1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
5: \usepackage{t1enc}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7:
8: \newcommand{\pmiss}{\vec p\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,}
9: \newcommand{\ptmiss}{p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}
10:
11: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
12: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
13: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
14: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
15: \parskip=1.0ex
16: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
17: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
18: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
19:
20: \textwidth=15.5cm
21: \textheight=22cm
22: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
23: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
24: \topmargin=-1cm
25:
26:
27:
28:
29: \begin{document}
30: \vspace*{-3cm}
31: \begin{flushright}
32: hep-ph/0410068 \\
33: October 2004
34: \end{flushright}
35:
36: \begin{center}
37: \begin{Large}
38: {\bf Sneutrino cascade decays $\boldsymbol{\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+
39: \to e^- f \bar f' \tilde \chi_1^0}$ \\ % [0.1cm]
40: as a probe of chargino spin properties \\[0.3cm]
41: and CP violation}
42: \end{Large}
43:
44: \vspace{0.5cm}
45: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra \\[0.2cm]
46: {\it Departamento de Física and CFTP, \\
47: Instituto Superior Técnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal} \\
48: \end{center}
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: The decays $\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$,
52: $\tilde \nu_e^* \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$, when kinematically allowed,
53: constitute a source of 100\% polarised charginos.
54: We study the process $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \nu_e^* \tilde \nu_e \to e^+ \tilde
55: \chi_1^- \, e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$, with subsequent chargino decays
56: $\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar \nu_\mu \mu^- \tilde \chi_1^0$,
57: $\tilde \chi_1^+ \to q \bar q' \tilde \chi_1^0$ or their charge conjugate
58: $\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar q q' \tilde \chi_1^0$,
59: $\tilde \chi_1^+ \to \nu_\mu \mu^+ \tilde \chi_1^0$.
60: The kinematics of this process
61: allows the reconstruction of the sneutrino and chargino rest frames, and thus
62: a clean analysis of the angular distributions of the visible final state
63: products in these reference systems. Furthermore, a triple product CP asymmetry
64: can be built in $\tilde \chi_1^\pm$ hadronic decays, involving the chargino
65: spins and the momenta of the quark and antiquark.
66: With a good $c$ tagging efficiency, this CP asymmetry is quite sensitive to
67: the phase of the bino mass term $M_1$ and can test CP
68: violation in the neutralino sector.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: % 12.60.Jv,13.10.+q,13.88.+e,14.80.Ly
72:
73: % 12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
74: % 13.10.+q Weak and electromagnetic interactions of leptons
75: % 13.88.+e Polarization in interactions and scattering
76: % 14.80.Ly Supersymmetric partners of known particles
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79: \label{sec:1}
80:
81: An international linear $e^+ e^-$ collider (ILC) offers an ideal environment
82: for the study of
83: supersymmetry (SUSY) \cite{susy2,susy3}, if this theory is realised in nature.
84: With adequate choices for the centre of mass (CM) energy and beam polarisations,
85: the various production processes simultaneously present in $e^+ e^-$
86: annihilation can be disentangled. It is then possible to measure sparticle
87: masses, couplings and mixings \cite{tdr}, allowing for the determination of the
88: Lagrangian parameters. The quantum numbers of the new particles must be
89: investigated as well, in order to confirm that they are the
90: superpartners of the Standard Model (SM) fields. In particular, it is crucial
91: to determine the spins of the SUSY particles. Spin-dependent effects serve
92: not only to deduce the particle spins but may also
93: be used to verify the predictions of the theory, using the input
94: from other experiments. It is also conceivable that spin distributions and
95: asymmetries, if precisely measured, can be used to improve the measurement of
96: some of the mixing parameters of the Lagrangian.
97:
98: The existence of purely supersymmetric CP violation sources is other of the
99: aspects that require a thorough investigation. At present, all CP violation
100: observed in $K$ and $B$ oscillations and decay (with the possible exception of
101: the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B_d^0 \to \phi K_S$, whose experimental
102: situation is still unclear) can be explained by
103: a single CP-violating phase in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix.
104: However, the CP
105: breaking induced by this phase cannot account for the observed baryon asymmetry
106: in the universe. The most general Lagrangian of the minimal supersymmetric
107: Standard Model (MSSM) contains a large number of CP violation sources,
108: which can potentially yield observable effects at low
109: and high energies. Within the neutralino sector, CP-violating
110: phases can appear in the bino and Higgsino mass terms, $M_1$ and $\mu$,
111: respectively.
112: At low energies the phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$ of these two parameters
113: generally lead to unacceptably large SUSY contributions to electric dipole
114: moments (EDMs), if they are different from $0,\pi$. Present constraints from
115: EDMs place strong restrictions on the
116: values of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_\mu$, but do not necessarily require that $M_1$ and
117: $\mu$ are real, and cancellations among the different SUSY contributions can
118: occur \cite{pr1,pr2,kane}. This possibility, and the need for further CP
119: violation sources beyond the SM, makes the investigation of CP breaking in the
120: neutralino sector a compelling task to be carried out at a linear collider.
121:
122: In this paper we focus on the determination of the spin and
123: spin-related properties of sneutrinos and charginos, including
124: CP-violating spin asymmetries in chargino decays. We study
125: sneutrino pair production in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation at a CM energy of 800 GeV,
126: as proposed for an ILC upgrade. We concentrate in the channels
127: \begin{align}
128: e^+ e^- & \to \tilde \nu_e^* \tilde \nu_e \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^- \,
129: e^- \tilde \chi_1^+ \to e^+ \bar \nu_\mu \mu^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \,
130: e^- q \bar q' \tilde \chi_1^0 \nonumber \,,
131: \nonumber \\
132: e^+ e^- & \to \tilde \nu_e^* \tilde \nu_e \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^- \,
133: e^- \tilde \chi_1^+ \to e^+ \bar q q' \tilde \chi_1^0 \,
134: e^- \nu_\mu \mu^+ \tilde \chi_1^0 \,,
135: \label{ec:1}
136: \end{align}
137: with $q=u,c$, $q'=d,s$.
138: This process has three advantages for our purposes: ({\em i\/}) the charginos
139: produced are 100\% polarised, having positive helicity in the decay
140: $\tilde \nu_e^* \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$ and negative helicity in
141: $\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$; ({\em ii\/}) the kinematics
142: allows the determination of the sneutrino and chargino rest frames, and
143: then the study of angular distributions in these reference systems;
144: ({\em iii\/}) its cross section is large, and backgrounds with 5 energetic
145: final state particles plus large missing energy and momentum are small. Muon
146: sneutrinos are also a source of polarised charginos, but the cross section for
147: $\tilde \nu_\mu^* \tilde \nu_\mu$ production is much smaller.
148: Beam polarisations $P_{e^-} = -0.8$, $P_{e^+} = 0.6$ can be used to increase
149: the signal cross sections but they do not affect the angular distributions and
150: CP asymmetries studied.
151:
152: For definiteness, we consider a SUSY scenario like SPS1a in Ref.~\cite{sps}
153: but with a heavier slepton spectrum (and nonzero phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$),
154: so that sneutrino decays to charginos are kinematically allowed.
155: The analysis of $e^-$, $e^+$ angular distributions in the $\tilde \nu_e$,
156: $\tilde \nu_e^*$ rest frames provides a strong indication that sneutrinos
157: are scalar particles and charginos have spin $1/2$. The angular distributions
158: of the
159: $\tilde \chi_1^-$ ($\tilde \chi_1^+$) decay products $\mu^-$, $\bar q$, $q'$
160: ($\mu^+$, $q$, $\bar q'$) with respect
161: to the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ ($\tilde \chi_1^+$) spin can be precisely measured as
162: well. Furthermore, summing $\tilde \chi_1^-$ and $\tilde \chi_1^+$
163: hadronic decays, a CP asymmetry based on the triple product
164: $\vec s_\pm \cdot (\vec p_{\bar q_1} \times \vec p_{q_2})$ can be built, where
165: $\vec s_\pm$ is
166: the spin direction of the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ or $\tilde \chi_1^+$, and
167: $\vec p_{\bar q_1}$, $\vec p_{q_2}$ are
168: the three-momenta of the antiquark and quark resulting from its decay,
169: respectively, in the
170: $\tilde \chi_1^\pm$ rest frame. A good $c$ tagging efficiency, as
171: expected for a future linear collider,
172: is essential for the determination of quark angular distributions and the
173: CP asymmetry. For the latter it is necessary to
174: distinguish between the quark and antiquark produced in the decay. This can be
175: done combining $c$ tagging and the knowledge of the final state muon charge.
176:
177: We note that in chargino pair production $e^+ e^- \to
178: \tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$ the charginos are polarised as well
179: \cite{abdel}, allowing for the measurement of decay angular distributions and
180: CP-violating asymmetries.
181: However, in this process the momenta of the decaying charginos cannot
182: be determined with kinematical constraints, and thus the analysis of angular
183: distributions is less clean. Moreover, the backgrounds for
184: $\tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$ in the semileptonic decay channel are huge,
185: being $e^+ e^- \to W^+ W^- \to \ell^\pm \nu jj$, $\ell=e,\mu$ the most
186: troublesome,
187: with a cross section (including ISR and beamstrahlung corrections) of
188: approximately 3.5 pb at CM energies of 500 and 800 GeV, for $P_{e^+}=0.6$,
189: $P_{e^-} = -0.8$. At any rate, in SUSY scenarios where sneutrino decays
190: to charginos are not kinematically allowed,
191: $\tilde \chi_1^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$ production seems the best place for the
192: study of chargino spin properties and CP asymmetries in chargino decays.
193:
194: This paper is organised as follows. In section~\ref{sec:2} we discuss sneutrino
195: production and decay, focusing on the features most relevant for our
196: work, and fix the SUSY scenario used. The procedure for the Monte
197: Carlo calculation of the processes and reconstruction of the signals is
198: outlined in section~\ref{sec:3}. In section~\ref{sec:4} we introduce the
199: different distributions analysed and present our numerical
200: results. In section~\ref{sec:5} we compare
201: with results obtained from other processes and draw our conclusions.
202:
203:
204:
205:
206: \section{Production and decay of sneutrino pairs}
207: \label{sec:2}
208:
209: Sneutrino pairs are produced in $e^+ e^-$ collisions through the Feynman
210: diagrams depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. Their two-body decays
211: $\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$, $\tilde \nu_e^* \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$
212: are mediated by the $\tilde \nu_e e \tilde \chi_1^-$ vertex which, neglecting
213: the electron Yukawa coupling, is given by
214: \begin{eqnarray}
215: \mathcal{L}_{\tilde \nu_e e \tilde \chi_1^-} & = & -g V_{11} \,
216: \bar e \, P_R \, \tilde \chi_1^- \; \tilde \nu_e -g V_{11}^* \,
217: \overline{\tilde \chi_1^-} \, P_L \, e \; \tilde \nu_e^* \,,
218: \label{ec:2}
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: with $V^\dagger$ the $2 \times 2$ unitary matrix diagonalising the chargino mass
221: matrix by the right (the interactions and notation used can be found in
222: Refs.~\cite{npb,x1x2}, and follow the conventions of Ref.~\cite{romao}). By
223: inspection of the Lagrangian it is easily seen
224: that in the decay $\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$, mediated by
225: the first term in Eq.~(\ref{ec:2}), the produced electron has negative chirality
226: (and thus negative helicity, neglecting the electron mass) and the chargino
227: has positive chirality. Since sneutrinos are spinless particles, angular
228: momentum conservation in the $\tilde \nu_e$ rest frame implies that the
229: $\tilde \chi_1^+$ must have negative
230: helicity as well, as depicted schematically in Fig.~\ref{fig:2} (a).
231: For $\tilde \nu_e^* \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$, the positron has negative
232: chirality, and thus positive helicity; therefore, the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ has
233: positive helicity in the $\tilde \nu_e^*$ rest frame, as shown in
234: Fig.~\ref{fig:2} (b).
235:
236: \noindent
237: \begin{figure}[htb]
238: \begin{center}
239: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
240: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/prod_s.eps,width=3.8cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
241: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/prod_t.eps,width=3.8cm,clip=}}
242: % \\ (a) & & (b) & & (c)
243: \end{tabular}
244: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $\tilde \nu_e^* \tilde \nu_e$ production
245: in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation.}
246: \label{fig:1}
247: \end{center}
248: \end{figure}
249:
250: \begin{figure}[htb]
251: \begin{center}
252: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
253: \epsfig{file=Figs/Xhel-sn.eps,width=5cm,clip=} & ~~~~ &
254: \epsfig{file=Figs/Xhel-snc.eps,width=5cm,clip=} \\
255: (a) & & (b)
256: \end{tabular}
257: \caption{Helicity of the charginos produced in $\tilde \nu_e$ and $\tilde
258: \nu_e^*$ decays.}
259: \label{fig:2}
260: \end{center}
261: \end{figure}
262:
263: The decay of $\tilde \chi_1^-$ to light fermions $\bar f,f'$ and a neutralino
264: $\tilde \chi_1^0$ is mediated by the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}, with
265: similar diagrams for $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decay. We study final states in which
266: one of the charginos decays leptonically and the other hadronically. In leptonic
267: decays we restrict ourselves to $\bar f f' = \bar \nu_\mu \mu^-$
268: ($f \bar f' = \nu_\mu \mu^+$). The reason is that in decays to $e^\pm$ and a
269: neutrino, the
270: presence of an additional $e^+ e^-$ pair from sneutrino decays difficults
271: the reconstruction of the final state, while in decays to $\tau^\pm$ the
272: momentum of the charged lepton cannot be directly measured. We sum all hadronic
273: decays $\bar f f' = \bar u d,\bar c s$ ($f \bar f' = u \bar d,c \bar s$).
274:
275: \begin{figure}[htb]
276: \begin{center}
277: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
278: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/Xdec-W.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
279: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/Xdec-sfp.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} & \hspace*{5mm} &
280: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/Xdec-sf.eps,width=3cm,clip=}} \\
281: (a) & & (b) & & (c)
282: \end{tabular}
283: \caption{Feynman diagrams for the decay $\tilde \chi_1^- \to
284: \bar f f' \tilde \chi_1^0$, for light fermions
285: $\bar f f' = \bar \nu_e e^-, \bar \nu_\mu \mu^-, \bar u d,\bar c s$ and
286: negligible
287: $\tilde f'_L-\tilde f'_R$, $\tilde f_L-\tilde f_R$ mixing. For $f=\nu_\ell$,
288: in diagram (c) $\tilde f_L^* = \tilde \nu_\ell^*$ is exchanged.}
289: \label{fig:3}
290: \end{center}
291: \end{figure}
292:
293: We choose a SUSY scenario similar to SPS1a but with a heavier sfermion spectrum
294: and complex phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$. The low-energy parameters
295: most important for our analysis are collected in Table~\ref{tab:1}.
296: For vanishing $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$, they approximately correspond to
297: $m_{1/2} = 250$ GeV,
298: $m_{\tilde E} = m_{\tilde L} = m_{H_i} = 200$ GeV, $A_E = -200$ GeV at the
299: unification
300: scale, and $\tan \beta = 10$. We use {\tt SPheno} \cite{spheno} to calculate
301: sparticle masses, mixings and some decay widths.
302: Neutralino and chargino masses slightly depend on $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$;
303: for $\phi_1 = \phi_\mu = 0$ they are $m_{\tilde \chi_1^0} = 99$ GeV,
304: $m_{\tilde \chi_1^-} = 178$ GeV, $m_{\tilde \chi_2^-} = 401$ GeV.
305: The relevant branching ratios
306: (taking $\phi_1 = \phi_\mu = 0$) are
307: $\mathrm{Br}(\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \, \tilde \chi_1^+) = 0.52$,
308: $\mathrm{Br}(\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar \nu_\mu \mu^- \tilde \chi_1^0) = 0.10$,
309: $\mathrm{Br}(\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar q q' \tilde \chi_1^0) = 0.34$, with the
310: same rates for the charge-conjugate processes.
311:
312: \begin{table}[htb]
313: \begin{center}
314: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
315: Parameter & ~ & Value \\
316: \hline
317: $M_1$ & & 102.0 $e^{i \phi_1}$ \\
318: $M_2$ & & 192.0 \\
319: $\mu$ & & 377.5 $e^{i \phi_\mu}$ \\
320: $\tan \beta$ & & 10 \\
321: $m_{\tilde \nu_e}$ & & 252.4 \\
322: $m_{\tilde \mu_L}$ & & 264.5 \\
323: $m_{\tilde u_L},m_{\tilde c_L}$ & & 571.5 \\
324: $m_{\tilde d_L},m_{\tilde s_L}$ & & 577.0
325: \end{tabular}
326: \caption{Low-energy parameters (at the scale $M_Z$) for the SUSY scenario used.
327: The dimensionful parameters are in GeV.
328: \label{tab:1}}
329: \end{center}
330: \end{table}
331:
332: In the scenario selected the three-body decays $\tilde \chi_1^- \to f \bar f'
333: \tilde \chi_1^0$ are mediated by off-shell intermediate particles. Still, they
334: are dominated by $W$ exchange, diagram (a) in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}, due to the large
335: sfermion masses. In
336: $\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar \nu_\mu \mu^- \tilde \chi_1^0$ the second diagram
337: in importance is sneutrino exchange in diagram \ref{fig:3} (c), but its
338: contribution to the partial width is 13 times smaller than the one from $W$
339: exchange. For hadronic decays,
340: diagrams involving squarks are even more suppressed, and their contribution
341: has a relative magnitude of $2 \times 10^{-4}$ with respect to the $W$
342: diagram. Therefore, many
343: characteristics of this scenario are shared with scenarios with a heavier
344: chargino spectrum,
345: in which the two-body decay $\tilde \chi_1^- \to W^- \tilde \chi_1^0$
346: is possible and diagrams (b) and (c) are negligible both for leptonic and
347: hadronic final states.
348:
349: For values of $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$ different from $0,\pi$, CP is violated
350: in the neutralino and chargino sectors, leading to large SUSY
351: contributions to EDMs. If the squark spectrum (which does
352: not play any role in our analysis, as seen from the previous discussion) is
353: heavy enough, experimental limits on the neutron and Mercury EDMs can be
354: satisfied. On the other hand, for the selectron and sneutrino masses
355: under consideration, the experimental bound on the electron EDM $d_e$ severely
356: constrains the allowed region in the $(\phi_1,\phi_\mu)$ plane. Using
357: the expressions for $d_e$ in Ref.~\cite{arnowitt} it is found that, for each
358: $\phi_1$ between 0 and $2 \pi$, in this scenario there exist two narrow
359: intervals for $\phi_\mu$, one with values $\phi_\mu \sim 0$ and the other with
360: values $\phi_\mu \sim \pi$, in which the neutralino and chargino contributions
361: to $d_e$ partially cancel, resulting in a value
362: compatible with the experimental limit $d_e^\mathrm{\,exp} = (0.079 \pm 0.074)
363: \times 10^{-26} ~ e$ cm \cite{pdb}. For instance, for $\phi_1 = \pi/2$ the
364: phase $\phi_\mu$ can be $\phi_\mu \simeq -0.12$ or $\phi_\mu \simeq 3.21$.
365: Several representative examples of these pairs of phases allowed by EDM
366: constraints are collected in Table~\ref{tab:pairs}.
367: We can see that in principle it is possible to have any phase $\phi_1$,
368: though with a strong correlation with $\phi_\mu$.
369: If $\phi_1$ and $\phi_\mu$ are experimentally found to be
370: non-vanishing, a satisfactory explanation will be necessary for this
371: correlation, which apparently would be a
372: ``fine tuning'' of their values \cite{pr3}.
373:
374: \begin{table}[htb]
375: \begin{center}
376: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
377: $\phi_1$ & $\phi_\mu$ & & $\phi_1$ & $\phi_\mu$ \\
378: \hline
379: 0 & 0 & & $\pi$ & 0 \\
380: $\pi/8$ & -0.0476 & ~ & $7\pi/8$ & -0.0454 \\
381: $\pi/4$ & -0.0876 & & $3\pi/4$ & -0.0845 \\
382: $3\pi/8$ & -0.1136 & & $5\pi/8$ & -0.1114 \\
383: $\pi/2$ & -0.1218
384: \end{tabular}
385: \caption{Examples of approximate phases $\phi_1$, $\phi_\mu$ for which
386: the pairs $(\phi_1,\phi_\mu)$, $(-\phi_1,-\phi_\mu)$
387: are allowed by EDM constraints.}
388: \label{tab:pairs}
389: \end{center}
390: \end{table}
391:
392:
393:
394: \section{Generation and reconstruction of the signals}
395: \label{sec:3}
396:
397:
398: The matrix element of the resonant processes in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}) are
399: calculated using {\tt HELAS} \cite{helas}, including all spin correlations
400: and finite width effects. The
401: relevant terms of the Lagrangian can be found in Refs.~\cite{npb,x1x2}.
402: We assume a CM energy of 800 GeV, with electron polarisation $P_{e^-} = -0.8$
403: and positron polarisation $P_{e^+} = 0.6$. Beam polarisation has no effect on
404: the angular distributions and asymmetries studied but increases the signal cross
405: section. The luminosity is taken as 534 fb$^{-1}$ per year \cite{lum}.
406: In our calculations we take into account the effects of initial state radiation
407: (ISR) \cite{isr} and beamstrahlung \cite{peskin,BS2}. For the design luminosity
408: at 800 GeV we use the parameters $\Upsilon = 0.09$, $N = 1.51$ \cite{lum}.
409: The actual expressions for ISR and beamstrahlung used in our calculation are
410: collected in Ref.~\cite{npb}. We also include a beam energy spread of 1\%.
411:
412: We simulate the calorimeter and tracking resolution of the detector by
413: performing a Gaussian smearing of the energies of electrons ($e$), muons ($\mu$)
414: and jets ($j$), using the specifications in Ref.~\cite{tesla2},
415: \begin{equation}
416: \frac{\Delta E^e}{E^e} = \frac{10\%}{\sqrt{E^e}} \oplus 1 \% \;, \quad
417: \frac{\Delta E^\mu}{E^\mu} = 0.02 \% \, E^\mu \;, \quad
418: \frac{\Delta E^j}{E^j} = \frac{50\%}{\sqrt{E^j}} \oplus 4 \% \;,
419: \end{equation}
420: where the two terms are added in quadrature and the energies are in GeV.
421: We apply kinematical cuts on transverse momenta, $p_T \geq 10$ GeV, and
422: pseudorapidities $|\eta| \leq 2.5$, the latter corresponding to polar angles
423: $10^\circ \leq \theta \leq 170^\circ$. We also reject events in which the
424: leptons or jets are not isolated, requiring a ``lego-plot'' separation
425: $\Delta R = \sqrt{\Delta \eta^2+\Delta \phi^2} \geq 0.4$.
426: For the Monte Carlo integration in 10-body phase space we use
427: {\tt RAMBO} \cite{rambo}.
428:
429:
430: For the precise measurement of angular distributions it is crucial to
431: reconstruct accurately the final state. This is more difficult when
432: several particles escape detection, as it happens in our case. Since we are not
433: interested in the mass distributions we use as input all the sparticle masses
434: involved, which we assume measured in other processes \cite{tdr}. Let us label
435: the
436: electron and positron 4-momenta as $p_{e^-}$, $p_{e^+}$, respectively, and
437: the momenta of the ``visible'' chargino decay products (the $\mu^\pm$ for
438: the leptonic decay and the quark-antiquark pair in the hadronic decay) as
439: $p_{V^+}$, $p_{V^-}$. The unknown momenta of the ``invisible'' chargino decay
440: products (the $\nu \tilde \chi_1^0$ pair in leptonic decays and the neutralino
441: in hadronic decays) are $p_{I^+}$, $p_{I^-}$ (8 unknowns). From four-momentum
442: conservation and the kinematics of the process we have the relations
443: \begin{align}
444: E_{I^+} + E_{I^-} & = E_\mathrm{CM} - E_{e^-} - E_{e^+}
445: - E_{V^+} - E_{V^-} \,, \nonumber \\
446: \vec p_{I^-} + \vec p_{I^+} & = \pmiss \,, \nonumber \\
447: (p_{V^+} + p_{I^+})^2 & = m_{\tilde \chi_1^-}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
448: (p_{V^-} + p_{I^-})^2 & = m_{\tilde \chi_1^-}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
449: (p_{e^-} + p_{V^+} + p_{I^+})^2 & = m_{\tilde \nu_e}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
450: (p_{e^+} + p_{V^-} + p_{I^-})^2 & = m_{\tilde \nu_e}^2 \,,
451: \label{ec:rec}
452: \end{align}
453: where $E_\mathrm{CM}$ is the CM energy and $\pmiss$ the missing momentum.
454: These 8 equations are at most quadratic in the unknown momenta $p_{I^+}$,
455: $p_{I^-}$. With a little algebra, they can be written in the form of 7 linear
456: plus one quadratic equation, which can be solved yielding 2 possible solutions
457: for the unknown momenta (note that in leptonic decays only the sum of the
458: neutrino and neutralino momenta can be determined). In order
459: to select the correct one we use the additional constraint that either
460: $p_{I^+}^2 = m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}^2$ or $p_{I^-}^2 = m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}^2$
461: depending on which chargino decays hadronically (this is decided event by
462: event depending on the charge of the muon). With $p_{I^+}$, $p_{I^-}$ obtained
463: from the reconstruction
464: process, the momenta of the two charginos and the two sneutrinos can be
465: determined, as well as their respective rest frames.
466:
467: We note that ISR, beamstrahlung, particle width effects and detector
468: resolution degrade the determination of $p_{I^+}$, $p_{I^-}$, being ISR and
469: beamstrahlung the most troublesome. Detector resolution affects the measurement
470: of charged lepton and jet momenta, while ISR and beamstrahlung modify the beam
471: energies and thus reduce the CM energy, causing also that the CM and laboratory
472: frames do not coincide. Moreover, the last four of Eqs.~(\ref{ec:rec}) only hold
473: for strictly on-shell sneutrinos and charginos.
474: Due to these effects, Eqs.~(\ref{ec:rec}) sometimes do not have a real
475: solution, {\em i.e.} the discriminant of the quadratic equation mentioned
476: above is negative. In such case, we force the system to have a real solution by
477: setting the discriminant to zero, what has the consequence that the
478: solutions do not fulfill Eqs.~(\ref{ec:rec}) for the input values
479: $m_{\tilde \chi_1^-}$, $m_{\tilde \nu_e}$ used but rather for other
480: (sometimes very different) ones.
481:
482: The determination of the unknown momenta is done as follows.
483: In order to partially take
484: into account the decrease in the CM energy we replace $E_\mathrm{CM}$ in
485: Eq.~(\ref{ec:rec}) by an ``effective'' CM energy $E_\mathrm{CM}^\mathrm{eff}$.
486: We try the reconstruction of the unknown momenta for different energies
487: $E_\mathrm{CM}^\mathrm{eff} \leq E_\mathrm{CM}$ in decreasing order, choosing
488: the one which gives
489: reconstructed sneutrino, chargino and neutralino masses closest to their true
490: values. In case that different effective energies yield equal results for the
491: reconstructed masses, we choose the largest one. If
492: the event does not reasonably fit into the kinematics assumed for the process,
493: it is discarded.
494:
495: For the analysis of some observables we take advantage of the good $c$
496: tagging capability that it is expected at a future linear collider. We use a
497: $c$ tagging efficiency of 50\%
498: and a mistag rate of 0.2\% \cite{ctag}. The identification of $c$ against
499: $\bar c$, when needed, can be indirectly done looking at the charge of the
500: muon produced. In final states with $\mu^-$, the chargino decaying hadronically
501: is $\tilde \chi_1^+$, thus the tagged jet corresponds to a $c$ quark and the
502: other one to a $s$ antiquark. By the
503: same argument, for $\mu^+$ final states the tagged jet corresponds to a $c$
504: antiquark and the other one to a $s$ quark.
505:
506:
507: The backgrounds to the processes in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}) are rather small.
508: Other SUSY particle production processes leading to a final state of
509: $e^+ e^- \mu^\pm jj$ plus large
510: missing energy and momentum are for instance
511: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^\pm \tilde \chi_2^\mp \to \tilde \chi_1^\pm \; Z
512: \tilde \chi_1^\mp$,
513: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^\pm \tilde \chi_2^\mp \to \tilde \chi_1^\pm \; W^\mp
514: \tilde \chi_2^0$,
515: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_2^0 \tilde \chi_{3,4}^0 \to \tilde \chi_2^0
516: \, \tilde \chi_1^\pm \tilde W^\mp$, with subsequent decays $Z \to e^+ e^-$,
517: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to e^+ e^- \tilde \chi_1^0$ and hadronic or leptonic
518: $\tilde \chi_1^\pm$, $W^\pm$
519: decays giving a muon, two jets, a neutrino and a neutralino. The total
520: cross section of the three processes amounts to 0.1 fb. More important is the
521: SM background $e^+ e^- \to e^+ e^- \mu^- \bar \nu q \bar q'$ (which includes
522: on-shell $Z W^+ W^-$ production) plus its charge
523: conjugate, with a cross section around 4 fb \cite{lusifer}. All these
524: backgrounds are expected to be considerably reduced by the
525: signal reconstruction process, which requires that the kinematics of the
526: events is compatible with sneutrino pair production. Six fermion production
527: may be further suppressed with a kinematical cut requiring that the invariant
528: mass of the $e^+ e^-$ pair is not consistent with $M_Z$.
529:
530:
531:
532: \section{Results}
533: \label{sec:4}
534:
535: We present our numerical results taking $\phi_1 = \phi_\mu = 0$ everywhere
536: except for the study of CP asymmetries. We collect in Table~\ref{tab:cs} the
537: total cross section for the
538: processes in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}) (including ISR, beamstrahlung and beam spread
539: corrections), the cross section after ``detector'' cuts, its value including
540: also reconstruction cuts, and finally requiring one $c$ tag as well. In the
541: latter case, only chargino decays to $\bar q q' = \bar c s$ ($q \bar q' = c \bar
542: s$) contribute in practice.
543:
544: \begin{table}[htb]
545: \begin{center}
546: \begin{tabular}{lc}
547: & Cross section \\
548: \hline
549: Total & 17.56 \\
550: Detector & 11.05 \\
551: Reconstruction & 9.99 \\
552: $c$ tagging & 2.50
553: \end{tabular}
554: \caption{Total cross section (in fb) of the processes in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1})
555: before and after detector and reconstruction cuts, and including also $c$
556: tagging.}
557: \label{tab:cs}
558: \end{center}
559: \end{table}
560:
561: We give our theoretical predictions for angular distributions
562: (calculated with sufficiently high Monte Carlo statistics) together with
563: a possible experimental result for one year of running (with an integrated
564: luminosity of 534 fb$^{-1}$). The latter is generated as follows: for each bin
565: $i$ we calculate the expected number of events in one year $\mu_i$, then the
566: ``observed'' number of events $n_i$ in each bin is randomly obtained according
567: to a Poisson distribution with mean $\mu_i$.
568: This procedure is done independently for each kinematical
569: distribution studied. In order to be not too optimistic in our results, we
570: present samples of possible experimental measurements in which the total number
571: of events is approximately $1 \, \sigma$ away from the theoretical expectation.
572:
573:
574:
575: \subsection{Electron angular distributions}
576:
577: Sneutrino decays are predicted to be isotropic in their rest frame, as
578: corresponds to spinless particles. This fact can be experimentally tested in the
579: processes discussed here, with
580: the examination of the $e^-$ ($e^+$) angular distribution in the $\tilde \nu_e$
581: ($\tilde \nu_e^*$) rest frame. We concentrate on the first case, defining
582: $\beta_{e^-}$, as the angle between the $e^-$ momentum (in $\tilde \nu_e$ rest
583: frame) and an axis orthogonal to the beam direction arbitrarily chosen.
584: In Fig.~\ref{fig:em} we show the dependence of the cross section on this angle.
585: The full line corresponds to the theoretical prediction, which
586: slightly deviates from a flat line due to detector and reconstruction cuts. The
587: points represent a possible experimental result.
588: Despite the small statistical fluctuations, it is clear that the result
589: corresponds to a flat distribution. Performing the analysis for three
590: orthogonal axes shows that the $\tilde
591: \nu_e$ decay is isotropic, what provides a strong indication that sneutrinos are
592: scalars and thus that charginos have half-integer spin (as implied by total
593: angular momentum conservation).
594:
595: \begin{figure}[htb]
596: \begin{center}
597: \epsfig{file=Figs/dist-em.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
598: \caption{Angular distribution of the $e^-$ with respect to an axis orthogonal
599: to the beam direction, in the $\tilde \nu_e$ rest frame.}
600: \label{fig:em}
601: \end{center}
602: \end{figure}
603:
604:
605:
606: \subsection{Angular distributions of $\boldsymbol{\tilde \chi_1^-}$ decay
607: products}
608:
609: The reconstruction of the chargino and sneutrino momenta allows for the
610: determination of
611: the chargino spin directions, which are $\vec s_- = \vec P_{\tilde \chi_1^-}$,
612: $\vec s_+ = - \vec P_{\tilde \chi_1^+}$ for $\tilde \chi_1^-$, $\tilde
613: \chi_1^+$, respectively, with $\vec P_{\tilde \chi_1^-}$,
614: $\vec P_{\tilde \chi_1^+}$ the chargino three-momenta in the $\tilde \nu_e$,
615: $\tilde \nu_e^*$ rest frames. The
616: knowledge of the chargino spin directions then makes it possible a precise
617: study of its polarised differential decay widths. The analytical expressions
618: for these quantities are rather lengthy \cite{djouadi}; however, the angular
619: distribution of a single decay product in the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame can
620: be cast in a compact form. Let us define $\theta_{\bar f}$, $\theta_{f'}$,
621: $\theta_0$ as the angles between the three-momenta of $\bar f=\bar \nu,\bar
622: u,\bar c$, $f'=\mu^-,d,s$ and $\tilde
623: \chi_1^0$ in the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame, respectively, and the $\tilde
624: \chi_1^-$ spin (see Fig.~\ref{fig:5}). Analogous definitions
625: hold for the $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decay products. Integrating all variables except
626: $\theta_{\bar f}$, $\theta_{f'}$ or $\theta_0$, the angular decay
627: distributions read
628: \begin{eqnarray}
629: \frac{1}{\Gamma^{(-)}} \frac{d\Gamma^{(-)}}{d\cos \theta_{\bar f}} & = &
630: \frac{1+ h_{\bar f} \cos \theta_{\bar f}}{2} \,, \nonumber \\
631: \frac{1}{\Gamma^{(-)}} \frac{d\Gamma^{(-)}}{d\cos \theta_{f'}} & = &
632: \frac{1+ h_{f'} \cos \theta_{f'}}{2} \,, \nonumber \\
633: \frac{1}{\Gamma^{(-)}} \frac{d\Gamma^{(-)}}{d\cos \theta_0} & = &
634: \frac{1+ h_0^{(-)} \cos \theta_0}{2} \,,
635: \label{ec:dist}
636: \end{eqnarray}
637: with $\Gamma^{(-)} \equiv \Gamma(\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar f f' \tilde
638: \chi_1^0)$. The
639: $h$ factors are called ``spin analysing power'' of the corresponding fermion
640: $\bar f$, $f'$, $\tilde \chi_1^0$,
641: and are constants between $-1$ and $1$ which depend on the type of
642: fermion and the supersymmetric scenario considered. For $\tilde
643: \chi_1^+$ decays the angular distributions $d\Gamma^{(+)}/d\cos
644: \theta_{f,\bar{f'},0}$ are given by similar expressions
645: with constants $h_f$, $h_{\bar f'}$, $h_0^{(+)}$, which
646: satisfy $h_f=-h_{\bar f}$, $h_{\bar f'}=-h_{f'}$, $h_0^{(+)} = - h_0^{(-)}$
647: if CP is conserved.
648:
649:
650: \begin{figure}[htb]
651: \begin{center}
652: \epsfig{file=Figs/Xmdecay.eps,width=5cm,clip=}
653: \caption{Definition of the polar angles $\theta_{\bar f}$, $\theta_{f'}$ and
654: $\theta_0$ in the decay of $\tilde \chi_1^-$.}
655: \label{fig:5}
656: \end{center}
657: \end{figure}
658:
659: The angular distribution of the muon resulting from $\tilde \chi_1^-$ decay is
660: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mum}. For $\cos \phi_{\mu^-} \simeq -1$
661: the muon is produced opposite to the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ momentum, then
662: approximately parallel to
663: the $e^+$ momentum (up to a Lorentz boost). Then, these events are
664: suppressed by the requirement of lego-plot separation $\Delta R \geq 0.4$.
665: With an accurate modelling of the real detector, all the $\cos \theta_{\mu^-}$
666: range could be eventually included in a fit to experimental data. In our study
667: we restrict ourselves to the ranges where kinematical cuts do not alter the
668: distributions. The fit to the data points (discarding the first three bins)
669: gives
670: $h_{\mu^-} = -0.270 \pm 0.016$, in good agreement with the theoretical value
671: $h_{\mu^-} = -0.252$.
672:
673: \begin{figure}[htb]
674: \begin{center}
675: \epsfig{file=Figs/dist-mum.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
676: \caption{Angular distribution of the $\mu^-$ with respect to the $\tilde
677: \chi_1^-$ spin, in the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame.}
678: \label{fig:mum}
679: \end{center}
680: \end{figure}
681:
682: The study of quark angular distributions requires $c$ tagging to distinguish
683: between the two quark jets. This reduces the signal by a factor of four, and
684: thus decreases the statistical accuracy of the measurements. The angular
685: distribution of the $s$ quark is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:s}. The suppression
686: around $\cos \theta_s \simeq -1$ is again caused by the requirement of
687: lego-plot
688: separation. The fit to the data points gives $h_s = -0.151 \pm 0.020$, to be
689: compared with the real value $h_s = -0.149$.
690: The distribution of the $\bar c$ antiquark is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:cbar}.
691: In addition to the suppresion at $\cos \theta_{\bar c} \simeq -1$, we notice a
692: decrease around $\cos \theta_{\bar c} \sim 1$, which is indirectly caused by
693: the depression at $\cos \theta_s \simeq -1$. We thus discard the last seven
694: bins for the fit to the distribution and obtain $h_{\bar c} = 0.387 \pm 0.044$,
695: being the real value $h_{\bar c} = 0.339$.
696:
697: \begin{figure}[htb]
698: \begin{center}
699: \epsfig{file=Figs/dist-s.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
700: \caption{Angular distribution of the $s$ quark with respect to the $\tilde
701: \chi_1^-$ spin, in the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame.}
702: \label{fig:s}
703: \end{center}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706: \begin{figure}[htb]
707: \begin{center}
708: \epsfig{file=Figs/dist-cbar.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
709: \caption{Angular distribution of the $\bar c$ antiquark with respect to the
710: $\tilde \chi_1^-$ spin, in the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame.}
711: \label{fig:cbar}
712: \end{center}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715: As shown by these examples, the ``spin analysing power'' constants governing
716: the angular
717: distributions of $\tilde \chi_1^-$ are expected to be measured with an
718: accuracy which ranges from
719: 6\% for $h_{\mu^-}$ to 13\% for $h_s$. We note that the samples of
720: ``experimental measurements'' generated have been chosen so that the total
721: number of observed events is around $1\, \sigma$ away from the expected
722: number, thus the difference between the measured and true values of the $h$
723: constants is due to statistics. The analysis of $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decays can be
724: carried out analogously. However, it is interesting to point out that
725: in CP-conserving scenarios the decays $\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar f f'
726: \tilde \chi_1^0$, $\tilde \chi_1^+ \to f \bar f' \tilde \chi_1^0$ can be
727: summed, substituting $\cos \theta_{\mu^+,c,\bar s} \to -\cos
728: \theta_{\mu^-,\bar c,s}$, improving
729: the statistics by a factor $\sim \sqrt 2$. Even in CP-violating scenarios this
730: is likely to be a good approximation, because $h_{\mu^-}+h_{\mu^+}$,
731: $h_c+h_{\bar c}$, $h_s+h_{\bar s}$ are negligible at the tree level, as will be
732: shown in the next subsection, and get nonzero values only through higher order
733: corrections.
734:
735:
736:
737: \subsection{CP violation in chargino decays}
738:
739: The construction of CP-violating observables involves the comparison of $\tilde
740: \chi_1^-$ and $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decays. Under CP, the vectors in
741: Fig.~\ref{fig:5} transform to
742: \begin{equation}
743: \vec s_- \to \vec s_+ \,, \quad
744: \vec p_{\bar f} \to -\vec p_{f} \;,\quad
745: \vec p_{f'} \to -\vec p_{\bar f'} \;,\quad
746: \vec p_{\tilde \chi_1^0} \to -\vec p_{\tilde \chi_1^0} \;,
747: \end{equation}
748: defined for the $\chi_1^+$ decay.
749: Then, if we sum $\tilde \chi_1^-$ and $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decays
750: the products
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: Q_\mu & = & \vec s_\pm \cdot \vec p_{\mu^\pm} \,, \nonumber \\
753: Q_c & = & \vec s_\pm \cdot \vec p_{c (\bar c)} \,, \nonumber \\
754: Q_s & = & \vec s_\pm \cdot \vec p_{\bar s (s)}
755: \end{eqnarray}
756: are CP-odd. In hadronic decays an additional product $\vec s_\pm \cdot \vec
757: p_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$ can be measured but it equals $-(Q_c+Q_s)$. Since
758: these products are even under naive T reversal, the CP-violating asymmetries
759: \begin{equation}
760: A_X = \frac{N(Q_X > 0) - N(Q_X < 0)}{N(Q_X > 0) + N(Q_X < 0)} \,,
761: \end{equation}
762: with $X=\mu,c,s$ and $N$ standing for the number of events, are also T-even.
763: Hence, they need the presence of absorptive CP-conserving phases in the
764: amplitudes in order to be nonvanishing. In the processes under consideration
765: these phases are generated at the tree level by intermediate particle widths,
766: but they are extremely small, giving asymmetries $A_X \sim 10^{-3}$. At one
767: loop level,
768: these asymmetries can result from the interference between a
769: dominant tree-level and a subleading one-loop diagram with a CP-conserving
770: phase, and are expected to be very small as well.
771:
772: Neglecting for the moment all particle widths (which are kept in all our
773: numerical computations), the asymmetries $A_X$ vanish at the tree level. Using
774: the fact that in this approximation the tree-level partial rates
775: $\Gamma(\tilde \chi_1^- \to \bar f f' \tilde \chi_1^0)$ and
776: $\Gamma(\tilde \chi_1^+ \to f \bar f' \tilde \chi_1^0)$ are equal (because
777: partial rate CP asymmetries are also T-even), these asymmetries are
778: \begin{equation}
779: A_X = \frac{h_X+h_{\bar X}}{4} \,.
780: \end{equation}
781: Thus, $h_{\mu^-}+h_{\mu^+}$, $h_c+h_{\bar c}$, $h_s+h_{\bar s}$ vanish at the
782: tree level if particle widths are neglected, and take values $O(10^{-3})$ (much
783: smaller than the precision of the measurement of the individual constants) when
784: particle widths are included.
785:
786: A CP-odd, T-odd asymmetry can be built from the product
787: \begin{equation}
788: Q_{12} = \vec s_\pm \cdot \left( \vec p_{\bar q_1} \times \vec p_{q_2}
789: \right) \,,
790: \end{equation}
791: where $\vec p_{\bar q_1}$ and $\vec p_{q_2}$ are the momenta of the
792: antiquark and quark resulting from the hadronic $\tilde \chi_1^\pm$ decay,
793: respectively. (A triple
794: product $\vec s_\pm \cdot ( \vec p_{X_1} \times \vec p_{X_2})$, with $X_1=c,
795: \bar c$, $X_2 = \bar s,s$ distinguished by quark flavour instead of baryon
796: number, is CP-even.) The quark and antiquark are distinguished using $c$ tagging
797: and looking at the charge of the muon, as explained in section \ref{sec:3}.
798: The CP asymmetry
799: \begin{equation}
800: A_{12} = \frac{N(Q_{12} > 0) - N(Q_{12} < 0)}{N(Q_{12} > 0) + N(Q_{12} < 0)}
801: \end{equation}
802: can be sizeable already at the tree level, and without the need of interference
803: between different Feynman diagrams. As discussed in section \ref{sec:2},
804: in the SUSY scenario selected the $\tilde
805: \chi_1^-$ decays are strongly dominated by diagram (a) in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.
806: A large triple-product CP asymmetry is possible because the polarised decay
807: width for
808: $\tilde \chi_1^- \to W^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \to \bar f f' \tilde \chi_1^0$
809: contains a term proportional to
810: $\epsilon_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma} s_-^\mu \, P_{\bar \chi_1^-}^\nu \,
811: P_{\bar f}^\rho \, P_{f'}^\sigma \; m_{\tilde \chi_1^0} \; \mathrm{Im} \,
812: O_R^{11} O_L^{11*}$,
813: where $O_{L,R}^{11}$ denote the left- and right-handed parts of the (complex)
814: $W \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^-$ coupling, respectively, and the momenta
815: follow obvious notation. In the $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame
816: we have $P_{\bar \chi_1^-} = ( \, m_{\tilde \chi_1^-},\vec 0 \, )$,
817: $\vec P_{\bar f} = \vec p_{\bar f}$, $\vec P_{f'} = \vec p_{f'}$ and this term
818: reduces to a triple product.
819:
820:
821: The theoretical value of $A_{12}$ as a function of $\phi_1$, taking
822: $\phi_\mu =0$, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:A12th} (a), where we observe that
823: the asymmetry can reach
824: values $O(0.1)$ for large phases $\phi_1 \simeq 2$. For large $\phi_\mu$ values
825: the asymmetry could be large too, as can be seen
826: in Fig.~\ref{fig:A12th} (b). However,
827: for the range $|\phi_\mu| \lesssim 0.12$ (modulo $\pi$) allowed by EDM constraints
828: the variation of $A_{12}$ is only between $\pm 0.01$.
829:
830: \begin{figure}[htb]
831: \begin{center}
832: \begin{tabular}{cc}
833: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-th.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} &
834: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-mu-th.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
835: (a) & (b)
836: \end{tabular}
837: \caption{Theoretical value of $A_{12}$ as a function of $\phi_1$, for
838: $\phi_\mu =0$ (a) and as a function of $\phi_\mu$, for $\phi_1=0$ (b).}
839: \label{fig:A12th}
840: \end{center}
841: \end{figure}
842:
843: We present in Fig.~\ref{fig:A12} the value of the asymmetry after signal
844: reconstruction, including the corrections from ISR, beamstrahlung, etc.
845: discussed in section~\ref{sec:3}. The shaded region
846: represents the statistical error for one year of running with an integrated
847: luminosity of 534 fb$^{-1}$. The variation of the cross section with $\phi_1$ is
848: not relevant. In this plot we have chosen pairs of phases $(\phi_1,\phi_\mu)$
849: allowed by EDM constraints: for each $\phi_1$, we take a
850: $\phi_\mu$ value, with $|\phi_\mu| \lesssim 0.12$, for which the neutralino and
851: chargino contributions to the electron EDM cancel. Then, we calculate the
852: asymmetry for this $(\phi_1,\phi_\mu)$ pair. (Several representative examples of
853: these allowed pairs of phases are collected in Table~\ref{tab:pairs}.)
854: The maximum differences in the asymmetry between taking $\phi_\mu=0$ and taking
855: the $\phi_\mu$ values required by EDM constraints are of 10\%, found for
856: $\phi_1 \sim 0,\pi$.
857:
858:
859: \begin{figure}[ht]
860: \begin{center}
861: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim.eps,width=8cm,clip=}
862: \caption{Asymmetry $A_{12}$ as a function of the phase $\phi_1$, for
863: $\phi_\mu$ values fulfilling EDM constraints, as explained in the text. The
864: shaded region represents the statistical error for one year of running.}
865: \label{fig:A12}
866: \end{center}
867: \end{figure}
868:
869:
870:
871:
872:
873:
874: \section{Conclusions}
875: \label{sec:5}
876:
877:
878: In this paper we have shown that, in SUSY scenarios where the decays
879: $\tilde \nu_e \to e^- \tilde \chi_1^+$, $\tilde \nu_e^* \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^-$
880: are kinematically allowed, sneutrino pair production provides a copious source
881: of 100\% polarised charginos, in which the kinematics of the process allows to
882: reconstruct their four-momenta. The large cross section for the full process
883: $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \nu_e^* \tilde \nu_e \to e^+ \tilde \chi_1^- \,
884: e^- \tilde \chi_1^+ \to e^+ \bar \nu_\mu \mu^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \,
885: e^- q \bar q' \tilde \chi_1^0$ (plus its charge conjugate) and the low
886: backgrounds allow precise measurements of spin-related quantities like angular
887: distributions and triple product CP-violating asymmetries.
888:
889: The $e^-$ distribution in the $\tilde \nu_e$ rest frame shows that the $\tilde
890: \nu_e$ decay is isotropic, what is a strong indication that sneutrinos are
891: scalars. Since the spin of electrons is $1/2$, total angular momentum
892: conservation implies that the charginos have half-integer spin, being
893: $1/2$ the most obvious possibility. Angular
894: distributions in $\tilde \chi_1^-$ rest frame allow to measure the values of the
895: ``spin analysing power'' constants $h_{\mu^-}$, $h_{\bar c}$, $h_s$ controlling
896: the
897: angular distributions of its decay products, with a precision between 6\% and
898: 13\% for only one year of running. Since the sums $h_{\mu^-}+h_{\mu^+}$,
899: $h_c+h_{\bar c}$, $h_s+h_{\bar s}$ are zero if CP is conserved, and are expected
900: to be small in CP-violating scenarios (even including radiative corrections),
901: the data from $\tilde \chi_1^+$ decays could eventually be included in the
902: analyses, improving the statistical precision.
903:
904: Despite the fact that CP-violating phases could be detected in CP-conserving
905: quantities \cite{CPcon}, the direct observation of supersymmetric CP violation
906: is extremely important. We have shown that
907: in $\tilde \chi_1^\pm$ hadronic decays the CP-violating asymmetry in the
908: product $\vec s_\pm \cdot (\vec p_{\bar q_1} \times \vec p_{q_2})$ is very
909: sensitive to the phase of $M_1$, and can have
910: values up to $A_{12} = 0.07$ for $\phi_1 \simeq 2$. Such asymmetry could be
911: observed with $2.6 \, \sigma$ statistical significance in one year of running.
912: It is worth comparing
913: this sensitivity with the ones obtained in other processes
914: within the same SUSY scenario. In selectron cascade decays
915: $\tilde e_L \to e \tilde \chi_2^0 \to e \tilde \chi_1^0 \mu^+ \mu^-$, a
916: CP asymmetry in the triple product
917: $\vec s \cdot (\vec p_{\mu^-} \times \vec p_{\mu^+})$ can be built,
918: with $\vec s$ the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ spin \cite{casc}. In $\tilde \chi_1^0
919: \tilde \chi_2^0$ production $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0 \to
920: \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$, $\ell=e,\mu$, an analogous
921: asymmetry in the
922: product $\vec p_{e^+} \cdot ( \vec p_{\ell^-} \times \vec p_{\ell^+} )$ can be
923: defined \cite{x1x2,x1x2other}. The values of these asymmetries as a function of
924: $\phi_1$ (including ISR, beamstrahlung, beam spread and detector effects, as
925: well as backgrounds) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:A1} (adapted from
926: Refs.~\cite{casc,x1x2}, where two years of running are considered instead of
927: one). Comparing Figs.~\ref{fig:A12},~\ref{fig:A1}
928: it is apparent that the observation of CP violating effects is much easier in
929: sneutrino cascade decays. For large phases $\phi_1 \simeq 2$ the statistical
930: significance of the CP asymmetry $A_{12}$ is a factor of two larger than for
931: the asymmetries in selectron cascade decays and neutralino pair production.
932: Therefore, provided a good $c$ tagging efficiency is achieved, sneutrino
933: cascade decays provide a much more sensitive tool to test CP violation in the
934: neutralino sector than neutralino production and decay proceses.
935:
936:
937: \begin{figure}[htb]
938: \begin{center}
939: \begin{tabular}{cc}
940: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-casc.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} &
941: \epsfig{file=Figs/asim-xx.eps,width=7.3cm,clip=} \\
942: (a) & (b)
943: \end{tabular}
944: \caption{Triple product CP-violating asymmetries
945: defined in (a)
946: selectron cascade decays \cite{casc}; (b) $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$
947: production \cite{x1x2}, in the same SUSY scenario studied here. The shaded
948: regions represent the statistical error for one year of running.}
949: \label{fig:A1}
950: \end{center}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953:
954: \vspace{1cm}
955: \noindent
956: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
957:
958: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
959: This work has been supported
960: by the European Community's Human Potential Programme under contract
961: HTRN--CT--2000--00149 Physics at Colliders and by FCT
962: through projects POCTI/FNU/43793/2002, CFIF--Plurianual (2/91) and
963: grant SFRH/ BPD/12603/2003.
964:
965: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
966:
967: \bibitem{susy2}
968: H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rept. {\bf 117} (1985) 75
969: %%CITATION = PRPLC,117,75;%%
970:
971: \bibitem{susy3}
972: S. P. Martin, in {\em ``Perspectives on supersymmetry''}, G. L. Kane (ed.),
973: hep-ph/9709356
974: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%
975:
976: \bibitem{tdr}
977: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.} [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group
978: Collaboration], hep-ph/0106315
979: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
980:
981:
982: \bibitem{pr1}
983: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
984: %``The neutron and the electron electric dipole moment in N = 1 supergravity
985: %unification,''
986: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 478
987: [Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 58} (1998) 019901, Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 60} (1999) 079903,
988: Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 60} (1999) 019901]
989: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708456;%%
990:
991: \bibitem{pr2}
992: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
993: %``The neutron and the lepton EDMs in MSSM, large CP violating phases, and the
994: %cancellation mechanism,''
995: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 111301 [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 099902]
996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807501;%%
997:
998: \bibitem{kane}
999: M. Brhlik, G. J. Good and G. L. Kane,
1000: %``Electric dipole moments do not require the CP-violating phases of
1001: %supersymmetry to be small,''
1002: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999) 115004
1003: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810457;%%
1004:
1005: \bibitem{sps}
1006: B. C. Allanach {\em et al.},
1007: %``The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches,''
1008: in {\em Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics
1009: (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N. Graf, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 25}, 113 (2002)
1010: [eConf {\bf C010630}, P125 (2001)]
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{abdel}
1014: S. Y. Choi, A. Djouadi, H. K. Dreiner, J. Kalinowski and P. M. Zerwas, Eur.
1015: Phys. J. C {\bf 7} (1999) 123
1016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806279;%%
1017:
1018: \bibitem{npb}
1019: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and A. M. Teixeira, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} 675, 70 (2003)
1020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307001;%%
1021:
1022: \bibitem{x1x2}
1023: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} 697, 207 (2004)
1024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404104;%%
1025:
1026: \bibitem{romao}
1027: J. C. Rom\~ao,
1028: http://porthos.ist.utl.pt/$\sim$romao/homepage/publications/mssm-
1029: model/mssm-model.ps
1030: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1031:
1032: \bibitem{spheno}
1033: W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 153}, 275 (2003)
1034: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301101;%%
1035:
1036: \bibitem{arnowitt}
1037: R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 113010
1038: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106089;%%
1039:
1040: \bibitem{pdb}
1041: K. Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. {\bf D66}
1042: (2002) 010001
1043: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1044:
1045: \bibitem{pr3}
1046: T. Ibrahim and P. Nath,
1047: %``Large CP phases and the cancellation mechanism in EDMs in SUSY, string and
1048: %brane models,''
1049: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 093004
1050: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910553;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{helas}
1053: E. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK report 91-11, January 1992
1054: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1055:
1056: \bibitem{lum}
1057: International Linear Collider Technical Review Committee 2003 Report,
1058: {\small \tt
1059: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ilc-trc/2002/2002/report/03rep.htm}
1060:
1061: \bibitem{isr}
1062: M. Skrzypek and S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C {\bf 49} (1991) 577
1063: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C49,577;%%
1064:
1065: \bibitem{peskin}
1066: M. Peskin, Linear Collider Collaboration Note LCC-0010, January 1999
1067: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1068:
1069: \bibitem{BS2}
1070: K. Yokoya and P. Chen, SLAC-PUB-4935. {\em Presented at IEEE Particle
1071: Accelerator Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Mar 20-23, 1989}
1072: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1073:
1074: \bibitem{tesla2}
1075: G. Alexander {\em et al.}, TESLA Technical Design Report Part 4,
1076: DESY-01-011
1077: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1078:
1079: \bibitem{rambo}
1080: R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling and S. D. Ellis,
1081: Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 40} (1986) 359
1082: %%CITATION = CPHCB,40,359;%%
1083:
1084: \bibitem{ctag}
1085: S. M. Xella Hansen, C. Damerell, D. J. Jackson and R. Hawkings,
1086: {\it Prepared for 5th International Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2000),
1087: Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, 24-28 Oct 2000}
1088: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1089:
1090: \bibitem{lusifer}
1091: S. Dittmaier and M. Roth,
1092: %``LUSIFER: A LUcid approach to SIx FERmion production,''
1093: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 642} (2002) 307
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206070;%%
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem{djouadi}
1098: A. Djouadi, Y. Mambrini and M. Muhlleitner, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 20} (2001) 563
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104115;%%
1100:
1101: \bibitem{CPcon}
1102: See for instance
1103: S. Y. Choi, A. Djouadi, M. Guchait, J. Kalinowski, H. S. Song and P. M. Zerwas,
1104: %``Reconstructing the chargino system at e+ e- linear colliders,''
1105: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 14} (2000) 535;
1106: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002033;%%
1107: S. Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat-Pick and P. M. Zerwas,
1108: %``Analysis of the neutralino system in supersymmetric theories,''
1109: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 563
1110: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108117;%%
1111: [Addendum-ibid.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 769];
1112: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202039;%%
1113: A. Bartl, S. Hesselbach, K. Hidaka, T. Kernreiter and W. Porod,
1114: %``Impact of CP phases on stop and sbottom searches,''
1115: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 573} (2003) 153;
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307317;%%
1117: %``Top squarks and bottom squarks in the MSSM with complex parameters,''
1118: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004) 035003;
1119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311338;%%
1120: S. Y. Choi, M. Drees and B. Gaissmaier, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70} (2004)
1121: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403054;%%
1122:
1123: \bibitem{casc}
1124: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 596} (2004) 247
1125: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403243;%%
1126:
1127: \bibitem{x1x2other}
1128: See for instance
1129: S. Y. Choi, H. S. Song and W. Y. Song, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61} (2000) 075004;
1130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907474;%%
1131: A. Bartl, H. Fraas, S. Hesselbach, K. Hohenwarter-Sodek and G. Moortgat-Pick,
1132: JHEP {\bf 0408} (2004) 038
1133: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406190;%%
1134:
1135:
1136:
1137: \end{thebibliography}
1138: \end{document}
1139:
1140: At high energies they
1141: influence CP-conserving quantities \cite{CPcon} and also give genuine signals
1142: of CP violation.
1143:
1144:
1145:
1146: