1: \documentclass[12pt,dvips]{article}
2: \usepackage{rotating}
3: \usepackage{axodraw}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{color}
7: \textwidth =160mm
8: \textheight=220mm
9: \topmargin =-0.cm
10: \hoffset -1.0cm
11:
12: \def\tablename{\bf Table}%
13: \def\figurename{\bf Figure}%
14:
15: \newcommand{\imag}{\Im {\rm m}}
16: \newcommand{\real}{\Re {\rm e}}
17:
18: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
19: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
20: \newcommand{\neu}{\tilde{\chi}^0}
21: \addtolength{\parskip}{4pt}
22:
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
27:
28: \begin{titlepage}
29:
30: \begin{flushright}
31: DESY 06-016 \\[-0.1cm]
32: KIAS--P06005 \\[-0.1cm]
33: hep-ph/0602131\\[5mm]
34: %{\it SYC on \today}
35: \end{flushright}
36:
37:
38: \vspace{0.5cm}
39:
40: \begin{center}
41: {\Large \bf Neutralino Production and Decay at an \boldmath{$e^+e^-$} Linear
42: Collider with Transversely Polarized Beams}\\[1.cm]
43: {\large S.Y. Choi$^{1}$, M. Drees$^2$, and J. Song$^3$}
44: \end{center}
45:
46: \vskip 0.5cm
47:
48: {\small
49: \begin{center}
50:
51: $^1$ {\it Deutsches Elektronen--Synchrotron DESY, 22603 Hamburg, Germany}\\
52: and\\
53: {\it Department of Physics and RIPC, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju
54: 561-756, Korea}\footnote{Permanent Address}\\[2mm]
55: $^2$ {\it KIAS, School of Physics, Seoul 130--012, Korea} \\ and \\
56: {\it Physikalisches Institut, Universit\"at Bonn, Nussallee 12, D53115 Bonn,
57: Germany}\footnote{Permanent Address} \\[2mm]
58: $^3$ {\it Department of Physics, Konkuk University, Seoul 143--701,
59: Korea}
60: \end{center}
61: }
62:
63:
64: \vspace{1.cm}
65:
66: \begin{abstract}
67: \noindent Once supersymmetric neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}^0$ are
68: produced copiously at $e^+e^-$ linear colliders, their
69: characteristics can be measured with high precision. In particular,
70: the fundamental parameters in the gaugino/higgsino sector of the
71: minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) can be
72: analyzed. Here we focus on the determination of possible CP--odd
73: phases of these parameters. To that end, we exploit the
74: electron/positron beam polarization, including transverse
75: polarization, as well as the spin/angular correlations of the
76: neutralino production $e^+ e^- \to \tilde{\chi}^0_i
77: \tilde{\chi}^0_j$ and subsequent 2--body decays $\tilde{\chi}^0_i
78: \to \tilde{\chi}^0_k h, \tilde{\chi}^0_k Z, \tilde \ell^\pm_R \ell
79: ^\mp$, using (partly) optimized CP--odd observables. If no
80: final--state polarizations are measured, the $Z$ and $h$ modes are
81: independent of the $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ polarization, but CP--odd
82: observables constructed from the leptonic decay mode can help in
83: reconstructing the neutralino sector of the CP--noninvariant MSSM.
84: In this situation, transverse beam polarization does not seem
85: to be particularly useful in probing explicit CP violation in the
86: neutralino sector of the MSSM. This can most easily be accomplished
87: using longitudinal beam polarization.
88:
89: \end{abstract}
90: %
91:
92: \vskip 0.5cm
93:
94: \end{titlepage}
95:
96: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
97:
98: %========================
99: \section{Introduction}
100: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
101: \label{sec:introduction}
102: %========================
103:
104: In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) \cite{book}, the spin-1/2
105: partners of the neutral gauge bosons, $\tilde{B}$ and $\widetilde{W}_3$, and
106: of the neutral Higgs bosons, $\tilde H_1^0$ and $\tilde H_2^0$, mix to form
107: the neutralino mass eigenstates $\chi_i^0$ ($i$=1,2,3,4). The corresponding
108: mass matrix in the $(\tilde{B},\widetilde{W}_3,\tilde{H}^0_1,\tilde{H}^0_2)$
109: basis
110: %
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: {\cal M}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
113: M_1 & 0 & -m_Z c_\beta s_W & m_Z s_\beta s_W \\[2mm]
114: 0 & M_2 & m_Z c_\beta c_W & -m_Z s_\beta c_W\\[2mm]
115: -m_Z c_\beta s_W & m_Z c_\beta c_W & 0 & -\mu \\[2mm]
116: m_Z s_\beta s_W &-m_Z s_\beta c_W & -\mu & 0
117: \end{array}\right)\
118: \label{eq:massmatrix}
119: \end{eqnarray}
120: %
121: contains several fundamental supersymmetry parameters: the U(1) and SU(2)
122: gaugino masses $M_1$ and $M_2$, the higgsino mass parameter $\mu$, and the
123: ratio $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ of the vacuum expectation values of the two neutral
124: Higgs fields. Here, $s_\beta =\sin\beta$, $c_\beta=\cos\beta$ and $s_W,c_W$
125: are the sine and cosine of the electroweak mixing angle $\theta_W$.
126:
127: In CP--noninvariant theories, the mass parameters $M_{1,2}$ and $\mu$ are
128: complex. By re-parameterizing the fields, $M_2$ can be taken
129: real and positive without loss of generality.
130: Two remaining
131: non--trivial phases are attributed to $M_1$ and $\mu$:
132: %
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: M_1=|M_1|\,\,{\rm e}^{i\Phi_1}\ \qquad {\rm and} \qquad
135: \mu=|\mu|\,\,{\rm e}^{i\Phi_\mu} \qquad (0\leq \Phi_1,\Phi_\mu< 2\pi) \, .
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: %
138: The existence of CP--violating phases in supersymmetric theories induces, in
139: general, electric dipole moments (EDM) \cite{edm}. The current experimental
140: bounds on the EDM's constrain the parameter space including
141: many parameters outside the neutralino/chargino sector \cite{edm1}. Detailed
142: analyses of the electron EDM show \cite{edm1,Choi:2004rf} that the phase
143: $\Phi_\mu$ must be quite small, unless selectrons are very
144: heavy.\footnote{Large values of $\Phi_\mu$ can also be tolerated for moderate
145: selectron masses if $\tan\beta$ is close to 1. However, this possibility is
146: essentially excluded by Higgs boson searches at LEP.} In contrast, large
147: values of $\Phi_1$ are allowed even for rather small selectron masses. The
148: CP--violating phase $\Phi_1$ can therefore play a significant role in the
149: production and decay of neutralinos, which is most easily investigated at
150: (linear) $e^+e^-$ colliders \cite{others, CSS,cdgs,Choi:2004rf,newbartl}.
151:
152: Neutralinos are produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions, either in diagonal or mixed
153: pairs \cite{oldino}. If the collider energy is high enough to produce all four
154: neutralino states, the underlying SUSY parameters $\{|M_1|, \Phi_1,
155: M_2,\,|\mu|, \Phi_{\mu}; \tan\beta\}$ can be extracted from the masses
156: $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_i}$ ($i$=1,2,3,4) and the cross sections \cite{rec,
157: Choi:2001ww}. At the first stage of operations of a linear $e^+e^-$
158: collider, however, only the lighter neutralinos may be accessible.
159: If $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ is the only visible neutralino
160: pair that is accessible, measuring their masses and (polarized)
161: production cross sections may not suffice to determine the
162: parameters of the neutralino mass matrix completely; the detailed
163: analysis of $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decays will then be very useful.
164: Moreover, even if sufficiently many different $\tilde \chi_i^0
165: \tilde \chi_j^0$ states are accessible to determine all the
166: parameters appearing in Eq.~(1), analyses of neutralino decay will
167: offer valuable redundancy. After all, a theory can only be said to
168: be tested successfully if experiments over--constrain its
169: parameters.
170:
171: In the present work we systematically investigate, both analytically and
172: numerically, the usefulness of electron and positron beam polarization,
173: including transverse polarization, for the analysis of neutralino production
174: and decay at $e^+e^-$ colliders. To this end, we exploit spin/angular
175: correlations of the neutralino production $e^+ e^- \to \tilde{\chi}^0_2
176: \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and subsequent two--body decays of $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to
177: \tilde{\chi}^0_1 h, \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z,$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to
178: \tilde{\ell}^\pm \ell^\mp$ followed by $\tilde{\ell}^\pm \to \ell^\pm
179: \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for probing the CP properties of the neutralino sector in
180: the MSSM. Due to the Majorana nature of neutralinos, the decay distributions
181: of two--body decays $\tilde{\chi}^0_2\to\tilde{\chi}^0_1 h, \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z$ are
182: independent of the $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ polarization, unless the polarization
183: of the $Z$ boson is measured. These modes can still be used to probe a
184: production--level CP--odd asymmetry, which however turns out to be small in
185: the MSSM. The slepton mode $\tilde{\chi}^0_2\to\tilde{\ell}^\pm_R\ell^\mp$ is
186: an optimal polarization analyzer of the decaying neutralino.
187: We can construct several CP--odd ``decay'' asymmetries that are sensitive to the
188: $\tilde \chi_2^0$ polarization vector. Our main emphasis is on observables
189: that {\em fully} reflect the non--trivial angular dependence of CP--odd terms,
190: except for the angular dependence appearing in the propagators. Although they
191: are not perfectly optimal, these CP--odd asymmetries have much higher
192: statistical significance than the conventional ones, as demonstrated with
193: numerical examples below.
194:
195: The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec:sec2}
196: describes neutralino production, including the polarization of the
197: neutralinos, for arbitrary beam polarization. Two--body decays of polarized
198: neutralinos are discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec3}. Section~\ref{sec:sec4} deals
199: with the reconstruction of $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ final states with
200: invisible $\tilde \chi_1^0$. The formalism of ``effective asymmetries'' is
201: described in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec5}, and numerical examples for these asymmetries
202: are shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:sec6}. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:sec7} contains a
203: brief summary and some conclusions.
204:
205:
206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: \section{Neutralino production in \boldmath{$e^+e^-$} collisions}
208: \label{sec:sec2}
209: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
211:
212: \begin{figure}
213: {\color{blue}
214: \begin{center}
215: \begin{picture}(330,100)(10,0)
216: %1st diagram
217: \Text(5,85)[]{$e^-$}
218: \ArrowLine(0,75)(25,50)
219: \ArrowLine(25,50)(0,25)
220: \Text(5,15)[]{$e^+$}
221: \Photon(25,50)(65,50){2}{6}
222: \Text(45,37)[]{\color{red} $Z$}
223: \Line(65,50)(90,75)
224: \Photon(65,50)(90,75){2}{6}
225: \Text(87,87)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_i$}
226: \Line(90,25)(65,50)
227: \Photon(90,25)(65,50){2}{6}
228: \Text(87,13)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_j$}
229: % 2rd Diagram
230: \Text(125,85)[]{$e^-$}
231: \ArrowLine(120,75)(165,75)
232: \Text(125,15)[]{$e^+$}
233: \ArrowLine(165,25)(120,25)
234: \Line(164,75)(164,25)
235: \Line(166,75)(166,25)
236: \Text(150,50)[]{\color{red} $\tilde{e}_{L,R}$}
237: \Line(165,75)(210,75)
238: \Photon(165,75)(210,75){2}{6}
239: \Text(207,87)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_i$}
240: \Line(210,25)(165,25)
241: \Photon(210,25)(165,25){2}{6}
242: \Text(207,13)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_j$}
243: % 3rd Diagram
244: \Text(245,85)[]{$e^-$}
245: \ArrowLine(240,75)(285,75)
246: \Text(245,15)[]{$e^+$}
247: \ArrowLine(285,25)(240,25)
248: \Line(284,75)(284,25)
249: \Line(286,75)(286,25)
250: \Text(270,50)[]{\color{red} $\tilde{e}_{L,R}$}
251: \Line(285,75)(330,25)
252: \Photon(285,75)(330,25){2}{8}
253: \Text(327,87)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_i$}
254: \Line(330,75)(285,25)
255: \Photon(330,75)(285,25){2}{8}
256: \Text(327,13)[]{$\tilde{\chi}^0_j$}
257: \end{picture}\\
258: \end{center}
259: }
260: %%%%%\noindent
261: \caption{\it Feynman diagrams for five mechanisms contributing to the
262: production of diagonal and non--diagonal neutralino pairs in $e^+e^-$
263: annihilation, $e^+e^-\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^0_i \tilde{\chi}^0_j$
264: $(i,j$=1--4).}
265: %
266: \label{fig:diagrams}
267: \end{figure}
268:
269: The neutralino pair production processes in $e^+e^-$ collisions
270: %
271: \begin{eqnarray} \label{process}
272: e^-(p,\sigma) + e^+(\bar{p},\bar{\sigma})
273: \rightarrow
274: \tilde{\chi}^0_i(p_i,\lambda_i)+\tilde{\chi}^0_j(p_j,\lambda_j)
275: \qquad (\, i,j=1,2,3,4)
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: %
278: are generated by the five mechanisms of the Feynman diagrams in
279: Fig.\,\ref{fig:diagrams}, with $s$--channel $Z$ exchange, or $t$-- or
280: $u$--channel $\tilde{e}_{L,R}$ exchange. Here $\sigma$, $\bar{\sigma}$,
281: $\lambda_i$, and $\lambda_j$ denote helicities. For the analytical
282: calculation, we take a coordinate system where the production occurs in the
283: $(x,z)$ plane and the incident electron beam moves into $+z$ direction. The
284: four--momenta appearing in Eq.~(\ref{process}) are then given by
285: %
286: \begin{eqnarray} \label{mom}
287: p &=& \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2} (1,\,0,\,0,\phantom{-}1) \, , \nonumber\\
288: \bar{p} &=& \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2} (1,\,0,\,0,-1) \, ,\nonumber\\
289: p_i &=& \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2} (e_i, \phantom{-}\lambda^{1/2}\sin\Theta,\, 0,
290: \phantom{-}\lambda^{1/2}\cos\Theta) \,,\nonumber\\
291: p_j &=& \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2} (e_j, -\lambda^{1/2}\sin\Theta,\, 0,
292: -\lambda^{1/2}\cos\Theta)\, ,
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: %
295: where
296: %
297: \begin{eqnarray} \label{mu}
298: && e_i = 1+\mu_i^2 -\mu_j^2\, , \quad
299: \quad e_j = 1+\mu_j^2 -\mu_i^2 \, , \nonumber\\
300: && \mu_{i,j} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{i,j}}/\sqrt{s}\, ,\,\, \quad \quad
301: \lambda = (1-\mu_i^2-\mu_j^2)^2-4\mu_i^2\mu_j^2 \, .
302: \end{eqnarray}
303: %
304:
305: The transition matrix element, after an appropriate Fierz transformation of
306: the $\tilde{e}_{L,R}$ exchange amplitudes, can be expressed in terms of four
307: generalized bilinear charges $Q_{\alpha\beta}$:
308: %
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: T\left(e^+e^-\rightarrow\tilde{\chi}^0_i\tilde{\chi}^0_j\right)
311: = \frac{e^2}{s}\, Q_{\alpha\beta}
312: \left[\bar{v}(e^+) \gamma_\mu P_\alpha u(e^-)\right]
313: \left[\bar{u}(\tilde{\chi}^0_i) \gamma^\mu P_\beta
314: v(\tilde{\chi}^0_j)\right] \, .
315: \label{amplitude}
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: %
318: These generalized charges correspond to independent helicity amplitudes which
319: describe the neutralino production processes for completely (longitudinally)
320: polarized electrons and positrons, neglecting the electron mass as well as
321: $\tilde e_L$--$\tilde e_R$ mixing.\footnote{$\tilde f_L$--$\tilde f_R$ mixing
322: is proportional to $m_f$ unless one tolerates deeper minima of the scalar
323: potential where charged sfermion fields obtain nonvanishing vacuum expectation
324: values; although it can be enhanced at large $\tan\beta$
325: or for large trilinear $A-$parameters, selectron mixing is generally
326: negligible for collider physics purposes.} They are defined in terms of the
327: lepton and neutralino couplings as well as the propagators of the exchanged
328: (s)particles~\cite{CSS,Choi:2001ww}:
329: %
330: \begin{eqnarray} \label{bilinear}
331: && Q_{LL}=+\frac{D_Z}{s_W^2c_W^2}\,
332: (s_W^2-{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\,) {\cal Z}_{ij}
333: -D_{uL}g_{Lij},\nonumber\\
334: && Q_{RL}=+\frac{D_Z}{c_W^2}\,
335: {\cal Z}_{ij}
336: +D_{tR}g_{Rij},\nonumber\\
337: && Q_{LR}=-\frac{D_Z}{s_W^2c_W^2}\,
338: (s_W^2 -{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\,){\cal Z}^*_{ij}
339: +D_{tL}g^*_{Lij},\nonumber\\
340: && Q_{RR}=-\frac{D_Z}{c_W^2}{\cal Z}^*_{ij}
341: -D_{uR}g^*_{Rij}.
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: %
344: The first index in $Q_{\alpha\beta}$ refers to the chirality of the $e^\pm$
345: current, the second index to the chirality of the $\tilde{\chi}^0$ current.
346: The first term in each bilinear charge is generated by $Z$--exchange and the
347: second term by selectron exchange; $D_Z$, $D_{tL,R}$ and $D_{uL,R}$
348: respectively denote the $s$--channel $Z$ propagator and the $t$-- and
349: $u$--channel left/right--type selectron propagators:
350: %
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: && D_Z=\frac{s}{s-m^2_Z+im_Z\Gamma_Z}\, ,\nonumber\\
353: && D_{tL,R}=\frac{s}{t-m^2_{\tilde{e}_{L,R}}} \qquad {\rm and }
354: \qquad t\rightarrow u\, ,
355: \end{eqnarray}
356: %
357: with $s=(p + \bar p)^2$, $t=(p - p_i)^2$ and $u=(p - p_j)^2$. The matrices
358: ${\cal Z}_{ij}$, $g_{Lij}$ and $g_{Rij}$ can be computed from the matrix $N$
359: diagonalizing the neutralino mass matrix \cite{book}
360: %
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: && {\cal Z}_{ij}= (N_{i3}N^*_{j3}-N_{i4}N^*_{j4})/2\, ,\nonumber\\
363: && g_{Lij}=(N_{i2}c_W+N_{i1}s_W)(N^*_{j2}c_W+N^*_{j1}s_W)/
364: 4 s_W^2c_W^2 \, ,\nonumber\\
365: && g_{Rij}=N_{i1}N^*_{j1}/c_W^2\, .
366: \label{eq:combinations}
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: %
369: They satisfy the hermiticity relations of
370: %
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: {\cal Z}_{ij}={\cal Z}^*_{ji}\, , \qquad
373: g_{Lij}=g^*_{Lji}\, , \qquad g_{Rij}=g^*_{Rji}\, .
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: %
376: If the decay width $\Gamma_Z$ is neglected in the $Z$ boson propagator $D_Z$,
377: the bilinear charges $Q_{\alpha\beta}$ satisfy similar relations,
378: $Q_{\alpha\beta} (\neu_i, \neu_j, t,u) =Q_{\alpha\beta}^* (\neu_j, \neu_i,
379: u,t)$. These relations are very useful in classifying CP--even and CP--odd
380: observables.
381:
382: %---------------------------------------------------
383: \subsection{Production helicity amplitudes}
384: %---------------------------------------------------
385:
386: With the $e^\pm$ mass neglected, the matrix element in Eq.~(\ref{amplitude}) is
387: nonzero only if the electron helicity is opposite to the positron helicity.
388: We write the helicity amplitudes as
389: %
390: \begin{eqnarray} \label{chiral}
391: T(\sigma,\bar{\sigma},\lambda_i,\lambda_j) =
392: T(\sigma,-\sigma,\lambda_i,\lambda_j)\,\, \delta_{\bar{\sigma}, -\sigma}
393: \equiv 2\pi \alpha\, \langle \sigma;\lambda_i\,\lambda_j \rangle\,\,
394: \delta_{\bar{\sigma},-\sigma} \, ,
395: \end{eqnarray}
396: %
397: where $\sigma, \lambda_i, \lambda_j=\pm$. Explicit expressions for these
398: helicity amplitudes are~\cite{CSS}:
399: %
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \langle +; ++ \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
402: -\left[Q_{RR} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j-}}
403: +Q_{RL} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j+}}\right]
404: \sin\Theta \, , \nonumber \\
405: %
406: \langle +; +- \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
407: -\left[Q_{RR} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j+}}
408: +Q_{RL} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j-}}\right]
409: (1+\cos\Theta) \, , \nonumber \\
410: %
411: \langle +; -+ \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
412: +\left[Q_{RR} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j-}}
413: +Q_{RL} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j+}}\right]
414: (1-\cos\Theta)\, , \nonumber\\
415: %
416: \langle +; -- \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
417: +\left[Q_{RR} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j+}}
418: +Q_{RL} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j-}}\right]
419: \sin \Theta \, , \nonumber\\
420: %
421: \langle -; ++ \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
422: -\left[Q_{LL} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j+}}
423: +Q_{LR} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j-}}\right]
424: \sin \Theta \, , \nonumber\\
425: %
426: \langle -; +- \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
427: +\left[Q_{LL} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j-}}
428: +Q_{LR} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j+}}\right]
429: (1-\cos\Theta)\, , \nonumber\\
430: %
431: \langle -; -+ \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
432: -\left[Q_{LL} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j+}}
433: +Q_{LR} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j-}}\right]
434: (1+\cos\Theta) \, , \nonumber\\
435: %
436: \langle -; -- \rangle \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
437: +\left[Q_{LL} \sqrt{\eta_{i+}\eta_{j-}}
438: +Q_{LR} \sqrt{\eta_{i-}\eta_{j+}}\right]
439: \sin \Theta\, ,
440: \label{renamp}
441: \end{eqnarray}
442: %
443: where $\eta_{i\pm} = e_i\pm \lambda^{1/2}$ and $\eta_{j\pm}=e_j\pm
444: \lambda^{1/2}$. In the high energy asymptotic limit, $\eta_{i+}$ and
445: $\eta_{i-}$ approach 1 and 0, respectively; only the
446: helicity amplitudes with opposite $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ and
447: $\tilde{\chi}^0_j$ helicities survive.
448:
449: %---------------------------------------------------
450: \subsection{Production cross sections}
451: %---------------------------------------------------
452:
453: We analyze neutralino production for general $e^\pm$ polarization
454: states. With the scattering plane fixed as the $(x,z)$
455: plane, the azimuthal scattering angle appears in the description of
456: the $e^\pm$ polarization vectors:
457: %
458: \begin{eqnarray} \label{polvec}
459: \overrightarrow{P}_{e^-} = (P_T \cos\Phi, -P_T \sin\Phi, P_L),
460: \quad
461: \overrightarrow{P}_{e^+} = (\overline{P}_T \cos(\eta-\Phi),
462: \overline{P}_T \sin(\eta-\Phi), -\overline{P}_L) \, ,
463: \end{eqnarray}
464: %
465: where $\eta$ is the relative angle between the transverse components of two
466: polarization vectors. The density matrices $\rho$ ($\overline{\rho}$) of the
467: electron (positron)
468: in the $\{+,-\}$ helicity basis are \cite{Hagiwara:1985yu}
469: %
470: \begin{eqnarray} \label{rho}
471: \rho
472: = \frac{1}{2} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
473: 1+P_L & P_T e^{i \Phi} \\
474: P_T e^{-i \Phi} & 1-P_L
475: \end{array}\right), \qquad
476: \overline{\rho}
477: = \frac{1}{2} \left(\begin{array}{cc}
478: 1+\overline{P}_L & -\overline{P}_T e^{-i(\eta-\Phi)}\\
479: -\overline{P}_T e^{i(\eta-\Phi)} & 1-\overline{P}_L \\
480: \end{array}\right) \, .
481: \end{eqnarray}
482: %
483:
484:
485: The polarized differential cross section is given by
486: %
487: \begin{eqnarray}
488: \frac{d \sigma}{d\Omega}
489: = \frac{\lambda^{1/2}}{64\pi^2 s} \overline{|T|^2} \, ,
490: \end{eqnarray}
491: %
492: where
493: %
494: \begin{eqnarray} \label{tsq}
495: \overline{|T|^2}
496: = \sum_{\sigma,\bar{\sigma},\lambda_i,\lambda_j}\,
497: T(\sigma,\bar{\sigma},\lambda_i,\lambda_j)
498: T^*(\sigma',\bar{\sigma}',\lambda_i,\lambda_j)\,
499: \rho_{\sigma\sigma'}\,
500: \overline{\rho}_{\bar{\sigma}'\,\bar{\sigma}} \, .
501: \end{eqnarray}
502: %
503: Note that the order of indices of $\overline{\rho}_{\bar{\sigma}' \,
504: \bar{\sigma}}$ is opposite of that of $\rho_{\sigma\sigma'}$ due to the
505: difference between the particle and the antiparticle. Inserting
506: Eqs.~(\ref{renamp}) and (\ref{rho}) into Eq.~(\ref{tsq}) yields
507: %
508: \begin{eqnarray}
509: && \frac{d \sigma}{d \Omega}\{ij\}
510: =\frac{\alpha^2}{4 s}\, \lambda^{1/2} \bigg[
511: (1-P_L\bar{P}_L)\,\Sigma^{ij}_{UU}+(P_L-\bar{P}_L)\,\Sigma^{ij}_{UL}
512: \nonumber\\
513: && { }\hskip 3cm
514: +P_T\bar{P}_T\cos(2\Phi-\eta)\,\Sigma^{ij}_{UT}
515: +P_T\bar{P}_T\sin(2\Phi-\eta)\,\Sigma^{ij}_{UN}\bigg] \, ,
516: \label{diffx}
517: \end{eqnarray}
518: %
519: where
520: %
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: && \Sigma^{ij}_{UU}=\left[1-(\mu^2_i - \mu^2_j)^2
523: +\lambda\cos^2\Theta\right]Q_1
524: +4\mu_i\mu_j Q_2+2\lambda^{1/2} Q_3\cos\Theta,
525: \nonumber\\
526: && \Sigma^{ij}_{UL}=\left[1-(\mu^2_i - \mu^2_j)^2
527: +\lambda\cos^2\Theta\right]Q'_1
528: +4\mu_i\mu_j Q'_2+2\lambda^{1/2} Q'_3\cos\Theta,
529: \nonumber\\
530: && \Sigma^{ij}_{UT}= \lambda \, Q_5 \sin^2\Theta, \nonumber\\
531: && \Sigma^{ij}_{UN}=-\lambda \, Q'_6 \sin^2\Theta \, .
532: \label{SUB}
533: \end{eqnarray}
534: %
535: Expressions for all relevant quartic charges $Q_i^{(\prime)}$
536: in terms of bilinear charges $Q_{\alpha\beta}$ are
537: given in Table~\ref{tab:quartic}, which also lists the transformation
538: properties under P and CP. Non--zero transverse $e^\pm$ beam polarization
539: allows to probe four new quartic charges, $Q_5$, $Q_6$, $Q'_5$, and $Q'_6$.
540:
541: %
542: \begin{table*}[\hbt]
543: \caption[{\bf Table 1:}]{\label{tab:quartic}
544: {\it The independent quartic charges describing $e^+e^- \to \tilde \chi_i^0
545: \tilde \chi_j^0$.}}
546: \begin{center}
547: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|}\hline
548: & & \\[-4mm]
549: ${\rm P}$ & ${\rm CP}$ & { }\hskip 2cm Quartic charges \\\hline \hline
550: & & \\[-3mm]
551: even & even & $Q_1 =\frac{1}{4}\left[|Q_{RR}|^2+|Q_{LL}|^2
552: +|Q_{RL}|^2+|Q_{LR}|^2\right]$ \\[2mm]
553: & & $Q_2 = \frac{1}{2}\real\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{RL}
554: +Q_{LL}Q^*_{LR}\right]$ \\[2mm]
555: & & $Q_3 = \frac{1}{4}\left[|Q_{RR}|^2+|Q_{LL}|^2
556: -|Q_{RL}|^2-|Q_{LR}|^2\right]$ \\[2mm]
557: & & $Q_5=\frac{1}{2}\real \left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{LR}
558: +Q_{LL}Q^*_{RL}\right]$ \\
559: & & \\[-3mm]
560: \cline{2-3}
561: & & \\[-3mm]
562: & odd & $Q_4=\frac{1}{2}\imag\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{RL}
563: +Q_{LL}Q^*_{LR}\right]$\\[2mm]
564: & & $Q_6=\frac{1}{2}\imag\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{LR}
565: +Q_{LL}Q^*_{RL}\right]$ \\[2mm]\hline \hline
566: & & \\[-3mm]
567: odd & even & $Q'_1=\frac{1}{4}\left[|Q_{RR}|^2+|Q_{RL}|^2
568: -|Q_{LL}|^2-|Q_{LR}|^2\right]$\\[2mm]
569: & & $Q'_2=\frac{1}{2}\real\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{RL}
570: -Q_{LL}Q^*_{LR}\right]$ \\[2mm]
571: & & $Q'_3=\frac{1}{4}\left[|Q_{RR}|^2+|Q_{LR}|^2
572: -|Q_{LL}|^2-|Q_{RL}|^2\right]$\\[2mm]
573: & & $Q'_5=\frac{1}{2}\real\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{LR}
574: -Q_{LL}Q^*_{RL}\right]$ \\
575: & & \\[-3mm]
576: \cline{2-3}
577: & & \\[-3mm]
578: & odd & $Q'_4=\frac{1}{2}\imag\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{RL}
579: -Q_{LL}Q^*_{LR}\right]$
580: \\[2mm]
581: & & $Q'_6=\frac{1}{2}\imag\left[Q_{RR}Q^*_{LR}
582: -Q_{LL}Q^*_{RL}\right]$ \\[2mm]
583: \hline
584: \end{tabular}
585: \end{center}
586: \end{table*}
587: %
588:
589:
590: \subsection{Neutralino polarization vector}
591: \label{sec:pol}
592:
593: %Even if the initial beams are not polarized, the chiral structure
594: %of the neutralinos could be inferred from the polarization of the
595: %$\tilde{\chi}^0_i\tilde{\chi}^0_j$ pairs produced in $e^+e^-$
596: %annihilation. However, the neutralino polarization does depend on the
597: %polarization of the initial state.
598:
599: The polarization vector $\vec{\cal P}^i=({\cal P}_T^i, {\cal P}_N^i,{\cal
600: P}_L^i) $ of the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ is defined in its rest frame.
601: The longitudinal component ${\cal P}_L^i$ is parallel to the
602: $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ flight direction in the c.m. frame, ${\cal P}_T^i$ is in
603: the production plane, and ${\cal P}_N^i$ is normal to the production plane.
604: In order to extract the vector $\vec{\cal P}^i$, we first define the
605: polarization density matrix for the out--going neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$:
606: %
607: \begin{eqnarray}
608: \rho^i_{\lambda_i \lambda_i'} = \frac{\sum_{\sigma,\lambda_j}\,
609: \langle \sigma;\lambda_i\lambda_j\rangle
610: \langle \sigma;\lambda'_i\lambda_j\rangle^*}{
611: \sum_{\sigma,\lambda_i,\lambda_j}\,
612: \langle \sigma;\lambda_i\lambda_j\rangle
613: \langle \sigma;\lambda_i\lambda_j\rangle^* }\, .
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: %
616: Explicit expressions for the helicity amplitudes $\langle \sigma; \lambda_i
617: \lambda_j \rangle$ are given in Eq.~(\ref{renamp}). The polarization vector
618: of the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ is then given by
619: %
620: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pdel}
621: \vec{\cal P}^i = \mbox{Tr} ( \overrightarrow{\sigma} \rho^i)
622: = \frac{1}{\Delta^{ij}_U}\left(\Delta^{ij}_T, \Delta^{ij}_N,
623: \Delta^{ij}_L\right) \, .
624: \end{eqnarray}
625: %
626: We can decompose the three polarization components as well as the unpolarized
627: part according to combinations of $e^\pm$ polarizations:
628: %
629: \begin{eqnarray}
630: \Delta^{ij}_U \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
631: (1-P_L \overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{UU}
632: +(P_L-\overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{UL}
633: + P_T \overline{P}_T \{\Sigma^{ij}_{UT}c_{(2\Phi-\eta)}
634: +\Sigma^{ij}_{UN} s_{(2\Phi-\eta)}\} \, ,
635: \nonumber \\[1mm]
636: %
637: \Delta^{ij}_L \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
638: (1-P_L \overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{LU}
639: \,+(P_L-\overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{LL}
640: + P_T \overline{P}_T \{\Sigma^{ij}_{LT}c_{(2\Phi-\eta)}
641: +\Sigma^{ij}_{LN} s_{(2\Phi-\eta)}\} \, ,
642: \nonumber \\[1mm]
643: %
644: \Delta^{ij}_T \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
645: (1-P_L \overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{TU}
646: \,+(P_L -\overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{TL}
647: + P_T \overline{P}_T \{\Sigma^{ij}_{TT} c_{(2\Phi-\eta)}
648: +\Sigma^{ij}_{TN} s_{(2\Phi-\eta)}\} \, ,
649: \nonumber\\[1mm]
650: %
651: \Delta^{ij}_N \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!
652: (1-P_L \overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{NU}
653: + (P_L -\overline{P}_L) \Sigma^{ij}_{NL}
654: + P_T \overline{P}_T \{\Sigma^{ij}_{NT} c_{(2\Phi-\eta)}
655: \!+\Sigma^{ij}_{NN} s_{(2\Phi-\eta)}\} \, ,
656: \label{polcomp}
657: \end{eqnarray}
658: %
659: where $c_{(2\Phi-\eta)}=\cos (2\Phi-\eta)$, $s_{(2\Phi-\eta)} =
660: \sin(2\Phi-\eta)$, and the $\Sigma_{UB} \ ( B=U,\, L,\, T, \, N)$ are in
661: Eq.~(\ref{SUB}). The $\Sigma_{BU}$, which survive even without beam
662: polarization, are given by
663: %
664: {\small
665: \begin{eqnarray} \label{SBU}
666: \Sigma^{ij}_{LU} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\phantom{-}
667: 2(1-\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)\,\cos\Theta\,Q'_1
668: +4\mu_i\mu_j\,\cos\Theta\, Q'_2
669: +\lambda^{1/2}\{1+\cos^2\Theta
670: -\sin^2\Theta(\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)\}\, Q'_3 \, ,
671: \nonumber \\
672: %
673: \Sigma^{ij}_{TU}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!-2\sin\Theta\left[\{(1-\mu^2_i+\mu^2_j)\,Q'_1
674: +\lambda^{1/2} \cos\Theta \, Q'_3\}\mu_i
675: +(1+\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)\mu_j\,Q'_2\right] \, , \nonumber\\
676: %
677: \Sigma^{ij}_{NU}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\phantom{-}2\lambda^{1/2}\mu_j\,\sin\Theta\, Q_4
678: \, .
679: \end{eqnarray}
680: }
681: %
682: \hskip -0.2cm The remaining $\Sigma_{AB}$,
683: which contribute only with non--trivial $e^\pm$ polarization, are
684: %
685: \begin{eqnarray} \label{SAB}
686: \Sigma^{ij}_{LL} \!\!\!
687: &=&\!\!\! \phantom{-}
688: [\lambda+1-(\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)^2]\,\cos\Theta\,Q_1
689: +4\mu_i\mu_j\,\cos\Theta\, Q_2 \nonumber\\
690: %
691: &&\hskip 1.3cm
692: +\lambda^{1/2} [1 +\cos^2\Theta - {\sin^2\!\Theta} \, (\mu^2_i -
693: \mu^2_j)] \, Q_3 \, ,
694: \nonumber \\
695: %
696: \Sigma^{ij}_{LT} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \phantom{-} \lambda^{1/2} ( 1 + \mu^2_i -
697: \mu^2_j) \, {\sin^2\Theta} \, Q'_5 \, ,
698: \nonumber \\
699: %
700: \Sigma^{ij}_{LN} \!\!\!
701: &=&\!\!\! - \lambda^{1/2}(1+\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)\,{\sin^2\Theta}\,Q_6 \, ,
702: \nonumber \\
703: %
704: \Sigma^{ij}_{TL}\!\!\!
705: &=&\!\!\! -2\sin\Theta\left\{[(1-\mu^2_i+\mu^2_j)\,Q_1
706: +\lambda^{1/2}\cos\Theta\, Q_3]\mu_i
707: +(1+\mu^2_i-\mu^2_j)\mu_j\,Q_2\right\} \, ,
708: \nonumber\\
709: %
710: \Sigma^{ij}_{TT} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \phantom{-} \lambda^{1/2} \mu_i \sin 2 \Theta
711: \, Q'_5 \, ,
712: \nonumber\\
713: %
714: \Sigma^{ij}_{TN} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! -\lambda^{1/2}\mu_i\sin2 \Theta \,Q_6 \, ,
715: \nonumber\\
716: %
717: \Sigma^{ij}_{NL} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \phantom{-} 2 \lambda^{1/2} \mu_j \,
718: \sin\Theta\, Q'_4 \, ,
719: \nonumber\\
720: %
721: \Sigma^{ij}_{NT} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! -2\lambda^{1/2}\mu_i\,\sin\Theta\, Q_6 \, ,
722: \nonumber\\
723: %
724: \Sigma^{ij}_{NN} \!\!\!&=&\!\!\! -2\lambda^{1/2}\mu_i\,\sin\Theta\, Q'_5 \, .
725: \end{eqnarray}
726: %
727: The P and CP properties of all these quantities are identical to
728: those of the quartic charges in Table~\ref{tab:quartic}. In
729: particular, the five quantities $\Sigma_{UN}, \Sigma_{LN},
730: \Sigma_{TN}, \Sigma_{NU}$ and $\Sigma_{NL}$ are CP--odd.
731:
732: Brief comments on the reference frame are in order here. In the coordinate
733: system which we have employed so far, the scattering plane is fixed, while the
734: direction of $e^\pm$ transverse polarization vectors differs from event to
735: event. For a real experiment, fixed $e^\pm$ polarization vectors should be
736: more convenient. We define the transverse part of $\vec P_{e^-}$ as $+x$
737: direction; the $x$ and $y$ components of the outgoing neutralino
738: four--momentum $p_i$ are then proportional to $\cos\Phi$ and $\sin\Phi$,
739: respectively. In this coordinate system the scattering plane changes from
740: event to event. Since only the {\rm relative} angles between the $e^\pm$
741: polarization vectors and the scattering plane are relevant, the final results
742: in Eqs.~(\ref{diffx}) and (\ref{polcomp}) are still valid. In this new coordinate
743: frame, the $\tilde \chi_i^0$ polarization vector can be explicitly written as
744: %
745: \begin{equation} \label{polvec1}
746: \vec{\cal P}^i = {\cal P}_T^i \vec e_T + {\cal P}_N^i \vec e_N +
747: {\cal P}_L^i \vec e_L\, ,
748: \end{equation}
749: %
750: where the following three unit vectors
751: form a co--moving orthonormal basis of the three--dimensional space:
752: %
753: \begin{eqnarray} \label{polvec2}
754: \vec e_T &=& (\cos \Phi \cos \Theta, \, \sin \Phi \cos \Theta, \, -\sin
755: \Theta) \, , \nonumber \\
756: %
757: \vec e_N &=& (-\sin \Phi, \, \cos \Phi, \, 0) \, , \nonumber \\
758: %
759: \vec e_L &=& (\cos \Phi \sin \Theta, \, \sin \Phi \sin \Theta, \, \cos
760: \Theta) \, .
761: \end{eqnarray}
762: %
763:
764: Probing CP violation in the MSSM neutralino sector involves the four quartic
765: charges $Q_4, Q'_4, Q_6$ and $Q'_6$ for $i\neq j$. Their characteristic
766: features can be analytically understood from their explicit expressions in
767: terms of the neutralino mixing matrix $N$. With $\Gamma_Z$ neglected in
768: the high energy limit, they are
769: %
770: \begin{eqnarray}
771: Q^{(\prime)}_4
772: &=& \frac{1}{2c^4_W s^4_W}\left[s^4_W\mp(s^2_W-1/2)^2\right] D^2_Z
773: \imag({\cal Z}^2_{ij}) \nonumber\\
774: && +\frac{D_Z}{2c^2_W}\left[(D_{tR}+D_{uR})\imag({\cal Z}_{ij} g_{Rij})
775: \pm \frac{s^2_W-1/2}{s^2_W}(D_{tL}+D_{UL})\imag({\cal Z}_{ij} g_{Lij})\right]
776: \nonumber\\
777: && +\frac{1}{2} D_{uR}D_{tR}\imag(g^2_{Rij})
778: \mp\frac{1}{2} D_{uL}D_{tL}\imag(g^2_{Lij})\, ,
779: \nonumber\\[1mm]
780: %
781: Q^{(\prime)}_6 &=& \frac{1}{2c^2_W}D_Z(D_{tL}\pm D_{uL})
782: \imag({\cal Z}_{ij} g^*_{Lij})
783: +\frac{s^2_W-1/2}{2s^2_W c^2_W} D_Z (D_{uR}\pm D_{tR})
784: \imag({\cal Z}_{ij} g^*_{Rij})\nonumber\\
785: && + \frac{1}{2}(D_{uR}D_{tL}\pm D_{tR}D_{uL})
786: \imag(g_{Lij}g^*_{Rij}) \, ,
787: \label{quart}
788: \end{eqnarray}
789: %
790: where the explicit form of ${\cal Z}_{ij}$, $g_{Lij}$ and $g_{Rij}$ are listed
791: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:combinations}). From the propagator combinations, we see that
792: the quartic charge $Q'_6$ is forward--backward asymmetric with respect to the
793: scattering angle $\Theta$ while the other three quartic charges,
794: $Q^{(\prime)}_4$ and $Q_6$, are forward--backward symmetric.
795:
796: The relative sizes of the four CP--violating quartic charges indicate which
797: observables should be promising to investigate experimentally. Let us first
798: consider the generic case of small gaugino--higgsino mixing (with substantial
799: CP phase $\Phi_1$). Small mixing is generally obtained if the entries in the
800: off--diagonal $2 \times 2$ blocks in the neutralino mass matrix are
801: smaller than those in the diagonal blocks, allowing an expansion in powers of
802: $m_Z$. Analytic expressions for $N$ using this expansion, given in
803: Ref.~\cite{Choi:2004rf}, help to estimate the sizes of the Q
804: $Q_{4,6}^{(\prime)}$. In particular, the last term contributing to
805: $Q_4^{(\prime)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{quart}), which is proportional to $\sin\Phi_1$,
806: is not suppressed by small mixing angles: $Q_4$ and $Q'_4$ survive even
807: without any gaugino--higgsino mixing. In contrast $Q_6$ and $Q'_6$ only start
808: at $O(m^2_Z)$. This is related to the observation that, in the notation of
809: Ref.~\cite{Choi:2001ww}, $Q_6^{(\prime)}$ probe Dirac--type phases, which
810: vanish in the absence of nontrivial mixing between neutralino current
811: eigenstates, whereas $Q_4^{(\prime)}$ probe Majorana--type phases, which
812: survive in this limit. In the generic case of small gaugino--higgsino mixing,
813: therefore, the size of $Q_4^{(\prime)}$ is much larger than that of
814: $Q_6^{(\prime)}$. In the case of strong gaugino--higgsino mixing, however,
815: $Q_6^{(\prime)}$, which can only be probed with transversely polarized beams,
816: could exceed $Q_4$ and/or $Q'_4$.
817:
818: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
819: \section{Two--body neutralino decays}
820: \label{sec:sec3}
821: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
822: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
823:
824: The decay patterns of heavy neutralinos $(\neu_{i>1})$ depend on
825: their masses and the masses and couplings of other sparticles and
826: Higgs bosons. In this article we focus on the two--body decays of
827: neutralinos. It is possible that the kinematics prohibits some two--body
828: tree--level decays. However, a sufficiently heavy neutralino can
829: decay via tree--level two--body channels containing a $Z$ or a Higgs
830: boson and a lighter neutralino \cite{Choi:2003fs}, and/or into a
831: sfermion--matter fermion pair.
832:
833: Of particular interest in the present work are the following
834: two--body decay modes:
835: %
836: \begin{eqnarray}
837: \tilde{\chi}^0_i\to\tilde{\chi}^0_k\, Z, \qquad
838: \tilde{\chi}^0_i\to\tilde{\chi}^0_k\, h \quad \mbox{and}\quad
839: \tilde{\chi}^0_i\to\tilde{\ell}^\pm_R \ell^\mp \,,
840: \label{eq:2-body_decays}
841: \end{eqnarray}
842: %
843: with $\ell = e$ or $\mu$. If any of these processes is kinematically allowed,
844: it will dominate any tree--level three--body decay.
845: % and any two--body
846: %decay which is forbidden at the tree level.
847:
848:
849: The relevant couplings are
850: %
851: \begin{eqnarray}
852: && \langle\, \ell^-_L|\,\tilde{\ell}^-_R\,|\tilde{\chi}^0_i\, \rangle
853: =+\langle\, \ell^+_L|\,\tilde{\ell}^+_R\,|\tilde{\chi}^0_i\, \rangle^*
854: = -\sqrt{2} g t_W\, N^*_{i1},\qquad
855: \langle \ell^\pm_R|\tilde{\ell}^\pm_R|\tilde{\chi}^0_i \rangle
856: = 0\, , \\[2mm]
857: %
858: && \langle \tilde{\chi}^0_{kR} | Z | \tilde{\chi}^0_{iR}\rangle
859: =-\langle \tilde{\chi}^0_{kL} | Z | \tilde{\chi}^0_{iL}\rangle^*
860: = +\frac{g}{2c_W} \left[N_{i3} N^*_{k3}-N_{i4} N^*_{k4}\right]\, ,
861: \nonumber\\ \nonumber
862: %
863: && \langle \tilde{\chi}^0_{kL}| h | \tilde{\chi}^0_{iR}\rangle
864: =+\langle \tilde{\chi}^0_{kR}| h | \tilde{\chi}^0_{iL}\rangle^*
865: = \frac{g}{2}\left[(N_{k2}-t_W N_{k1})(s_\alpha N_{i3}+c_\alpha N_{i4})
866: +(i\leftrightarrow k)\right]\, ,
867: \end{eqnarray}
868: %
869: where $s_\alpha=\cos\alpha$, $c_\alpha=\sin\alpha$, and $\alpha$ being the
870: mixing angle between the two CP--even Higgs states in the MSSM \cite{book}.
871: Note that the $Z$ coupling is proportional to the higgsino components of
872: both participating neutralinos, whereas the Higgs coupling requires a higgsino
873: component of one neutralino and a gaugino component of the
874: other.\footnote{If $\delta m_{\tilde \chi} \equiv m_{\tilde \chi_2^0}
875: - m_{\tilde \chi_1^0} \gg m_Z$, the decay into longitudinally polarized $Z$
876: bosons gets enhanced by a factor $(\delta m_{\tilde \chi} / m_Z)^2$.
877: If $\delta m_{\tilde \chi} \sim {\cal O}(m_Z)$, three--body decays $
878: \tilde \chi_2^0 \rightarrow \tilde \chi_1^0 f\bar{f}$ may dominate
879: over $\tilde \chi_2^0 \rightarrow \tilde \chi_1^0 Z$ decays if
880: $|\mu| \gg m_{\tilde f}$; this does not happen in models where the
881: entire sparticle spectrum is described by a small number of
882: parameters.} Since the
883: lighter neutralino states $\tilde \chi_{1,2}^0$ are often gaugino--like, this
884: pattern of couplings implies that $\tilde \chi_i^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 h$
885: decays will often dominate over the (kinematically preferred) $\tilde \chi_i^0
886: \to \tilde \chi_1^0 Z$ decays. However, the $\tilde{\chi}^0_i \to
887: \tilde{\ell}^\pm_R \ell^\mp$ decays only depend on the gaugino components of
888: the decaying neutralino. If kinematically accessible, they can
889: have the largest branching ratios.
890:
891: Note also that the Majorana nature of neutralinos relates the left-- and
892: right--handed couplings of the $Z$ and $h$ boson to a neutralino pair; they
893: are complex conjugate to each other, having an identical absolute magnitude.
894: These relations lead to a characteristic property of the corresponding
895: two--body decays, $\tilde{\chi}^0_i\to \tilde{\chi}^0_k Z$ and
896: $\tilde{\chi}^0_i\to\tilde{\chi}^0_k h$: {\em the decay distributions are
897: independent of the polarization of the decaying neutralino
898: $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$, unless the polarization of the $Z$ boson or
899: $\tilde{\chi}_k^0$ is measured}. In contrast, the slepton mode
900: in Eq.$\,$(\ref{eq:2-body_decays}) can be
901: exploited as optimal polarization analyzer of the decaying neutralino, if
902: the small lepton mass is
903: ignored; as noted earlier, this implies that $\tilde \ell_L$--$\tilde \ell_R$
904: mixing is ignored as well.\footnote{$\tilde \chi_i \to \tilde \tau_1^\pm
905: \tau^\mp$ decays, where $\tilde \tau_L$--$\tilde \tau_R$ mixing can be
906: important, have been analyzed in Refs.~\cite{cdgs}.}
907:
908: Furthermore, the decay distributions are completely determined by the relevant
909: particle masses, as well as by the $\tilde \chi_i^0$ polarization vector
910: (in case of $\tilde \chi_i^0 \rightarrow \tilde
911: \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp$ decay). More
912: explicitly, the angular distribution in the rest frame of the
913: decaying neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ is
914: %
915: \begin{eqnarray} \label{decdist}
916: \frac{1}{\Gamma_X}\frac{d\Gamma_X}{d\Omega^*}
917: = \frac{1}{4\pi}\left(1\pm \xi_X \vec{\cal P}^i \cdot \hat{ k}_1^*
918: \right)\, ,
919: \end{eqnarray}
920: %
921: where $\xi_{Z, h}=0$ for the $Z$ and $h$ decay modes, and $\xi_{l^\pm}=\mp 1$
922: for $\tilde{\chi}^0_i\to \tilde{\ell}^\pm_R \ell^\mp$ with $\hat{ k}_1^*$
923: being the unit vector in $\ell^\mp$ direction.
924: % in the $\tilde \chi_i^0$ rest frame. <-In the same sentence, we said
925: % in the rest frame..
926: The former two decay modes can probe only ``production''
927: asymmetries, whereas the (s)leptonic decay mode can probe ``decay''
928: asymmetries also, which are sensitive to the $\tilde \chi_i^0$
929: polarization.
930:
931:
932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
933: \section{Event reconstruction}
934: \label{sec:sec4}
935: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
936: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
937:
938: We focus on $e^+ e^- \to \tilde \chi_2^0 \tilde \chi_1^0$ production, and
939: assume $\tilde \chi_1^0$ to be stable (or possibly to decay invisibly). The
940: only visible final state particles therefore result from $\tilde \chi_2^0$
941: decay, which simplifies the analysis. Moreover, this is the kinematically most
942: accessible neutralino pair production with visible final state; indeed, it is
943: often the first sparticle production channel accessible at $e^+ e^-$ colliders
944: \cite{abdel}.
945:
946: An important difference between $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 (h,Z)$
947: and $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^\pm \ell^\mp \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+
948: \ell^-$ is the degree of event reconstruction. The latter decay chain allows
949: complete event reconstruction (with an, at least, two--fold ambiguity),
950: whereas the former does not. This can be seen by counting unknowns. The
951: $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^0 (h,Z)$ final states contain six unknown
952: components of $\tilde \chi_1^0$ momenta (we are assuming that the masses of
953: all produced particles have already been determined \cite{rec}, so that the
954: energies can be computed from three--momenta); this has to be compared with
955: four constraints from energy--momentum conservation, and a single mass
956: constraint, $(p_{\tilde \chi_1^0} + p_{(h,Z)})^2 = m^2_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$. One
957: quantity remains undetermined.
958:
959: In contrast, $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^0 \ell^+ \ell^-$ final states
960: produced from an on--shell $\tilde \ell_R^\pm$ have two invariant mass
961: constraints. With an equal number of constraints and unknowns, the event can
962: be reconstructed \cite{newbartl}. An explicit reconstruction may proceed as
963: follows. Let $k_1$ and $k_2$ be the four--momenta of the two charged leptons
964: in the final state, and $p_1$ and $q$ the four--momenta of the two
965: neutralinos; here $k_2$ and $q$ originate from $\tilde \ell_R$ decay. Note
966: that the energy $p_1^0$ is fixed from two--body kinematics, see
967: Eq.~(\ref{mom}). Then $q^0$ is determined from energy conservation, once
968: the lepton energies are measured. The invariant mass constraint $(k_2 + q)^2
969: = m^2_{\tilde \ell_R}$ can fix the scalar product $\vec k_2 \cdot \vec q$.
970: The second mass constraint $(k_1 + k_2 + q)^2 = m^2_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$ is
971: used for $\vec k_1 \cdot \vec q$. When writing the unknown three--momentum
972: $\vec q$ as $\vec q = a \vec k_1 + b \vec k_2 + c (\vec k_1 \times \vec
973: k_2)$, the two coefficients $a$ and $b$ can be computed from the two scalar
974: products $\vec k_2 \cdot \vec q$ and $\vec k_1 \cdot \vec q$ determined
975: above; note that the term proportional to $c$ drops out here. The last
976: coefficient $c$ can be computed from the known energy $q^0$ with two--fold
977: ambiguity.
978:
979: Once $\vec q$ is known, $\vec p_1$ follows immediately from momentum
980: conservation. We can read off the production angles $\Theta$ and $\Phi$. This
981: also allows to compute the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ three--momentum $\vec p_2 = \vec
982: k_1 + \vec k_2 + \vec q = - \vec p_1$ (in the c.m. frame). With the known
983: $\tilde \chi_2^0$ energy, we boost into the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ rest frame, and
984: read off the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decay angles $\Theta^*$ and $\Phi^*$; recall
985: that there is a non--trivial dependence on these decay angles via
986: Eq.~(\ref{decdist}).
987:
988: So far we have assumed that we know which of the two charged leptons in the
989: final state originates from the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decay, and which one from
990: $\tilde \ell_R$ decay. Since, owing to its Majorana nature, $\tilde \chi_2^0$
991: will decay into both $\tilde \ell_R^+ \ell^-$ and $\tilde \ell_R^- \ell^+$
992: final states with equal branching ratios, the charge of the leptons does not
993: help this discrimination of the origin of two charged leptons.
994: A unique assignment is nevertheless possible if the
995: two mass differences $\delta_{2R} \equiv m_{\tilde \chi_2^0} - m_{\tilde
996: \ell_R}$ and $\delta_{R1} \equiv m_{\tilde \ell_R} - m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$
997: are very different from each other: if $\delta_{2R} \gg \delta_{R1}$, the more
998: energetic (harder) lepton will originate from the first step of $\tilde
999: \chi_2^0$ decay, and the less energetic (softer) lepton comes from $\tilde
1000: \ell_R$ decay; if $\delta_{2R} \ll \delta_{R1}$ the opposite assignment holds.
1001: However, if $\delta_{2R} \simeq \delta_{R1}$, both assignments often lead to
1002: physical solutions if the procedure for event reconstruction outlined above is
1003: applied. In this unfavorable situation there is a four--fold ambiguity in the
1004: event reconstruction.
1005:
1006: Finally, we note that background events can be also reconstructed, in some
1007: cases again with two--fold ambiguity. The main backgrounds to $\tilde \chi_2^0
1008: \to \tilde \chi_1^0 (Z,h)$ decays are $e^+e^- \rightarrow ZZ, \, Zh$
1009: production with one $Z$ decaying invisibly. The $e^+e^- \to ZZ (\to \nu \bar
1010: \nu \ell^+ \ell^-), \ W^+ W^- (\to \ell^+ \nu_\ell \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell), \
1011: \tilde \ell^+ \tilde \ell^- (\to \ell^+ \ell^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde
1012: \chi_1^0)$ are the main backgrounds to $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0 \to
1013: \ell^+ \ell^- \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_1^0$ production.\footnote{Note that
1014: we include supersymmetric slepton production as background, since it does
1015: not contribute to the CP--odd asymmetries we wish to analyze here.} We can
1016: obtain a pure sample of signal events by discarding all events that can be
1017: reconstructed as one of the background processes. This ignores the effects of
1018: measurement errors, beam energy spread (partly due to bremsstrahlung), as well
1019: as initial state radiation, but should nevertheless give a reasonable
1020: indication of the effects of cuts that have to be imposed to isolate the
1021: signal.
1022:
1023:
1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1025: \section{Effective asymmetries}
1026: \label{sec:sec5}
1027: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
1028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1029:
1030: We are interested in constructing CP--odd observables. Schematically, they
1031: are written as
1032: %
1033: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fdef}
1034: F = \int d\Omega \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega} f(\Omega) \times {\cal L} \, ,
1035: \end{eqnarray}
1036: %
1037: where $d\sigma / d \Omega$ is the differential cross section, ${\cal L}=\int
1038: L\, dt$ is the total integrated luminosity, and $f(\Omega)$ is a dimensionless
1039: function of phase space observables. Introducing the luminosity in
1040: Eq.~(\ref{fdef}) simplifies the statistical analysis as presented below.
1041:
1042: Simple asymmetries are constructed from the choice $f = \pm 1$, where the
1043: phase space region giving $f = +1$ is the CP--conjugate of that giving
1044: $f=-1$~\cite{others,newbartl}. While very straightforward, this choice
1045: usually does not yield the highest statistical significance. We decompose the
1046: differential cross section into CP--even and CP--odd terms:
1047: %
1048: \begin{equation} \label{optcomp}
1049: \frac {d \sigma} {d \Omega} = \sum_i e_i f^{(e)}_i(\Omega) +
1050: \sum_j o_j f^{(o)}_j(\Omega)\, ,
1051: \end{equation}
1052: %
1053: where the $e_i$ and $o_j$ are constant coefficients (products of
1054: couplings and possibly masses) while the $f^{(e)}$ and $f^{(o)}$ are
1055: CP--even and CP--odd functions, respectively, of phase space
1056: variables. The optimal variable to extract the coefficient $o_j$ is
1057: then proportional to $f^{(o)}_j$ \cite{optimal}.
1058:
1059: In our case this would lead to very complicated observables, due
1060: to the non--trivial angular dependence of the selectron propagators
1061: $D_{(t,u)(L,R)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{bilinear}).
1062: Moreover, the optimal
1063: variables would depend on both selectron masses. For simplicity, we
1064: construct our CP--odd observables by fully including the angular
1065: dependence in the {\em numerators} of Eqs.~(\ref{diffx}),
1066: (\ref{SUB}), (\ref{polcomp}), (\ref{SBU}), (\ref{SAB}) and
1067: (\ref{decdist}), but ignoring the angular dependence in the
1068: propagators.
1069:
1070: For dimensionless $f$, the quantity $F$ in Eq.~(\ref{fdef}) is also
1071: dimensionless. The statistical uncertainty of $F$ is then given by
1072: %
1073: \begin{eqnarray}
1074: \sigma^2(F) = {\cal L}\times \int d\Omega \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}
1075: f^2(\Omega) \, .
1076: \end{eqnarray}
1077: %
1078: This can be seen from the fact that ${\cal L} (d \sigma / d \Omega) d \Omega$
1079: is the number of events in the phase space interval $d \Omega$. For the simple
1080: case of $f = \pm 1$, $\sigma^2(F)$ is simply the total number of events. With
1081: the quantity $F$ and its statistical uncertainty $\sigma(F)$, we can construct
1082: an effective asymmetry:
1083: %
1084: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ahat}
1085: \hat{A}[f] = \frac{F}{\sigma(F) \sqrt{\cal L}}\, .
1086: \end{eqnarray}
1087: %
1088: Note that $\hat A$ is by construction independent of the luminosity. It is
1089: also invariant under transformations $f(\Omega) \to c f(\Omega)$ for constant
1090: $c$, making $\hat A$ independent of the normalization of $f$. The statistical
1091: significance for $\hat A[f]$ is
1092: simply given by $\hat A[f] \cdot \sqrt{{\cal L}}$.
1093:
1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1095: \section{Numerical analysis}
1096: \label{sec:sec6}
1097: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
1098: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1099:
1100: We are now ready to present some numerical results. We will first
1101: briefly discuss the relevant quartic charges that encode CP
1102: violation, before discussing ``production'' and ``decay''
1103: asymmetries.
1104:
1105: \subsection{Quartic charges}
1106:
1107: Table~\ref{tab:quartic} shows that the four quartic charges $Q_4, \, Q_6, \,
1108: Q_4'$ and $Q_6'$ are CP-odd.
1109: Equation (\ref{SUB}) shows that $Q'_6$ is responsible for the production--level
1110: asymmetry, which requires transverse beam polarization.\footnote{We note in
1111: passing that the corresponding asymmetry for chargino production vanishes
1112: \cite{bartl_char}: there is no equivalent of the $\tilde e_R$ exchange
1113: diagram, and the relevant $2 \times 2$ matrix diagonalizing the chargino
1114: mass matrix does not contain a reparametrization invariant phase.} The
1115: remaining three CP--odd quartic charges can be probed only via the $\tilde
1116: \chi_2^0$ polarization. Equations (\ref{SBU}) and (\ref{SAB}) show that $Q_4$
1117: contributes even for unpolarized $e^\pm$ beams, whereas $Q_4'$ ($Q_6$) only
1118: contributes in the presence of longitudinal (transverse) beam polarization.
1119:
1120: %
1121: \begin{figure}[ht!]
1122: \begin{center}
1123: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{q1.ps} %\hskip 0.2cm
1124: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{q2.ps}\\
1125: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{q3.ps} %\hskip 0.2cm
1126: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{q4.ps}
1127: \end{center}
1128: \vskip -0.5cm
1129: \caption{\it The ratios of quartic charges $Q_4/Q_1$ (dotted green),
1130: $Q'_4/Q_1$ (dashed blue), $Q_6/Q_1$ (solid red) and $Q'_6/Q_1$ (dot--dashed
1131: black). We fixed $|M_1| = 0.5 M_2 = 150$ GeV, $\tan\beta = 5, \ m_{\tilde
1132: e_L}= 500$ GeV and $\Phi_\mu = 0$; the values of the other relevant
1133: parameters are as indicated in the figures.}
1134: \label{fig2}
1135: \end{figure}
1136: %
1137:
1138: Figure~\ref{fig2} presents these four charges normalized to $Q_1$,
1139: which largely determines the size of the unpolarized cross section
1140: far above threshold. All these ratios lie between $-1$ and 1. We
1141: took $|M_1| = 150$ GeV, $M_2 = 300$ GeV (so that $|M_1|$ and $M_2$
1142: unify at the scale of Grand Unification \cite{book}), a moderate
1143: $\tan\beta = 5$, $m_{\tilde e_L} = 500$ GeV, and $\Phi_\mu = 0$ (as
1144: indicated by constraints on the electric dipole moments of the
1145: electron and neutron \cite{edm,edm1}). The default choices of the
1146: other relevant parameters are $|\mu| = 325$ GeV, $m_{\tilde e_R} =
1147: 300$ GeV, $\Phi_1 = 0.6 \pi$ and $\sqrt{s} = 2 E_{\rm beam} = 500$
1148: GeV, but one of these parameters is varied in each of the four
1149: frames of Fig.~\ref{fig2}. Finally, we chose scattering angle
1150: $\cos\Theta = 1/\sqrt{2}\,$; note that $Q_6'$ vanishes at $\cos\Theta
1151: = 0$.
1152:
1153: The behavior of the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig2} can be understood with the help
1154: of the expressions in Eq.~(\ref{quart}). The top--left frame shows the
1155: dependence of the four ratios on the phase $\Phi_1$. We see the typical
1156: behavior of CP--odd quantities, changing sign when $\sin\Phi_1$ changes sign,
1157: although not simple sine functions. Since we took $|\mu|$ to be close to
1158: $M_2$, $\tilde \chi_2^0$ is a strongly mixed state. However, $\tilde \chi_1^0$
1159: is still mostly gaugino--like, so that $|{\cal Z}_{12}|$ is quite small. As a
1160: result, increasing $m_{\tilde e_R}$ (top--right frame) reduces $|Q_6|$ and
1161: $|Q_6'|$, while affecting $|Q_4|$ and $|Q_4'|$ very little; recall that the
1162: latter two quartic charges receive the dominant contribution from the
1163: interference of $t-$ and $u-$channel $\tilde e_L$ exchange diagrams.
1164: Increasing $|\mu|$ (bottom--left frame) has the same effect, as expected from
1165: our earlier observation that $Q_6$ and $Q_6'$ need sizable gaugino--higgsino
1166: mixing, while $Q_4$ and $Q_4'$ do not. Finally, the bottom--right frame shows
1167: that the dependence on the beam energy is relatively mild.
1168:
1169: Another conclusion from Fig.~\ref{fig2} is that $|Q_6'|$ is usually the
1170: smallest of the four CP--odd quartic charges. The reason is that in
1171: this case $t-$ and $u-$channel diagrams tend to cancel, whereas they
1172: add up in $|Q_6|$. This indicates that measuring the
1173: production--level asymmetry will be quite challenging, as will be
1174: discussed in the next Subsection.
1175:
1176: \subsection{Production asymmetries}
1177:
1178: The simplest choice for probing the CP--odd contribution from $ Q_6'$ to the
1179: production cross section in Eq.~(\ref{diffx}) is \cite{newbartl}
1180: %
1181: \begin{equation} \label{fprod}
1182: f_{\rm prod} = {\rm sign} [ \cos\Theta \sin(2\Phi)] \, .
1183: \end{equation}
1184: %
1185: Instead a partly optimized asymmetry is suggested from the choice
1186: %
1187: \begin{equation} \label{fprodopt}
1188: f_{\rm prod}^{\rm opt} = \cos\Theta \sin^2 \Theta \sin(2\Phi) \, ,
1189: \end{equation}
1190: %
1191: where we have set the angle $\eta = 0$ for simplicity; nothing is
1192: gained by considering nonvanishing angles between the transverse
1193: $e^+$ and $e^-$ polarization vectors. The factors of $\sin^2 \Theta$
1194: and $\sin(2\Phi)$ appear explicitly in the differential cross
1195: section in Eq.~(\ref{diffx}); inclusion of the factor $\cos\Theta$,
1196: which strictly speaking violates the construction principle
1197: described in Sec.~5, is necessary in this case, since this
1198: contribution to the cross section changes sign when $\cos\Theta \to
1199: - \cos\Theta$.
1200:
1201: Here it is appropriate to show that the asymmetries defined in
1202: Eqs.~(\ref{fdef}), (\ref{fprod}) and (\ref{fprodopt}) are indeed CP--odd. This
1203: can most easily be seen by using the so--called naive or $\widetilde {\rm T}$
1204: transformation, which inverts the signs of all three--momenta and spins, but
1205: (unlike a true ${\rm T}$--transformation) does not exchange initial and final
1206: state. In the absence of absorptive phases\footnote{In the present context
1207: absorptive phases can only come from the finite width in the $Z-$propagator,
1208: which is entirely negligible for $s \gg m_Z^2$, or from loop corrections.} a
1209: violation of $\widetilde{\rm T}$ invariance is equivalent to CP violation, as
1210: long as CPT is conserved (which is certainly the case in the MSSM). Recall
1211: that we fixed the $+z$ and $+x$ directions via the $e^-$ beam and spin
1212: directions, respectively, which are themselves $\widetilde{\rm T}$ odd
1213: quantities.\footnote{Note that for $\eta = 0$ the initial state is $\widetilde
1214: {\rm T}$ self--conjugate in this coordinate frame.} In this coordinate frame
1215: a $\widetilde {\rm T}$ transformation therefore amounts to flipping the signs
1216: of only the $y-$components of all three--momenta and spins. This is equivalent
1217: to flipping the sign of the azimuthal angle $\Phi$ (as well as that of
1218: $\Phi^*$, which is however irrelevant for the production--level asymmetry),
1219: leaving $\Theta$ (and $\Theta^*$) unchanged. Our production--level asymmetries
1220: are therefore $\widetilde {\rm T}$ odd, which probe
1221: CP--violation if absorptive phases can be ignored.
1222:
1223: The effective asymmetries resulting from Eqs.~(\ref{fprod}) and
1224: (\ref{fprodopt}) are shown by the (green) dotted and (black) solid curves,
1225: respectively, in three frames in Fig.~\ref{fig3}. In these figures we have
1226: chosen the same default parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, which ensures that
1227: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 Z$ is the only possible two--body decay
1228: of $\tilde \chi_2^0$.\footnote{The effective asymmetry constructed from
1229: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 h$ decays is very similar to that from
1230: $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \chi_1^0 Z$ decays; we therefore do not show
1231: numerical results for this decay mode.} As noted in Sec.~3, in this case we
1232: can measure the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ polarization only if the polarization of the
1233: $Z$ boson is determined. In particular, one has to be able
1234: to distinguish between the two transverse polarization states in order to
1235: construct CP--odd asymmetries involving the $Z$ polarization. Although this
1236: measurement is, in principle, possible for $Z \rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-$
1237: decays, the efficiency is quite low due to its small branching ratio ($\sim
1238: 7\%$ after summing over $e$ and $\mu$ final states), and a very poor analyzing
1239: power (from almost purely axial vector coupling for $Z\ell^+ \ell^-$).
1240: Although $q
1241: \bar q$ final states have larger analyzing power,
1242: the measurement of
1243: the charge is very difficult. It may be only possible to probe the
1244: production level asymmetry through this decay mode.
1245:
1246: %
1247: \begin{figure}[ht!]
1248: \begin{center}
1249: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{prod1a.ps} %\hskip 0.5cm
1250: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{prod1b.ps}\\
1251: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{prod1c.ps} %\hskip 0.5cm
1252: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{prod1d.ps}
1253: \end{center}
1254: \vskip -0.5cm
1255: \caption{\it The top--left and both bottom frames show the effective
1256: production--level asymmetries defined by Eq.\,(\ref{fprod}) (green dotted
1257: curves, labeled ``prod.'') and (\ref{fprodopt}) (solid black curves, labeled
1258: ``opt. prod.''), together with the ``optimized'' production asymmetry where
1259: the true production angles are replaced by those reconstructed from the $Z$
1260: direction (blue long--dashed curves: without cuts; red short--dashed curve:
1261: with the cuts described in the text). The top--right frame shows the total
1262: cross section for $e^+e^- \to \tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$ without
1263: (black solid curve) and with (blue dashed curve) cuts. The default
1264: parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, but one parameter is varied in each
1265: frame.}
1266: \label{fig3}
1267: \end{figure}
1268: %
1269:
1270: Unfortunately the event cannot be reconstructed in this mode, as
1271: noted in Sec.~4. This means that we do not know the angles $\Theta$
1272: and $\Phi$ appearing in the definitions of Eqs.~(\ref{fprod}) and
1273: (\ref{fprodopt}); the best we can do is to approximate them by the
1274: corresponding angles of the $Z$ boson. This leads to the (blue)
1275: dashed curves in the frames of Fig.~\ref{fig3} that show effective
1276: asymmetries, which are based on the ``optimized'' choice in
1277: Eq.~(\ref{fprodopt}).
1278:
1279: The top--left frame shows these asymmetries as functions of the
1280: CP--odd phase $\Phi_1$. We see that the ``optimized'' effective
1281: asymmetry exceeds the simple asymmetry based on Eq.~(\ref{fprod}) by
1282: typically $\sim 20\%$, leading to a $\sim 40\%$ reduction of the
1283: luminosity required to establish the existence of a non--vanishing
1284: asymmetry at a given confidence level. Unfortunately replacing the
1285: true production angles ($\Theta$ and $\Phi$) by those of the $Z$ boson
1286: reduces the effective asymmetry by a factor of 2.5$-$3.5.
1287: This suppression factor depends on the masses of the two lightest
1288: neutralinos, which in turn depend on $\Phi_1$. In this case even for
1289: the most favorable choice of parameters an integrated luminosity of
1290: several ab$^{-1}$ would be needed to establish a non--vanishing
1291: optimized asymmetry at the $1\sigma$ level, even assuming 100\% beam
1292: polarization! This is well beyond the currently expected
1293: performance of the international linear collider.
1294:
1295: The lower--left frame of Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows that the situation
1296: might be better at higher beam energies. The effective production
1297: asymmetries peak at $\sqrt{s} \simeq 900$ GeV for the given choice
1298: of SUSY parameters. Moreover, the difference between the
1299: ``theoretical'' optimized asymmetry and the one constructed from the
1300: $Z$ boson angles becomes much smaller at higher energy. The reason
1301: is that at $\sqrt{s} \gg m_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$ the $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$
1302: becomes ultra--relativistic; its decay products then fall in a
1303: narrow cone around the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ direction, so that the
1304: differences between the real production angles ($\Theta$ and $\Phi$)
1305: and the corresponding angles derived from the flight direction of
1306: the $Z$ boson become small. However, even in this case 1 ab$^{-1}$
1307: would only allow to establish an asymmetry with a significance of
1308: 3.5 standard deviations at best, ignoring experimental resolutions
1309: and efficiencies, and assuming 100\% transverse beam polarization.
1310: The bottom--right frame shows that the situation is even worse if
1311: the mass of the SU(2) singlet selectron $\tilde e_R$ is close to
1312: that of the SU(2) doublet $\tilde e_L$, which is taken as 500 GeV in
1313: this figure.
1314:
1315: The top--right figure is a reminder that $\tilde \chi_1^0 \tilde \chi_2^0$
1316: production can nevertheless provide useful information on the phase $\Phi_1$
1317: \cite{Choi:2004rf}, simply through a measurement of the total production cross
1318: section, which increases by almost a factor of three when $\Phi_1$ is varied
1319: from $0$ to $\pi$; no beam polarization is needed for this measurement. As
1320: explained in Refs.~\cite{Choi:2001ww,Choi:2004rf} this is due to the fact that
1321: the production occurs in a pure $P-$wave for $\Phi_1=0$, but has a large
1322: $S-$wave component for $\Phi_1 = \pi$. This figure also shows that, for the
1323: chosen set of parameters, cutting against the $ZZ$ background as described in
1324: Sec.~\ref{sec:sec4}, as well as applying the acceptance cut
1325: %
1326: \begin{equation} \label{cut}
1327: |\cos\Theta_X| \leq 0.9
1328: \end{equation}
1329: %
1330: for all visible final state particles $X$ (in this case, the $Z$
1331: boson), only reduces the cross section by $\sim15\%$. The (red)
1332: short--dashed curve in the bottom--left frame shows that these cuts
1333: affect the effective asymmetries even less.
1334:
1335: \subsection{Decay asymmetries}
1336: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
1337:
1338: We now turn to the ``decay'' asymmetries, which are
1339: sensitive to the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ polarization. We saw in
1340: Sec.~\ref{sec:sec3} that these can be only probed through $\tilde
1341: \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell^\pm \ell^\mp$ decays (ignoring three--body
1342: decays, which will be highly suppressed if any two--body decay is
1343: allowed). The discussion of Sec.~\ref{sec:sec4} showed that in this
1344: case we can reconstruct the event with two-- or four--fold
1345: ambiguity.
1346:
1347: Equation~(\ref{polcomp}) shows that there are three CP--odd terms in the
1348: $\tilde \chi_2^0$ polarization vector, which are sensitive to transverse beam
1349: polarization. In order to construct the corresponding ``optimized''
1350: asymmetries, we first need an explicit expression for the scalar product
1351: appearing in Eq.~(\ref{decdist}). Working in the reference frame where the
1352: $+x$ direction is defined by the transverse part of the $e^-$ polarization
1353: vector, and using the same set of axes for the definition of the $\tilde
1354: \chi_2^0$ decay angles $\Theta^*, \Phi^*$ in the $\tilde \chi_2^0$ rest frame,
1355: we find using Eqs.~(\ref{polvec1}) and (\ref{polvec2}):
1356: %
1357: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pk}
1358: \overrightarrow{{\cal P}} \cdot \hat{ k}_1^* &=&\,\,
1359: {\cal P}_T \left[ \cos \Theta \sin \Theta^* \cos (\Phi - \Phi^*) - \sin\Theta
1360: \sin \Theta^* \right] \nonumber \\
1361: &&\!\!\!+\, {\cal P}_L \left[ \sin\Theta \sin\Theta^* \cos(\Phi - \Phi^*)
1362: + \cos \Theta \cos \Theta^* \right] \nonumber \\
1363: &&\!\!\!+\, {\cal P}_N \sin \Theta^* \sin(\Phi - \Phi^*) \, ,
1364: \end{eqnarray}
1365: %
1366: where we have suppressed the superscript 2 on the components of the $\tilde
1367: \chi_2^0$ polarization vector. This, together with Eqs.~(\ref{polcomp}) and
1368: (\ref{SAB}), leads to the following choices for $f$ in
1369: Eq.~(\ref{fdef}):\footnote{Note that the denominator $\Delta_U^{21}$ in
1370: Eq.~(\ref{pdel}) cancels against the factor $\Delta_U^{21}$ from the
1371: production cross section (\ref{diffx}) in the final result for the cross
1372: section differential in production and decay angles.}
1373: %
1374: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ftopt}
1375: f_{LN} &=& \left[ \sin\Theta \sin\Theta^* \cos(\Phi - \Phi^*) + \cos
1376: \Theta \cos \Theta^* \right] \sin(2\Phi) \sin^2 \Theta\, , \nonumber \\
1377: %
1378: f_{TN} &=& \left[ \cos \Theta \sin \Theta^* \cos (\Phi - \Phi^*) - \sin\Theta
1379: \sin \Theta^* \right] \sin(2\Phi) \sin(2\Theta) \, , \nonumber \\
1380: %
1381: f_{NT} &=& \left[ \sin \Theta^* \sin(\Phi - \Phi^*) \right] \cos(2\Phi) \sin
1382: \Theta \, .
1383: \end{eqnarray}
1384: %
1385: In each of the three expressions the factor in square brackets comes
1386: from Eq.~(\ref{pk}), the second factor from Eq.~(\ref{polcomp}), and
1387: the last factor from the expressions for $\Sigma_{LN}, \,
1388: \Sigma_{TN}$ and $\Sigma_{NT}$, respectively, in Eq.~(\ref{SAB}).
1389:
1390: Similarly, the expression for $\Delta_N^{21}$ in Eq.~(\ref{polcomp}) contains
1391: two CP--odd terms that can be probed with only longitudinal beam polarization,
1392: or even with unpolarized beams. Since the expressions for $\Sigma_{NU}$ and
1393: $\Sigma_{NL}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{SBU}) and (\ref{SAB}) are identical except
1394: for different quartic charges, we can combine these two terms into
1395: the ``optimized'' longitudinal effective asymmetry $\hat{A}_L \equiv
1396: \hat{A}[f_L]$ with
1397: %
1398: \begin{equation} \label{fl}
1399: f_L = \left[ \sin \Theta^* \sin(\Phi - \Phi^*) \right] \sin \Theta\, .
1400: \end{equation}
1401: %
1402: Note that the four functions $f_i$ defined in Eqs.~(\ref{ftopt}) and
1403: (\ref{fl}) are all orthogonal to each other, i.e., the product of any
1404: two different functions will vanish when integrated over the entire
1405: phase space.
1406:
1407: Although the three asymmetries defined in Eqs.~(\ref{ftopt}) are independent
1408: of each other (probing different $\Sigma_{AB}$), in the context of the MSSM
1409: they all probe the same quartic charge $Q_6$. If $m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$ and
1410: $m_{\tilde \chi_2^0}$ are known, one can therefore construct a single
1411: asymmetry to probe $Q_6$, called the total ``optimized" transverse decay
1412: asymmetry $\hat{A}_T \equiv \hat{A}[f_T]$ with
1413: %
1414: \begin{eqnarray} \label{ft}
1415: f_T &=& \left[ \sin\Theta \sin\Theta^* \cos(\Phi - \Phi^*) + \cos
1416: \Theta \cos \Theta^* \right] \sin(2\Phi) \sin^2 \Theta \cdot \left( 1 +
1417: \mu_1^2 - \mu_2^2 \right)
1418: \nonumber \\
1419: &+& \left[ \cos \Theta \sin \Theta^* \cos (\Phi - \Phi^*) - \sin\Theta
1420: \sin \Theta^* \right] \sin(2\Phi) \sin(2\Theta) \cdot \mu_2
1421: \nonumber \\
1422: &+& \left[ \sin \Theta^* \sin(\Phi - \Phi^*) \right] \cos(2\Phi) \sin
1423: \Theta \cdot 2 \mu_2 \, ,
1424: \end{eqnarray}
1425: %
1426: where the $\mu_i$ have been defined in Eq.~(\ref{mu}). The first,
1427: second and third line in Eq.~(\ref{ft}) correspond to the
1428: contributions from $\Sigma_{LN}, \, \Sigma_{TN}$ and $\Sigma_{NT}$,
1429: respectively.
1430:
1431: Finally, we also consider an effective asymmetry based on the
1432: measurement of the momentum of the positive lepton $\ell_1$ coming from the
1433: first stage of $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decay, defined by $\hat{A}_1^+
1434: \equiv\hat{A}[f_1^+]$ with
1435: %
1436: \begin{equation} \label{f1}
1437: f_1^+ = \sin(2 \Phi_{\ell_1^+})\, .
1438: \end{equation}
1439: %
1440: The advantage of this asymmetry, which is somewhat similar to the
1441: decay asymmetry considered in Ref.~\cite{newbartl}, is that it does
1442: not need event reconstruction, as long as the ``primary'' and
1443: ``secondary'' leptons can be distinguished.
1444:
1445: As discussed in the previous Subsection, a CP--odd observable changes sign
1446: when $\Phi \to - \Phi$ and $\Phi^* \to - \Phi^*$. Evidently the asymmetries
1447: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{ftopt}) through (\ref{f1}) satisfy this condition. Due
1448: to the sign flip in Eq.~(\ref{decdist}) all asymmetries discussed in this
1449: Subsection have opposite signs for $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^+
1450: \ell^-$ and $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to \tilde \ell_R^- \ell^+$ decays; events of
1451: these two kinds should be treated separately. Since there are equal number of
1452: events from these two decay chains, we can simply focus on events with only
1453: positively charged primary leptons.
1454:
1455: \begin{figure}[ht!]
1456: \begin{center}
1457: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec1a.ps} %\hskip 0.5cm
1458: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec1b.ps}
1459: \end{center}
1460: \vskip -0.5cm
1461: \caption{\it Effective transverse decay asymmetries for the same default
1462: parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, except that now $m_{\tilde e_R} = 155$
1463: GeV. The (black) dot--dashed, (magenta) long dashed and (blue) short dashed
1464: curves show the ``optimized'' asymmetries based on $f_{TN}, \, f_{NT}$ and
1465: $f_{LN}$ in Eq.~(\ref{ftopt}), respectively, while the (red) solid curves
1466: show $\hat{A}_T$ of Eq.~(\ref{ft}), and the (green) dotted curves show
1467: $\hat{A}^+_1$ of Eq.~(\ref{f1}). In the right (left) frame acceptance and
1468: background--removing cuts have (not) been applied.}
1469: \label{fig4}
1470: \end{figure}
1471:
1472: The two figures in Fig.~\ref{fig4} show the effective ``optimized'' decay
1473: asymmetries based on Eqs.~(\ref{ftopt}), (\ref{ft}) and (\ref{f1}). We use the
1474: same default parameters as in Figs.~\ref{fig2} and \ref{fig3}, except that the
1475: $\tilde e_R$ mass has been reduced to 155 GeV, so that $\tilde \chi_2^0 \to
1476: \tilde e_R^\pm e^\mp$ decays are allowed and dominant.
1477: % (together with other
1478: %leptonic decays, if sleptons are degenerate in mass).
1479: Our choice of $m_{\tilde e_R}$ implies that $m_{\tilde \chi_2^0} - m_{\tilde
1480: e_R} \gg m_{\tilde e_R} - m_{\tilde \chi_1^0}$. As discussed in
1481: Sec.~\ref{sec:sec4} this implies that the harder lepton always comes from the
1482: first step of $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decay, allowing to reconstruct the event with
1483: only a two--fold ambiguity. We average over both of these solutions when
1484: calculating the ``optimized'' asymmetries. We find that the wrong
1485: reconstruction typically leads to asymmetries with the same sign as the true
1486: solution, with (of course) smaller magnitude. The dilution of the asymmetries
1487: due to the event reconstruction ambiguity is therefore not very severe. The
1488: effective asymmetry based on $f_{LN}$ of Eq.~(\ref{ftopt}) and, especially,
1489: the one based on $f_T$ of Eq.~(\ref{ft}) are therefore substantially
1490: larger in magnitude than the simple effective asymmetry based on Eq.~(\ref{f1}).
1491: Note also that the three effective asymmetries based on Eq.~(\ref{ftopt})
1492: move ``in step'', as expected from our earlier observation that they all probe
1493: the same quartic charge $Q_6$. Combining them into a single effective asymmetry,
1494: as in Eq.~(\ref{ft}), therefore increases the size of the asymmetry significantly.
1495:
1496: The two frames in Fig.~\ref{fig4} differ in that the left figure does not
1497: include any cuts whereas in the right figure we remove events that can be
1498: reconstructed as $W$ or $\tilde{e}_R$ pair background events. Also, we
1499: apply the acceptance cut in Eq.~(\ref{cut}) to both final state leptons.
1500: For the case at hand these cuts only reduce the effective asymmetries by
1501: 10\% to 20\%. This high cut efficiency is also due to our choice of
1502: masses, which implies that the two leptons in the final state have
1503: very different energies. In contrast, both background processes have
1504: identical energy distributions for the two
1505: leptons in the final state. Signal events can be rarely reconstructed as
1506: background in this scenario. As a result we find that even after cuts one
1507: would only need an integrated luminosity of $\sim 10$ fb$^{-1}$ to measure a
1508: non--vanishing asymmetry at the $3\sigma$ level. This still assumes 100\% beam
1509: polarization. Even for the more realistic choice $P_T \overline{P}_T
1510: \simeq 0.5$ one might achieve $3\sigma$ significance with $\sim 40$ fb$^{-1}$
1511: of data. This integrated luminosity should be achievable, assuming that
1512: transverse beams will be available.
1513:
1514: Finally, the four figures in Fig.~\ref{fig5} compare the simple asymmetry
1515: $\hat{A}_1^+$ of Eq.~(\ref{f1}), the total optimized transverse decay
1516: asymmetry $\hat{A}_T$, and the optimized longitudinal decay asymmetry
1517: $\hat{A}_L$. We note that the {\it longitudinal} decay asymmetry
1518: is usually {\it bigger} than our total optimized {\it transverse}
1519: asymmetry. At least for probing the CP-violating phase in the context of
1520: the MSSM (where $\Phi_1$ is the only relevant phase in the convention where
1521: $M_2$ is real), therefore, one does not really seem to gain anything by
1522: transverse beam polarization. The only exception is at large energy
1523: (bottom--right frame); this is due to the extra factor
1524: $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}/\sqrt{s}$ appearing in the expressions for
1525: $\Sigma_{NU}$ in Eq.~(\ref{SBU}), and $\Sigma_{NL}$ in Eq.~(\ref{SAB}),
1526: which determine the size of $\hat A_L$.
1527:
1528: The upper right panel shows a quite complicated dependence of the effective
1529: asymmetries on $m_{\tilde e_R}$. For intermediate $\tilde{e}_R$ masses both
1530: final--state leptons in signal events can have similar energies. As a result
1531: one often has four solutions for the event reconstruction. In this case one
1532: cannot identify the ``primary'' lepton used in Eq.~(\ref{f1}). We have dealt
1533: with this by simply discarding events with four solutions, since averaging
1534: over all four solutions would dilute the asymmetries a lot. Unfortunately
1535: this reduces the cross section significantly. At the same time
1536: $\tilde{e}_R$ pair events become more similar to our $\tilde{\chi}^0_1
1537: \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ events, since, as we just mentioned, the signal now has
1538: similar distributions for both final $\ell^\pm$ energies. Hence the cut
1539: against selectron pair production removes more signal events in the present
1540: case. As a result, the complete set of cuts reduces the total cross section by
1541: up to a factor of 5, the worst case being $m_{\tilde e_R} \simeq 195$ GeV.
1542: Note that the different asymmetries are not equally sensitive to these cuts.
1543: The total ``optimized'' transverse decay asymmetry $\hat{A}_T$ is reduced by
1544: at worst a factor of 2, whereas the simple asymmetry $\hat{A}_1^+$ can go down
1545: by a factor of 4. The reason for this is that the cut efficiency depends on
1546: the same production and decay angles that appear in the definitions of our
1547: asymmetries.
1548:
1549:
1550: %
1551: \begin{figure}[ht!]
1552: \begin{center}
1553: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec2a.ps} %\hskip 0.5cm
1554: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec2b.ps}\\
1555: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec2c.ps} %\hskip 0.5cm
1556: \includegraphics[height=7.8cm,width=7cm,angle=270]{dec2d.ps}
1557: \end{center}
1558: \vskip -0.5cm
1559: \caption{\it Comparison of the simple transverse decay asymmetry (\ref{f1})
1560: (green dotted curves), the total ``optimized'' transverse decay asymmetry
1561: (\ref{ft}) (red solid curves), and the ``optimized'' longitudinal decay
1562: asymmetry (\ref{fl}), the latter both for transverse (black dot--dashed) and
1563: for longitudinal (blue dashed) beam polarization. The default values of the
1564: parameters are as in Fig.~\ref{fig4}, but one parameter is varied in
1565: each panel.}
1566: \label{fig5}
1567: \end{figure}
1568: %
1569:
1570: The lower left panel includes the longitudinal decay asymmetry
1571: $\hat{A}_L$ for two different choices of longitudinal $e^\pm$ beam
1572: polarization. In both cases we take opposite polarization for the
1573: $e^+$ and $e^-$ beams, since we are dealing with chiral couplings,
1574: see Eq.(\ref{chiral}). Usually taking a right--handed electron beam
1575: is most advantageous, since it maximizes the $\tilde e_R$ exchange
1576: contribution; note that the $\tilde e_R$ coupling to Binos, which is
1577: needed to probe the CP--odd phase $\Phi_1$, is two times larger than
1578: that of $\tilde e_L$. However, for very large $|\mu|$ this choice is
1579: no longer optimal. In this case $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ becomes more and
1580: more wino--like, i.e., it does not couple to $\tilde{e}_R$. A
1581: right--handed $e^-$ beam means that $\tilde{e}_L$ exchange does not
1582: contribute; the $Z$--exchange contribution also vanishes for
1583: large $|\mu|$. However, taking left--handed electrons one still gets
1584: a sizable contribution from $\tilde{e}_L$ exchange to the cross
1585: section, and also to the asymmetry. In the opposite regime of rather
1586: small $|\mu|$ the asymmetries depend very strongly on this
1587: parameter, since here $\tilde \chi_2^0$ changes from a higgsino-like
1588: to a wino--like state.
1589:
1590: As in the previous figures (as well as in Ref.\,\cite{newbartl}) we
1591: took $e^\pm$ beam polarizations $\pm 1$. In the case of longitudinal
1592: beams one can then suppress the $W$ or $\tilde{e}_R$ pair background
1593: (but not both), by appropriate choice of polarization. However, in
1594: practice the beam polarization will be significantly smaller than
1595: this; we therefore left the cuts against both backgrounds in
1596: place. We also note that longitudinal beam polarization can increase
1597: $\hat A_L$ significantly, although the very small size of this
1598: effective asymmetry for our ``default'' parameters and transversely
1599: polarized beams (top left frame) is clearly accidental.
1600:
1601: Last but not least, we have checked numerically the effect of varying
1602: the left--handed selectron mass $m_{\tilde{e}_L}$ on the CP--odd
1603: asymmetries. The transverse decay asymmetries, with transversely
1604: polarized beams, are sensitive to the mass; in fact, they get
1605: a bit bigger with smaller mass values. Nevertheless, we have noted
1606: that the longitudinal asymmetry for unpolarized beams becomes much
1607: bigger when the left--handed selectron mass is reduced. For example,
1608: taking parameters as in the top--left frame in Fig.\,\ref{fig5},
1609: except for a reduced $m_{\tilde{e}_L} = 250$ GeV, the maximal value of
1610: $|\hat{A}_T|$ after cuts increases to about 1.2 fb$^{-1/2}$, whereas the
1611: maximum of $|\hat A_L|$ reaches about 2.2 fb$^{-1/2}$. We emphasize
1612: that we do not actually need any beam polarization to probe this
1613: asymmetry, although it can be increased significantly by using
1614: longitudinal polarized beams; for reduced $\tilde{e}_L$ mass, taking
1615: left--handed $e^-$ and right--handed $e^+$ beams is often optimal.
1616: Therefore, reducing the left--handed selectron mass does not affect
1617: the ordering of $A_T$ and $A_L$, i.e. the inequality $A_L> A_T$
1618: (for optimized choice of longitudinal beam polarization.)
1619:
1620:
1621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1622: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
1623: \label{sec:sec7}
1624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1625:
1626: In this paper we studied the production of neutralino pairs at
1627: future linear $e^+e^-$ colliders, with subsequent two--body decays
1628: of the heavier neutralinos. We found that decays of the type $\tilde
1629: \chi_i^0 \to \tilde \chi_j^0 (h,Z)$ are not sensitive to the $\tilde
1630: \chi_i^0$ polarization, unless one can measure the polarization of
1631: the $Z-$boson (or that of the final--state neutralino
1632: $\tilde{\chi}^0_j$). These decays can therefore only be used to probe CP
1633: violation in neutralino {\em production}. Unfortunately the
1634: corresponding CP--odd term suffers from cancelations between $t-$
1635: and $u-$channel diagrams, and is nonzero only in the presence of
1636: higgsino--gaugino mixing. As a result, measuring this asymmetry,
1637: which can be done only with transversely polarized $e^\pm$ beams,
1638: will be very difficult, if not impossible, with the currently
1639: foreseen linear collider performance.
1640:
1641: In contrast, $\tilde \chi_i^0$ decays into a slepton plus a lepton allows to
1642: probe the $\tilde \chi_i^0$ polarization state, thereby opening up the
1643: possibility to construct several decay asymmetries. Moreover, this decay,
1644: followed by subsequent $\tilde \ell \rightarrow \ell \tilde \chi_1^0$ decays,
1645: allows to reconstruct even the simplest neutralino pair events, $\tilde
1646: \chi_2^0 \tilde \chi_1^0$ production with invisible (e.g., stable) $\tilde
1647: \chi_1^0$, with two-- or four--fold ambiguity. Under favorable circumstances
1648: experiments at a collider with (sufficiently strongly) transversely polarized
1649: beams should then be able to determine non--vanishing asymmetries with high
1650: statistical significance. However, even in this case a different asymmetry,
1651: which does not depend on transverse beam polarization (but can be maximized
1652: using longitudinal beam polarization), is generally larger in size than even
1653: the best of the transverse decay asymmetries we studied. We saw in
1654: Fig.~\ref{fig5} that this is true both for gaugino-- and higgsino--like
1655: $\tilde \chi_2^0$. It also remains true when we vary the ratio $|M_1|/M_2$, in
1656: particular for $|M_1| > M_2$. However, if $|M_1| \gg M_2, \, |\mu|$, or if
1657: both produced neutralinos are higgsino--like, all CP--odd asymmetries become
1658: small. Recall that in the MSSM all these asymmetries essentially result from
1659: a single (potentially large) phase, associated with the U(1) gaugino mass (in
1660: the convention where the SU(2) gaugino mass is real and positive).
1661:
1662: We therefore conclude that, {\it at least} in the context of neutralino
1663: production in the MSSM, transverse beam polarization is not particularly
1664: useful in probing explicit CP violation. Once the relevant masses have been
1665: determined, the most sensitive probe of the relevant CP--odd phases remains
1666: the total cross section \cite{Choi:2004rf}, although it is a CP--even observable.
1667: If this measurement indicates that some phase
1668: differs from 0 or $\pi$, one needs to see explicit CP violation, in order
1669: to convince oneself that the variation of the cross section is indeed due to a phase,
1670: rather than due to some extension of the MSSM. However, as noted above, this
1671: can be most easily accomplished by using longitudinal, rather than transverse,
1672: beam polarization.
1673:
1674: The situation might be different in extensions of the MSSM, however. Whenever
1675: the quartic charges $Q_6$ and $Q_6^\prime$ defined in Sec.~2.2
1676: %that can be probed with transversely polarized $e^\pm$ beams
1677: contain (combinations of) phases that are independent of those
1678: %that can be probed with longitudinal beam polarization,
1679: in $Q_4$ and $Q_4^\prime$, the option of transverse beam
1680: polarization might be very useful for determining these phases.
1681: In the NMSSM, for example,
1682: the neutralino mass matrix contains additional CP--odd phases associated with
1683: the singlino sector, which can be large. A dedicated analysis along
1684: the lines presented in this paper would be required to decide whether
1685: transverse beam polarization could be helpful in disentangling this more
1686: complicated neutralino sector.
1687:
1688:
1689: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
1690:
1691: We thank Saurabh Rindani for discussions that triggered this investigation,
1692: and Peter Zerwas for discussions and suggestions. The work of JS was
1693: supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2005-070-C00030). The
1694: work of SYC was supported partially by the Korea Research Foundation Grant
1695: (KRF--2004--041--C00081) and by KOSEF through CHEP at Kyungpook National
1696: University. MD thanks the Center for Theoretical Physics at Seoul National
1697: University, as well as the particle theory group at the University of Hawaii
1698: at Manoa, for hospitality.
1699:
1700: %
1701: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1702:
1703: \bibitem{book} M. Drees, R.M. Godbole and P. Roy, {\it Theory and
1704: Phenomenology of Sparticles}, World Scientific (Singapore, 2004); D.J.H.
1705: Chung, L.L. Everett, G.L. Kane, S.F. King, J. Lykken and L.T. Wang, Phys.
1706: Rep. {\bf 407}, 1 (2005).
1707:
1708: \bibitem{edm} J.R. Ellis, S. Ferrara and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett.
1709: B {\bf 114}, 231 (1982); F. del Aguila, M.B. Gavela, J.A. Grifols and
1710: A. Mendez, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 126}, 71 (1983), Erratum-ibid. B {\bf 129},
1711: 473 (1983).
1712:
1713: \bibitem{edm1} T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 418}, 98 (1998);
1714: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 478 (1998); D {\bf 58}, 019901 (1998) (E);
1715: {\it ibid}, 111301 (1998); {\it ibid.} D {\bf 61}, 095008 (2000),
1716: hep--ph/9907555; M. Brhlik, G.J. Good and G.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59},
1717: 115004 (1999), hep--ph/9810457; M. Brhlik, L.L. Everett, G.L. Kane and
1718: J.D. Lykken, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 2124 (1999), hep--ph/9905215.
1719:
1720: \bibitem{Choi:2004rf} S.Y. Choi, M. Drees and B. Gaissmaier, Phys. Rev.
1721: D {\bf 70}, 014010 (2004), hep--ph/0403054.
1722:
1723: \bibitem{others} S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 178}, 57 (1986);
1724: Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 249} (1990) 449;
1725: V. Barger, T. Han, T. Li and T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 475},
1726: 342 (2000), hep--ph/9907425; V.D. Barger, T. Falk, T. Han, J. Jiang,
1727: T. Li and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 056007 (2001), hep--ph/0101106;
1728: J. Kalinowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 34}, 3441 (2003), hep--ph/0306272;
1729: A. Bartl, H. Fraas, O. Kittel and W. Majerotto, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69},
1730: 035007 (2004), hep--ph/0308141, and Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 36}, 233 (2004),
1731: hep--ph/0402016; A. Bartl, H. Fraas, S. Hesselbach, K. Hohenwarter--Sodek
1732: and G. Moortgat--Pick, JHEP {\bf 0408}, 038 (2004), hep--ph/0406190;
1733: S.Y. Choi, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 096003 (2004), hep--ph/0308060.
1734:
1735: \bibitem{CSS} S.Y. Choi, H.S. Song and W.Y. Song, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 075004
1736: (2000), hep--ph/9907474.
1737:
1738: \bibitem{cdgs} A. Bartl, T. Kernreiter and O. Kittel, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 578},
1739: 341 (2004), hep--ph/0309340; S.Y. Choi, M. Drees, B. Gaissmaier and J. Song,
1740: Phys. Rev. {\bf D69}, 035008 (2004), hep--ph/0310284.
1741:
1742: \bibitem{newbartl} A. Bartl, H. Fraas, S. Hesselbach, K. Hohenwarter-Sodek,
1743: T. Kernreiter and G. Moortgat-Pick, hep--ph/0510029.
1744:
1745: \bibitem{oldino} J.R. Ellis, J.M. Fr\`ere, J.S. Hagelin, G.L. Kane and
1746: S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 132}, 436 (1983); V. Barger, R.W. Robinett,
1747: W.Y. Keung and R.J.N. Phillips, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 131}, 372 (1983);
1748: A. Bartl, H. Fraas and W. Majerotto, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 278}, 1 (1986),
1749: and Z. Phys. C {\bf 30}, 441 (1986); G. Moortgat--Pick and H. Fraas,
1750: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 015016 (1999), hep--ph/9708481];
1751: G. Moortgat--Pick, H. Fraas, A. Bartl and W. Majerotto, Eur. Phys. J. C
1752: {\bf 9}, 521 (1999), Erratum-ibid. C {\bf 9}, 549 (1999), hep--ph/9903220;
1753: G. Moortgat-Pick, A. Bartl, H. Fraas and W. Majerotto,
1754: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 18}, 379 (2000), hep--ph/0007222.
1755:
1756: \bibitem{rec} T. Tsukamoto, K. Fujii, H. Murayama, M. Yamaguchi and Y. Okada,
1757: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 51}, 3153 (1995); J.L. Feng, M.E. Peskin, H. Murayama and
1758: X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 1418 (1995), hep--ph/9502260:
1759: H. Baer, R. Munroe and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 54}, 6735 (1996),
1760: Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 56}, 4424 (1997), hep--ph/9606325;
1761: J.L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 015005 (1999),
1762: hep--ph/9807336, and Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 095003 (2000), hep--ph/9907360;
1763: G.A. Blair, W. Porod and P.M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 017703 (2001),
1764: hep--ph/0007107.
1765:
1766: \bibitem{Choi:2001ww} S.Y. Choi, J. Kalinowski, G. Moortgat-Pick and P.M.
1767: Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 22}, 563 (2001); {\it ibid.} C {\bf 23}, 769
1768: (2002).
1769:
1770: \bibitem{inoloop} D. Pierce and A. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 565
1771: (1994), hep--ph/9312248, and Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 430}, 278 (1994),
1772: hep--ph/9403240; A.B. Lahanas, K. Tamvakis and N.D. Tracas, Phys. Lett.
1773: B {\bf 324}, 387 (1994), hep--ph/9312251; H. Eberl, M. Kincel, W. Majerotto
1774: and Y. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 115013 (2001), hep--ph/0104109;
1775: T. Fritzsche and W. Hollik, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 24}, 619 (2002),
1776: hep--ph/0203159; W. Oller, H. Eberl, W. Majerotto and C. Weber,
1777: Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 29}, 563 (2003), hep--ph/0304006;
1778: W. Oller, H. Eberl and W. Majerotto, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 590}, 273 (2004),
1779: hep--ph/0402134.
1780:
1781: \bibitem{Hagiwara:1985yu} K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf
1782: 274}, 1 (1986); G.A. Ladinsky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 2922 (1992).
1783:
1784: \bibitem{Choi:2003fs} J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2515
1785: (1988); S.Y. Choi and Y.G. Kim, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 015011 (2004).
1786:
1787: \bibitem{abdel} A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J.-L. Kneur, JHEP {\bf 0108}, 055
1788: (2001), hep--ph/0107316.
1789:
1790: \bibitem{optimal} D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 45}, 2405 (1992);
1791: M. Diehl and O. Nachtmann, Z. Phys. C {\bf 62}, 397 (1994); M. Davier,
1792: L. Duflot, F. Le Dieberder and A. Roug\'{e}, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 306}, 411
1793: (1993); J.F. Gunion, B. Grzadkowski and X.-G. He, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1794: {\bf 77}, 5172 (1996).
1795:
1796: \bibitem{bartl_char} A. Bartl, K. Hohenwarter--Sodek, T. Kernreiter and
1797: H. Rud, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 36}, 515 (2004), hep--ph/0403265.
1798:
1799: \end{thebibliography}
1800:
1801: \end{document}
1802: %
1803: