1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}  

2: \setlength{\textheight}{9.truein} % replace 8.0 with 6.5 when ghostviewing

3: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5truein}

4: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5truein} 

5: %\setlength{\topmargin}{0truein} 

6: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2truein}

7: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin}

8: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.2in}

9: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{0.33in}

10: \parskip=0.1in

11: 

12: % switch this on for the ArXiv

13: \topmargin -1.3 cm

14: 

15: \usepackage{epsfig}

16: 

17: % Gian's defs

18: 

19: \def\lessless{\ll}

20: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

21: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

22: \def\mp{M_P}

23: \def\mpl{M_{\rm Pl}}

24: \def\ms{{\bar M}_P}

25: \def\mdr{{\bar M}_D}

26: \def\md{M_D}

27: \def\sch{Schwarzschild }

28: \def\eq#1{eq.~(\ref{#1})}

29: \def\fig#1{fig.~\ref{#1}}

30: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

31: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}

32: \def\slash#1{\not  \! \! {#1}}

33: \def\mgut{M_{\rm GUT}}

34: \def\agut{\alpha_{\rm GUT}}

35: \def\gtilu{{\tilde g}_u}

36: \def\gtild{{\tilde g}_d}

37: \def\gtilup{{\tilde g}_u^\prime}

38: \def\gtildp{{\tilde g}_d^\prime}

39: \def\gtiluq{{\tilde g}_u^2}

40: \def\gtildq{{\tilde g}_d^2}

41: \def\gtilupq{{\tilde g}_u^{\prime 2}}

42: \def\gtildpq{{\tilde g}_d^{\prime 2}}

43: \def\gtiluc{{\tilde g}_u^3}

44: \def\gtildc{{\tilde g}_d^3}

45: \def\gtilupc{{\tilde g}_u^{\prime 3}}

46: \def\gtildpc{{\tilde g}_d^{\prime 3}}

47: \def\gtiluqq{{\tilde g}_u^4}

48: \def\gtildqq{{\tilde g}_d^4}

49: \def\sps{Split Supersymmetry}

50: \def\mtil{\widetilde{m}}

51: 

52: % Pietro's defs

53: 

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

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

56: \def\bc{\begin{center}}

57: \def\ec{\end{center}}

58: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

59: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

60: \def\dd{\displaystyle}

61: \def\nn{\nonumber}

62: \def\ov{\overline}

63: \def\ni{\noindent}

64: \def\wt{\widetilde}

65: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

66: \def\PL{P_{L}}

67: \def\PR{P_{R}}

68: \def\PLR{P_{L,R}}

69: \def\PRL{P_{R,L}}

70: \def\mgl{m_{\tilde{g}}}

71: \def\mgr{m_{\wt{G}}}

72: \def\mch{m_{\chi}}

73: \def\mcpi{m_{\chi^+_i}}

74: \def\mczi{m_{\chi^0_i}}

75: \def\sut{s_{13}}

76: \def\sdt{s_{23}}

77: \def\ccr{c_{\sss R}}

78: \def\ccl{c_{\sss L}}

79: \def\msusy{\wt{m}}

80: \def\QB{Q^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle B}}}

81: \def\QG{Q^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle G}}}

82: \def\QW{Q^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle W}}}

83: \def\QH{Q^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle H}}}

84: \def\CB{C^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle B}}}

85: \def\CG{C^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle G}}}

86: \def\CW{C^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle W}}}

87: \def\CH{C^{\,\wt{\scriptscriptstyle H}}}

88: \def\QN{Q^{\,{\chi}^0_i}}

89: \def\QC{Q^{\,{\chi}^+_i}}

90: \def\CN{C^{\,{\chi}^0_i}}

91: \def\CC{C^{\,{\chi}^+_i}}

92: \def\CCL#1{\CC_{#1\,\sss L}}

93: \def\CCR#1{\CC_{#1\,\sss R}}

94: \def\CNL#1{\CN_{#1\,q_{\sss L}}}

95: \def\CNR#1{\CN_{#1\,q_{\sss R}}}

96: \def\sq2{\sqrt{2}}

97: \def\lle{_{\sss L}}

98: \def\rr{_{\sss R}}

99: \def\lr{_{\sss L,R}}

100: \def\rl{_{\sss R,L}}

101: \def\tg{\tau_{\tilde{g}}}

102: \def\gtot{\Gamma_{\rm tot}}

103: \def\as{\alpha_s}

104: \def\at{\alpha_t}

105: 

106: %

107: % Figure

108: %

109: 

110: \catcode`@=11

111: % Redefine caption to put text and formulas in smaller font

112: \long\def\@caption#1[#2]#3{\par\addcontentsline{\csname

113:   ext@#1\endcsname}{#1}{\protect\numberline{\csname

114:   the#1\endcsname}{\ignorespaces #2}}\begingroup

115:     \small

116:     \@parboxrestore

117:     \@makecaption{\csname fnum@#1\endcsname}{\ignorespaces #3}\par

118:   \endgroup}

119: \catcode`@=12

120: 

121: \begin{document}

122: 

123: \baselineskip=18pt

124: %\baselineskip=33pt

125: 

126: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

127: %\setcounter{page}{1}

128: \setcounter{figure}{0}

129: \setcounter{table}{0}

130: 

131: \begin{titlepage}

132: June 2005 \hspace*{\fill} CERN--TH/2005--106 %\hspace{0.6cm}

133: \newline  \hspace*{\fill} IPPP/05/25 DCTP/05/50

134: \newline  \hspace*{\fill} DFTT--17/05 %\hspace{1.2cm}

135: 

136: \begin{center}

137: \vspace{1cm}

138: 

139: {\Large \bf Gluino Decays in Split Supersymmetry}

140: 

141: \vspace{1cm}

142: 

143: {\large

144: P. Gambino$^{\,a}$,

145: G.F. Giudice$^{\,b}$,

146: P. Slavich$^{\,c}$

147: } 

148: 

149: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

150: 

151: \vspace{.5cm}

152: 

153: $^{ a}$ {\it INFN, Torino \& Dip.\ Fisica Teorica, Univ.\ di Torino,

154: I--10125 Torino, Italy}\\

155: $^{ b}$ {\it CERN, Theory Division, CH--1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\

156: $^{ c}$ {\it Durham University, IPPP, DH1--3LE Durham, United Kingdom}

157: 

158: \end{center}

159: \vspace{1cm}

160: 

161: \begin{abstract}

162: \medskip

163: We compute the gluino lifetime and branching ratios in Split

164: Supersymmetry. Using an effective--theory approach, we resum the large

165: logarithmic corrections controlled by the strong gauge coupling and

166: the top Yukawa coupling. We find that the resummation of the radiative

167: corrections has a sizeable numerical impact on the gluino decay width

168: and branching ratios. Finally, we discuss the gluino decays into

169: gravitino, relevant in models with direct mediation of supersymmetry

170: breaking.

171: 

172: \end{abstract}

173: 

174: \bigskip

175: \bigskip

176: 

177: \end{titlepage}

178: 

179: 

180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

181: 

182: \section{Introduction}

183: \label{sec1}

184: 

185: The long gluino lifetime is a trademark of \sps\

186: \cite{savas,split,noi4}.  The experimental discovery of a

187: slowly--decaying gluino~\cite{gluino} would not only be a strong

188: indication for {\sps}, but it would also allow for a measurement of

189: the effective supersymmetry--breaking scale $\mtil$, which cannot be

190: directly extracted from particle dynamics at the LHC. Moreover, the

191: gluino lifetime is a crucial parameter to determine the cosmological

192: constraints on the theory \cite{savas,arvanietal}. Therefore, for both

193: experimental and theoretical considerations, it is very important to

194: have a precise prediction of the gluino lifetime and branching ratios.

195: 

196: For what concerns the gluino decay processes in the MSSM, tree--level

197: results for the decays into chargino or neutralino and two quarks and

198: one--loop results for the radiative decay into neutralino and gluon

199: can be found in the literature \cite{decays}. In {\sps}, however, the

200: quantum corrections to the gluino decay processes can be very

201: significant, because they are enhanced by the potentially large

202: logarithm of the ratio between the gluino mass $\mgl$ and the scale

203: $\mtil$ at which the interactions responsible for gluino decay are

204: mediated. A fixed--order calculation of these processes in {\sps}

205: would miss terms that are enhanced by higher powers of the large

206: logarithm. In order to get a reliable prediction for the gluino decay

207: width, the large logarithmic corrections have to be resummed by means

208: of standard renormalization group techniques.

209: 

210: Recently, a calculation of the gluino decay widths in \sps\ was

211: presented in ref.~\cite{jim}, working at tree level for 3--body decays

212: and in (not resummed) one--loop approximation for 2--body decays.  In

213: this paper we will present a calculation of the gluino decay processes

214: that includes all leading corrections in $\as$ and $\at$, the strong

215: and top--Yukawa coupling constants.  As we will show, the inclusion

216: and resummation of leading--order corrections give sizeable

217: modifications of the gluino branching ratios, even for moderate values

218: of $\mtil$.

219: 

220: The structure of the paper is as follows: in sect.~\ref{sec2} we list

221: the operators in the effective Lagrangian of {\sps} that are

222: responsible for the decays of the gluino, and the high--energy

223: boundary conditions on the corresponding Wilson coefficients; in

224: sect.~\ref{sec3} we determine the renormalization group evolution of

225: the Wilson coefficients, and we express the operators in the

226: low--energy effective Lagrangian in terms of mass eigenstates; in

227: sect.~\ref{sec4} we discuss our numerical results for the branching

228: ratios and total width of the gluino decays in {\sps}; in

229: sect.~\ref{sec5} we consider the possibility of gluinos decaying into

230: gravitino; in sect.~\ref{concl} we present our conclusions. Finally,

231: in the appendix we provide the analytical formulae for the gluino

232: decay widths.

233:  

234:  

235: \section{The Effective Lagrangian}

236: \label{sec2}

237: 

238: Below the squark and slepton mass scale $\mtil$, the effective

239: Lagrangian of \sps\ describes the dynamics of Standard Model (SM)

240: particles together with higgsinos and gauginos. At the level of

241: renormalizable interactions, there is a conserved $G$--parity (under

242: which only the gluino is odd) preventing gluino decay. However,

243: integrating the squarks out of the underlying supersymmetric theory

244: induces non--renormalizable interactions that violate the $G$--parity.

245: Restricting our analysis up to dimension--6 operators, the $G$--odd

246: effective Lagrangian at the matching scale $\mtil$ is given by

247: %

248: \be

249: {\cal L} = \frac{1}{\msusy^2}\,\sum_{i=1}^7 \CB_i\,\QB_i \;+\;

250: \frac{1}{\msusy^2}\,\sum_{i=1}^2 \CW_i\,\QW_i \;+\; 

251: \frac{1}{\msusy^2}\,\left(\sum_{i=1}^5 \CH_i\,\QH_i + {\rm h.c.}\right) .

252: \ee

253: %

254: 

255: We are working in the basis of interaction eigenstates for gauginos

256: and higgsinos, neglecting the effect of electroweak symmetry breaking,

257: since $\mtil \gg M_Z$. The $G$--odd operators involving the $B$--ino

258: ($\wt{B}$) are

259: %

260: \bea

261: \QB_1 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

262: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;\sum_{k=1}^2 \;

263: \ov{q}\lle^{\,(k)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \,q\lle^{\,(k)}

264: \label{qb1}\\

265: \QB_2 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

266: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

267: \sum_{k=1}^2\;\ov{u}\rr^{\,(k)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \, u\rr^{\,(k)} \\

268: \QB_3 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

269: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

270: \sum_{k=1}^2\;\ov{d}\rr^{\,(k)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a\, d\rr^{\,(k)} \\

271: \QB_4 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

272: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

273: \ov{q}\lle^{\,(3)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \,q\lle^{\,(3)}\\

274: \QB_5 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

275: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

276: \ov{t}\rr \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \, t\rr \\

277: \QB_6 & = &  \ov{\wt{B}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

278: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

279: \ov{b}\rr \,\gamma_{\mu} \ T^a\, b\rr \\

280: \QB_7 & = & \ov{\wt{B}} \,\sigma^{\mu\nu} \,

281: \gamma_5 \, {\tilde g}^a\;G^a_{\mu\nu}  ,\label{qb7} 

282: \eea

283: %

284: where $k$ is a generation index, $T^a$ are the SU(3) generators and

285: $G^a_{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon field strength.  Assuming that the squark

286: mass matrices are flavour--diagonal, the Wilson coefficients of the

287: operators $\QB_i$ at the matching scale $\mtil$ are

288: %

289: \bea

290: \label{matchB1}

291: \CB_1(\mtil )=\CB_4(\mtil ) = - \frac{g_s\,g^{\prime}}{6}\,

292: r_{\tilde{q}\lle} \,, &&

293: \CB_2(\mtil )=\CB_5(\mtil ) =  \frac{2\,g_s\,g^{\prime}}{3}\, 

294: r_{\tilde{u}\rr}   \,,

295: \\

296: \label{matchB2}

297: \CB_3(\mtil )=\CB_6(\mtil ) = -  

298: \frac{g_s\,g^{\prime}}{3}\,r_{\tilde{d}\rr} \,, &&

299: \CB_7 (\mtil )= \frac{g_s^2\,g^{\prime}}{128\,\pi^2}\,(\mgl-m_{\sss\wt{B}})\,

300: \sum_{q} \,(r_{\tilde{q}\lle}-r_{\tilde{q}\rr})\,Q_q  \,,

301: \label{cb7}

302: \eea

303: %

304: where $r_{\tilde{q}} = \msusy^2/m_{\tilde{q}}^2$. Note that $\CB_7$

305: vanishes for mass--degenerate squarks.

306: 

307: The $G$--odd operators involving the $W$--ino ($\wt{W}$) are

308: %

309: \bea

310: \QW_1 & = & \ov{\wt{W}^{\sss A}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,\gamma_5

311: \, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;\sum_{k=1}^2 \;

312: \ov{q}\lle^{\,(k)} \,\gamma^{\mu} \,\tau^{\sss A}\,T^a\, q\lle^{\,(k)}

313: \label{qw1}\\

314: \QW_2 & = & \ov{\wt{W}^{\sss A}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,\gamma_5

315: \, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

316: \ov{q}\lle^{\,(3)} \,\gamma^{\mu} \,\tau^{\sss A}\,T^a\, q\lle^{\,(3)} ,

317: \label{qw2}

318: \eea

319: %

320: where $\tau^{\sss A}$ are the Pauli matrices.  The matching conditions for

321: the Wilson coefficients are

322: %

323: \be

324: \label{matchW}

325: \CW_1(\mtil )=\CW_2(\mtil ) = - \frac{g_s\,g}{2}\, r_{\tilde{q}\lle} .

326: \ee

327: 

328: For the higgsinos, we use a compact notation in which the two Weyl

329: states $\wt{H}_u$ and $\wt{H}_d$ are combined in a single Dirac

330: fermion $\wt{H}\equiv \wt{H}_u + \varepsilon \,\wt{H}_d^c$, where

331: $\varepsilon$ is the antisymmetric matrix (with $\varepsilon_{12}=1$)

332: acting on the SU(2) indices. The states $\wt{H}_u$ and $\wt{H}_d$ can

333: be recovered by chiral decomposition, $\wt{H}_u =\wt{H}\lle$ and

334: $\wt{H}_d =-\varepsilon \,(\wt{H}^c)\lle$. Keeping only the

335: third--generation Yukawa couplings, the $G$--odd operators involving

336: higgsinos are

337: %

338: \bea

339: \QH_1 & = &  \ov{\wt{H}}\lle \, {\tilde g}^a\rr \; \otimes\;

340: \varepsilon \, \ov{q}\lle^{\,(3)}  \, T^a\, t\rr 

341: \label{qh1}\\

342: \QH_2 & = &  \ov{\wt{H}}\lle \,\sigma^{\mu\nu} \,

343:  {\tilde g}^a\rr\; \otimes\; 

344: \varepsilon \,\ov{q}\lle^{\,(3)} \,\sigma_{\mu\nu}  \, T^a\,t\rr \\

345: \QH_3 & = &  \ov{\wt{H}}\rr \, {\tilde g}^a\lle\; \otimes\;

346: \ov{b}\rr  \, T^a\,q\lle^{\,(3)} \\

347: \QH_4 & = &  \ov{\wt{H}}\rr \,\sigma^{\mu\nu} \,

348:  {\tilde g}^a\lle \; \otimes\; 

349: \ov{b}\rr \,\sigma_{\mu\nu}  \,T^a\, q\lle^{\,(3)}\\

350: \QH_5 & = & \ov{\wt{H}}\lle \,\sigma^{\mu\nu} \,

351:  {\tilde g}^a\rr\; h\;G^a_{\mu\nu},

352: \label{qh5}

353: \eea

354: %

355: where $h$ is the Higgs doublet. The Wilson coefficients at the

356: matching scale $\mtil$ are

357: %

358: \be

359: \label{matchH1}

360: \CH_1(\mtil ) = \frac{g_s\,h_t}{\sq2\sin\beta}\,

361: (r_{\tilde{q}\lle}-r_{\tilde{u}\rr})\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;

362: \CH_2(\mtil ) = \frac{g_s\,h_t}{4\,\sq2\sin\beta}\,

363: (r_{\tilde{q}\lle}+r_{\tilde{u}\rr})\,,

364: \ee

365: %

366: \be

367: \label{matchH2}

368: \CH_3(\mtil ) = \frac{g_s\,h_b}{\sq2\cos\beta}\,

369: (r_{\tilde{q}\lle}-r_{\tilde{d}\rr})\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;

370: \CH_4(\mtil ) = -\frac{g_s\,h_b}{4\,\sq2\cos\beta}\,

371: (r_{\tilde{q}\lle}+r_{\tilde{d}\rr})\,,

372: \ee

373: %

374: \be

375: \CH_5(\mtil ) = \frac{g_s^2\,h_t^2}{32\,\sq2\,\pi^2\,\sin\beta}

376: (r_{\tilde{q}\lle}+r_{\tilde{u}\rr}) .

377: \label{ch5}

378: \ee

379: %

380: Here $h_t$ and $h_b$ are the top and bottom Yukawa couplings,

381: and $\tan\beta$ is a free parameter of {\sps}.

382: 

383: Before proceeding to the operator renormalization, we want to make

384: some remarks.

385: 

386: {\it (i)} We recall that all coupling constants appearing in the

387: expressions of the Wilson coefficients given above have to be computed

388: at the scale $\mtil$.

389: 

390: {\it (ii)} Note that we have given the Wilson coefficients of the

391: 4--fermion operators at the leading perturbative order, while the

392: coefficients of the operators $\QB_7$ and $\QH_5$ are given at the

393: next order (one--loop approximation). The operator anomalous

394: dimensions will be computed in sect.~\ref{sec3} at the leading order

395: in the strong and top--Yukawa couplings $\as=g_s^2/(4\pi)$ and $\at

396: =h_t^2/(4\pi)$.  Therefore, the gluino 3--body decays, mediated only

397: by 4--fermion operators, will be computed by resumming all

398: $\alpha_{s,t}\ln (\mtil / \mgl )$ corrections, but neglecting terms

399: ${\cal O} [\alpha^{n+1}_{s,t}\ln^n (\mtil / \mgl )]$ with $n \ge

400: 0$. For the radiative 2--body gluino decay into a gluon and a

401: neutralino, a greater accuracy is more appropriate. The expressions of

402: $\CB_7$ and $\CH_5$ given in eqs.~(\ref{cb7}) and (\ref{ch5}),

403: together with leading--order anomalous dimensions and one--loop matrix

404: elements [see eq.~(\ref{coeffg}) below], allow us to determine the

405: 2--body decay amplitude neglecting terms ${\cal O}

406: [\alpha^{n+1}_{s,t}\ln^n (\mtil / \mgl )]$ with $n \ge 1$. This means

407: that we have resummed all large logarithms at the leading order in all

408: cases, but our formulae for 2--body gluino decays contain also the

409: complete ${\cal O} (\alpha_{s,t})$ terms, relevant when the logarithm

410: is not large.

411: 

412: {\it (iii)} If $\mtil$ is close to the GUT scale, in presence of

413: gauge--coupling unification there is no solid justification for the

414: approximation of computing $\as$ contributions to the anomalous

415: dimensions, neglecting electroweak corrections. However, because of

416: the large SU(3) coefficients, we consider our approximation to be

417: fairly adequate, even for $\mtil$ as large as $10^{13}$~GeV, which is

418: the maximum value of $\mtil$ consistent with the negative searches for

419: anomalous heavy isotopes.

420: 

421: {\it (iv)} In \eq{matchH2} we have included the contribution from the

422: bottom Yukawa coupling $h_b$, since these coefficients are enhanced when

423: $\tan\beta$ is large. There are no $\tan\beta$ enhancements in the

424: evolution below $\mtil$, and therefore our results are reliable for any

425: value of $\tan\beta$.

426: 

427: {\it (v)} \sps\ is free from flavour problems, therefore our

428: assumption that squark mass matrices are diagonal is unnecessary.  On

429: the other hand, a certain degree of mass degeneracy among squarks is

430: required by gauge-coupling unification. In the results presented in

431: sect.~\ref{sec4} we take for simplicity all squark masses to be equal.

432: 

433: 

434: \section{Operator Renormalization}

435: \label{sec3}

436: 

437: The renormalization--group flow for the Wilson coefficients is

438: determined by the equations

439: %

440: \bea

441: \mu\frac{d\vec C}{d \mu}&=&  {\hat \gamma}^T(\as,\at) \,\vec C 

442: \label{runc}\\

443: \mu\frac{d\as}{d \mu}&=& -\beta_s \,\frac{\as^2}{2\pi}\\

444: \mu\frac{d\at}{d \mu}&=& -\beta_t \,\frac{\at^2}{2\pi}-\beta_{st}

445:  \frac{\as \at}{2\pi},

446: \eea

447: %

448: where $\mu$ is the renormalization scale and,

449: in \sps, we have $\beta_s=5$, $\beta_t=-9/2$ and $\beta_{st}=8$.

450: The anomalous--dimension matrix $\hat \gamma$ can be expressed as

451: %

452: \beq

453: {\hat \gamma}_{ij}=-2\,b_{ij}-\delta_{ij}\sum_f a_f ,

454: \label{gaman}

455: \eeq

456: %

457: where $b_{ij}$ are extracted from the poles of the one--loop

458: renormalization of the operators $Q_i$ ($Q_i \rightarrow b_{ij}\,

459: Q_j/\epsilon + \cdots$). In \eq{gaman} the sum is over all fields

460: entering the operator $Q_i$, and the field anomalous dimensions $a_f$

461: are given by

462: %

463: \be

464: \label{wfrs}

465: a_{q^k\lle} = -\frac{1}{4\,\pi} \left(

466: \as \,C_F + \frac{\at}{2}\,\delta_{k3}\right)

467: \,,\;\;\;\;\;

468: a_{u^k\rr}= -\frac{1}{4\,\pi} \left(

469: \as \,C_F + \at\,\delta_{k3}\right)

470: \,,\;\;\;\;\;

471: a_{d\rr} = -\frac{\as \,C_F}{4\,\pi}\,,

472: \ee

473: %

474: \be

475: a_{\tilde{g}} = -\frac{\as \,N_c}{4\,\pi}

476: \,,\;\;\;\;\;

477: a_{h} = -\frac{\at \,N_c}{4\,\pi}

478: \,,\;\;\;\;\;

479: a_g = \frac{\as}{4\,\pi} \; \left( N_c - \frac 23 \,N_f \right) .

480: \ee

481: %

482: Here $k$ is a generation index, $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)$, $N_c=3$,

483: $N_f=6$. Note that the gluon anomalous dimension $a_g$ (given here in

484: the Feynman gauge) is different from the SM value because it includes

485: the gluino contribution.

486: 

487: We find that the anomalous--dimension matrices of the $B$--ino

488: operators in eqs.~(\ref{qb1})--(\ref{qb7}), of the $W$--ino operators

489: in eqs.~(\ref{qw1})--(\ref{qw2}), and of the higgsino operators in

490: eqs.~(\ref{qh1})--(\ref{qh5}) are respectively

491: %

492: \beq

493: {\hat \gamma}^{(a)}=\frac{\as}{4\pi} \gamma_s^a+

494: \frac{\at}{4\pi} \gamma_t^a+\frac{\sqrt{\as \at}}{4\pi} 

495: \gamma_{st}^a

496: ,~~~~a=\wt{\sss B},\wt{\sss W},\wt{\sss H}

497: \label{gamgam}

498: \eeq

499: 

500: \beq

501: \gamma_s^{\wt{\sss B}}=\frac 13 \pmatrix{

502: 8-9N_c & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 & 0 \cr

503: 4 & 4-9N_c & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 0 \cr

504: 4 & 4 & 4-9N_c & 4 & 4 & 4 & 0 \cr

505: 4 & 4 & 4 & 4-9N_c & 4 & 4 & 0 \cr

506: 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2-9N_c & 2 & 0 \cr

507: 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2-9N_c & 0 \cr

508: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 2N_f-18 N_c },

509: \label{gammabino}

510: \eeq

511: %

512: \beq

513: \gamma_t^{\wt{\sss B}}= \pmatrix{

514: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

515: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

516: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

517: 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \!\!\!\!-2 &  0 & 0 \cr

518: 0 & 0 & 0 & \!\!\!\!-1 & 2 &  0 & 0 \cr

519: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

520: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 },~~~~\gamma_{st}^{\wt{\sss B}}=0,

521: \eeq

522: 

523: \beq

524: \gamma_s^{\wt{\sss W}}=\pmatrix{

525: -3N_c & 0 \cr

526: 0 & -3N_c } ,~~~~

527: \gamma_t^{\wt{\sss W}}=\pmatrix{

528: 0 & 0 \cr

529: 0 & 1 },~~~~\gamma_{st}^{\wt{\sss W}}=0,

530: \eeq

531: 

532: \beq

533: \gamma_s^{\wt{\sss H}}=\pmatrix{

534: \frac{3}{N_c} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr

535: 0 & -4N_c-\frac{1}{N_c} & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr

536: 0 & 0 & \frac{3}{N_c} & 0 & 0 \cr

537: 0 & 0 & 0 & -4N_c-\frac{1}{N_c} & 0 \cr

538: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac 23 N_f -6N_c },

539: \eeq

540: 

541: \beq

542: \gamma_t^{\wt{\sss H}}=\frac 12 \pmatrix{

543: 3 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

544: 0 & 3 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

545: 0 & 0 & 1 &  0 & 0 \cr

546: 0 & 0 & 0 &  1 & 0 \cr

547: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 2N_c },~~~~

548: \gamma_{st}^{\wt{\sss H}}=\pmatrix{

549: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

550: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 4 \cr

551: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

552: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

553: 0 & 2 & 0 &  0 & 0 } .

554: \eeq

555: %

556: 

557: For coefficients with only multiplicative renormalization (which is

558: the case for $\CB_7$, $\CW_{1,2}$, $\CH_{1,3,4}$), \eq{runc} can be

559: easily integrated, with the result

560: %

561: \be

562: C_i(\mu)= C_i(\mtil ) \,\eta_s^{\left

563: (\frac{\gamma_s}{2\beta_s}-\frac{\beta_{st}

564: \gamma_t}{2 \beta_s\beta_t}\right)} \ 

565: \eta_t ^{\frac{\gamma_t}{2\beta_t}}~~~~~{\rm for~~}

566: C_i=\CB_7,~\CW_{1,2},~\CH_{1,3,4}  .

567: \ee

568: %

569: We have defined

570: %

571: \bea

572: \label{etas}

573: \eta_s \equiv \frac{\as(\mtil )}{\as(\mu)}&=&1+\frac{\as(\mtil )}{2\pi}

574: \beta_s \ln \frac{\mu}{\mtil} \,, \\

575: \label{etat}

576: \eta_t \equiv \frac{\at(\mtil )}{\at(\mu )}&=&

577: \eta_s^\frac{\beta_{st}}{\beta_s} + \frac{\at(\mtil )

578: \beta_t}{\as(\mtil ) \left( \beta_{st} -\beta_s \right)}

579: \left(  \eta_s^\frac{\beta_{st}}{\beta_s} -\eta_s \right) .

580: \eea

581: %

582: The evolution of the Wilson coefficients for the other $B$--ino

583: operators involves operator mixing and the solution of \eq{runc} is

584: given by

585: %

586: \bea

587: \CB_i (\mu) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ \CB_i (\mtil) 

588: +y \,{\ov C}(\mtil )\right] 

589: ~~~~i=1,2,3,6 \label{pinc}\\

590: \CB_4 (\mu) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ (1+z)\,\CB_4 (\mtil)

591: -z \,\CB_5 (\mtil ) +y \,{\ov C}(\mtil )\right] ,\\

592: \CB_5 (\mu ) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ (1+2z)\,\CB_5 (\mtil)

593: -2z \,\CB_4 (\mtil ) +y \,{\ov C}(\mtil )\right] ,\label{pall}

594: \eea

595: %

596: where ${\ov C}=\CB_1 /3 +(\CB_2+\CB_3+\CB_4)/6+(\CB_5+\CB_6)/12$,

597: $y=\eta_s^{\,4/5}-1$, and $z=(\eta_s^{\,8/15}\,\eta_t^{-1/3}-1)/3$.

598: Because of the non--vanishing contribution from $\gamma^{\wt{\sss

599: H}}_{st}$, the equations for $\CH_2$ and $\CH_5$ cannot be solved

600: analytically. The numerical results for the renormalization

601: coefficients $\Delta_{ij}$, defined by

602: %

603: \beq

604: \label{Deltas}

605: \pmatrix{\CH_2 (\mu)\cr \CH_5 (\mu)} =\pmatrix{

606: \Delta_{22} &\Delta_{25} \cr  \Delta_{52} &\Delta_{55}}

607: \pmatrix{\CH_2 (\mtil )\cr \CH_5 (\mtil )}\,,

608: \eeq

609: %

610: are shown in \fig{fig:coeffs} for a representative choice of $\as(\mtil )$

611: and $\at(\mtil )$. Despite the fact that the high--energy boundary

612: condition on $\CH_5$, eq.~(\ref{ch5}), is suppressed by a loop factor,

613: a sizeable value of $\CH_5$ can be generated through the mixing with

614: $\CH_2$.

615: 

616: \begin{figure}[t]

617: \begin{center}

618: \mbox{\epsfig{file=RGE.eps,width=11cm}}

619: \end{center}

620: \caption{\sf Renormalization group flow of $\CH_2$ and $\CH_5$,

621: expressed in terms of the coefficients $\Delta_{ij}$ of \eq{Deltas},

622: for $\as(\mtil )=0.05$ and $\at(\mtil )=0.03$.  The solid, dashed,

623: dotted, and dot--dashed lines correspond to $\Delta_{22}$,

624: $\Delta_{25}$, $\Delta_{52}$ and $\Delta_{55}$, respectively.  }

625: \label{fig:coeffs}

626: \end{figure}

627: 

628: A computation of the ${\cal O}(\as)$ part of the anomalous dimensions,

629: restricted to the four--fermion operators, has been given in the

630: appendix of ref.~\cite{arvanietal}. From the comparison with

631: eq.~(\ref{gammabino}) it appears that the authors of ref.~\cite{arvanietal}

632: have omitted the mixing among the $B$--ino operators induced by the

633: penguin diagrams. Also, we disagree with ref.~\cite{arvanietal} on the

634: anomalous dimensions of the higgsino operators.

635: 

636: Once we have evolved the Wilson coefficients down to the

637: renormalization scale at which we compute the gluino decay width, it

638: is convenient to express the operators in terms of chargino and

639: neutralino mass eigenstates.  With the usual definitions for the

640: chargino and neutralino mixing matrices $U$, $V$ and $N$, which we

641: assume to be real, the $B$--ino, $W$--ino and higgsino spinors can be

642: expressed as

643: %

644: \be

645: \ov{\wt{W}^+} = \ov{\chi^+_i}\,

646: \left(U_{i1}\,\PL+V_{i1}\,\PR\right),\;\;\;\;\;\;

647: \ov{\wt{H}^+} = \ov{\chi^+_i}\,

648: \left(U_{i2}\,\PL+V_{i2}\,\PR\right),

649: \ee

650: %

651: \be

652: \ov{\wt{B}} = \ov{\chi^0_i}\,N_{i1}\,,\;\;\;

653: \ov{\wt{W}^3} = \ov{\chi^0_i}\,N_{i2} \,,\;\;\;

654: \ov{\wt{H}^0} =  \ov{\chi^0_i}\,

655: \left(N_{i4}\, \PR - N_{i3}\,\PL\right) ,

656: \ee

657: %

658: where $\PL$ and $\PR$ are the chiral projectors. In the basis of mass

659: eigenstates, the effective Lagrangian becomes

660: %

661: \be \label{lagr2}

662: {\cal L} = 

663: \frac{1}{\msusy^2}\,\sum_{j} \CN_j\,\QN_j \;+\; 

664: \frac{1}{\msusy^2}\,\left(\sum_j \CC_j\,\QC_j + {\rm h.c.}\right) .

665: \ee

666: 

667: The operators involving neutralinos and quarks and their corresponding Wilson

668: coefficients are

669: %

670: \bea

671: \QN_{1\,q\lle,q\rr} &=& 

672: \ov{\chi^0_i}\,\gamma^{\mu}\,\gamma_5\,\,{\tilde g}^a\;\otimes\;

673: \sum_{k=1}^2\,\ov{q}^{\,(k)}\lr\,\gamma_{\mu}\,T^a\,q^{(k)}\lr

674: \hspace{2cm}(q=u,d)\,,

675: \\

676: \QN_{2\,q\lle,q\rr} &=& 

677: \ov{\chi^0_i}\,\gamma^{\mu}\,\gamma_5\,{\tilde g}^a\;\otimes\;

678: \ov{q}\lr\,\gamma_{\mu}\,T^a\,q\lr

679: \hspace{2.75cm}(q=t,b)\,,

680: \\

681: \QN_{3\,q\lle,q\rr} &=& 

682: \ov{\chi^0_i}\rl\,{\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

683: \ov{q}\rl\,T^a\,q\lr

684: \hspace{3.45cm}(q=t,b)\,, 

685: \\

686: \QN_{4\,q\lle,q\rr} &=&

687: \ov{\chi^0_i}\rl\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}\,\gamma_5\, {\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

688: \ov{q}\rl\,\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,T^a\,q\lr

689: \hspace{1.65cm}(q=t,b)\,,

690: \eea

691: %

692: \bea

693: \label{wils1}

694: &&

695: \CN_{1\,u\lle} = \CB_1\,N_{i1} + \CW_1\,N_{i2}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

696: \CN_{1\,u\rr} = \CB_2\,N_{i1}\,,\\

697: && 

698: \CN_{1\,d\lle} = \CB_1\,N_{i1} - \CW_1\,N_{i2}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

699: \CN_{1\,d\rr} = \CB_3\,N_{i1}\,,\\

700: &&

701: \CN_{2\,t\lle} = \CB_4\,N_{i1} + \CW_2\,N_{i2}\,,\;\;\;\;

702: \CN_{3\,t\lle} = - \CH_1\,N_{i4}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

703: \CN_{4\,t\lle} = \CH_2\,N_{i4}\,,\\

704: &&

705: \CN_{2\,t\rr} = \CB_5\,N_{i1}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

706: \CN_{3\,t\rr} = - \CH_1\,N_{i4}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

707: \CN_{4\,t\rr} = -\CH_2\,N_{i4}\,,\\

708: && 

709: \CN_{2\,b\lle} = \CB_4\,N_{i1} - \CW_2\,N_{i2}\;\;\;\;

710: \CN_{3\,b\lle} = - \CH_3\,N_{i3}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

711: \CN_{4\,b\lle} = -\CH_4\,N_{i3}\,,\\

712: && 

713: \label{wils2}

714: \CN_{2\,b\rr} = \CB_6\,N_{i1}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

715: \CN_{3\,b\rr} = - \CH_3\,N_{i3}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

716: \CN_{4\,b\rr} = \CH_4\,N_{i3}.

717: \eea

718: 

719: The operators involving charginos and quarks and their Wilson

720: coefficients are

721: %

722: \bea

723: \QC_{1\,{\sss L,R}} &=& 

724: \ov{\chi^+_i}\lr\,\gamma^{\mu}\,{\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

725: \sum_{k=1}^2 \,\ov{d}\lle^{\,(k)}\,\gamma_{\mu}\,T^a\,

726: u\lle^{(k)} \\

727: \QC_{2\,{\sss L,R}} &=&

728: \ov{\chi^+_i}\lr\,\gamma^{\mu}\,{\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

729: \ov{b}\lle\,\gamma_{\mu}\,T^a\,t\lle \\

730: \QC_{3\,{\sss L,R}} &=&

731: \ov{\chi^+_i}\rl\,{\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

732: \ov{b}\rl\,T^a\,t\lr \\

733: \QC_{4\,{\sss L,R}} &=&

734: \ov{\chi^+_i}\rl\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}\,{\tilde g}^a\lr\;\otimes\;

735: \ov{b}\rl\,\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,T^a\,t\lr

736: \eea

737: %

738: \bea

739: &&

740: \label{wils3}

741: \CCL{1} \;=\; -\sqrt{2}\,\CW_1\,V_{i1}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

742: \CCR{1} \;=\; \sqrt{2}\,\CW_1\,U_{i1}\,,

743: \\ &&

744: \CCL{2} = -\sqrt{2}\,\CW_2\,V_{i1}\,,\;\;\:

745: \CCL{3} = \CH_3\,U_{i2}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

746: \CCL{4} = \CH_4\,U_{i2}\,,\\

747: &&

748: \CCR{2} = \sqrt{2}\,\CW_2\,U_{i1}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

749: \CCR{3} = \CH_1\,V_{i2}\,,\;\;\;\;\;

750: \CCR{4} = \CH_2\,V_{i2}\,.

751: \label{wils4}

752: \eea 

753: %

754: All Wilson coefficients in eqs.(\ref{wils1})--(\ref{wils2}) and

755: (\ref{wils3})--(\ref{wils4}) are evaluated at the 

756: scale $\mu$ at which the gluino decay width is computed (we

757: take $\mu=\mgl$ in our numerical analysis).

758: 

759: The magnetic operator involving a neutralino and a gluon is

760: %

761: \be 

762: \QN_g =

763: \ov{\chi^0_i}\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}\,\gamma_5\,{\tilde g}^a\,G_{\mu\nu}^a\,.

764: \ee

765: %

766: In order to reach the desired accuracy in the ${\tilde g}\to g {\tilde

767: \chi}^0$ process, we need to include the matrix element contribution

768: coming from the diagram in which the two top quarks in the operator

769: $\QH_2$ close in a loop emitting a gluon. This results into an

770: ``effective'' Wilson coefficient

771: %

772: \be

773: \label{coeffg}

774: \left.C^{\,{\chi}^0_i}_g\right._{\rm \!\!\!eff}

775: (\mu) =\CB_7(\mu)\,N_{i1}+\CH_5(\mu)\,N_{i4}\,v +

776: \frac{g_s\,h_t}{8\pi^2}\,\CH_2(\mu)\,\,N_{i4}\,v\,\ln\frac{m_t^2}{\mu^2}\,,

777: \ee

778: %

779: where $v$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value and we

780: take $\mu =\mgl$.

781: 

782: From the effective Lagrangian of \eq{lagr2} we can compute the gluino

783: decay widths and complete expressions can be found in the appendix.

784: The same effective Lagrangian correctly describes also the

785: interactions that lead to the decays ${\tilde g}\to g g{\tilde

786: \chi}^0$ and ${\tilde g}\to g h^0 {\tilde \chi}^0$. However, since

787: these processes are subleading, we will not explicitly calculate their

788: decay widths.

789: 

790: \section{Results}

791: \label{sec4}

792: 

793: We are now ready to discuss the results of our computation of the

794: decay width and branching ratios of the gluino in {\sps}.  The input

795: parameters relevant to our analysis are the sfermion mass scale

796: $\mtil$, the physical gluino mass $\mgl$ and $\tan \beta$, which in

797: {\sps} is interpreted as the tangent of the angle that rotates the

798: finely tuned Higgs doublets. To simplify the analysis we assume that

799: the squark masses are degenerate, i.e.~we set $r_{\tilde{q}\lle} =

800: r_{\tilde{u}\rr} = r_{\tilde{d}\rr} = 1$ in the matching conditions of

801: the Wilson coefficients.  The gluino mass parameter in the Lagrangian,

802: $M_3$, is extracted from $\mgl$ including radiative corrections, and

803: the other gaugino masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ are computed from $M_3$

804: assuming unification at the GUT scale. The higgsino mass parameter

805: $\mu$ is determined as a function of $M_2$ by requiring that the relic

806: abundance of neutralinos is equal to the dark--matter density

807: preferred by WMAP data \cite{wmap} (see fig.~11 of

808: ref.~\cite{split}\,). The sign of $\mu$ remains a free parameter, but

809: since it does not affect our results for the gluino decays in a

810: significant way we will assume $\mu>0$ throughout our analysis. The

811: effective couplings of gauginos and higgsinos at the weak scale,

812: needed to compute the chargino and neutralino mass matrices, are

813: determined from their high--energy (supersymmetric) boundary values by

814: means of the renormalization--group equations of {\sps}, given in

815: ref.~\cite{split}.  Finally, the SM input parameters relevant to our

816: analysis are: the physical masses for the top quark and gauge bosons,

817: $m_t=178$ GeV, $M_Z = 91.187$ GeV and $M_W=80.41$ GeV; the running

818: bottom mass computed at the scale of the top mass, $m_b(m_t) = 2.75$

819: GeV; the Fermi constant, $G_F = 1.166 \times 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$; the

820: running strong coupling computed at the scale of the top mass,

821: $\as(m_t) = 0.106$.

822: 

823: \begin{figure}[t]

824: \begin{center}

825: \mbox{\epsfig{file=lifetime_tb2_plus.eps,width=11cm}}

826: \end{center}

827: \vspace{-2mm}

828: \caption{\sf Gluino lifetime $\tg$ as a function of the sfermion mass

829: scale $\msusy$, for different values of the physical gluino mass

830: $\mgl$. The other free parameters are chosen as $\tan\beta = 2$ and

831: $\mu>0$. The dashed horizontal line corresponds to the age of the universe,

832: $\tau_{\sss U}=14$ Gyr.}

833: \label{fig:life}

834: \end{figure}

835: 

836: To start our discussion, we show in \fig{fig:life} the gluino lifetime

837: $\tg$ (in seconds) as a function of the sfermion mass scale $\msusy$,

838: for $\tan\beta = 2$ and four different values of the physical gluino

839: mass ($\mgl$ = 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 TeV, respectively).  It can be seen

840: that $\tg$ is about 4 seconds for $\mgl=1$ TeV and $\msusy = 10^9$

841: GeV. A value of $\tg$ equal to the age of the universe (14~Gyr)

842: corresponds to $\mtil = (1.1, \, 2.1,\, 4.5,\, 13) \times 10^{13}$ GeV

843: for $\mgl$ = 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 TeV, respectively.

844: 

845: \begin{figure}[p]

846: \begin{center}

847: 

848: \mbox{

849: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS_tb20_mg500_plus.eps,width=8.15cm}

850: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS0_tb20_mg500_plus.eps,width=7.85cm}}

851: 

852: \vspace*{6mm}

853: 

854: \mbox{

855: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS_tb20_mg1000_plus.eps,width=8.15cm}

856: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS0_tb20_mg1000_plus.eps,width=7.85cm}}

857: 

858: \vspace*{6mm}

859: 

860: \mbox{

861: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS_tb20_mg2000_plus.eps,width=8.15cm}

862: \epsfig{figure=BRvsMS0_tb20_mg2000_plus.eps,width=7.85cm}}

863: 

864: \end{center}

865: \caption{\sf Branching ratios for the gluino decay channels $\chi^0 g$

866: (dashed lines), $\chi^0 q \bar{q}$ (dotted) and $\chi^{\pm} q

867: \bar{q}^{\,\prime}$ (dot--dashed), summed over all possible neutralino

868: or chargino states, as a function of $\msusy$, for three values of

869: $\mgl$: 500 GeV (upper plots), 1 TeV (middle) and 2 TeV (lower).  The

870: curves in the left (right) plots do (do not) include the resummation

871: of the leading logarithmic corrections. Other parameters are

872: $\tan\beta=20$ and $\mu>0$.}

873: \label{fig:bratios}

874: \end{figure}

875: 

876: In \fig{fig:bratios} we show the branching ratios for the three decay

877: processes $\tilde{g} \rightarrow \chi^0 g$, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow

878: \chi^0 q \bar{q}$ and $\tilde{g} \rightarrow \chi^{\pm} q

879: \bar{q}^{\,\prime}$ (summed over all neutralino or chargino states) as

880: a function of $\msusy$, for $\tan\beta = 20$ and three different

881: values of $\mgl$\,: 500 GeV (upper plots), 1 TeV (middle plots) and 2

882: TeV (lower plots). The value of $\tan\beta$ has little impact on these

883: results.  The plots on the left of \fig{fig:bratios} represent the

884: results of our full calculation, including the resummation of the

885: leading logarithmic corrections controlled by $\as$ and $\at$. The

886: plots on the right represent instead the lowest--order results that do

887: not include the resummation.  We obtain the latter results by

888: replacing the Wilson coefficients of the four--fermion operators in

889: the low--energy effective Lagrangian with their tree--level

890: expressions in terms of gauge and Yukawa couplings

891: [eqs.~(\ref{matchB1})--(\ref{matchB2}), (\ref{matchW}) and

892: (\ref{matchH1})--(\ref{matchH2})], and the Wilson coefficient of the

893: magnetic operator with its one--loop expression.

894: %

895: The plots in \fig{fig:bratios} show that the branching ratio of the

896: radiative decay $\tilde{g} \rightarrow \chi^0 g$ decreases for

897: increasing $\mgl$ and increases for increasing $\msusy$. In fact, as

898: stressed in ref.~\cite{jim}, the ratio between the two--body and

899: three--body decay rates computed at lowest order scales like

900: $m_t^2/\mgl^2\;[1-\ln(\msusy^2/m_t^2)]^2$, where the logarithmic term

901: comes from the top--stop loop that generates the magnetic

902: gluino--gluon--higgsino interaction. For large values of $\msusy$, the

903: resummation of the logarithms becomes necessary.  Comparing the plots

904: on the left and right sides of \fig{fig:bratios}, we see that the

905: resummation of the leading logarithmic corrections tends to enhance

906: the three--body decays and suppress the radiative decay. The effect of

907: the corrections on the branching ratios is particularly visible when,

908: like in the middle and lower plots, neither the two--body nor the

909: three--body channels are obviously dominant in the range $10^8$ GeV $<

910: \msusy < 10^{13}$ GeV, relevant to \sps.

911: 

912: \begin{figure}[t]

913: \begin{center}

914: \mbox{\hspace{8mm}

915: \epsfig{file=corrvsMS_tb20_mg1000_plus.eps,width=11cm}}

916: \end{center}

917: \caption{\sf Effect of the radiative corrections on the partial widths

918: for the decays $\tilde{g}\rightarrow\chi^0 g$ (dashed lines),

919: $\tilde{g}\rightarrow\chi^0 q \bar{q}$ (dotted) and

920: $\tilde{g}\rightarrow\chi^{\pm} q \bar{q}^{\,\prime}$ (dot--dashed) as

921: a function of $\msusy$.  The parameters are chosen as $\mgl = 1$ TeV,

922: $\tan\beta = 20$ and $\mu>0$.}

923: \label{fig:corrs}

924: \end{figure}

925: 

926: \begin{figure}[t]

927: \begin{center}

928: \mbox{\epsfig{file=gamma_tb20_plus_2000.eps,width=11cm}}

929: \end{center}

930: \vspace{-2mm}

931: \caption{\sf The normalization  $N$ of eq.~(\ref{scaling}) as

932: a function of the sfermion mass scale $\msusy$, with (solid lines) and

933: without (dashed lines) resummation of the leading logarithmic

934: corrections.  The upper, middle and lower sets of curves correspond to

935: $\mgl =$ 0.5, 1 and 2 TeV, respectively. The other free parameters are

936: chosen as $\tan\beta = 20$ and $\mu>0$.}

937: \label{fig:gamma}

938: \end{figure}

939: 

940: To further illustrate the effect of the resummation of the leading

941: logarithmic corrections, we plot in fig.~\ref{fig:corrs} the ratio

942: $\Gamma/\Gamma_0$ of the partial decay widths with and without

943: resummation, for the processes $\tilde{g} \rightarrow \chi^0 g$,

944: $\tilde{g} \rightarrow \chi^0 q \bar{q}$ and $\tilde{g} \rightarrow

945: \chi^{\pm} q \bar{q}^{\,\prime}$. We fix $\mgl = 1$ TeV, $\tan\beta =

946: 20$ and $\mu>0$, but we have checked that the qualitative behaviour of the

947: corrections is independent of the precise choice of the parameters. It

948: can be seen from fig.~\ref{fig:corrs} that for large enough values of

949: $\msusy$ the radiative corrections can be of the order of 50--100\%,

950: and that they enhance the widths for the three--body decays and

951: suppress the width for the radiative decay.

952: 

953: To conclude this section, we discuss the scaling behaviour of the

954: gluino lifetime and total decay width. The lifetime $\tg =

955: \hbar/\gtot$ can be written as

956: %

957: \be

958: \label{scaling}

959: \tg = \frac{4 \,{\rm sec}}{N}\,

960: \times \,\left(\frac{\msusy}{10^9\,{\rm GeV}}\right)^4 \times 

961: \left(\frac{1 \,{\rm TeV}}{\mgl}\right)^5 ,

962: \ee

963: %

964: where the normalization $N$ is of order unity and depends on $\msusy$

965: and $\mgl$ (and only very mildly on $\tan\beta$). In \fig{fig:gamma}

966: we show $N$ as a function of $\msusy$ for $\tan\beta = 20$ and three

967: different values of the physical gluino mass ($\mgl = 0.5,\, 1$ and 2

968: TeV, respectively). The non--vanishing slope of $N$ represents the

969: deviation of the total gluino decay width from the naive scaling

970: behaviour $\gtot \propto \mgl^5\,/\,\msusy^4$. The solid lines in the

971: plot represent the results of our full calculation, whereas the dashed

972: lines represent the lowest--order results that do not include the

973: resummation. For low values of $\mgl$ the contribution of the

974: radiative decay dominates (see \fig{fig:bratios}), thus the total

975: decay width departs visibly from the naive scaling and is

976: significantly suppressed by the resummation of the radiative

977: corrections.  On the other hand, for large values of $\mgl$ the

978: three--body decays dominate, and the effect of the resummation is to

979: enhance the total decay width. Finally, for the intermediate value

980: $\mgl=1$ TeV there is a compensation between the corrections to the

981: radiative decay width and those to the three--body decay widths, and

982: the net effect on the total decay width of the resummation of the

983: leading logarithmic corrections is rather small.

984: 

985: \vspace{-1mm}

986: \section{Gluino Decay into Gravitinos} 

987: \label{sec5}  

988: \vspace{-1mm}

989: 

990: \sps\ opens up the possibility of direct tree-level mediation of the

991: original supersymmetry breaking to the SM superfields, without the

992: need of a hidden sector~\cite{noi4}. In usual low-energy

993: supersymmetry, this possibility is impracticable: for $F$--term

994: breaking some scalars remain lighter than the SM matter fermions, and

995: for $D$--term breaking gaugino masses cannot be generated at the same

996: order of scalar masses. In \sps\ a large hierarchy between scalar and

997: gaugino masses is acceptable, and indeed models have been

998: proposed~\cite{noi4,babu} with direct mediation of $D$--term

999: supersymmetry breaking.

1000: 

1001: Therefore, in \sps\ the original scale of supersymmetry breaking

1002: $\sqrt{F}$, which is related to the gravitino mass by

1003: %

1004: \beq

1005: m_{3/2}=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}} \frac{F}{\mpl},

1006: \eeq

1007: %

1008: could be as low as the squark mass scale $\mtil$. This means that the

1009: interactions between the gluino and (the spin--1/2 component of) the

1010: gravitino, which are suppressed by $1/F$, could be as strong as those

1011: considered in the previous sections, which are suppressed by

1012: $1/\mtil^2$.

1013: 

1014: For $m_{3/2} \ll \mgl$, the gravitino interactions can be obtained,

1015: through the supersymmetric analogue of the equivalence

1016: theorem~\cite{equi}, from the goldstino derivative coupling to the

1017: supercurrent. This approximation is valid as long as

1018: $\sqrt{F} \ll 6\times (\mgl /1\,{\rm TeV})^{1/2} \times 10^{10}$~GeV. 

1019: Using the equations of motion, we can write the

1020: effective goldstino ($\wt G$) interactions for on--shell particles

1021: as

1022: %

1023: \beq

1024: {\cal L}=\frac 1F \left( -m_{{\tilde q}\lle}^2 {\tilde q}\lle {\bar q}\lle

1025: -m_{{\tilde q}\rr}^2 {\tilde q}\rr {\bar q}\rr

1026: +\frac{\mgl}{4\sqrt{2}}\,{\ov{{\tilde g}^a}}\, \sigma^{\mu\nu} 

1027: \gamma_5 \,G^a_{\mu \nu}

1028: \right) \tilde G +{\rm h.c.}

1029: \label{goldlag}

1030: \eeq

1031: %

1032: Below $\mtil$, the effective Lagrangian describing the interactions

1033: between the gluino and the goldstino becomes

1034: %

1035: \beq

1036: {\cal L} = \frac{1}{F}\,\sum_{i=1}^5 \CG_i\,\QG_i\,,

1037: \label{eglag}

1038: \eeq

1039: %

1040: \bea

1041: \QG_1 & = &  \ov{\wt{G}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

1042: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;\sum_{k=1,2 \atop q=u,d}\;

1043: \ov{q}^{\,(k)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \,q^{\,(k)}

1044: \label{opg1}\\

1045: \QG_2 & = &  \ov{\wt{G}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

1046: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

1047: \ov{q}\lle^{\,(3)} \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \,q\lle^{\,(3)}\\

1048: \QG_3 & = &  \ov{\wt{G}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

1049: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

1050: \ov{t}\rr \,\gamma_{\mu} \, T^a \, t\rr \\

1051: \QG_4 & = &  \ov{\wt{G}} \,\gamma^{\mu}\,

1052: \gamma_{5}\, {\tilde g}^a\; \otimes\;

1053: \ov{b}\rr \,\gamma_{\mu}\,  T^a\, b\rr \\

1054: \QG_5 & = & \ov{\wt{G}} \,\sigma^{\mu\nu} \,\gamma_5\,

1055:  {\tilde g}^a\;G^a_{\mu\nu}.

1056: \label{opg5}

1057: \eea

1058: %

1059: The Wilson coefficients at the matching scale $\mtil$ are

1060: %

1061: \be

1062: \label{boundgoldstino}

1063: \CG_1=\CG_2=\CG_3=\CG_4 = -\frac{g_s}{\sq2}\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

1064: \CG_5 = -\frac{\mgl}{2\,\sq2}.

1065: \ee

1066: %

1067: Note that the coefficients of the interactions in \eq{eglag} have no

1068: dependence on $\mtil$, because the squark mass square in the

1069: propagators of the particles we integrate out is exactly cancelled by

1070: the squark mass square in the goldstino coupling in \eq{goldlag}. 

1071: 

1072: The operator renormalization proceeds analogously to the discussion in

1073: sect.~\ref{sec3}. The anomalous dimension matrix of the operators in

1074: eqs.~(\ref{opg1})--(\ref{opg5}) is given by \eq{gamgam} with

1075: %

1076: \beq

1077: \gamma_s^{\wt{\sss G}}=\frac 13 \pmatrix{

1078: 16-9N_c & 16 & 16 & 16 & 0 \cr

1079: 4 & 4-9N_c & 4 & 4 & 0 \cr

1080: 2 & 2 & 2-9N_c & 2 & 0 \cr

1081: 2 & 2 & 2 & 2-9N_c & 0 \cr

1082: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2N_f-18 N_c },

1083: \eeq

1084: %

1085: \beq

1086: \gamma_t^{\wt{\sss G}}= \pmatrix{

1087: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 \cr

1088: 0 & 1 & \!\!\!\!-2 &  0 & 0 \cr

1089: 0 & \!\!\!\!-1 & 2 &  0 & 0 \cr

1090: 0 & 0 & 0 &  0 & 0 },~~~~\gamma_{st}^{\wt{\sss G}}=0\,.

1091: \eeq

1092: 

1093: The evolution of the Wilson coefficients for the goldstino

1094: operators has the simple analytic form

1095: %

1096: \bea

1097: \CG_i (\mu) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ \CG_i (\mtil ) +y \,{\ov

1098: \CG}(\mtil )\right]

1099: ~~~i=1,4 \label{pincg}\\

1100: \CG_2 (\mu) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ (1+z)\,\CG_2 (\mtil )

1101: -z \,\CG_3 (\mtil ) +y \,{\ov \CG}(\mtil )\right] ,\\

1102: \CG_3 (\mu ) &=& \eta_s^{-\frac {9}{10}} \left[ (1+2\,z)\,\CG_3 (\mtil )

1103: -2\,z \,\CG_2 (\mtil ) +y \,{\ov \CG}(\mtil )\right] \label{pallg},\\

1104: \CG_5(\mu) &= &\eta_s^{-\frac {7}{5}}\,\CG_5 (\mtil )\,,

1105: \eea

1106: %

1107: where ${\ov \CG}=2\,\CG_1 /3 +\CG_2/6+(\CG_3+\CG_4)/12$,

1108: $y=\eta_s^{\,4/5}-1$, and $z=(\eta_s^{\,8/15}\,\eta_t^{-1/3}-1)/3$.  The

1109: quantities $\eta_s$ and $\eta_t$ have been defined in

1110: eqs.~(\ref{etas}) and (\ref{etat}), respectively.

1111: 

1112: \begin{figure}[t]

1113: \begin{center}

1114: \vspace*{-4mm}

1115: \mbox{\epsfig{file=goldstino_tb2_10to9.eps,width=11cm}}

1116: \end{center}

1117: \vspace{-4mm}

1118: \caption{\sf Branching ratio for the decay $\tilde g \rightarrow

1119: \wt G \, g$ as a function of $\sqrt{F}/\msusy$, for different

1120: values of the physical gluino mass $\mgl$. The other free parameters

1121: are chosen as $\msusy = 10^{9}$ GeV, $\tan\beta = 2$ and $\mu>0$.}

1122: \label{fig:goldstino}

1123: \end{figure}

1124: 

1125: The formulae for the gluino decay widths into goldstino and quarks and

1126: into goldstino and gluon can be found in the appendix. In

1127: \fig{fig:goldstino} we show the branching ratio for the process

1128: $\tilde g \rightarrow \wt G \, g$ as a function of the ratio

1129: $\sqrt{F}/\msusy$, for $\msusy = 10^9$ GeV, $\tan\beta=2\,,\;\mu>0$

1130: and different values of the gluino mass. The branching ratio for the

1131: decay into goldstino and quarks, suppressed by phase space, is always

1132: at or below the 1\% level. It can be seen from \fig{fig:goldstino}

1133: that the gluino decay into goldstino and gluon is largely dominant

1134: when $\sqrt{F}$ is as low as $\msusy$. In fact, the decays into

1135: charginos or neutralinos and quarks (relevant for large values of

1136: $\mgl$) are suppressed by phase space, while the radiative decay into

1137: gluon and neutralinos (relevant for smaller values of $\mgl$) is

1138: suppressed by $m_t^2/\mgl^2$ and a loop factor. With respect to the

1139: scaling behaviour outlined in eq.~(\ref{scaling}), the additional

1140: contribution to the total gluino decay width coming from the decay

1141: into goldstino and gluon can significantly suppress the gluino

1142: lifetime. In fact, for $\sqrt{F}= \msusy$ the normalization $N$ in

1143: eq.~(\ref{scaling}) takes on values of order 40--50 for $\msusy >

1144: 10^8$ GeV.

1145: 

1146: On the other hand, the widths for the gluino decays into goldstino are

1147: suppressed by a factor $\msusy^4/F^{2}$ with respect to those for

1148: decays into charginos or neutralinos. Fig.~\ref{fig:goldstino} shows

1149: that as soon as we depart from the condition $\sqrt{F}= \msusy$ the

1150: branching ratio for $\tilde g \rightarrow \wt G \, g$ falls off very

1151: quickly, and already for $\sqrt{F}/\msusy$ as large as 10 the gluino

1152: decays into goldstino are below the 1\% level.

1153: 

1154: \vspace{-4mm}

1155: \section{Conclusions}

1156: \vspace{-4mm}

1157: \label{concl}

1158: 

1159: If \sps\ is the correct theory to describe physics beyond the Standard

1160: Model, one of its most spectacular manifestations might be the

1161: discovery of a very long--lived gluino at the LHC. In this paper we

1162: provided a precise determination of the gluino lifetime and branching

1163: ratios. Applying to \sps\ the effective Lagrangian and renormalization

1164: group techniques, we discussed the proper treatment of the radiative

1165: corrections that are enhanced by the large logarithm of the ratio

1166: between the sfermion mass scale and the gluino mass. We computed the

1167: anomalous dimensions of the operators relevant to the gluino decay,

1168: that allow us to resum to all orders in the perturbative expansion the

1169: leading logarithmic corrections controlled by $\as$ and $\at$. We also

1170: provided explicit analytical formulae for the gluino decay widths in

1171: terms of the Wilson coefficients of the effective Lagrangian of

1172: \sps. For representative values of the input parameters, we discussed

1173: the numerical impact of the radiative corrections and found that they

1174: can modify substantially the gluino decay width and branching ratios.

1175: Finally, we considered models with direct mediation of supersymmetry

1176: breaking, and we found that the gluino decays into gravitinos might

1177: dominate over the other decay modes.

1178: 

1179: \newpage

1180: 

1181: \section*{Appendix}

1182: 

1183: We present in this appendix the explicit formulae for the leading

1184: three--body and two--body gluino decay widths. All the results are

1185: expressed in terms of the Wilson coefficients of the effective

1186: Lagrangian of {\sps}, discussed in sects.~\ref{sec2}, \ref{sec3} and 

1187: \ref{sec5}.

1188: 

1189: \paragraph{Three--body decays into quarks and chargino or neutralino:}

1190: denoting the momenta of the decay products as $(p_1,p_2,p_3) \equiv

1191: (p_{q_I},p_{\ov{q}_J},p_{\chi})$, and $s_{ij} = (p_i+p_j)^2$, the

1192: three--body decay amplitude is given by

1193: %

1194: \be

1195: \label{decay}

1196: \Gamma_{\chi\, q_I\ov{q}_J} = \frac{1}{256\,\pi^3\,\mgl^3\;\mtil^4} \;\int \;

1197: \ov{\left|{\cal M}\right|^2} \; ds_{13}\,ds_{23}\,.

1198: \ee

1199: %

1200: The bar over $\left|{\cal M}\right|^2$ denotes the average over colour

1201: and spin of the gluino and the sum over colour and spin of the final

1202: state particles (the dependence on $\mtil$ has been factored out). The

1203: limits of the integration in the ($\sut,\sdt$) plane are

1204: %

1205: \bea

1206: \sut^{\rm max} &= &m_{q_I}^2 + \mch^2 + \frac{1}{2\,\sdt}\,

1207: \left[(\mgl^2-m_{q_I}^2-\sdt)\,(\sdt-m_{\ov{q}_J}^2+\mch^2)\right.

1208: \label{s13max}

1209: \nn\\

1210: &&\hspace{4cm}+\left.\lambda^{1/2}(\sdt,\mgl^2,m_{q_I}^2)

1211: \,\lambda^{1/2}(\sdt,m_{\ov{q}_J}^2,\mch^2)\right]\,,\\

1212: \sut^{\rm min} &= &m_{q_I}^2 + \mch^2 + \frac{1}{2\,\sdt}\,

1213: \left[(\mgl^2-m_{q_I}^2-\sdt)\,(\sdt-m_{\ov{q}_J}^2+\mch^2)\right.

1214: \nn\\

1215: &&\hspace{4cm}-\left.\lambda^{1/2}(\sdt,\mgl^2,m_{q_I}^2)

1216: \,\lambda^{1/2}(\sdt,m_{\ov{q}_J}^2,\mch^2)\right]\,,\\

1217: \sdt^{\rm max} &= & (|\mgl|-m_{q_I})^2\,,\\

1218: \sdt^{\rm min} &= & (|\mch|+m_{\ov{q}_J})^2\,,

1219: \label{s23min}

1220: \eea

1221: %

1222: where $\lambda(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2+z^2 -2\,(xy+xz+yz)$.

1223: 

1224: In the computation of the decays involving quarks of the first and

1225: second generation we can neglect the quark masses and we find

1226: %

1227: \bea

1228: \label{gammacharg}

1229: \Gamma_{\chi_i^+d\ov{u}}=\Gamma_{\chi_i^-u\ov{d}}&=&

1230: \frac{\mgl^5}{1536\,\pi^3\,\msusy^4}\left[

1231: \left(\left.\CCL{1}\right.^2+\left.\CCR{1}\right.^2\right)\,g(x_i)

1232: - 2\,\CCL{1}\,\CCR{1}\, f(x_i)\right]\,,\\

1233: &&\nn\\

1234: \label{gammaneut}

1235: \Gamma_{\chi_i^0q\ov{q}}&=&

1236: \frac{\mgl^5}{768\,\pi^3\,\msusy^4}\;

1237: \left(\left.\CNL{1}\right.^2+\left.\CNR{1}\right.^2\,\right)\,

1238: \biggr[g(x_i) + f(x_i)\biggr]\;\;\;\; (q=u,d)\,,

1239: \eea

1240: %

1241: where $x_i = m_{\chi_i}/\mgl$, and we have included an overall factor 2 to

1242: take into account the sum over the two generations of light

1243: quarks. The functions $f$ and $g$ are defined as:

1244: %

1245: \bea

1246: g(x) & = & 1-8\,x^2+8\,x^6-x^8-12\,x^4\,\ln x^2 \,,\\

1247: f(x) & = & 2\,x+18\,x^3-18\,x^5-2\,x^7+12\,x^3(1+x^2)\,\ln x^2\,.

1248: \eea

1249: %

1250: 

1251: For generic quark masses the integration of the squared amplitude

1252: $\ov{\left|{\cal M}\right|^2}$ on the $(\sut,\sdt)$ plane cannot be

1253: performed analytically, and in order to compute the total decay width

1254: we must resort to a numerical integration. 

1255: 

1256: The squared amplitude for the processes $\tilde{g}\rightarrow

1257: \chi_i^+\,b\,\ov{t}$ and $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \chi_i^-\,t\,\ov{b}$ is

1258: given by

1259: 

1260: \bea

1261: \label{Mtb}

1262: \ov{\left|{\cal M}\right|^2} &=& 

1263: \left.\CCL{2}\right.^2\,(\mgl^2+m_t^2-\sut)\,(\sut-\mcpi^2-m_b^2)\nn\\

1264: && \nn\\

1265: &+&\left.\CCR{2}\right.^2 \,(\mgl^2+m_b^2-\sdt)\,(\sdt-\mcpi^2-m_t^2) 

1266: \nn\\

1267: && \nn\\

1268: &+& \frac{1}{4}\,

1269: \left(\left.\CCL{3}\right.^2+\left.\CCR{3}\right.^2\right)\;

1270: (\mcpi^2+\mgl^2-\sut-\sdt)\,(\sut+\sdt-m_t^2-m_b^2)\nn\\

1271: && \nn\\

1272: &+& 4\,

1273: \left(\left.\CCL{4}\right.^2+\left.\CCR{4}\right.^2\right)\;

1274: \biggr[(\mcpi^2+\mgl^2-\sut-\sdt)\,

1275: (\sut+\sdt-m_t^2-m_b^2-4\,\mcpi^2)\nn\\

1276: &&\hspace{4cm}+4\,(\sut-\mcpi^2)\,

1277: (\sdt-\mcpi^2)-4\,m_t^2\,m_b^2\biggr]\nn\\

1278: && \nn\\

1279: &+&2\,\CCL{2}\,\CCR{2}\,\mgl\,\mcpi\,

1280: (\sut+\sdt-\mcpi^2-\mgl^2)\nn\\

1281: && \nn\\

1282: &+&\left(\CCR{2}\,\CCR{3} + 12\,\CCR{2}\,\CCR{4} \right)

1283: \,\mcpi\,m_t\,(\sdt-m_b^2-\mgl^2)\nn\\

1284: && \nn\\

1285: &+&\left(\CCR{2}\,\CCL{3} + 12\,\CCR{2}\,\CCL{4} \right)

1286: \,\mgl\,m_b\,(\sdt-m_t^2-\mcpi^2)\nn\\

1287: && \nn\\

1288: &-&\left(\CCL{2}\,\CCR{3} - 12\,\CCL{2}\,\CCR{4} \right)

1289: \,\mgl\,m_t\,(\sut-m_b^2-\mcpi^2)\nn\\

1290: && \nn\\

1291: &-&\left(\CCL{2}\,\CCL{3} - 12\,\CCL{2}\,\CCL{4} \right)

1292: \,\mcpi\,m_b\,(\sut-m_t^2-\mgl^2)\nn\\

1293: && \nn\\

1294: &+&2\,\left(\CCL{3}\,\CCL{4} + \CCR{3}\,\CCR{4} \right)

1295: \,\left[(\mgl^2+\mcpi^2-\sut-\sdt)\,(\sdt-\sut+m_b^2-m_t^2)\right.\nn\\

1296: &&\hspace{4cm}

1297: \left.+ 2\,m_b^2\,(\sdt-m_t^2-\mcpi^2)-2\,m_t^2\,(\sut-m_b^2-\mcpi^2)\right]\nn\\

1298: && \nn\\

1299: &-&2\,\left(\CCL{3}\,\CCR{3} + 48\,\CCL{4}\,\CCR{4} \right)

1300: \,\mgl\,\mcpi\,m_t\,m_b\;.

1301: \eea

1302: %

1303: 

1304: \newpage

1305: 

1306: The squared amplitude for the processes $\tilde{g}\rightarrow

1307: \chi_i^0\,t\,\ov{t}$ and $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \chi_i^0\,b\,\ov{b}$ is

1308: given by

1309: 

1310: \bea

1311: \label{Mqq}

1312: \ov{\left|{\cal M}\right|^2} &=&

1313: \left(\left.\CNL{2}\right.^2+\left.\CNR{2}\right.^2\,\right)\;

1314: \left[(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sut)\,(\sut-m_q^2-\mczi^2)\right.\nn\\

1315: &&\hspace{1cm}\left.+\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sdt)\,(\sdt-m_q^2-\mczi^2)

1316: + 2\,\mgl\,\mczi\,(\mgl^2+\mczi^2-\sut-\sdt)\right]\nn\\

1317: && \nn\\

1318: &+& \frac{1}{4}\,\left(\left.\CNL{3}\right.^2+\left.\CNR{3}\right.^2\,\right)

1319: \,(\mczi^2+\mgl^2-\sut-\sdt)(\sut+\sdt-2\,m_q^2)\nn\\

1320: && \nn\\

1321: &+&4\,\left(\left.\CNL{4}\right.^2+\left.\CNR{4}\right.^2\,\right)

1322: \,\left[(\mczi^2+\mgl^2+4\,m_q^2-\sut-\sdt)

1323: (\sut+\sdt-2\,m_q^2-4\,\mczi^2)\right.\nn\\

1324: && \hspace{4cm}\left.+4\,(\sut-m_q^2-\mczi^2)\,

1325: (\sdt-m_q^2-\mczi^2)+8\,m_q^2\,\mczi^2)\right]\nn\\

1326: && \nn\\

1327: &+&4\,\CNL{2}\,\CNR{2}\,m_q^2\,

1328: (\sut+\sdt+4\,\mgl\,\mczi-2\,m_q^2)\nn\\

1329: && \nn\\

1330: &+&\left(\CNR{2}\,\CNR{3}-\CNL{2}\,\CNL{3}\right)

1331: \,m_q\,\left[\mczi\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sut)+\mgl\,(\mczi^2+m_q^2-\sdt)\right]\nn\\

1332: && \nn\\

1333: &+&\left(\CNR{2}\,\CNL{3}-\CNL{2}\,\CNR{3}\right)

1334: \,m_q\,\left[\mczi\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sdt)+\mgl\,(\mczi^2+m_q^2-\sut)\right]\nn\\

1335: && \nn\\

1336: &+& 12\,\left(\CNR{2}\,\CNR{4}-\CNL{2}\,\CNL{4}\right)

1337: \,m_q\,\left[\mgl\,(\mczi^2+m_q^2-\sdt)-\mczi\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sut)\right]\nn\\

1338: && \nn\\

1339: &+& 12\,\left(\CNR{2}\,\CNL{4}-\CNL{2}\,\CNR{4}\right)

1340: \,m_q\,\left[\mczi\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sut)-\mgl\,(\mczi^2+m_q^2-\sdt)\right]\nn\\

1341: && \nn\\

1342: &+&2\,\left(\CNL{3}\,\CNL{4}+\CNR{3}\,\CNR{4}\right)

1343: \,(\mgl^2+\mczi^2+2\,m_q^2-\sut-\sdt)\,(\sdt-\sut)\nn\\

1344: && \nn\\

1345: &-&2\,\left(\CNL{3}\,\CNR{3}+48\,\CNL{4}\,\CNR{4}\right)

1346: \,\mgl\,\mczi\,m_q^2\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (q=t,b).

1347: \eea

1348: %

1349: 

1350: We have checked that inserting in eqs.~(\ref{Mtb})--(\ref{Mqq}) the

1351: high--energy (i.e.~non resummed) expressions for the Wilson

1352: coefficients given in sects.~\ref{sec2} and \ref{sec3} we reproduce

1353: the tree--level results of ref.~\cite{jim}. 

1354: 

1355: \newpage

1356: 

1357: \paragraph{Two--body decays into neutralino and gluon:}

1358: the width for the radiative decay of the gluino, $\tilde{g}\rightarrow

1359: g\,\chi_i^0$, is

1360: %

1361: \be

1362: \Gamma_{\chi^0_i g} = 

1363: \frac{(\mgl^2-\mczi^2)^3}{2\,\pi\,\mgl^3\,\msusy^4}\,

1364: \left(\left.C^{\,{\chi}^0_i}_g\right._{\rm \!\!\!eff} \right)^{2}\,.

1365: \ee

1366: The use of the effective coefficient 

1367: $\left.C^{\,{\chi}^0_i}_g\right._{\rm \!\!\!eff}$

1368: defined in eq.~(\ref{coeffg}) allows us to reproduce the 

1369: complete one--loop result when the resummation is switched off.

1370: 

1371: \paragraph{Decays into goldstino:}

1372: 

1373: the decay width into goldstino and quarks of the first and second generation

1374: is:

1375: %

1376: \be

1377: \Gamma_{\wt{G}\ov{q}q} =

1378: \frac{\mgl^5}{192\,\pi^3\,F^2}\;\left.\CG_1\right.^{\,2}\,,

1379: \ee

1380: %

1381: where we have summed over all four light quark flavours. 

1382: 

1383: The gluino decay width into goldstino and third--generation quarks is

1384: as in eq.~(\ref{decay}), with $\mtil^4$ replaced by $F^2$. The squared

1385: decay amplitude, which has to be integrated numerically on the

1386: $(\sut,\sdt)$ plane, is given by

1387: %

1388: \bea

1389: \ov{\left|{\cal M}\right|^2} &=&

1390: \left(\left.\CG_{q\lle}\right.^2+\left.\CG_{q\rr}\right.^2\right)\;

1391: \left[(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sut)\,(\sut-m_q^2)

1392: +\,(\mgl^2+m_q^2-\sdt)\,(\sdt-m_q^2)\right]\nn\\

1393: && \nn\\

1394: &+&4\,\CG_{q\lle}\,\CG_{q\rr}\,m_q^2\,

1395: (\sut+\sdt-2\,m_q^2)\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; (q=t,b)\,,

1396: \eea

1397: %

1398: where

1399: %

1400: \be

1401: \CG_{t\lle} = \CG_{b\lle} = \CG_2\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

1402: \CG_{t\rr} = \CG_3\,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

1403: \CG_{b\rr} = \CG_4\,.

1404: \ee

1405: 

1406: Finally, the gluino decay width into gluon and goldstino is:

1407: %

1408: \be

1409: \Gamma_{\wt{G} g} = 

1410: \frac{\mgl^3}{2\,\pi\,F^2}\,\left.\CG_5\right.^{\,2}\,\;.

1411: \ee

1412: 

1413: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1414: We thank M.~Toharia and J.~Wells for precious help in the comparison

1415: with the results of ref.~\cite{jim}. We also thank M.~Gorbahn,

1416: U.~Haisch and P.~Richardson for useful discussions.  P.~S.~thanks the

1417: CERN Theory Division and INFN, Sezione di Torino for hospitality

1418: during the completion of this work.  The work of P.~G.\ is supported

1419: in part by the EU grant MERG-CT-2004-511156 and by MIUR under contract

1420: 2004021808-009.

1421: 

1422: \newpage

1423: 

1424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1425: \begin{thebibliography}{20}

1426: 

1427: \bibitem{savas}

1428:   N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos,

1429:   %``Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures

1430:   %for fine-tuning at the LHC,''

1431:   arXiv:hep-th/0405159.

1432:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%

1433: 

1434: \bibitem{split}

1435:   G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,

1436:   %``Split supersymmetry,''

1437:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699} (2004) 65

1438:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 706} (2005) 65]

1439:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406088].

1440:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406088;%%

1441: 

1442: \bibitem{noi4}

1443:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,

1444:   %``Aspects of split supersymmetry,''

1445:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 709} (2005) 3

1446:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0409232].

1447:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409232;%%

1448: 

1449: \bibitem{gluino}

1450:    W.~Kilian, T.~Plehn, P.~Richardson and E.~Schmidt,

1451:   %``Split supersymmetry at colliders,''

1452:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39} (2005) 229

1453:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0408088];

1454:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408088;%%

1455:   J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie, M.~Masip and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1456:   %``Signatures of long-lived gluinos in split supersymmetry,''

1457:   JHEP {\bf 0409} (2004) 070

1458:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0408248];

1459:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408248;%%

1460:   L.~Anchordoqui, H.~Goldberg and C.~Nunez,

1461:   %``Probing split supersymmetry with cosmic rays,''

1462:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 065014

1463:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0408284];

1464:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408284;%%

1465:   K.~Cheung and W.~Y.~Keung,

1466:   %``Split supersymmetry, stable gluino, and gluinonium,''

1467:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 015015

1468:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0408335];

1469:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408335;%%

1470:   J.~G.~Gonzalez, S.~Reucroft and J.~Swain,

1471:   %``Gluino air showers as a signal of split supersymmetry,''

1472:   arXiv:hep-ph/0504260.

1473:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504260;%%

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{arvanietal}

1476:   A.~Arvanitaki, C.~Davis, P.~W.~Graham, A.~Pierce and J.~G.~Wacker,

1477:   %``Limits on split supersymmetry from gluino cosmology,''

1478:   arXiv:hep-ph/0504210.

1479:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504210;%%

1480: 

1481: \bibitem{decays}

1482:   H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane,

1483:   %``Gluino Decays And Experimental Signatures,''

1484:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 232} (1984) 333;

1485:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B232,333;%%

1486: %

1487:   H.~Baer, V.~D.~Barger, D.~Karatas and X.~Tata,

1488:   %``Detecting Gluinos At Hadron Supercolliders,''

1489:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36} (1987) 96;

1490:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,96;%%

1491: %

1492:   R.~Barbieri, G.~Gamberini, G.~F.~Giudice and G.~Ridolfi,

1493:   %``Constraining Supergravity Models From Gluino Production,''

1494:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 301} (1988) 15;

1495:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B301,15;%%

1496: %

1497:   H.~Baer, X.~Tata and J.~Woodside,

1498:   %``Phenomenology Of Gluino Decays Via Loops And Top Quark Yukawa Coupling,''

1499:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 1568;

1500:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,1568;%%

1501: %

1502:   A.~Bartl, W.~Majerotto and W.~Porod,

1503:   %``Squark and gluino decays for large tan beta,''

1504:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 64} (1994) 499

1505:   [Erratum-ibid.\ C {\bf 68} (1995) 518];

1506:   %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C64,499;%%

1507: %

1508:   A.~Djouadi and Y.~Mambrini,

1509:   %``Three-body decays of SUSY particles,''

1510:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 493} (2000) 120

1511:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0007174].

1512:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007174;%%

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{jim}

1515:   M.~Toharia and J.~D.~Wells,

1516:   %``Gluino decays with heavier scalar superpartners,''

1517:   arXiv:hep-ph/0503175.

1518:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503175;%%

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{babu}

1521:   K.~S.~Babu, T.~Enkhbat and B.~Mukhopadhyaya,

1522:   %``Split supersymmetry from anomalous U(1),''

1523:   arXiv:hep-ph/0501079.

1524:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501079;%%

1525: 

1526: \bibitem{wmap}

1527:   C.~L.~Bennett {\it et al.},

1528:   %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1529:   %Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,''

1530:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 1

1531:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302207];

1532:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302207;%%

1533: %

1534:   D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.}  [WMAP Collaboration],

1535:   %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

1536:   %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

1537:   Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148} (2003) 175

1538:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

1539:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{equi}

1542:   P.~Fayet,

1543:   %``Mixing Between Gravitational And Weak Interactions Through The Massive

1544:   %Gravitino,''

1545:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 70} (1977) 461;

1546:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B70,461;%%

1547:  P.~Fayet,

1548:   %``Scattering Cross-Sections Of The Photino And The Goldstino (Gravitino) On

1549:   %Matter,''

1550:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 86} (1979) 272;

1551:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B86,272;%%

1552:   R.~Casalbuoni, S.~De Curtis, D.~Dominici, F.~Feruglio and R.~Gatto,

1553:   %``High-Energy Equivalence Theorem In Spontaneously Broken Supergravity,''

1554:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39} (1989) 2281.

1555:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,2281;%%

1556: 

1557: 

1558: \end{thebibliography}

1559: 

1560: \end{document}

1561: 

1562: