%%
851:
852: \bibitem{choi0}
853: S. Y. Choi, H. S. Song and W. Y. Song, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 075004
854: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907474;%%
855:
856: \bibitem{bartl1}
857: A. Bartl, H. Fraas, O. Kittel and W. Majerotto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004)
858: 035007
859: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308141;%%
860:
861: \bibitem{bartl2}
862: A. Bartl, H. Fraas, O. Kittel and W. Majerotto, hep-ph/0402016
863: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402016;%%
864:
865: \bibitem{gudrid1}
866: G. Moortgat-Pick and H. Fraas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 015016
867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708481;%%
868:
869: \bibitem{gudrid2}
870: G. Moortgat-Pick, H. Fraas, A. Bartl and W. Majerotto, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 9}
871: (1999) 521 [Erratum-ibid.\ C {\bf 9} (1999) 549]
872: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903220;%%
873:
874:
875: \bibitem{npb}
876: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and A. M. Teixeira, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} 675, 70 (2003)
877: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307001;%%
878:
879: \bibitem{sps}
880: B. C. Allanach {\em et al.},
881: %``The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches,''
882: in {\em Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics
883: (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N. Graf, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002)
884: [eConf {\bf C010630}, P125 (2001)]
885: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%
886:
887: \bibitem{pdb}
888: K. Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}
889: (2002) 010001
890: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
891:
892: \bibitem{arnowitt}
893: R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 113010
894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106089;%%
895:
896: \bibitem{helas}
897: E. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK report 91-11, January 1992
898: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
899:
900: \bibitem{lum}
901: International Linear Collider Technical Review Committee 2003 Report,
902: {\small \tt
903: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ilc-trc/2002/2002/report/03rep.htm}
904:
905: \bibitem{isr}
906: M. Skrzypek and S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C {\bf 49} (1991) 577
907: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C49,577;%%
908:
909: \bibitem{peskin}
910: M. Peskin, Linear Collider Collaboration Note LCC-0010, January 1999
911: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
912:
913: \bibitem{BS2}
914: K. Yokoya and P. Chen, SLAC-PUB-4935. {\em Presented at IEEE Particle
915: Accelerator Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Mar 20-23, 1989}
916: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
917:
918: \bibitem{tesla2}
919: G. Alexander {\em et al.}, TESLA Technical Design Report Part 4,
920: DESY-01-011
921: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
922:
923: \bibitem{rambo}
924: R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling and S. D. Ellis,
925: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 40} (1986) 359
926: %%CITATION = CPHCB,40,359;%%
927:
928: \bibitem{CPcon1}
929: S. Y. Choi, A. Djouadi, M. Guchait, J. Kalinowski, H. S. Song and P. M. Zerwas,
930: %``Reconstructing the chargino system at e+ e- linear colliders,''
931: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 14} (2000) 535
932: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002033;%%
933:
934: \bibitem{CPcon2}
935: S. Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat-Pick and P. M. Zerwas,
936: %``Analysis of the neutralino system in supersymmetric theories,''
937: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 563
938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108117;%%
939: [Addendum-ibid.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 769]
940: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202039;%%
941:
942: \bibitem{choi}
943: S. Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004) 096003
944: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308060;%%
945:
946: \bibitem{casc}
947: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, hep-ph/0403243, to be published in Phys. Lett. B
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403243;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{romao}
951: J. C. Rom\~ao,
952: http://porthos.ist.utl.pt/$\sim$romao/homepage/publications/mssm-
953: model/mssm-model.ps
954: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
955:
956: \end{thebibliography}
957: \end{document}
958: