1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,epsfig,ulem,cite,tabularx}

4: 

5: 

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SUSY notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: 

8: \newcommand{\sll}{{\tilde{l}}}

9: \newcommand{\slR}{{\tilde{l}_{\rm R}}}

10: \newcommand{\slL}{{\tilde{l}_{\rm L}}}

11: \newcommand{\msl}[1]{m_{\tilde{l_{#1}}}}

12: \newcommand{\smu}{{\tilde{\mu}}}

13: \newcommand{\smuR}{{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm R}}}

14: \newcommand{\smuL}{{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm L}}}

15: \newcommand{\se}{{\tilde{e}}}

16: \newcommand{\seR}{{\tilde{e}_{\rm R}}}

17: \newcommand{\seL}{{\tilde{e}_{\rm L}}}

18: \newcommand{\st}{{\tilde{\tau}}}

19: \newcommand{\stR}{{\tilde{\tau}_1}}

20: \newcommand{\stL}{{\tilde{\tau}_2}}

21: \newcommand{\sn}{{\tilde{\nu}}}

22: \newcommand{\sne}{{\tilde{\nu}_e}}

23: \newcommand{\snl}{{\tilde{\nu}_l}}

24: \newcommand{\mse}[1]{m_{\tilde{e}_{#1}}}

25: \newcommand{\msn}[1]{m_{\tilde{\nu}_{#1}}}

26: \newcommand{\mseR}{m_{\tilde{e}_{\rm R}}}

27: \newcommand{\mseL}{m_{\tilde{e}_{\rm L}}}

28: \newcommand{\msmu}[1]{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{#1}}}

29: \newcommand{\msmuR}{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm R}}}

30: \newcommand{\mst}{m_{\tilde{t}_1}}

31: \newcommand{\MsQ}{\mathswitch M_{\tilde{\rm Q}}}

32: \newcommand{\cha}{\tilde{\chi}}

33: \newcommand{\neu}{\tilde{\chi}^0}

34: \newcommand{\mcha}[1]{m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm_{#1}}}

35: \newcommand{\mneu}[1]{m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{#1}}}

36: \newcommand{\sbt}{\mathswitch {s_\beta}}

37: \newcommand{\cbt}{\mathswitch {c_\beta}}

38: 

39: \newcommand{\sfR}{{\tilde{f}_{\rm R}}}

40: \newcommand{\sfL}{{\tilde{f}_{\rm L}}}

41: \newcommand{\sF}{{\tilde{f}}}

42: \newcommand{\msf}[1]{m_{\rm \tilde{f}_{#1}}}

43: %\newcommand{\ff}{\rm f}

44: 

45: \newcommand{\h}[1][1]{\frac{#1}{2}}

46: \newcommand{\hh}[1][1]{\tfrac{#1}{2}}

47: 

48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SM notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

49: 

50: \def\mathswitch#1{\relax\ifmmode#1\else$#1$\fi}

51: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}

52: \newcommand{\PW}{\mathswitchr W}

53: \newcommand{\PZ}{\mathswitchr Z}

54: \newcommand{\PH}{\mathswitchr H}

55: \newcommand{\Pe}{\mathswitchr e}

56: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathswitchr b}

57: \newcommand{\Pt}{\mathswitchr t}

58: \newcommand{\PA}{\mathswitchr A}

59: \newcommand{\MW}{\mathswitch {m_\PW}}

60: \newcommand{\MZ}{\mathswitch {m_\PZ}}

61: \newcommand{\MH}{\mathswitch {m_\PH}}

62: \newcommand{\MA}{\mathswitch {m_\PA}}

63: \newcommand{\me}{\mathswitch {m_\Pe}}

64: \newcommand{\mb}{\mathswitch {m_\Pb}}

65: \newcommand{\mt}{\mathswitch {m_\Pt}}

66: \newcommand{\mf}{m_f}

67: \newcommand{\scrs}{{}}

68: \newcommand{\sw}{\mathswitch {s_{\scrs\PW}}}

69: \newcommand{\cw}{\mathswitch {c_{\scrs\PW}}}

70: 

71: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% other notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

72: 

73: \newcommand{\tev}{\,\, \mathrm{TeV}}

74: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\, \mathrm{GeV}}

75: \newcommand{\mev}{\,\, \mathrm{MeV}}

76: \newcommand{\re}{\Re e \,}

77: \newcommand{\im}{\Im m \,}

78: \newcommand{\dd}{\partial}

79: 

80: \newcommand{\SLASH}[2]{\makebox[#2ex][l]{$#1$}/}

81: \newcommand{\Dslash}{\SLASH{D}{.5}\,}

82: \newcommand{\dslash}{\SLASH{\dd}{.15}}

83: \newcommand{\kslash}{\SLASH{k}{.15}}

84: \newcommand{\pslash}{\SLASH{p}{.2}}

85: \newcommand{\qslash}{\SLASH{q}{.08}}

86: \newcommand{\Eslash}{\SLASH{E}{.5}\,}

87: %\newcommand{\Eslash}{{\not{\!\!E}}}

88: \newcommand{\RR}{{\rm R}}

89: \newcommand{\LL}{{\rm L}}

90: \newcommand{\eR}{e_{\rm R}}

91: \newcommand{\eL}{e_{\rm L}}

92: \newcommand{\wL}{\mathswitch \omega_\LL}

93: \newcommand{\wR}{\mathswitch \omega_\RR}

94: \newcommand{\anc}{\rule{0mm}{0mm}}

95: \newcommand{\lesim}{\,\raisebox{-.1ex}{$_{\textstyle <}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

96: \newcommand{\gesim}{\,\raisebox{-.3ex}{$_{\textstyle >}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

97: \newcommand{\knickpfeil}{\;\raisebox{1.12ex}{$\lfloor$} \!\!\! \to}

98: \newcommand{\limit}[1]{\stackrel{#1}{-\!\!\!\longrightarrow}}

99: \newcommand{\drbar}{{\mathswitch {\overline{\rm DR}}} }

100: \newcommand{\OO}{{\mathcal O}}

101: \newcommand{\mwe}{M_{\rm ew}}

102: 

103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% layout style %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

104: 

105: \renewcommand{\figurename}{\bf Figure}

106: \renewcommand{\tablename}{\bf Table}

107: \newcommand{\mycaption}[1]{\caption{\sl #1}}

108: 

109: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: 

112: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm

113: \evensidemargin -0.1cm

114: \marginparwidth 55pt

115: \marginparsep 10pt

116: \topmargin 0.5cm

117: \headheight 0pt

118: \headsep 0pt

119: \footskip 30pt

120: \textheight 22cm

121: \textwidth 16.5cm

122: \columnsep 10pt

123: \columnseprule 0pt

124: 

125: 

126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

127: %                                                %

128: %    BEGINNING OF TEXT                           %

129: %                                                %

130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

131: 

132: \begin{document}

133: \thispagestyle{empty}

134: 

135: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

136: 

137: \begin{flushright}

138: FERMILAB--PUB--06--289--T

139: \\

140: ZH--TH 18/06

141: \end{flushright}

142: 

143: \vspace{1cm}

144: 

145: \begin{center}

146: 

147: {\Large\bf Collider searches and cosmology\\[1ex] in the MSSM with heavy

148: scalars}

149:        \\[3.5em]

150: %

151: %

152: {\large  

153: M.~Carena$^{1}$,

154: A.~Freitas$^{2}$}

155: 

156: \vspace*{1cm} 

157: 

158: {\sl

159: $^1$ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510-0500, USA

160: 

161: \vspace*{0.4cm}

162: 

163: $^2$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

164:         Universit\"at Z\"urich, \\ Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057

165:         Z\"urich, Switzerland

166: }

167: 

168: \end{center}

169: 

170: \vspace*{2.5cm}

171: 

172: 

173: \begin{abstract}

174: 

175: In a variety of supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, the scalar

176: partners of the quarks and leptons are predicted to be very heavy and beyond

177: the reach of next-generation colliders. For instance, the realization of

178: electroweak baryogenesis in supersymmetry requires new sources of CP-violation,

179: which can only be naturally accommodated with electric dipole moment constraints

180: if the first and second generation scalar fermions are beyond the TeV scale.

181: Also in focus-point supersymmetry and split supersymmetry the scalar fermions

182: are very heavy. In this work, the phenomenology of scenarios with electroweak

183: baryogenesis and in the focus point region at the LHC and ILC is studied,

184: which becomes challenging due to the presence of heavy scalar fermions.

185: Implications for

186: the analysis of baryogenesis and dark matter are deduced. It is found that

187: precision measurements of superpartner properties allow an accurate

188: determination of the dark matter relic density in both scenarios, while

189: important but only incomplete information about the baryogenesis mechanism can

190: be obtained.

191: 

192: \end{abstract}

193: 

194: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

195: \setcounter{page}{0}

196: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

197: 

198: \newpage

199: 

200: 

201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

203: 

204: \section{Introduction}

205: 

206: Supersymmetry is one of the most compelling extensions of the Standard Model,

207: with the possibility to explain the stabilization of the electroweak symmetry

208: breaking scale, the existence of dark matter in the universe and 

209: the generation of the baryon-anti\-baryon-asym\-metry at the electroweak phase

210: transition (electroweak baryogenesis).

211: The existence of dark matter in the universe has been firmly established by

212: various experiments, and has been measured precisely by the Wilkinson Microwave

213: Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) \cite{wmap}, in agreement with the Sloan Digital Sky

214: Survey (SDSS) \cite{sdss}, $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 =

215: 0.1106^{+0.0056}_{-0.0075}$ at the 68\% C.L. Here $\Omega_{\rm CDM}$ is the

216: ratio of the dark matter energy density to the critical density $\rho_{\rm c} =

217: 3 H_0^2 / (8\pi G_{\rm N})$, where $H_0 = h \times 100$ km/s/Mpc is the Hubble

218: constant and $G_{\rm N}$ is Newton's constant. In the Minimal Supersymmetric

219: extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), the stable lightest neutralino is an

220: attractive candidate for dark matter.

221: 

222: The process of electroweak baryogenesis requires a sufficiently strongly first

223: order electroweak phase transition, $v(T_{\rm c})/T_{\rm c} \gesim 1$, where

224: $v(T_{\rm c})$ denotes the Higgs vacuum expectation value at the critical

225: temperature $T_{\rm c}$ \cite{phasetran}. Moreover, new sources of CP violation

226: in addition to the CKM matrix phase are necessary \cite{CPSM}. Loop effects of

227: light scalar top quarks (stops) can induce a strongly first order electroweak

228: phase transition, thus generating the out-of-equilibrium condition for

229: electroweak baryogenesis \cite{CQW,EWBG,Carena:1997ki,EWBG2}.  In addition, CP

230: violation in the chargino sector of the MSSM can explain the magnitude of the

231: baryon asymmetry.

232: 

233: The parameter space for successful electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM is

234: already highly constrained. The lightest stop mass needs to be in the range of

235: roughly 115 to 140 GeV, whereas the Higgs boson involved in the electroweak

236: phase transition must be lighter than

237: about 120 GeV \cite{CQW,EWBG,Carena:1997ki,EWBG2,stop}. Furthermore, a

238: CP-violating

239: phase in the chargino sector is highly constrained by bounds on electric dipole

240: moments \cite{edm1,edm2}.

241: 

242: Most MSSM scenarios predict a dark matter density larger than the measured

243: value. However, the requirement of a light stop from the baryogenesis mechanism

244: suggests that co-annihilation between the stop and the lightest neutralino can

245: bring down the relic density to the proper region. It has been shown that  the

246: co-annihilation is efficient for mass differences between the light stop and

247: the lightest neutralino, that are smaller than about 30 GeV

248: \cite{Balazs:2004bu}.

249: 

250: Light stops can be searched for at the Tevatron, with a reach up to stop

251: masses of about 170 GeV for 2--4 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity

252: \cite{Demina:1999ty}. However, if the stop-neutralino mass difference is less

253: than 30--50 GeV, the stop signal cannot be identified at the Tevatron, due to

254: the reliance on a trigger for missing transverse energy. At the next generation

255: of colliders, the situation looks more promising. The Large Hadron Collider

256: (LHC), depending on the region of parameter space, can see a signal from stops

257: in gluino cascades, while a future international $e^+e^-$ linear collider (ILC)

258: has excellent capabilities to discover and analyze light stops

259: \cite{stopsLHC, stopsLC,stopsnew,stop}.

260: 

261: In order to allow sufficiently large CP violating phases for baryogenesis in

262: the chargino sector, but evade current experimental electric dipole moment

263: bounds \cite{edmexp}, without invoking miraculous cancellations, the sfermions

264: of the first two generations need to be heavier than a few TeV, thus

265: effectively decoupling from collider experiments. This situation has grave

266: consequences for the investigation of supersymmetry at the LHC and ILC. While

267: the lightest Higgs boson, and possibly some of the heavier Higgs boson, are

268: within experimental reach as in other MSSM scenarios, only few supersymmetric

269: particles are likely to be kinematically accessible in this scenario:

270: neutralinos and charginos, the light stop and potentially the gluino and some

271: sbottom and stau

272: states. Thus it becomes much more difficult to identify and measure the

273: properties of these particles. A similar situation occurs in focus-point

274: \cite{focusp} and split supersymmetry scenarios \cite{splitsusy}, where all

275: sfermions are predicted to be very heavy.

276: 

277: In this work, it is investigated how a scenario with heavy sleptons and squarks

278: can be studied at the LHC and the ILC. The analysis is carried out in detail

279: for an electroweak baryogenesis scenario and for a focus-point scenario. Split

280: supersymmetry is not studied separately, but the conclusions are very similar

281: to the focus-point case. After reviewing the definition of the relevant

282: parameters as well as experimental and theoretical constraints in

283: section~\ref{sec:not}, the phenomenology of the baryogenesis scenario is

284: discussed in section~\ref{sec:bgen}, while section~\ref{sec:fp} is devoted to

285: the focus-point scenario. The results are based on a phenomenological analysis,

286: including backgrounds and systematic experimental limitations, but without a

287: realistic detector simulation and based on tree-level formulae only. For both

288: scenarios, the cosmological implications to be gained from collider results are

289: derived for elucidating the nature of baryogenesis and dark matter. For the

290: main part of the work, it is assumed that both electron and positron

291: beam polarization are available at the ILC. In section~\ref{sec:pol} it

292: is studied how the results change without positron polarization. Finally,

293: the conclusions are given in section~\ref{sec:concl}.

294: 

295: 

296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

297: 

298: \section{Baryogenesis and focus-point scenarios in the MSSM}

299: \label{sec:not}

300: 

301: \paragraph{Baryogenesis} in the MSSM requires an additional source of CP

302: violation beyond the Standard Model CKM matrix. Within the MSSM, the dominant

303: source are chargino and neutralino loops, with a contribution proportional to

304: ${\rm Im}\{\mu M_{1,2}\}$ \cite{Carena:1997gx,Carena:2002ss}. 

305: Here $\mu$ is the Higgs/higgsino parameter and $M_2$ and $M_1$ are the soft

306: SU(2) and U(1) gaugino parameters, respectively. To generate a

307: sufficiently large baryon asymmetry, the charginos are required to be

308: relatively light, $\mcha{1} \sim {\cal O}(\mbox{a few 100 GeV})$. In addition,

309: the CP-violating phase needs to be sizable, $\arg(\mu M_2) \gesim 0.1$

310: \cite{Carena:2002ss}.

311: 

312: A very large CP-violating phase, on the other hand, is restricted by

313: experimental bounds on the electric dipole moments of the electron, neutron and

314: $^{199}$Hg nucleus \cite{edmexp}. The leading contributions from one-loop

315: sfermion-gaugino

316: loops \cite{edm1,edm2} become small for large masses of the first two

317: generation sfermions of several TeV or for large cancellations between the

318: sfermion mass and mixing parameters. Here, to avoid the constraints from the

319: one-loop contributions, the sleptons and squarks of the first two generations

320: are assumed to have masses of about 10 TeV. Then the leading contributions from

321: supersymmetric particles to the electric dipole moments come from two-loop

322: diagrams. For moderate values of $\tan\beta < 10$, the ratio of the vacuum

323: expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, and the CP-violating phase,

324: it has been shown \cite{morr,caltech} that the two-loop effects are in

325: agreement with current experimental constraints.

326: 

327: Generically, at the LHC many supersymmetric

328: particles could be observed in the decay chain of squarks, whereas at ILC

329: selectron production would be one of the cleanest and most precise testing

330: grounds for supersymmetry. However, in the baryogenesis

331: motivated scenario, the large mass of the first and second generation

332: sfermions effectively

333: decouples them from observable processes. This has a large impact on the

334: prospects for future collider experiments, since the squark and slepton

335: production channels mentioned above are not available. Likewise, the dynamics of

336: baryogenesis and

337: dark matter annihilation are governed by the light particles in the MSSM

338: spectrum, which include, beside the stops, the charginos and neutralinos.

339: Therefore the following analysis focuses on the phenomenology of the chargino

340: and neutralino particles.

341: 

342: The spectrum of the two charginos and

343: four neutralinos is described by the parameters $\mu$, $M_1$, $M_2$ and

344: $\tan\beta$.

345: A CP-violating phase in $M_2$ can always be transferred into the $\mu$

346: parameter by means of a unitary transformation. In principle, there can also be

347: non-trivial phases in the gaugino parameters $M_1$ and $M_3$. While the effect

348: of a phase of $M_3$ on electroweak baryogenesis is small, a complex phase of

349: $M_1$ could have interesting consequences, but is not investigated further here.

350: Therefore in the following all gaugino

351: soft parameters are assumed real, while the generation of the baryon asymmetry

352: is connected with a phase in the $\mu$ parameter,

353: $

354: \mu = |\mu| \times e^{i \phi_\mu}.

355: $

356: 

357: For definiteness, the specific MSSM parameter point BGEN will be considered in the

358: following, as defined in the appendix. Since the allowed parameter space for

359: baryogenesis in the MSSM is already highly constrained by experimental bounds,

360: this particular scenario is typical for the general MSSM baryogenesis case.

361: 

362: In the MSSM Higgs sector, the tree-level masses of the CP-even neutral Higgs

363: bosons $h^0$ and $H^0$ and the charged scalar $H^\pm$ can be expressed through

364: the gauge boson masses, the mass of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson, $m_{\rm

365: A^0}$, and $\tan\beta$. The Born relations are however significantly modified

366: by radiative corrections, with dominant effects originating from top and stop

367: loops. The mass of the Higgs state related to electroweak symmetry breaking (in

368: most cases $h^0$) is very sensitive to the stop spectrum. In order to

369: be consistent with the bound $m_{\rm h^0} \gesim 114.4 \gev$ from direct

370: searches

371: at LEP \cite{lephbound} and with one light stop state, the heavier stop mass

372: has to be above about 1 TeV and the trilinear coupling $A_t$ has to be

373: sizable \cite{Carena:1997ki}.  Constraints from electroweak precision

374: data, in particular the $\rho$ parameter,

375: are satisfied when the light stop is mainly right-chiral. This is

376: naturally achieved for values of the stop supersymmetry breaking parameters

377: $m_{\rm\tilde{Q}_3}^2 \gesim 1 \tev^2$ and $m_{\rm\tilde{U}_3}^2 \lesim 0$,

378: respectively. The stop mixing parameter $X_t = \mu \cot \beta - A_t$ is bounded

379: from below by the Higgs boson mass constraint from LEP and from above by the

380: requirement of the strength of the first order electroweak phase transition,

381: leaving the allowed range $0.3 \lesim |X_t|/m_{\rm\tilde{Q}_3} \lesim 0.5$

382: \cite{Carena:1997ki}. The value of $\tan\beta$ is also constrained to the range

383: $5 \lesim \tan\beta \lesim 10$, with the upper bound stemming from present

384: electric dipole moment limits and the lower bound is again related to the LEP

385: Higgs mass limit. The latter can be weakened for large values of

386: $m_{\rm\tilde{Q}_3}$ of several TeV.

387: Also values of $m_{\rm A^0}$ larger than about 200 GeV are preferred in order to

388: be compatible with the electric dipole moment bounds.

389: 

390: The MSSM Higgs masses with CP violation have been calculated  including

391: complete one-loop and leading two-loop corrections, see {\it e.g.} 

392: Ref.~\cite{higgsmass}. In this work, however, the process of baryogenesis at

393: the electroweak phase transition is computed with the program of

394: Refs.~\cite{Carena:2002ss,morr}, which includes only one-loop corrections to

395: the zero temperature Higgs potential. Since the allowed mass range for the

396: Higgs boson  is constrained by the mechanism of electroweak baryogenesis, for

397: consistency the Higgs mass is determined by the minimization of the one-loop

398: effective potential. This implies that only one-loop corrections are included

399: in the calculation of the Higgs mass as well. Although when including two-loop

400: corrections, the values of the fundamental parameters will change for given

401: values of $m_{\rm h^0}$ and $v(T_{\rm c})/T_{\rm c}$, the correlation between

402: $m_{\rm h^0}$ and $v(T_{\rm c})/T_{\rm c}$ is expected not to be strongly

403: modified\footnote{An analysis including two-loop corrections to the effective

404: potential is in progress \cite{tleff}.}.

405: 

406: \paragraph{Focus point} supersymmetry \cite{focusp} was suggested to solve the

407: supersymmetric flavor and CP-problems by raising the masses of all scalars to

408: several TeV. It was observed that for certain parameter combinations, the Higgs

409: parameters have an infrared quasi-fixed point, thus making the weak scale soft

410: parameter $m_{H_{\rm u}}$ of one of the Higgs doublets highly insensitive to

411: the value of the other scalar masses. In this way, naturalness is preserved

412: even for very large sfermion masses.

413: 

414: Here, as a concrete example, the focus point scenario LCC2, as defined in the

415: appendix, will be analyzed in detail. The collider phenomenology of this

416: scenario has been studied previously in Ref.~\cite{FP}, and cosmological

417: implications were discussed in Ref.~\cite{peskin}. In this report, the

418: phenomenological discussion of the earlier works is extended, and the scenario

419: compared to the baryogenesis case.

420: 

421: 

422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

423: 

424: \section{Baryogenesis scenario}

425: \label{sec:bgen}

426: 

427: The LHC experiments will be able to probe a light Higgs boson with

428: Standard-Model-like couplings to the gauge bosons, as required by electroweak

429: baryogenesis.

430: The potential for discovery of light stops has been

431: studied in detail for the LHC \cite{stopsLHC} and ILC

432: \cite{stopsLC,stopsnew,stop}. If gluinos are not too heavy, the discovery of

433: light stops in gluino decays via the process $pp \to \tilde{g} \tilde{g} \to t

434: t\, \tilde{t}^* \tilde{t}^*$, $\bar{t} \bar{t}\, \tilde{t} \tilde{t}$ has been

435: shown to be effective for small stop-neutralino mass differences

436: \cite{stopsLHC}. Stops can be discovered with more than five standard

437: deviations through the decay of gluinos if the gluino mass is below 900 GeV,

438: the stop-neutralino mass difference about 40 GeV, and all other squarks

439: relatively heavy. It was also shown \cite{stopsLHC} that if the other squarks

440: are not much heavier than 1 TeV, even in the stop-neutralino co-annihilation

441: region with $\mst - \mneu{1} \lesim 30$ GeV, stop discovery is possible in the

442: decay of those squarks. However, further studies are needed to establish whether

443: the stop-neutralino

444: co-annihilation region can be explored at the LHC for first and second

445: generation squarks with masses of several TeV. In this parameter region, the

446: decay products of the stops are very soft and thus escape direct detection, so

447: that only the final state products of the two top quarks from gluino decay are

448: observable. Nevertheless, the signature of same-sign top quarks and large

449: missing energy is likely sufficient for the discovery of a new physics signal,

450: even if the stops are not directly identified. When discovered, the analysis of

451: the kinematical decay distributions of the stops at the LHC can be used to

452: extract information about the relationship between stop, gluino and lightest

453: neutralino masses \cite{stopsLHC}, but an independent determination of the stop

454: or neutralino mass seems difficult.

455: 

456: At the ILC, light stops can be discovered for stop-neutralino mass differences

457: down to about 5 GeV, independent of other MSSM parameters \cite{stop}. In

458: addition, precise measurements of the stop mass and mixing angle can be

459: performed, with a typical stop mass error of about 1\%, assuming 80\% beam

460: polarization for electrons and 50\% for positrons.

461: 

462: 

463: \subsection{Chargino and neutralino studies at the LHC}

464: \label{sec:lhc}

465: 

466: In this kind of scenarios, the analysis of neutralinos and charginos is very

467: difficult. Supersymmetric particles are mainly produced through decay cascades

468: of gluino and squarks, which can have large production cross-sections at the

469: LHC. If however all squarks except the light stop are rather heavy, only the

470: stop will be produced at sizeable rates and it will dominate the decays of the

471: gluinos as well. However, a stop in accordance with electroweak baryogenesis is

472: so light that it typically can only decay into the lightest neutralino, so that

473: no information about the other neutralinos and charginos can be gained from

474: stop processes. 

475: 

476: The only sfermion whose mass is not constrained by theoretical or experimental

477: bounds in the MSSM baryogenesis scenario, is the right-chiral sbottom quark. 

478: The left-chiral sbottom is connected through SU(2) symmetry to the left-chiral

479: stop, which needs to be very massive to satisfy the LEP Higgs bound

480: \cite{lephbound}. The right-chiral sbottom, on the other hand, directly decays

481: into a bino neutralino, with negligible branching ratios into other neutralinos

482: or charginos. Note that the light sbottom state is expected to be almost

483: completely right-chiral in this scenario, since large mixing between left- and

484: right-chiral sbottom states is suppressed when the light mass eigenstate is

485: supposed to be much lighter than the heavy state.

486: 

487: Finally, charginos and neutralinos can also be

488: produced directly through Drell-Yan-type processes. However, direct production processes of

489: neutralino pairs have too small rates compared to

490: the backgrounds at the LHC \cite{tadas}. On the other hand, the production of a

491: light chargino with a neutralino can have sizeable rates, but in a baryogenesis

492: scenario, the chargino will mainly decay into the light stop. In the sample

493: scenario BGEN (see appendix), the chargino branching fraction into stops and

494: bottom quarks is more than 99.9\%. As a result, the production of mixed

495: neutralino-chargino pairs will lead to at most one lepton plus jets in the

496: final state, instead of the typical tri-lepton signature for mSUGRA scenarios.

497: Unfortunately, the one lepton plus jets signature is totally swamped by

498: $W$-boson background.

499: 

500: Thus the only observable supersymmetric particles at the LHC are, depending on

501: the region of parameter space, the gluino, the light stop, potentially the light

502: sbottom, and the missing energy signature of the lightest neutralino.

503: 

504: 

505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

506: 

507: \subsection{Chargino and neutralino studies at the ILC}

508: \label{sec:ilc}

509: 

510: In the given scenario, stops, charginos and neutralinos can be studied

511: precisely at a future linear collider. The prospective measurements for the

512: stop are studied in detail in Ref.~\cite{stop}. Here the chargino and

513: neutralino phenomenology is investigated. The characteristic feature of the

514: baryogenesis scenario is that while the charginos and neutralinos can be light,

515: the first generation sleptons are heavy. A similar situation arises in focus

516: point supersymmetry and has been studied in previous works \cite{FP, FP2}. Here

517: the study of Ref.~\cite{FP2} is extended by including more observables,

518: simulations for signal and background processes and by considering a

519: CP-violating phase in the system.

520: 

521: In general, future collider experiments will not provide enough independent

522: measurements to extract all chargino and neutralino mass and mixing parameters

523: in a model-independent way. Therefore any attempt to fully reconstruct a

524: supersymmetric model from experimental data will rely on assuming some

525: structure for that model. In particular, in the MSSM, the chargino and

526: neutralino masses and couplings depend on five unknown parameters, 

527: namely $M_1$, $M_2$, $|\mu|$, $\phi_\mu$

528: and $\tan\beta$. In the MSSM, these parameters can be related to production

529: cross-sections and masses. Thus with a sufficient amount of measurements for

530: chargino and neutralino masses and cross-sections, all the underlying

531: parameters can be extracted.

532: 

533: For the sample scenario BGEN (see appendix), the chargino and neutralino masses at

534: tree-level amount to

535: \begin{equation}

536: \begin{aligned}

537: \mneu{1} &= 106.6 \gev, & \mneu{2} &= 170.8 \gev, & \mcha{1} &= 162.7 \gev, \\

538: \mneu{3} &= 231.2 \gev,	& \mneu{4} &= 297.7 \gev, & \mcha{2} &= 296.2 \gev. \\

539: \end{aligned}

540: \end{equation}

541: At the ILC with $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV, many neutralino and chargino states are

542: accessible, see Tab.~\ref{tab:ilcXsec}.

543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

544: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

545: \begin{table}[tp]

546: \begin{center}

547: \begin{tabular}{|r||rrr|}

548: \hline

549: $e^+e^- \to \neu_i \neu_j$ & $\neu_i = \neu_2$ & $\neu_3$ & $\neu_4$ \\

550: \hline \hline

551: $\neu_j = \neu_1$ & 0.7 & 25.1 & 0.07 \\

552: $\neu_2$ & 0.4 & 62.0 & 0.005 \\

553: $\neu_3$ && --- & --- \\

554: $\neu_4$ &&& --- \\

555: \hline \hline

556: $e^+e^- \to \cha^\pm_i \cha^\mp_j$ & $\cha^\pm_i = \cha^\pm_1$ & $\cha^\pm_2$ & \\

557: \hline \hline

558: $\cha^\mp_j = \cha^\mp_1$ & 665 & 28 & \\

559: $\cha^\mp_2$ & & --- & \\

560: \hline

561: \end{tabular}

562: \end{center}

563: \vspace{-1em}

564: \mycaption{Tree-level production cross-sections in fb at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV

565: with unpolarized beams

566: for the reference point BGEN.}

567: \label{tab:ilcXsec}

568: \end{table}

569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

570: As evident from the table, the most promising processes are $e^+e^- \to \cha^+_1

571: \cha^-_1$, $e^+e^- \to \neu_1 \neu_3$ and $e^+e^- \to \neu_2 \neu_3$. The

572: production of mixed charginos pairs, $e^+e^- \to \cha^\pm_1

573: \cha^\mp_2$, also has a sizeable cross-section, but is overwhelmed by background

574: from $e^+e^- \to \cha^+_1\cha^-_1$.

575: 

576: The relevant decay processes are summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab:decays}.

577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

578: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

579: \begin{table}[tb]

580: \begin{center}

581: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|r@{\:}lr|}

582: \hline

583: Sparticle & Mass $m$ [GeV] & Width $\Gamma$ [GeV]

584:           & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Decay modes} \\

585: \hline \hline

586: $\neu_1$ & $106.6$ & --- & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \\

587: $\neu_2$ & $170.8$  & $0.00002$ &

588:         $\neu_2$ & $\to Z^* \, \neu_1$ & 100\% \\

589: $\neu_3$ & $231.2$  & $0.11$ &

590:         $\neu_3$ & $\to Z \, \neu_1$ & 98\% \\

591:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \neu_1$ & 2\% \\

592: $\neu_4$ & $297.7$  & $0.86$ &

593:         $\neu_4$ & $\to Z \, \neu_1$ & 1\% \\

594:         &&&& $\to Z \, \neu_2$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

595:         &&&& $\to Z \, \neu_3$ & 1\% \\

596:         &&&& $\to W^\pm \, \cha^\mp_1$ & 94\% \\

597:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \neu_1$ & 4\% \\

598:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \neu_2$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

599: \hline

600: $\cha_1^\pm$ & $162.7$  & $0.24$ &

601:         $\cha^+_1$ & $\to \tilde{t} \, \bar{b}$ & 100\% \\

602: $\cha_2^\pm$ & $296.2$  & $4.2$ &

603:         $\cha^+_2$ & $\to \tilde{t} \, \bar{b}$ & 84\% \\

604:         &&&& $\to W^+ \, \neu_1$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

605:         &&&& $\to W^+ \, \neu_2$ & 10\% \\

606:         &&&& $\to Z \, \cha^+_1$ & 6\% \\

607:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \cha^+_1$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

608: \hline

609: \end{tabular}

610: \end{center}

611: \vspace{-1em}

612: \mycaption{Tree-level masses, widths and main branching ratios of the

613: neutralino and chargino states at Born level

614: for the reference point BGEN.}

615: \label{tab:decays}

616: \end{table}

617: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

618: While the two lightest neutralinos dominantly decay into (virtual) $Z$ bosons,

619: the lightest chargino will decay into the light stop and a bottom. For light

620: stops, the by far dominant decay mode is the loop induced process $\tilde{t} \to

621: c \, \neu_1$ \cite{Hikasa:1987db}.

622: 

623: \paragraph{Chargino \boldmath $\cha_1^+$}

624: \anc\\

625: Production of light charginos, $e^+e^- \to \cha_1^+ \cha_1^-$, has a large

626: cross-section of 665 fb at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV. It can be further increased by

627: using beam polarization, $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ =

628: $+50$\%/$-80$\%, where $+$ stands for right-handed, $-$ for

629: left-handed polarization, yielding $\sigma[e^+e^- \to \cha_1^+ \cha_1^-]

630: = 1760$ fb.

631: 

632: The dominant decay chain $e^+e^- \to \cha_1^+ \cha_1^- \to \tilde{t}

633: \tilde{t}^* \, b \bar{b} \to c \bar{c} \, b \bar{b} \, \neu_1 \, \neu_1$ leads

634: to two charm jets and two bottom jets plus missing energy in the final state.

635: The most important Standard Model backgrounds arise from production of vector

636: bosons in pairs (where the missing energy is generated by mismeasurements) and

637: triples (where neutrino decays can lead to missing energy), as well as

638: $t\bar{t}$ production. In addition, one needs to consider supersymmetric

639: background from neutralino production.

640: 

641: Signal and background events are simulated with the Monte-Carlo methods from

642: Ref.~\cite{slep}, including full tree-level matrix elements and Breit-Wigner

643: propagators for resonant intermediate particles. The processes are generated on

644: the parton level. Jet broadening through parton shower and detector effects are

645: parameterized by smearing functions with lepton and jet energy uncertainty taken

646: from \cite{tesladet}. Jets overlapping within a cone with $\Delta R =

647: \sqrt{(\phi_1-\phi_2)^2 + (\eta_1-\eta_2)^2} < 0.3$ are combined into one jet,

648: where $\phi_i$ and $\eta_i$ are the azimuthal angle and rapidity of jet $i$.

649: Similarly, a lepton lying within a jet is combined into the jet. Leptons and

650: jets outside the central region of the detector have a higher likelihood of

651: mistag and get inflicted by large two-photon background. Therefore leptons

652: within an angle of $|\cos \theta| < 0.95$ around the beam line and jets with

653: $|\cos \theta| < 0.90$ are discarded. After these numerical adjustments

654: the remaining isolated jets and leptons define the signature of the simulated

655: event.

656: 

657: Background from two-photon interactions was not simulated for this study, since

658: they typically lead to very soft hadronic events, and can be removed by a cut on

659: the total transverse momentum, $p_{\rm t}^{\rm tot} > 12$ GeV \cite{stop}.

660: 

661: The other backgrounds are reduced by the following simple kinematic cuts:

662: \begin{itemize}

663: \item Each event must contain four hadronic jets and no isolated

664: lepton and $p_{\rm t}^{\rm tot} > 12$ GeV (see above).

665: \item For each combination of two jets, the invariant mass is required to be

666: different from the $Z$ mass, $|m_{jj} - \MZ| > 10$ GeV. This strongly reduces

667: background from gauge bosons and neutralinos.

668: \item Since backgrounds from gauge bosons tend to increase in the forward and

669: backward detector regions, they can be further reduced by a cut on total

670: momentum angle, $|\cos \theta_{p_{\rm tot}}| = |p_{\rm long,tot}/p_{\rm tot}| <

671: 0.9$.

672: \item All Standard Model backgrounds are cut down by requiring large missing

673: energy, $\Eslash > 100$ GeV.

674: \item Since two bottom jets are expected in the signal, the signal-to-background

675: ratio is improved through b-tagging. Following \cite{higgspair}, it is assumed

676: that

677: the b tagging efficiency is 90\%, with a mistag probability of light flavors of

678: 10\%. B-tagging works on all backgrounds except $t\bar{t}$. For the other

679: backgrounds the four jets mainly originate from $W$ decays, so that two of the

680: jets could be charmed. Charm jets have a higher b-mistagging probability than

681: light flavors, but since the signal also always contains two charm jets, the

682: resulting tagging power between signal and gauge boson backgrounds is governed

683: by the  discrimination between bottom and light flavors.

684: \end{itemize}

685: With this selection procedure, the remaining background is very small, about

686: 3 fb, whereas

687: the total signal efficiency is 18\%. Including an overall systematic acceptance

688: of 90\%, the resulting signal efficiency is 16\%. With a total luminosity of 250

689: fb$^{-1}$ the statistical error for the

690: cross-section measurements is

691: \begin{equation}

692: \delta\sigma_{\rm RL}[\chi^+_1\cha^-_1] = 0.37\%, \qquad

693: \delta\sigma_{\rm LR}[\chi^+_1\cha^-_1] = 1.6\%,

694: \label{eq:chaxsec}

695: \end{equation}

696: where RL and LR stand for the polarization combinations $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ =

697: $+50$\%/$-80$\% and $-50$\%/$+80$\%, respectively.

698: 

699: The spectrum of the decay products can be used for a determination of the

700: chargino and neutralino mass. The spectrum of the invariant mass of the b and c

701: jet from the decay $\cha_1^+ \to \tilde{t} \bar{b} \to c \bar{b} \neu_1$ has a

702: characteristic upper edge at

703: \begin{equation}

704: m_{\rm \bar{b}c,max} = m_{\rm b\bar{c},max} = \mcha{1} - \mneu{1}.

705: \end{equation}

706: However, with a four jet final state the problem remains to identify the pairs

707: of two jets each that belong to the decay of one chargino. The bottom jets can

708: be identified as the jets with the highest b tagging likelihood. However this

709: still leaves a twofold ambiguity to combine a b jet with a c jet. Here the

710: following strategy is adopted: since a pair of jets originating from different

711: charginos tend to have a larger invariant mass than a pair originating from the

712: same chargino, always the pair with the lower invariant mass is selected for

713: the mass measurement.

714: 

715: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

716: \begin{figure}[tb]

717: \centering

718: \epsfig{file=mfit1.chajj.eps, width=12cm}

719: \mycaption{Distribution of the bottom-charm invariant mass $m_{\rm bc}$ from

720: chargino decay and a simple fit to the upper edge.}

721: \label{fig:chadist}

722: \end{figure}

723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

724: The resulting invariant mass distribution in shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chadist}. A

725: very crude fit of the upper threshold gives

726: \begin{equation}

727: m_{\rm bc,max} = (56.6^{+0.22}_{-0.06} \pm 0.24) \gev, \label{eq:chadist}

728: \end{equation}

729: compared to the model input value $\mcha{1} - \mneu{1} = 56.8$ GeV. Here the

730: first error is the statistical uncertainty of the fit, whereas the second error

731: indicates the systematic uncertainty stemming from the jet energy scale. Based

732: on studies at LEP for $W$ boson pair production \cite{wwopal}, the jet energy

733: scale error is assumed to be 0.4\%. 

734: 

735: Since this measurement would only yield the difference between chargino and

736: neutralino mass, an independent measurement is necessary for the determination

737: of absolute values of both masses. A very precise direct determination of the

738: chargino mass can be obtained from a threshold scan. By measuring the chargino

739: cross-section at a few center-of-mass energies near the pair production

740: threshold, the onset of the pair production excitation curve can be

741: reconstructed and used for a mass determination. By including two points below

742: the threshold, the background can be analyzed and extrapolated in a

743: model-independent way. The result of the analysis for five scan points with

744: 10 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity each, using the same methods and

745: selection cuts as above, is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:chathr}.

746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

747: \begin{figure}[tb]

748: \centering

749: \epsfig{file=thrscan1.jjl.eps, width=12cm}

750: \mycaption{Threshold scan for chargino pair production using five scan points

751: with 10 fb$^{-1}$ each.}

752: \label{fig:chathr}

753: \end{figure}

754: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

755: The result of a fit to the threshold excitation curve is

756: \begin{equation}

757: \mcha{1} = \tfrac{1}{2} \left[ \sqrt{s} \right]_{\rm thr} = 

758: 	(163.02 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.04) \gev, \label{eq:chathr}

759: \end{equation}

760: where the first error is statistical and the second is the systematic error from

761: the beam energy calibration. Combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:chadist} and

762: \eqref{eq:chathr}, the masses are obtained as follows,

763: \begin{equation}

764: \mcha{1} = (163.02 \pm 0.06) \gev, \qquad

765: \mneu{1} = (106.1 \pm 0.3). \label{eq:chamass}

766: \end{equation}

767: 

768: 

769: \paragraph{Neutralinos \boldmath $\neu_2$ and $\neu_3$}

770: \anc\\

771: Neutralino production can have sizeable cross-section for mixed pair production

772: of $\neu_1\neu_3$ and $\neu_2\neu_3$. The signal for $\neu_1\neu_3$ is

773: characterized by two leptons or two jets plus missing energy, which receives

774: very large backgrounds from $W^+W^-$ and $ZZ$ production. Even after reducing

775: the backgrounds with appropriate cuts, the remaining level is still problematic

776: for any precision measurement. Therefore, in the following only $\neu_2\neu_3$

777: is considered.

778: 

779: This process has a sizeable cross-section, $\sigma[e^+e^- \to \neu_2

780: \neu_3] = 62$ fb for unpolarized beams. Using right-handed polarization for the

781: $e^-$ and left-handed polarization for the

782: $e^+$ beam, $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ =

783: $-50$\%/$+80$\%, the signal is enhanced to 68.9 fb, while all Standard Model

784: backgrounds, which are dominated by left-chiral SU(2) interactions, 

785: are reduced for this beam polarization combination.

786: 

787: The $\neu_3$ almost always decays into a $Z$ boson and lightest neutralino

788: $\neu_1$, while the $\neu_2$, due to the small mass difference

789: $\mneu{2}-\mneu{1}$ decays through a virtual $Z$ into two quarks or two leptons.

790: In order to improve the statistical significance of the signal, the

791: hadronic decay modes of the $Z$ are considered, since the branching ratio of $Z$

792: to leptons is very small. Then the final state is characterized by four (light

793: quark) jets and missing energy.

794: Standard Model backgrounds arise from processes with two and three vector bosons

795: and from $t\bar{t}$ production. In addition, chargino production as discussed

796: above, constitutes another difficult background.

797: 

798: Signal and background are simulated and analyzed as detailed above.

799: The following cuts have been applied to select the signal out of the background:

800: \begin{itemize}

801: \item Similar to the chargino analysis, a four jets signature and the same cuts

802: on $\cos \theta_{p_{\rm tot}}$ and $\Eslash$ are used.

803: \item The invariant mass of two jets has to be equal to the $Z$ boson mass,

804: $|m_{j_aj_b} - \MZ| < 10$ GeV, whereas the invariant mass of the other two jets has

805: to be smaller than $\MZ$, $\MZ - m_{j_cj_d} > 10$ GeV. All combinatoric pairings

806: of the four jets are tried for this purpose, and if one combination meets these

807: requirement, the event is kept.

808: \item The Background from charginos generates rather soft jets due to the small

809: stop mass. Thus a cut on the transverse momentum, $p_{\rm t}^{\rm tot} > 50$ GeV

810: is

811: effective against this background.

812: \item Finally the chargino background is further reduced by a b-quark veto.

813: As a consequence, here the signal is restricted to light quark decay channels of

814: the $Z$ bosons only.

815: \end{itemize}

816: After this selection procedure, the remaining background is around 0.2 fb, but

817: a good signal efficiency of 26\% is achieved. 

818: Including a general systematic acceptance

819: of 90\%, the resulting signal efficiency is 24\%. 

820: With a total luminosity of 250

821: fb$^{-1}$ for the polarization combination $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ = $-50$\%/$+80$\%,

822: the statistical error for the cross-section measurement is

823: \begin{equation}

824: \delta\sigma_{\rm RL}[\neu_2\neu_3] = 1.6\%.

825: \label{eq:neuxsec}

826: \end{equation}

827: For the opposite polarization combination $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ = $-50$\%/$+80$\%,

828: the precision of the neutralino cross-section measurement is much worse due to

829: larger backgrounds, and does not improve the global MSSM analysis.

830: 

831: Information about the neutralino masses can be extracted from the decay product

832: distributions. In the $\neu_3 \to Z \neu_1$ decay, the energy spectrum of the

833: $Z$ is rather flat, with distinct lower and upper endpoints at

834: \begin{equation}

835: \begin{aligned}

836: E_{\rm min,max,3} &= \frac{1}{4\mneu{3}^2\sqrt{s}} 

837: \Bigl ( \mneu{3}^4 - \mneu{3}^2\mneu{2}^2 + \mneu{3}^2\MZ^2 -

838:  \mneu{2}^2\MZ^2 + \mneu{3}^2 s + \MZ^2 s \\ & \qquad\qquad\qquad - 

839:  \mneu{1}^2 (\mneu{3}^2 -

840:  \mneu{2}^2 + s) \mp \sqrt{\lambda(\mneu{3}^2, \mneu{1}^2, \MZ^2) \,

841:    \lambda(\mneu{3}^2, \mneu{2}^2, s)}\Bigr ),

842: \end{aligned}

843: \end{equation}

844: with $\lambda(a,b,c) = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - 2 a b - 2 a c - 2 b c$. The energy of

845: the $Z$ boson can be deduced from the energy of the jet pair that combines to

846: the $Z$ invariant mass.

847: 

848: For the $\neu_2$ decay, the kinematics are different since only a virtual $Z$

849: is involved in the process. Still the energy spectrum of the two final state

850: jets has a distinct upper endpoint given by

851: \begin{equation}

852: E_{\rm jj,max,2} = \frac{\mneu{2}^2 - \mneu{3}^2 - 2 \mneu{1}^2 \sqrt{s} +

853: s}{2\sqrt{s}}.

854: \end{equation}

855: In addition, the invariant mass of the same two jets is bounded from above by

856: the mass difference of the $\neu_2$ and $\neu_1$,

857: \begin{equation}

858: m_{\rm jj,max,2} = \mneu{2} - \mneu{1}.

859: \end{equation}

860: The simulated distributions after cuts and fits to the endpoints are summarized

861: in Fig.~\ref{fig:neudist}.

862: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

863: \begin{figure}[tb]

864: \begin{tabular}{p{8cm}p{8cm}} 

865: (a) \newline

866: \epsfig{file=Efita1.neujj2.eps, width=8cm} &

867: (b) \newline

868: \epsfig{file=Efitb1.neujj2.eps, width=8cm} \\ 

869: (c) \newline

870: \epsfig{file=mfit1.neujj2.eps, width=8cm} &

871: \anc\newline 

872: \anc\newline

873: \anc\newline

874: \mycaption{(a) Energy distribution for jet pair in $\neu_3 \to Z \neu_1$ decay,

875: (b) energy distribution for jet pair in $\neu_2 \to Z^* \neu_1$ decay,

876: and (c) invariant mass of the latter, including simple fitting

877: curves.\label{fig:neudist}} 

878: \end{tabular}

879: \end{figure}

880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

881: From a combination of the different fits, and including the jet energy scale error

882: as for the charginos, one obtains

883: \begin{equation}

884: \delta \mneu{1} = 1.3 \gev, \quad \delta \mneu{2} = 1.5 \gev, \quad

885: \delta \mneu{3} \approx 3.3 \gev.

886: \end{equation}

887: By feeding in the more precise determination of the lightest neutralino mass in

888: eq.~\eqref{eq:chamass}, these numbers are improved to

889: \begin{equation}

890: \delta \mneu{2} = 0.6\gev, \quad

891: \delta \mneu{3} \approx 2.0 \gev.

892: \label{eq:neumass}

893: \end{equation}

894: 

895: The mass measurements are not sufficient to extract the fundamental

896: supersymmetry parameters without ambiguity. Therefore the

897: additional information from measurements of the chargino and

898: neutralino cross-sections are important. The MSSM model parameters can be

899: extracted from a combined fit to all observables.

900: 

901: As a result of very heavy selectrons and sneutrinos, the t-channel contribution

902: to the production processes are essentially switched off. However, the

903: non-observation of these particles at colliders puts only a relatively mild

904: lower bound on their masses of about 500 GeV.

905: Here the values of the sleptons masses are kept

906: arbritrary, and instead indirect bounds on the masses are derived from the

907: fit (see also Ref.~\cite{FP2}).

908: 

909: The chargino and neutralino cross-section and mass measurements are combined in

910: a $\chi^2$ fit, thus taking into account all correlations in the underlying

911: parameters that enter in the observables. The fit results with

912: one standard deviation errors are

913: \begin{equation}

914: \begin{aligned}

915: M_1 &= (118.8 \pm 0.4) \gev, & \qquad \tan\beta &= 5^{+0.5}_{-0.7}, \\

916: M_2 &= (225.0 \pm 0.9) \gev,  \\

917: |\mu| &= (225.0 \pm 1.2) \gev, & \msn{{\rm e}} &> 5 \tev, \\

918:  |\phi_\mu| &< 0.6, & \mseR &> 1.5 \tev.

919: \label{eq:inobgen}

920: \end{aligned}

921: \end{equation}

922: The resulting constraint on the phase $\phi_\mu$ is rather poor, since none of

923: the included observables is directly CP-sensitive, and $\phi_\mu$ is strongly

924: correlated with other parameters, in particular $\tan\beta$.

925: 

926: \paragraph{CP violation}

927: \anc\\

928: The effect of CP violation can be uniquely studied in observables that are

929: directly CP-sensitive. In the chargino and neutralino sector, triple products of

930: kinematic momenta have been identified as useful for that purpose

931: \cite{triple,trip2,trip3}.

932: 

933: In this work, hadronic decays of neutralinos and charginos are investigated,

934: \begin{equation}

935: \begin{aligned}

936: e^+e^- \to \cha^s_i &\cha^{-s}_j && \qquad s = 0,\pm. \\

937: &\knickpfeil j_{\rm a} j_{\rm b} \neu_1

938: \end{aligned}

939: \end{equation}

940: From the momenta $p_{\rm a,b}$ of the two jets one can construct the T-odd

941: triple product 

942: \begin{equation}

943: {\cal T} = \vec{p}_{\rm e^-} (\vec{p}_{\rm a} \times \vec{p}_{\rm b}).

944: \end{equation}

945: and the T-odd asymmetry

946: \begin{equation}

947: {\cal A} = \frac{\sigma[{\cal T} > 0] - \sigma[{\cal T} < 0]}

948: 		{\sigma[{\cal T} > 0] + \sigma[{\cal T} < 0]}.

949: \end{equation}

950: The experimental investigation of this triple product requires the

951: identification of the charge of the jets. While this is not possible for

952: light-quark jets on a event-by-event basis, it can be achieved for larger

953: samples of jet events on a statistical basis, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{l3jettag}.

954: 

955: Using the same Monte-Carlo techniques as explained above, the asymmetry is

956: calculated both for chargino and neutralino production. In the given scenario,

957: it is found that ${\cal A}[\cha^+_1\cha^-_1] = 0.3$\% and 

958: ${\cal A}[\neu_2\neu_3] = 0.9$\%. Thus in both cases the expected magnitude is

959: of the same order as the statistical error of the cross-section measurements,

960: see eqs.~\eqref{eq:chaxsec}, \eqref{eq:neuxsec}.

961: 

962: For larger values of $\phi_\mu$, larger triple product asymmetries can be

963: obtained, however such models are already highly constrained by electric dipole

964: moment limits. Therefore a measurement of the CP-violating phase in the $\mu$

965: parameter appears to be hopeless at the ILC. These findings are in agreement

966: with previous theoretical studies \cite{trip2}.

967: 

968: 

969: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

970: 

971: \subsection{Cosmological implications}

972: \label{sec:dm}

973: 

974: The discovery of light scalar top quarks, in conjunction with a

975: Standard-Model-like Higgs boson with a mass near 120 GeV,  would be 

976: a strong indication that electroweak baryogenesis is

977: the mechanism for the generation of the baryon asymmetry.

978: At the same time, supersymmetry could also 

979: explain the existence of dark matter in the universe, based

980: on the co-annihilation mechanism. In order to confirm this exciting picture,

981: the relevant supersymmetry parameters have to be measured accurately.

982: 

983: One needs to (i) determine that the light stop is mainly right-chiral to

984: contribute appropriately to the electroweak phase transition while being in

985: agreement with electroweak precision measurements, (ii) check that the masses

986: and compositions of the gauge/Higgs superfield sector are compatible with the

987: values required for the generation of the  baryon asymmetry, and (iii) compute

988: the dark matter annihilation cross-sections and the relic abundance so as to

989: compare with cosmological observations. If stop-neutralino co-annihilation is

990: relevant it is important to determine the stop-neutralino mass difference very

991: precisely. 

992: 

993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

994: 

995: \paragraph{Baryogenesis}

996: \anc\\

997: In the given scenario, the first information about the necessary constituents

998: for baryogenesis in the MSSM can be obtained at the LHC, namely the discovery

999: of a light Higgs boson and  possibly evidence for a light stop. At the

1000: ILC, the picture can be rendered much more precisely by determining the mass and

1001: mixing angle of the light stop accurately. 

1002: 

1003: Using the

1004: computations of Refs.~\cite{CQW,Carena:2002ss} for the electroweak phase

1005: transition, it is found that the experimental uncertainty of the stop

1006: parameters allows to determine the strength of the phase transition to better

1007: than 10\%,

1008: \begin{equation}

1009: \delta_{\rm exp}\left[\frac{v(T_{\rm c})}{T_{\rm c}}\right] \lesim 10\%.

1010: \end{equation}

1011: Note however that this is only a parametric error, and there are also

1012: theoretical uncertainties involved in the computation.

1013: 

1014: Besides the strength of the electroweak phase transition, the second crucial

1015: ingredient for electroweak baryogenesis is the generation of the baryon

1016: asymmetry through CP-violating processes. As explained in section~\ref{sec:not},

1017: in the MSSM these CP-violating contributions can be described by a complex

1018: phase of the parameter $\mu$. However, the findings of the previous sections

1019: show that for typical values of $\phi_\mu$, the CP-violating effects in

1020: neutralino and chargino observables at the ILC are

1021: too small to be observed. It would only be possible to derive an upper bound of

1022: $|\phi_\mu| \lesim 0.7$ at the 90\% confidence level, which would

1023: leave  the question of the baryon asymmetry still undecided.

1024: 

1025: 

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1027: 

1028: \paragraph{Dark matter} \anc\\ As discussed widely in the literature (see

1029: e.g.~\cite{stop,nojiri,peskin}),  collider experiment data can be used to

1030: compute the  expected cosmological dark matter relic density. In the scenario

1031: studied here, the relic density is governed by the neutralino-stop

1032: co-annihilation mechanism, and thus crucially depends on the stop-neutralino

1033: mass difference. It was found \cite{stopmass} that this mass difference cannot

1034: be extracted with good precision directly from stop decay distributions,

1035: because of radiation effects and limited statistics, but the best determination

1036: is derived from independent mass measurements of the stop and neutralino. While

1037: the stop mass and mixings can be extracted from precision measurements of the

1038: stop cross-section \cite{stop}, the neutralino properties have to be determined

1039: from independent observables as discussed in this report.

1040: 

1041: The relic dark matter density is computed with the codes described in

1042: Ref.~\cite{Balazs:2004bu,morr}. The analysis is based on observables in the stop

1043: and neutralino/chargino sectors. For the neutralinos and charginos, 

1044: the estimated errors taken from the previous chapter, see

1045: eqs.~\eqref{eq:chaxsec}, \eqref{eq:chamass}, \eqref{eq:neuxsec},

1046: \eqref{eq:neumass}. The stop measurement errors are derived from the study of

1047: Ref.~\cite{stop} with the result: $\delta \mst = 1.2$ GeV and

1048: $|\cos\theta_{\tilde{t}}| < 0.077$.

1049: 

1050: In total, the relevant parameters used as input are $\mst$, $\cos

1051: \theta_{\tilde{t}}$,  $M_1$, $M_2$, $|\mu|$, $\phi_\mu$, $\tan\beta$. It has

1052: been checked that the dependence on Higgs and slepton parameters is negligible

1053: for this scenario. The mass of the heavier stop $\tilde{t}_2$ is too large to

1054: be measured directly, but it is supposed that a limit of $m_{\tilde{t}_2} >

1055: 1000$ GeV can be set from LHC searches.

1056: 

1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1058: \begin{figure}[tb]

1059: \centering

1060: \epsfig{file=dm_mstop.slh.eps, width=13cm}

1061: \mycaption{Computation of dark matter relic abundance $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$ for the

1062: scenario BGEN,

1063: taking into account estimated experimental errors for stop, chargino, neutralino

1064: and Higgs sector measurements at future colliders. The dots correspond to

1065: a scan over the 1$\sigma$ ($\Delta \chi^2 \leq 1$) region allowed by the 

1066: experimental errors, as a

1067: function of the measured stop mass, for a mass measurement error of 1.2 GeV

1068: (gray dots) and 0.3 GeV (black dots). The original scenario used as input is

1069: indicated by the red (light gray) star. The horizontal shaded bands show the

1070: 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ constraints on the relic

1071: density measured by WMAP and SDSS.}

1072: \label{fig:dm}

1073: \end{figure}

1074: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1075: The expected experimental errors are propagated and parametric correlations are

1076: taken into account by means of a $\chi^2$ scan. However, theoretical errors due

1077: to missing  radiative corrections are not taken into account in the calculation

1078: of the dark matter density. Fig.~\ref{fig:dm} shows the result of a scan over

1079: the MSSM parameter space for the scenario BGEN.  The scattered gray dots

1080: indicate the region allowed by the collider experimental uncertainty, as a

1081: function of the measured stop mass. The range of the horizontal axis is

1082: constrained by the error in the stop mass measurement, $m_{\tilde{t}_1} =

1083: (122.5 \pm 1.2) \gev$. The horizontal bands depict the relic density as

1084: measured by WMAP and SDSS \cite{wmap,sdss} 

1085: with one and two standard deviation errors. At

1086: 1$\sigma$ level, the astrophysical observations lead to $0.103 < \Omega_{\rm

1087: CDM} h^2 < 0.116$.

1088: 

1089: In total, using the collider measurement simulations, the relic density can be

1090: predicted to $0.082 < \Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 < 0.139$ at the 1$\sigma$ level.

1091: Thus the overall precision is of the same magnitude as, but worse by roughly a

1092: factor 4 than the direct WMAP/SDSS determination. The uncertainty in the

1093: theoretical

1094: determination is dominated by the measurement of the $\tilde{t}_1$ mass with an

1095: error of 1.2 GeV. This shows that even in a scenario with heavy sfermions,

1096: which is unfavorable for future collider experiments, the achievable precision

1097: in the analysis of the chargino and neutralino sector is very high and not a

1098: limiting factor for cosmological interpretations.

1099: 

1100: First results of an optimized threshold scan method indicate that the

1101: precision for  $\mst$ can be improved to about 0.3 GeV~\cite{mschmitt}. The

1102: advantage of the threshold scan method is the small influence of systematic

1103: errors, since it makes use of the shape of the cross-section as a function of

1104: the center-of-mass energy, instead of absolute cross-section measurements.

1105: However it is limited by small statistics near the threshold. The best accuracy

1106: can be achieved by combining a measurement near the threshold, where the

1107: cross-section is most sensitive to the stop mass, with a measurement at higher

1108: energies, where the cross-section is larger~\cite{mschmitt}.

1109: With a stop mass error of $\delta \mst = 0.3 \gev$, the relic density could be

1110: computed much more precisely, yielding the result $0.099 < \Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2

1111: < 0.122$ in the scenario BGEN. This precision is very

1112: comparable to the direct WMAP/SDSS determination, as indicated by the black dots in

1113: Fig.~\ref{fig:dm}.

1114: 

1115: 

1116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1117: 

1118: \section{Focus-point scenario}

1119: \label{sec:fp}

1120: 

1121: \subsection{Chargino and neutralino studies at the LHC}

1122: 

1123: In a focus-point scenario, all sfermions are very heavy, but gluinos

1124: $\tilde{g}$ can be sufficiently light to be generated with large cross-sections.

1125: The gluino decays can proceed via some neutralinos and charginos, giving a

1126: clear and distinct leptonic discovery signature \cite{tadas}. For example, a

1127: signature with same-sign leptons and missing transverse energy can be

1128: interpreted as a decay cascade of the gluinos via charginos \cite{qcdyuk}.

1129: Besides, the decay $\neu_2 \to Z^* \neu_1 \to l^+l^- \neu_1$ allows to

1130: determine the mass difference $m_{21} = \mneu{2}-\mneu{1}$ from the $l^+l^-$

1131: invariant mass distribution with a precision of about  $\delta m_{21} \sim (0.5

1132: \gev) \times  \exp(-m_{\tilde{g}}/(200 \gev)+3.5)$, where the  exponential

1133: factor with $m_{\tilde{g}}$ approximately accounts for the decrease of the

1134: gluino cross-section with larger gluino masses. 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: \subsection{Chargino and neutralino studies at the ILC}

1138: 

1139: In the scenario LCC2, among the superpartners, only charginos and neutralinos

1140: can be studied at a future linear collider, whereas all sfermions are too

1141: massive to be accessible either at the LHC or ILC. This situation arises always

1142: in focus point supersymmetry and has been studied in previous works \cite{FP,

1143: FP2}. Here the study of Ref.~\cite{FP2} is extended by including different

1144: observables and simulations for signal and background processes.

1145: 

1146: As in the previous section, the general procedure for reconstructing the

1147: underlying MSSM parameters  relies on the assumption of the MSSM structure for

1148: the chargino and neutralino mass  matrices. %eqs.~(\ref{eq:Mcha},\ref{eq:Mneu}).

1149: The parameters $M_1$, $M_2$, $|\mu|$, $\phi_\mu$ and $\tan\beta$ are extracted

1150: from a fit to mass and cross-section measurements.

1151: 

1152: For the scenario LCC2 (see appendix), the chargino and neutralino masses at

1153: tree-level amount to

1154: \begin{equation}

1155: \begin{aligned}

1156: \mneu{1} &= 107.7 \gev, & \mneu{2} &= 166.3 \gev, & \mcha{1} &= 159.4 \gev, \\

1157: \mneu{3} &= 190.0 \gev,	& \mneu{4} &= 294.4 \gev, & \mcha{2} &= 286.8 \gev. \\

1158: \end{aligned}

1159: \end{equation}

1160: As pointed out above, the LHC has a good possibility to find

1161: evidence for and measure some properties of neutralinos and charginos. At the

1162: ILC with $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV, many neutralino and chargino states are

1163: accessible, see Tab.~\ref{tab:ilcXsec2}.

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1165: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

1166: \begin{table}[tp]

1167: \begin{center}

1168: \begin{tabular}{|r||rrr|}

1169: \hline

1170: $e^+e^- \to \neu_i \neu_j$ & $\neu_i = \neu_2$ & $\neu_3$ & $\neu_4$ \\

1171: \hline \hline

1172: $\neu_j = \neu_1$ & 8.0 & 46.3 & 0.01 \\

1173: $\neu_2$ & 8.7 & 107.2 & 0.07 \\

1174: $\neu_3$ && 6.2 & 22.7 \\

1175: $\neu_4$ &&& --- \\

1176: \hline \hline

1177: $e^+e^- \to \cha^\pm_i \cha^\mp_j$ & $\cha^\pm_i = \cha^\pm_1$ & $\cha^\pm_2$ & \\

1178: \hline \hline

1179: $\cha^\mp_j = \cha^\mp_1$ & 534 & 23 & \\

1180: $\cha^\mp_2$ & & --- & \\

1181: \hline

1182: \end{tabular}

1183: \end{center}

1184: \vspace{-1em}

1185: \mycaption{Tree-level production cross-sections in fb at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV

1186: with unpolarized beams

1187: for the reference point LCC2.}

1188: \label{tab:ilcXsec2}

1189: \end{table}

1190: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1191: The most promising processes are $e^+e^- \to \cha^+_1 \cha^-_1$, $e^+e^- \to

1192: \neu_1 \neu_3$ and $e^+e^- \to \neu_2 \neu_3$, similar to the baryogenesis

1193: scenario.

1194: 

1195: Tab.~\ref{tab:decays2} gives the relevant decay modes and branching fractions.

1196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1197: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

1198: \begin{table}[tb]

1199: \begin{center}

1200: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|r@{\:}lr|}

1201: \hline

1202: Sparticle & Mass $m$ [GeV] & Width $\Gamma$ [GeV]

1203:           & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Decay modes} \\

1204: \hline \hline

1205: $\neu_1$ & $107.7$ & --- & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \\

1206: $\neu_2$ & $166.3$  & $0.000016$ &

1207:         $\neu_2$ & $\to Z^* \, \neu_1$ & 100\% \\

1208: $\neu_3$ & $190.0$  & $0.0013$ &

1209:         $\neu_3$ & $\to Z^* \, \neu_1$ & 100\% \\

1210:         &&&& $\to h^{0*} \, \neu_1$ & $< 1$\% \\

1211: $\neu_4$ & $294.4$  & $0.81$ &

1212:         $\neu_4$ & $\to Z \, \neu_1$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

1213:         &&&& $\to Z \, \neu_2$ & 1\% \\

1214:         &&&& $\to Z \, \neu_3$ & 1\% \\

1215:         &&&& $\to W^\pm \, \cha^\mp_1$ & 94\% \\

1216:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \neu_1$ & $\ll 1$\% \\

1217:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \neu_2$ & 3\% \\

1218: \hline

1219: $\cha_1^\pm$ & $159.4$  & $0.0002$ &

1220:         $\cha^+_1$ & $\to W^{+*} \, \neu_1$ & 100\% \\

1221: $\cha_2^\pm$ & $286.8$  & $0.73$ &

1222:         $\cha^+_2$ & $\to W^+ \, \neu_1$ & 3\% \\

1223:         &&&& $\to W^+ \, \neu_2$ & 42\% \\

1224:         &&&& $\to W^+ \, \neu_3$ & 11\% \\

1225:         &&&& $\to Z \, \cha^+_1$ & 36\% \\

1226:         &&&& $\to h^0 \, \cha^+_1$ & 8\% \\

1227: \hline

1228: \end{tabular}

1229: \end{center}

1230: \vspace{-1em}

1231: \mycaption{Tree-level masses, widths and main branching ratios of the

1232: neutralino and chargino states at Born level

1233: for the reference point LCC2.}

1234: \label{tab:decays2}

1235: \end{table}

1236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1237: In this scenario, the mass differences between the lighter neutralino and

1238: chargino states  are rather small, thus allowing only decays of the light

1239: states through virtual gauge  bosons.

1240: 

1241: \paragraph{Chargino \boldmath $\cha_1^+$}

1242: \anc\\

1243: Production of light charginos, $e^+e^- \to \cha_1^+ \cha_1^-$, has a large

1244: cross-section of 534 fb at $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV, which can be further increased

1245: to 1345 fb by using beam polarization, $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ = $+50$\%/$-80$\%.

1246: 

1247: In the focus-point scenario, charginos almost always decay through virtual $W$

1248: bosons, $e^+e^- \to \cha_1^+ \cha_1^- \to W^{+*} W^{-*} \, \neu_1 \, \neu_1 \to

1249: l^\pm \nu_l \, q \bar{q}' \, \neu_1 \, \neu_1$ where it is useful to consider a

1250: final state where one $W^*$ decays hadronically into quarks, while the other

1251: decays into a lepton $l = e,\mu$ and a neutrino. This final state allows a

1252: precise kinematical measurement, since the two intermediate virtual $W$ bosons

1253: can be disentangled, as opposed to the purely hadronic final state. As before,

1254: Standard Model background from vector bosons and $t\bar{t}$, as well as

1255: supersymmetric background from neutralino production is taken into account.

1256: 

1257: Signal and background events are simulated with the same Monte-Carlo methods as

1258: elaborated above. The following selection cuts are applied to reduce the

1259: backgrounds:

1260: \begin{itemize}

1261: 

1262: \item Each event must contain two hadronic jets, one isolated

1263: lepton and $p_{\rm t}^{\rm tot} > 12$ GeV.

1264: 

1265: \item The invariant mass of the two jets is required to be smaller than the $W$

1266: mass, $\MW - m_{jj} < 10$ GeV, to reduce Standard Model background.

1267: 

1268: \item All Standard Model backgrounds are cut down by requiring large missing

1269: energy, $\Eslash > 100$ GeV, and the direction of the missing momentum to be in

1270: the visible detector region, $|\cos \theta_{p_{\rm miss}}| < 0.8$.

1271: 

1272: \item Since a large background comes from $W^+W^-$ production, the invariant

1273: mass of the lepton and the missing momentum, $m_{lp_{\rm miss}}$ tends to

1274: increase near the $W$ mass. Thus by requiring $m_{lp_{\rm miss}} > 150$ GeV,

1275: that background is reduced.

1276: 

1277: \end{itemize}

1278: After these cuts, the remaining background is very small, but 39\% of the

1279: signal is retained. With an overall systematic acceptance of 90\% and a total

1280: luminosity of 250 fb$^{-1}$ the statistical error for the cross-section

1281: measurements is

1282: \begin{equation}

1283: \delta\sigma_{\rm RL}[\chi^+_1\cha^-_1] = 0.6\%, \qquad

1284: \delta\sigma_{\rm LR}[\chi^+_1\cha^-_1] = 1.7\%,

1285: \label{eq:chaxsec2}

1286: \end{equation}

1287: where RL and LR stand for the polarization combinations $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ =

1288: $+50$\%/$-80$\% and $-50$\%/$+80$\%, respectively.

1289: 

1290: The $\cha_1^\pm$ and $\neu_1$ masses can be constrained from distributions of

1291: the decay products. The summed energy of the two jets from the decay

1292: $\cha^\pm_1 \to W^\pm \neu_1 \to q\bar{q}' \neu_1$ have a well-defined upper

1293: endpoint at

1294: \begin{equation}

1295: E_{\rm jj,max} = \frac{\sqrt{s}}{4} \left(1-\frac{\mneu{1}^2}{\mcha{1}^2}

1296: \right)

1297:   \left(1+ \sqrt{1-4\mcha{1}^2/s} \right).

1298: \end{equation}

1299: Moreover, the invariant mass of the same two jets is bounded from above by

1300: \begin{equation}

1301: m_{\rm jj,max}  = \mcha{1}-\mneu{1}.

1302: \end{equation}

1303: Simple fits to the upper tails of the energy and invariant mass distributions

1304: give

1305: \begin{equation}

1306: E_{\rm jj,max} = (120.1 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.5) \gev, \qquad

1307: m_{\rm jj,max} = (51.8 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.2) \gev, \label{eq:chadist2}

1308: \end{equation}

1309: compared to the model input values $E_{\rm jj,max} = 120.2$ GeV and $\mcha{1} -

1310: \mneu{1} = 51.7$ GeV. Here the first error is the statistical uncertainty of

1311: the fit, whereas the second error accounts for the 0.4\% jet energy scale

1312: uncertainty. These measurement translate into the following results for the

1313: masses:

1314: \begin{equation}

1315: \mcha{1} = (159.4 \pm 1.0) \gev, \qquad

1316: \mneu{1} = (107.7 \pm 0.9) \gev,

1317: \end{equation}

1318: with a large correlation between the two masses. With an independent

1319: determination of one of the masses from a different observable, both mass

1320: determinations can be improved substantially.

1321: 

1322: As before, a threshold scan of the chargino cross-section yields a much more

1323: precise determination of the chargino mass. Using five scan points with 10

1324: fb$^{-1}$ luminosity each and the same  selection cuts as above, a fit to the 

1325: threshold excitation curve gives

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \mcha{1} = \tfrac{1}{2} \left[ \sqrt{s} \right]_{\rm thr} = 

1328: 	(159.38 \pm 0.04 \pm 0.04) \gev, \label{eq:chathr2}

1329: \end{equation}

1330: where the first error is statistical and the second is the systematic error

1331: from the beam energy calibration. Combining eqs.~\eqref{eq:chadist2} and

1332: \eqref{eq:chathr2}, the masses are obtained as follows,

1333: \begin{equation}

1334: \mcha{1} = (159.38 \pm 0.06) \gev, \qquad

1335: \mneu{1} = (107.7 \pm 0.21). \label{eq:chamass2}

1336: \end{equation}

1337: 

1338: 

1339: \paragraph{Neutralinos \boldmath $\neu_2$ and $\neu_3$}

1340: \anc\\

1341: As for the baryogenesis scenario, only the neutralino production process

1342: $\neu_2\neu_3$ yields a good signal-to-background ratio. This process has a

1343: sizeable cross-section, $\sigma[e^+e^- \to \neu_2 \neu_3] = 107$ fb for

1344: unpolarized beams. Using right-handed polarization for the $e^-$ and

1345: left-handed polarization for the $e^+$ beam, $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ =

1346: $-50$\%/$+80$\%, the signal is enhanced to 129 fb, while all Standard Model

1347: backgrounds are reduced for this beam polarization combination.

1348: 

1349: Both the $\neu_2$ and $\neu_3$ almost always decay through a virtual $Z$ boson

1350: to a pair  of leptons or quarks and the lightest neutralino. As a consequence,

1351: the decay products of the two neutralinos cannot be distinguished by

1352: kinematical constraints. Therefore, here the semi-leptonic decay channel is

1353: investigated, with one $Z$ decaying leptonically, and the other $Z$ decaying

1354: hadronically. Thus the final state is characterized by two charged leptons, two

1355: jets and missing energy. As for the baryogenesis case, the relevant Standard

1356: Model backgrounds arise from processes with two and three vector bosons and

1357: from $t\bar{t}$ production. 

1358: 

1359: The selection cuts to extract the signal from the background are very similar

1360: to the baryogenesis case:

1361: \begin{itemize}

1362: \item Each event must contain two hadronic jets and two isolated

1363: lepton and $p_{\rm t}^{\rm tot} > 12$ GeV.

1364: \item The invariant mass of either the two jets or the two leptons  has

1365: to be smaller than $\MZ$, $\MZ - m_{jj} > 10$ GeV and $\MZ - m_{ll} > 10$ GeV. 

1366: \item As in section~\ref{sec:ilc}, it is required that

1367:  $|cos \theta_{p_{\rm tot}}| < 0.9$ and $\Eslash > 100$ GeV and

1368: a b-quark veto again $t\bar{t}$ background is applied.

1369: \end{itemize}

1370: A resulting signal efficiency of 47\% is obtained. 

1371: With a total luminosity of 250 fb$^{-1}$ for the

1372: polarization combination $P(e^+)$/$P(e^-)$ = $-50$\%/$+80$\%, the statistical

1373: error for the cross-section measurement is

1374: \begin{equation}

1375: \delta\sigma_{\rm RL}[\neu_2\neu_3] = 2.7\%.

1376: \label{eq:neuxsec2}

1377: \end{equation}

1378: For measurements of kinematic distributions, it is useful

1379: to restrict oneself to the two leptons in the final state only, which can be

1380: measured more cleanly and

1381: precisely than jets. The summed energy of the lepton pair has a distinct upper

1382: endpoint, depending from which of the two neutralinos they originate,

1383: \begin{align}

1384: E_{\rm ll,max,2} &= \frac{\mneu{2}^2 - \mneu{3}^2 - 2 \mneu{1}^2 \sqrt{s} +

1385: s}{2\sqrt{s}}, \\

1386: E_{\rm ll,max,3} &= \frac{\mneu{3}^2 - \mneu{2}^2 - 2 \mneu{1}^2 \sqrt{s} +

1387: s}{2\sqrt{s}}.

1388: \end{align}

1389: In addition, the invariant mass spectrum of the same two leptons has an

1390: endpoint at the mass difference between the intermediate and the final state

1391: neutralino,

1392: \begin{equation}

1393: m_{\rm ll,max,2} = \mneu{2} - \mneu{1}, \qquad m_{\rm ll,max,3} = \mneu{3} - \mneu{1}

1394: \end{equation}

1395: The simulated distributions after cuts and fits to the endpoints are summarized

1396: in Fig.~\ref{fig:neudist2}.

1397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1398: \begin{figure}[tb]

1399: \begin{tabular}{p{8cm}p{8cm}} 

1400: (a) \newline

1401: \epsfig{file=Efit31.neuljj.eps, width=8cm} &

1402: (b) \newline

1403: \epsfig{file=mfit231.neuljj.eps, width=8cm}

1404: \end{tabular}

1405: \mycaption{(a) Energy distribution for lepton pair in $\neu_{2,3} \to Z \neu_1$ decays,

1406: (b)  invariant mass of the latter, including simple fitting curves.} 

1407: \label{fig:neudist2}

1408: \end{figure}

1409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1410: For the masses in Tab.~\ref{tab:decays2}, the upper endpoint of the $E_{\rm ll,2}$ spectrum is smaller than the maximum of the $E_{\rm ll,3}$ spectrum originating from the $\neu_3$. As a result, the endpoint $E_{\rm ll,max,2}$ gets diluted in the continuum of the $E_{\rm ll,3}$ distribution. Therefore, here only the endpoint $E_{\rm ll,max,3}$ is fitted, but no numerical value for $E_{\rm ll,max,2}$ is obtained. The $m_{\rm ll}$ shows two characteristic edges corresponding to the contribution from the $\neu_2$ and the $\neu_3$.

1411: 

1412: Combining fits to these three endpoints, and including a lepton energy scale

1413: error of 0.l\%, one obtains

1414: \begin{equation}

1415: \delta \mneu{1} = 2.9 \gev, \quad \delta \mneu{2} = ^{+2.6}_{-3.1} \gev, \quad

1416: \delta \mneu{3} = ^{+4.8}_{-4.0} \gev.

1417: \end{equation}

1418: By feeding in the more precise determination of the lightest neutralino mass in

1419: eq.~\eqref{eq:chamass2}, these numbers are improved to

1420: \begin{equation}

1421: \delta \mneu{2} = ^{+0.3}_{-2.0} \gev, \quad

1422: \delta \mneu{3} = ^{+2.6}_{-2.3} \gev.

1423: \label{eq:neumass2}

1424: \end{equation}

1425: 

1426: From a fit to the cross-sections, not only constraints on the chargino and

1427: neutralino parameters are obtained, but also indirect bounds are derived for the

1428: masses of the heavy sleptons appearing in the t-channel production contribution

1429: (see also Ref.~\cite{FP2}).

1430: 

1431: The result of the combined fit, taking into account chargino and neutralino

1432: cross-section and mass measurements, is

1433: \begin{equation}

1434: \begin{aligned}

1435: M_1 &= (123.1^{+0.4}_{-0.3}) \gev, & \qquad \tan\beta &= 10^{+0.8}_{-1.4}, \\

1436: M_2 &= (237.6^{+0.7}_{-1.1}) \gev,  \\

1437: |\mu| &= (178.6^{+0.5}_{-0.5}) \gev, & 2.6 \tev < \msn{{\rm e}} &< 4.8 \tev, \\

1438:  |\phi_\mu| &< 0.6, & \mseR &> 1.2 \tev.

1439: \label{eq:inofcp}

1440: \end{aligned}

1441: \end{equation}

1442: where the errors indicate one standard deviation (1$\sigma$) uncertainties.

1443: The precision for the underlying MSSM parameters is comparable to the findings

1444: of Ref.~\cite{FP2}, although this comparison is precarious 

1445: since the focus-point scenario studied there is different from the point LCC2.

1446: The underlying scenario LCC2 does not contain any CP-violating phases, but

1447: nevertheless a non-zero phase of the $\mu$ parameter was allowed in the fit.

1448: It turns out that the mass and cross-section observables give only a rather poor

1449: constraint on $\phi_\mu$.

1450: 

1451: 

1452: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1453: 

1454: \subsection{Cosmological implications: dark matter}

1455: \label{sec:dm2}

1456: 

1457: In focus-point supersymmetry, the annihilation cross-section is driven by a

1458: sizeable higgsino component of the lightest neutralino. As a result, the

1459: neutralinos can annihilate efficiently into electroweak gauge bosons. In order

1460: to scrutinize this scenario, the neutralino properties need to be determined

1461: with high precision. For the sfermions, only indirect bounds can be obtained,

1462: but this is sufficient to establish the fact that they effectively decouple from

1463: the annihilation cross-section.

1464: 

1465: The relic dark matter density is computed with {\sc DarkSUSY~4.1}

1466: \cite{darksusy}. Including the expected precision for the hypothetical

1467: neutralino and chargino measurements discussed in the previous section, see

1468: eqs.~\eqref{eq:chaxsec2}, \eqref{eq:chamass2}, \eqref{eq:neuxsec2},

1469: \eqref{eq:neumass2}, the accuracy for the dark matter determination is obtained

1470: from a $\chi^2$ scan. It is

1471: assumed that a limit of $m_{\tilde{q}} > 1000$ GeV for the squark masses 

1472: can be set from non-observation of these particles at the LHC. While in many

1473: scenarios it is possible to explore much larger squark masses, a bound of 1000

1474: GeV is sufficient to guarantee that the effect of the squarks on the dark matter

1475: annihilation is negligible.

1476: 

1477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1478: \begin{figure}[tb]

1479: \centering

1480: \epsfig{file=dm_mstop.fcp.eps, width=13cm}

1481: \mycaption{Computation of dark matter relic abundance $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$ for the

1482: scenario LCC2, as a function of the 

1483: lightest neutralino mass $\mneu{1}$.

1484: The black dots are the 1$\sigma$ allowed region.

1485: The original scenario used as input is

1486: indicated by the red (light gray) star. The horizontal shaded bands show the

1487: 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ constraints on the relic

1488: density measured by WMAP and SDSS.}

1489: \label{fig:dm2}

1490: \end{figure}

1491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1492: Fig.~\ref{fig:dm2} depicts the result of the scan for the scenario LCC2.  The

1493: scattered black dots indicate the region allowed by the collider experimental

1494: uncertainty, as a function of $\mneu{1}$. As pointed out above, although the

1495: LCC2 scenario is CP-conserving, a CP-violating phase for $\mu$ was allowed in

1496: the fit to the

1497: mass and cross-section measurements. However it was checked that when

1498: constraining $\phi_\mu$ to zero in the fit, the results remain essentially

1499: unchanged. The reason for this is that the annihilation cross-section only

1500: mildly depends on the CP-phase, but much more strongly on the neutralino mass

1501: parameters,

1502: which are directly measured. The precision of the predicted relic 

1503: density $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$ is a very remarkable 2.5\% at 1$\sigma$ level.

1504: 

1505: The computed relic density depends sensitively on the lightest neutralino mass

1506: $\mneu{1}$.

1507: Compared to

1508: Refs.~\cite{FP,peskin}, the neutralino mass determination is improved in this

1509: analysis by the inclusion of the chargino threshold scan. As a result, the

1510: dark matter computation from the hypothetical collider measurements is also more

1511: accurate, with $\delta[\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2] \sim 2.5$\% instead of 

1512: $\delta[\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2] \sim  8$\% in Ref.~\cite{peskin}.

1513: 

1514: 

1515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1516: 

1517: \section{Impact of positron polarization on ILC results}

1518: \label{sec:pol}

1519: 

1520: Throughout the previous sections, is was assumed that both the $e^-$ and the

1521: $e^+$ beams at the ILC can be polarized, with polarization degrees of $|P(e^+)|

1522: = 50$\% and $|P(e^-)| = 80$\%. However, since the realization of positron

1523: polarization poses a serious challenge for the accelerator design, it is

1524: interesting to investigate how much the results presented above depend on it.

1525: As an extreme case, in this section the situation of zero positron polarization

1526: is studied, while as before 80\% polarization is assumed for the electron beam,

1527: $|P(e^+)|$/$|P(e^-)|$ = $0$\%/$80$\%.

1528: The availability of $e^-$ polarization ensures that all observables that are

1529: considered in the previous sections for the ILC still exist in this case. In

1530: particular, supersymmetric production cross-sections can be measured for two

1531: different polarization values, $P(e^-) = \pm 80$\%. However, a loss of accuracy

1532: can result from the absence of positron polarization.

1533: 

1534: In the baryogenesis scenario BGEN, the uncertainty of the determination of the

1535: electroweak phase transition strength and of the dark matter density is

1536: dominated by the error in the stop mass. The stop mass can be extracted from

1537: measuring the stop production cross-section for two different beam polarization

1538: combinations. Including 50\% positron polarization \cite{stop}, an error of

1539: $\delta \mst = 1.2$ GeV is found with this method,  while without positron

1540: polarization, the error is about 20\% larger, $\delta \mst = 1.4$ GeV.

1541: Similarly, the accuracy for the chargino and neutralino parameters $M_1$, $M_2$

1542: and $\mu$ is reduced by roughly 20\% with respect to the values in

1543: eq.~\eqref{eq:inobgen} when positron polarization is absent, but these

1544: parameters have a smaller impact on cosmological quantities. As a result of the

1545: larger stop mass error, a bigger uncertainty for the prediction of the dark

1546: matter density is obtained, $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 = 0.109^{+0.042}_{-0.032}$,

1547: compared to $^{+0.030}_{-0.027}$ with 50\% $e^+$ polarization.

1548: As mentioned at the end of section~\ref{sec:dm}, the stop mass can also be

1549: determined more precisely from a second cross-section measurement near the stop

1550: pair threshold. This method is less sensitive to the beam polarization, and

1551: with zero $e^+$ polarization the errors are only slightly larger: $\delta \mst

1552: = 0.32$ GeV and $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 = 0.109^{+0.015}_{-0.012}$, instead of

1553: $\delta \mst = 0.30$ GeV and $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 = 0.109^{+0.013}_{-0.010}$.

1554: 

1555: For the focus-point scenario LCC2, the low-energy phenomenology is governed by

1556: the chargino and neutralino states. With 0\% instead of 50\% position

1557: polarization, the uncertainty of the parameters in eq.~\eqref{eq:inofcp} is

1558: larger by roughly 20\% to 30\%. The upper bound that can be extracted

1559: for the sneutrino mass from the chargino cross-section measurements gets much

1560: weaker, $\msn{{\rm e}} < 13$ TeV, since the derivation of this parameters is

1561: very delicate and requires high precision.

1562: The larger errors in the chargino and neutralino parameters also translate

1563: into a larger error on the predicted dark matter density of 3.1\%, compared to

1564: 2.5\% with 50\% position

1565: polarization. Nevertheless, the possibility to compute the dark matter density

1566: with about 3\% precision from collider data is still a very impressive result.

1567: 

1568: 

1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1570: 

1571: \section{Conclusions}

1572: \label{sec:concl}

1573: 

1574: In various theoretical supersymmetry frameworks,  the mass of most or all

1575: scalar fermions is constrained to be very large, of the order of at least a few

1576: TeV. Typical examples are electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM, focus-point

1577: supersymmetry and split supersymmetry. Focusing on two benchmark points, one

1578: electroweak baryogenesis scenario and one focus-point  scenario, it was studied

1579: how such a supersymmetry scenario can be explored at future colliders. It was

1580: found that the LHC can make discoveries of several superpartner particles in

1581: the focus-point case, while in the

1582: baryogenesis scenario a new physics signal is likely to be observable at LHC,

1583: but the identification of the contributing superpartner particles

1584: is very challenging. In both scenarios, the ILC can perform precision

1585: measurements to determine the properties of these particles and set bounds on

1586: other unobserved states.

1587: 

1588: The analysis was performed including realistic signal and background

1589: computations and simple evaluations of statistical and systematic experimental

1590: errors for mass and cross-section measurements.  The study was based

1591: on the full MSSM, {\it i.e.} without assuming a

1592: specific mechanism or pattern for supersymmetry breaking parameters.

1593: 

1594: Using these results, the

1595: cosmological implications for electroweak baryogenesis with light stops and

1596: stop-neutralino co-annihilation were investigated. It turns out that the

1597: collider data helps to elucidate the strength of the electroweak phase

1598: transition, while the manifestation of the CP-violating source responsible for

1599: the baryon asymmetry remains unconstrained. Furthermore, the collider measurements

1600: can be used to compute the relic dark matter density. By determining the stop

1601: and lightest neutralino masses, the stop-neutralino co-annihilation process can

1602: be strongly constrained and the dark matter density predicted with a precision

1603: of the same order as current astrophysical results. Refinements in the

1604: determination of the stop mass can improve this result significantly. 

1605: 

1606: In the focus-point scenario, it was found that very precise measurements of the

1607: accessible neutralino and chargino states can be performed at the ILC, combining

1608: mass measurements from distributions and threshold scans together with

1609: cross-section measurements. This allows to set constraints on the slepton mass

1610: scale and to compute very accurate predictions for the relic density at

1611: the per-cent level. Similar conclusions also apply for split supersymmetry if

1612: the lightest chargino and neutralino particles have masses of a

1613: few 100 GeV.

1614: 

1615: In both scenarios, the dependence on positron beam polarization was

1616: investigated. Assuming 80\% $e^-$ polarization, and comparing the case of

1617: 50\% $e^+$ polarization to zero $e^+$

1618: polarization, it is found that all elements of the analysis can be performed

1619: similarly, but roughly 20--30\% precision in the relevant supersymmetry

1620: parameters and derived cosmological quantities is lost without $e^+$

1621: polarization.

1622: 

1623: The present work has been performed using tree-level formulae and

1624: cross-sections for the ILC analysis and the computation of the dark matter

1625: annihilation rate. For the expected experimental precision, however, radiative

1626: corrections are important and introduce a dependence on other supersymmetry

1627: parameters, {\it e.g.} sfermion masses and mixing outside of the stop sector.

1628: Furthermore, no CP-violating phase for the gaugino parameter $M_1$ was included

1629: in this analysis, which might have interesting effects in the neutralino

1630: sector. These issues will be studied in future work.

1631: 

1632: The present study shows that, even in the challenging case of heavy

1633: supersymmetric scalars, precise cross-relations between collider physics

1634: and cosmological processes can be established in order to elucidate some of

1635: the main unresolved questions in our understanding of the universe.

1636: 

1637: 

1638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1639: 

1640: \appendix

1641: 

1642: \section*{Appendix: MSSM case study scenarios} 

1643: \label{sec:app}

1644: 

1645: \paragraph{BGEN: Baryogenesis scenario}

1646: \anc\\

1647: The numerical analysis is based on

1648: a typical MSSM parameter point characterized by the following weak scale values:

1649: \begin{equation}

1650: \begin{aligned}

1651: m^2_{\rm\tilde{U}_3} &= -99^2 \gev^2,	& M_1 &= 118.8 \gev, \\

1652: m_{\rm\tilde{Q}_3} &= 4330 \gev,	& M_2 &= 225 \gev, \\

1653: A_t &= -1100 \gev,	& |\mu| &= 225 \gev,\\

1654: 	&		& \phi_\mu &= 0.2, \\

1655: m_{\rm\tilde{Q},\tilde{U},\tilde{D},\tilde{L},\tilde{R}_{1,2}} &= 10 \tev,

1656: 			& \tan\beta &= 5, \\

1657: 	&		& m_{\rm A^0} &= 800 \gev.

1658: \end{aligned}

1659: \label{eq:scen}

1660: \end{equation}

1661: Due to constraints from  large one-loop sfermion-neutralino and

1662: sfermion-chargino effects to the electric dipole moments of the electron and

1663: neutron, the  sleptons and squarks of the first two generations are chosen to

1664: be heavy. The masses of the sbottoms and staus are not specified since they

1665: have no relevance for the baryogenesis scenario.

1666: 

1667: The chosen parameters are compatible with a strongly first order electroweak

1668: phase transition for electroweak baryogenesis, $v(T_{\rm c})/T_{\rm c} \gesim

1669: 1$~\cite{CQW,Carena:1997ki}, generate a sufficiently large baryon asymmetry,

1670: $\eta \sim 0.6 \times 10^{-10}$, and yield a value for the dark matter relic

1671: abundance\footnote{The relic dark matter density has been computed with the

1672: code used in Ref.~\cite{morr}.} of $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 = 0.109$, well

1673: within the WMAP bounds. Note that the stop-neutralino co-annihilation mechanism

1674: is effective for the evolution of the dark matter density in this scenario.

1675: Furthermore, the stop

1676: parameters are chosen such that the mass of the lightest Higgs boson is

1677: $m_{\rm h^0} = 117.3$ GeV,  to satisfy the bound from direct searches at

1678: LEP $m_{\rm h^0} \gesim 114.4 \gev$ \cite{lephbound}. It was checked that the

1679: minimum of the scalar potential is color conserving \cite{Carena:1997ki}. 

1680: At tree-level the following masses are obtained for the

1681: relevant supersymmetric particles:

1682: \begin{equation}

1683: \begin{aligned}

1684: m_{\tilde{t}_1} &= 122.5  \gev, & \mneu{1} &= 106.6 \gev, &

1685: \mneu{3} &= 231.2 \gev, & \mcha{1} &= 162.7 \gev, \\

1686: m_{\tilde{t}_2} &= 4333 \gev,	& \mneu{2} &= 170.8 \gev, &

1687: \mneu{4} &= 297.7 \gev,	& \mcha{2} &= 296.2 \gev, \\

1688: \cos \theta_{\tilde{t}} &= 0.010.

1689: \end{aligned}

1690: \end{equation}

1691: 

1692: \paragraph{LCC2: Focus-point scenario}

1693: \anc\\

1694: The point LCC2 is chosen as a point with sizeable gaugino-Higgsino mixing,

1695: allowing large neutralino annihilation cross-sections into vector bosons. It

1696: was studied previously in Refs.~\cite{FP,peskin}.

1697: The scenario is defined by mSUGRA parameters at the unification scale,

1698: \begin{equation}

1699: m_0 = 3280 \gev, \quad 

1700: M_{1/2} = 300 \gev, \quad

1701: A_0 = 0, \quad

1702: {\rm sign}(\mu) = +, \quad

1703: \tan\beta = 10.

1704: \end{equation}

1705: Since the evolution of parameters in the focus-point region sensitively depends on

1706: the top quark mass $\mt$, it is fixed to the value $\mt = 175$ GeV.

1707: With {\sc Isajet~7.69} \cite{isajet}, the weak scale soft

1708: breaking parameters are obtained as follows:

1709: \begin{equation}

1710: \begin{aligned}

1711: m_{\rm\tilde{U}_3} &= 1969 \gev,	& M_1 &= 123.1 \gev, \\

1712: m_{\rm\tilde{Q}_3} &= 2710 \gev,	& M_2 &= 237.6 \gev, \\

1713: m_{\rm\tilde{D}_3} &= 3240 \gev,	& |\mu| &= 178.6 \gev,\\

1714: m_{\rm\tilde{L}_3} &= 3268 \gev,	& \tan\beta &= 10, \\

1715: m_{\rm\tilde{R}_3} &= 3252 \gev,	& m_{\rm A^0} &= 3242 \gev,\\

1716: m_{\rm\tilde{Q},\tilde{U},\tilde{D},\tilde{L},\tilde{R}_{1,2}} &\sim 3300 \gev.

1717: \end{aligned}

1718: \label{eq:scen2}

1719: \end{equation}

1720: For the relevant supersymmetric particle masses, {\sc Isajet~7.69} gives

1721: \begin{equation}

1722: \begin{aligned}

1723: \mneu{1} &= 107.7 \gev, &

1724: \mneu{3} &= 190.0 \gev, & \mcha{1} &= 159.4 \gev, & m_{\tilde{g}} &= 850 \gev,

1725: \\

1726: \mneu{2} &= 166.3 \gev, &

1727: \mneu{4} &= 294.4 \gev,	& \mcha{2} &= 286.8 \gev. \\

1728: \end{aligned}

1729: \end{equation}

1730: Following the procedure in Ref.~\cite{peskin},

1731: the relic density is computed with {\sc DarkSUSY~4.1} \cite{darksusy} to

1732: $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2 = 0.109$.

1733: 

1734: 

1735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1736: 

1737: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1738: 

1739: The authors are grateful to C.~Bal\'azs, E.~Baltz, O.~Kittel, S.~Kraml and

1740: T.~Plehn for useful discussions. This work was supported by the

1741: Schweizer Nationalfonds and

1742: by Fermilab, operated by Universities Research Association Inc. under contract

1743: no. DE-AC02-76CH03000 with the DOE. A.F. is grateful  for

1744: hospitality at Fermilab, where part of this work was completed.

1745: 

1746: 

1747: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1748: \vspace*{3mm}

1749: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1750: \frenchspacing

1751: 

1752: \bibitem{wmap}

1753:   D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.} [WMAP Collaboration],

1754:   %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:

1755:   %Implications for cosmology,''

1756:   astro-ph/0603449.

1757:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%

1758:   

1759: \bibitem{sdss}

1760:   M.~Tegmark {\it et al.}  [SDSS Collaboration],

1761:   %``The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS,''

1762:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 606}, 702 (2004).

1763: %  [arXiv:astro-ph/0310725].

1764:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310725;%%

1765:   

1766: \bibitem{phasetran}

1767:   A.~I.~Bochkarev and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

1768:   %``Electroweak Production Of Baryon Asymmetry And Upper Bounds On The Higgs

1769:   %And Top Masses,''

1770:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 2}, 417 (1987).

1771:   %%CITATION = MPLAE,A2,417;%%

1772: 

1773: \bibitem{CPSM}

1774:   G.~R.~Farrar and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

1775:   %``Baryon asymmetry of the universe in the minimal Standard Model,''

1776:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 70}, 2833 (1993)

1777:   [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 71}, 210 (1993)];\\

1778: %  [hep-ph/9305274].

1779:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305274;%%

1780:   G.~R.~Farrar and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

1781:   %``Baryon asymmetry of the universe in the standard electroweak theory,''

1782:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 774 (1994);\\

1783: %  [hep-ph/9305275].

1784:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305275;%%

1785:   M.~B.~Gavela, P.~Hernandez, J.~Orloff, O.~P\`ene and C.~Quimbay,

1786:   %``Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry. Part 2: Finite

1787:   %temperature,''

1788:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 430}, 382 (1994).

1789: %  [hep-ph/9406289].

1790:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9406289;%%

1791:   

1792: \bibitem{CQW}

1793: M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1794: %``Opening the Window for Electroweak Baryogenesis,''

1795: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 380}, 81 (1996).

1796: %[hep-ph/9603420].

1797: 

1798: \bibitem{EWBG}

1799: M.~Laine,

1800: %``Effective theories of MSSM at high temperature,''

1801: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 481}, 43 (1996)

1802: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 548}, 637 (1999)];\\

1803: %[hep-ph/9605283].

1804: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605283;%%

1805: M.~Losada,

1806: %``High temperature dimensional reduction of the MSSM and other  multi-scalar

1807: %models,''

1808: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 2893 (1997);\\

1809: %[hep-ph/9605266].

1810: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605266;%%

1811: G.~R.~Farrar and M.~Losada,

1812: %``SUSY and the electroweak phase transition,''

1813: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 406}, 60 (1997);\\

1814: %[hep-ph/9612346].

1815: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612346;%%

1816: B.~de Carlos and J.~R.~Espinosa,

1817: %``The baryogenesis window in the MSSM,''

1818: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503}, 24 (1997);\\

1819: %[hep-ph/9703212].

1820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703212;%%

1821: D.~Bodeker, P.~John, M.~Laine and M.~G.~Schmidt,

1822: %``The 2-loop MSSM finite temperature effective potential with stop

1823: %condensation,''

1824: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 497}, 387 (1997).

1825: %[hep-ph/9612364].

1826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612364;%%

1827: 

1828: \bibitem{Carena:1997ki}

1829: M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1830: %``Electroweak baryogenesis and Higgs and stop searches at LEP and the

1831: %Tevatron,''

1832: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 524}, 3 (1998).

1833: %[hep-ph/9710401].

1834: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710401;%%

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{EWBG2}

1837: M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen,

1838: %``The MSSM electroweak phase transition on the lattice,''

1839: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 535}, 423 (1998);\\

1840: %[hep-lat/9804019].

1841: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9804019;%%

1842: M.~Losada,

1843: %``The two-loop finite-temperature effective potential of the MSSM and

1844: %baryogenesis,''

1845: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 537}, 3 (1999);\\

1846: %[hep-ph/9806519].

1847: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806519;%%

1848: M.~Losada,

1849: %``Mixing effects in the finite-temperature effective potential of the  MSSM

1850: %with a light stop,''

1851: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 569}, 125 (2000);\\

1852: %[hep-ph/9905441].

1853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905441;%%

1854: M.~Laine and M.~Losada,

1855: %``Two-loop dimensional reduction and effective potential without  temperature

1856: %expansions,''

1857: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 582}, 277 (2000);\\

1858: %[hep-ph/0003111].

1859: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003111;%%

1860: M.~Laine and K.~Rummukainen,

1861: %``Two Higgs doublet dynamics at the electroweak phase transition: A

1862: %non-perturbative study,''

1863: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 597}, 23 (2001).

1864: %[hep-lat/0009025].

1865: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0009025;%%

1866: 

1867: \bibitem{stop}

1868:   M.~Carena, A.~Finch, A.~Freitas, C.~Milst\'ene, H.~Nowak and A.~Sopczak,

1869:   %``Analyzing the scalar top co-annihilation region at the ILC,''

1870:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 115008 (2005).

1871: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0508152].

1872:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508152;%%

1873: 

1874: \bibitem{edm1}

1875:   T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,

1876:   %``The neutron and the lepton EDMs in MSSM, large CP violating phases, and

1877:   %the cancellation mechanism,''

1878:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 111301 (1998)

1879:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 60}, 099902 (1999)].

1880: %  [hep-ph/9807501].

1881:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807501;%%

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{edm2}

1884:   S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,

1885:   %``EDM constraints in supersymmetric theories,''

1886:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 151 (2001).

1887: %  [hep-ph/0103320].

1888:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103320;%%

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{Balazs:2004bu}

1891: C.~Bal\'azs, M.~Carena and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1892: %``Dark matter, light stops and electroweak baryogenesis,''

1893: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015007 (2004).

1894: %[hep-ph/0403224].

1895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403224;%%

1896: 

1897: \bibitem{Demina:1999ty}

1898: R.~Demina, J.~D.~Lykken, K.~T.~Matchev and A.~Nomerotski,

1899: %``Stop and sbottom searches in Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron,''

1900: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 035011 (2000).

1901: %[hep-ph/9910275].

1902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910275;%%

1903: 

1904: \bibitem{stopsLHC}

1905:   S.~Kraml and A.~R.~Raklev,

1906:   %``Same-sign top quarks as signature of light stops at the LHC,''

1907:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 075002 (2006).

1908: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0512284].

1909:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512284;%%

1910: 

1911: \bibitem{stopsLC}

1912: A.~Finch, H.~Nowak and A.~Sopczak,

1913: %``Precision measurements in the scalar top sector of the MSSM at a linear e+

1914: %e- collider,''

1915: in {\it Proc. of International Workshop on Linear Colliders (LCWS 2002), Jeju

1916: Island, Korea (26--30 Aug 2002)}

1917: [hep-ph/0211140];\\

1918: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211140;%%

1919: A.~Bartl, S.~Hesselbach, K.~Hidaka, T.~Kernreiter and W.~Porod,

1920: %``Impact of SUSY CP phases on stop and sbottom decays in the MSSM,''

1921: hep-ph/0306281.

1922: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306281;%%

1923: 

1924: \bibitem{stopsnew}

1925:   A.~Finch, A.~Sopczak and H.~Nowak,

1926:   %``A scalar top study with c-quark tagging at a linear e+ e- collider,''

1927: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=lc-phsm-2003-075}{SPIRES entry}

1928: contributed paper EPS370,

1929: {\it International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics (HEP 2003), Aachen, Germany, 17-23 Jul 2003}

1930: [LC Note LC-PHSM-2003-075].

1931: 

1932: \bibitem{edmexp}

1933:   B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,

1934:   %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''

1935:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 071805 (2002);\\

1936:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%

1937:   C.~A.~Baker {\it et al.},

1938: %   ``An improved experimental limit on the electric dipole moment of the

1939:   %neutron,''

1940:   hep-ex/0602020.

1941:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0602020;%%

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{focusp}

1944:   J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1945:   %``Multi-TeV scalars are natural in minimal supergravity,''

1946:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 2322 (2000);\\

1947: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9908309].

1948:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908309;%%

1949:    J.~L.~Feng, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~Moroi,

1950:   %``Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,''

1951:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 075005 (2000);\\

1952: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9909334].

1953:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909334;%% 

1954:   K.~Agashe,

1955:   %``Can multi-TeV (top and other) squarks be natural in gauge mediation?,''

1956:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 115006 (2000).

1957: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/9910497].

1958:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910497;%%  

1959: 

1960: \bibitem{splitsusy}  

1961:   G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,

1962:   %``Split supersymmetry,''

1963:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699}, 65 (2004)

1964:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 706}, 65 (2005)].

1965: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0406088].

1966:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406088;%%

1967: 

1968: \bibitem{Carena:2002ss}

1969:   M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1970:   %``Improved results in supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''

1971:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 24 (2003).

1972: %  [hep-ph/0208043].

1973:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208043;%%

1974: 

1975: \bibitem{Carena:1997gx}

1976:   M.~Carena, M.~Quir\'os, A.~Riotto, I.~Vilja and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1977:   %``Electroweak baryogenesis and low energy supersymmetry,''

1978:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 503}, 387 (1997);\\

1979: %  [hep-ph/9702409].

1980:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702409;%%

1981:   J.~M.~Cline, M.~Joyce and K.~Kainulainen,

1982:   %``Supersymmetric electroweak baryogenesis,''

1983:   JHEP {\bf 0007}, 018 (2000);\\

1984: %  [hep-ph/0006119].

1985:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006119;%%

1986:   M.~Carena, J.~M.~Moreno, M.~Quir\'os, M.~Seco and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1987:   %``Supersymmetric CP-violating currents and electroweak baryogenesis,''

1988:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 599}, 158 (2001).

1989: %  [hep-ph/0011055].

1990:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011055;%%

1991:   

1992: \bibitem{morr}

1993:   C.~Bal\'azs, M.~Carena, A.~Menon, D.~E.~Morrissey and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1994:   %``The supersymmetric origin of matter,''

1995:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 075002 (2005).

1996: %  [hep-ph/0412264].

1997:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412264;%%

1998: 

1999: \bibitem{caltech}

2000:   V.~Cirigliano, S.~Profumo and M.~J.~Ramsey-Musolf,

2001:   %``Baryogenesis, electric dipole moments and dark matter in the MSSM,''

2002:   hep-ph/0603246.

2003:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603246;%%

2004: 

2005: \bibitem{lephbound}

2006:   R.~Barate {\it et al.}  [LEP2 Higgs Working Group, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL

2007:   Collaborations],

2008:   %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,''

2009:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565}, 61 (2003);\\

2010: %  [hep-ex/0306033].

2011:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%

2012: LEP2 Higgs Working Group, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments, note

2013:  LHWG-Note-2004-01.

2014: [\texttt{http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/papers/}]. 

2015: 

2016: \bibitem{higgsmass}

2017:   A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

2018:   %``Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with explicit  CP

2019:   %violation,''

2020:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 553}, 3 (1999);\\

2021: %  [hep-ph/9902371].

2022:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902371;%%

2023:   A.~Brignole, G.~Degrassi, P.~Slavich and F.~Zwirner,

2024:   %``On the two-loop sbottom corrections to the neutral Higgs boson masses  in

2025:   %the MSSM,''

2026:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 79 (2002);\\

2027: %  [hep-ph/0206101].

2028:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206101;%%

2029:   J.~S.~Lee, A.~Pilaftsis, M.~Carena, S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Drees, J.~R.~Ellis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

2030:   %``CPsuperH: A computational tool for Higgs phenomenology in the minimal

2031:   %supersymmetric standard model with explicit CP violation,''

2032:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 156}, 283 (2004);\\

2033: %  [hep-ph/0307377].

2034:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307377;%%

2035:   S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

2036:   %``Electroweak precision observables in the minimal supersymmetric  standard

2037:   %model,''

2038:   hep-ph/0412214.

2039:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412214;%%

2040: 

2041: \bibitem{tleff}

2042: M.~Carena, G.~Nardini, M.~Quir\'os and C.~E.~M.~Wagner, in preparation.

2043: 

2044: \bibitem{FP}

2045:   R.~Gray {\it et al.},

2046:   %``Measuring mass and cross section parameters at a focus point region,''

2047:   in {\it Proc. of the International Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS 2005), 

2048:   Stanford, California, 18-22 Mar 2005}

2049:   [hep-ex/0507008].

2050:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507008;%%

2051:   

2052: \bibitem{peskin}

2053:   E.~A.~Baltz, M.~Battaglia, M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Wizansky,

2054:   %``Determination of dark matter properties at high-energy colliders,''

2055:   hep-ph/0602187.

2056:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602187;%%

2057: 

2058: \bibitem{tadas}

2059:   H.~Baer, T.~Krupovnickas, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,

2060:   %``Model independent approach to focus point supersymmetry: From dark matter

2061:   %to collider searches,''

2062:   JHEP {\bf 0510}, 020 (2005).

2063: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0507282].

2064:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507282;%%

2065: 

2066: \bibitem{FP2}

2067:   K.~Desch, J.~Kalinowski, G.~Moortgat-Pick, K.~Rolbiecki and W.~J.~Stirling,

2068:   %``The challenge of determining SUSY parameters in focus-point-inspired

2069:   %cases,''

2070:   hep-ph/0607104.

2071:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607104;%%

2072: 

2073: \bibitem{Hikasa:1987db}

2074:   K.~i.~Hikasa and M.~Kobayashi,

2075:   %``Light Scalar Top At E+ E- Colliders,''

2076:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36}, 724 (1987).

2077:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,724;%%

2078: 

2079: \bibitem{slep}

2080: A.~Freitas, D.~J.~Miller and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2081: %``Pair production of smuons and selectrons near threshold in e+ e-  collisions,''

2082: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 361;\\

2083: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106198;%%

2084: A.~Freitas, A.~von Manteuffel and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2085: %``Slepton production at e+ e- and e- e- linear colliders,''

2086: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 34} (2004) 487.

2087: %hep-ph/0310182.

2088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310182;%%

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{tesladet}

2091: {\sc Tesla} Technical Design Report, Part IV, eds. T.~Behnke,

2092: S.~Bertolucci, R.D.~Heuer and R.~Settles, DESY-2001-011D.

2093: 

2094: \bibitem{higgspair}

2095: S.~M.~Xella-Hansen, M.~Wing, D.~J.~Jackson, N.~de~Groot and C.~J.~S.~Damerell,

2096: LC~Note LC-PHSM-2003-061.

2097: 

2098: \bibitem{wwopal}

2099:   G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.}  [OPAL Collaboration],

2100:   %``Measurement of the mass and width of the W boson,''

2101:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 45}, 307 (2006).

2102: %  [arXiv:hep-ex/0508060].

2103:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508060;%%

2104:   

2105: \bibitem{triple}

2106:   J.~F.~Donoghue,

2107:   %``T Violation In SU(2) X U(1) Gauge Theories Of Leptons,''

2108:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18}, 1632 (1978);\\

2109:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,1632;%%

2110:   G.~Valencia,

2111:   %``Constructing CP odd observables,''

2112:   in {\it Proc. of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary

2113:   Particle Physics (TASI 94), Boulder, CO, 29 May - 24 Jun 1994}

2114:   [hep-ph/9411441];\\

2115:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411441;%%

2116:   Y.~Kizukuri and N.~Oshimo,

2117:   %``T-odd asymmetry in chargino pair production processes,''

2118:   in {\it Proc. of Workshop on Perspective of the Electroweak Interaction in 

2119:   $e^+ e^-$ Collisions, Ringberg, Germany, 4-8 Apr 1993}

2120:   [hep-ph/9310224].

2121:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310224;%%

2122:  

2123: \bibitem{trip2}

2124:   V.~D.~Barger, T.~Falk, T.~Han, J.~Jiang, T.~Li and T.~Plehn,

2125:   %``CP-violating phases in SUSY, electric dipole moments, and linear

2126:   %colliders,''

2127:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 056007 (2001).

2128: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0101106].

2129:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101106;%%

2130: 

2131: \bibitem{trip3}

2132:   O.~Kittel, A.~Bartl, H.~Fraas and W.~Majerotto,

2133:   %``CP sensitive observables in chargino production and decay into a W

2134:   %boson,''

2135:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 115005 (2004);\\

2136: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0410054].

2137:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410054;%%

2138:   A.~Bartl, H.~Fraas, O.~Kittel and W.~Majerotto,

2139:   %``CP sensitive observables in e+ e- $\to$ neutralino(i) neutralino(j) and

2140:   %neutralino decay into Z boson,''

2141:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 36}, 233 (2004)

2142: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0402016].

2143:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402016;%%

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{l3jettag}

2146:   M.~Acciarri {\it et al.}  [L3 Collaboration],

2147:   %``Measurement of the effective weak mixing angle by jet-charge asymmetry  in

2148:   %hadronic decays of the Z boson,''

2149:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 225 (1998).

2150:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B439,225;%%

2151:  

2152: \bibitem{nojiri}

2153:   B.~C.~Allanach, G.~B\'elanger, F.~Boudjema and A.~Pukhov,

2154:   %``Requirements on collider data to match the precision of WMAP on

2155:   %supersymmetric dark matter,''

2156:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 020 (2004);\\

2157: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0410091].

2158:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410091;%%

2159:   M.~M.~Nojiri, G.~Polesello and D.~R.~Tovey,

2160:   %``Constraining dark matter in the MSSM at the LHC,''

2161:   JHEP {\bf 0603}, 063 (2006).

2162: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0512204].

2163:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512204;%%

2164: 

2165: \bibitem{stopmass}  

2166:   A.~Sopczak, M.~Carena, A.~Finch, A.~Freitas, C.~Milst\'ene and H.~Nowak,

2167:   %``Scalar top quark studies with various visible energies,''

2168:   in {\it Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Supersymmetry and

2169:   Unification of Fundamental Interactions (SUSY 2005), Durham, England, 18-23

2170:   Jul 2005}

2171:   [hep-ph/0605225].

2172:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605225;%%

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{mschmitt}

2175: A.~Freitas, C.~Milst\'ene, M.~Schmitt and A.~Sopczak, in

2176: preparation.

2177: 

2178: \bibitem{qcdyuk}

2179:   A.~Freitas and P.~Z.~Skands,

2180: %   ``Determining the SUSY-QCD Yukawa coupling,''

2181:   hep-ph/0606121.

2182:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606121;%%

2183: 

2184: \bibitem{darksusy}

2185:   P.~Gondolo, J.~Edsj\"o, P.~Ullio, L.~Bergstr\"om, M.~Schelke and E.~A.~Baltz,

2186:   %``DarkSUSY: Computing supersymmetric dark matter properties numerically,''

2187:   JCAP {\bf 0407}, 008 (2004).

2188: %  [arXiv:astro-ph/0406204].

2189:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0406204;%%

2190: 

2191: \bibitem{isajet}

2192: F.~E.~Paige, S.~D.~Protopopescu, H.~Baer and X.~Tata,

2193:   %``ISAJET 7.69: A Monte Carlo event generator for p p, anti-p p, and e+ e-

2194:   %reactions,''

2195:   hep-ph/0312045.

2196:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312045;%%

2197: 

2198: \end{thebibliography}

2199: 

2200: \end{document}

2201: