1: \documentclass[12pt,letter]{article}
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx, epsfig, color}
5: \textwidth 170mm
6: \textheight 225mm
7: \oddsidemargin -5mm
8: \evensidemargin 5mm
9: \topmargin -10pt
10:
11:
12: %\def\eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
13: \def\eslt{E_T^{\rm miss}}
14: \def\to{\rightarrow}
15: \def\Phat{\hat{\Phi}}
16: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
17: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
18: \def\te{\tilde e}
19: \def\tl{\tilde l}
20: \def\tu{\tilde u}
21: \def\ts{\tilde s}
22: \def\tb{\tilde b}
23: \def\tf{\tilde f}
24: \def\td{\tilde d}
25: \def\tQ{\tilde Q}
26: \def\tL{\tilde L}
27: \def\tH{\tilde H}
28: \def\tst{\tilde t}
29: \def\ttau{\tilde \tau}
30: \def\tmu{\tilde \mu}
31: \def\tg{\tilde g}
32: \def\tnu{\tilde\nu}
33: \def\tell{\tilde\ell}
34: \def\tq{\tilde q}
35: \def\tw{\widetilde W}
36: \def\tz{\widetilde Z}
37: %\def\tw{\widetilde\chi^{\pm}}
38: %\def\tz{\widetilde\chi^0}
39: \def\alt{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
40: \def\agt{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
41: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
42: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
43: \newcommand\prd[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
44: \newcommand\prep[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rept.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
45: \newcommand\prl[3]{{\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
46: \newcommand\plb[3]{{\it Phys.\ Lett.\ }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
47: \newcommand\jhep[3]{{\it J. High Energy Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
48: \newcommand\app[3]{{\it Astropart.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
49: \newcommand\apj[3]{{\it Astrophys.\ J. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
50: \newcommand\ijmpd[3]{{\it Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
51: \newcommand\npb[3]{{\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
52: \newcommand\epjc[3]{{\it Eur.\ Phys.\ J. }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
53: \newcommand\ptp[3]{{\it Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
54: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{hep-ph/#1}
55: \newcommand{\astroph}[1]{astro-ph/#1}
56:
57: %-----------------------------------------
58: %\def\sp{\bf\footnotesize (SP)\,\normalsize}
59: \def\sp{}
60: %-----------------------------------------
61:
62: \begin{document}
63: \begin{titlepage}
64: \begin{flushright}
65: FSU-HEP/060929\\
66: UH-511-1095-06
67: \end{flushright}
68:
69: \vspace{0.5cm}
70: \begin{center}
71: {\Large \bf
72: %Detecting gluino pair production in
73: Probing SUSY beyond the reach of LEP2 at
74: the\\[0.4cm] Fermilab Tevatron: low ${\bf |M_3|}$
75: dark matter models
76: %at the Fermilab Tevatron
77: }\\
78: \vspace{1.2cm} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
79: {\large Howard Baer $^{1,2}$\footnote[1]{Email: baer@hep.fsu.edu },
80: Azar Mustafayev $^3$\footnote[2]{Email: amustaf@ku.edu }, Stefano
81: Profumo $^4$\footnote[3]{Email: profumo@caltech.edu }
82: Xerxes Tata $^5$\footnote[4]{Email: tata@phys.hawaii.edu }} \\
83: \vspace{1.2cm} \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
84: {\it
85: 1. Dept. of Physics,
86: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA \\
87: 2. Dept. of Physics,
88: Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA \\
89: 3. Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
90: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA \\
91: 4. California Institute of Technology, Mail Code 106-38, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA \\
92: 5. Dept. of Physics and Astronomy,
93: University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
94: }
95:
96: \end{center}
97:
98: \vspace{0.5cm}
99: \begin{abstract}
100: \noindent In supersymmetric models where the magnitude of the GUT scale
101: gaugino mass parameter $M_3$ is suppressed relative to $M_1$ and $M_2$,
102: the lightest neutralino can be a mixed higgsino-bino state with a
103: thermal relic abundance in agreement with the WMAP central value for
104: $\Omega_{\rm CDM} h^2$ and consistent with all other phenomenological
105: constraints. In these models, the gluino can be as light as 200 GeV
106: without conflicting with the LEP2 bounds on the chargino mass. Thus,
107: gluino pair production can be accessible at the Fermilab Tevatron at
108: high rates. In this framework, gluinos decay radiatively with a large
109: branching fraction to a gluon plus a neutralino. We find that
110: experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron, with 5 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
111: luminosity, will be sensitive to $\tg\tg$ production in the $m_{\tg}\sim
112: 200-350$ GeV range via the multi-jet $+\eslt$ and multi-jet
113: $+\ell^+\ell^- +\eslt$ channels at the $5\sigma$ level, while trilepton
114: signatures are expected to be below this level of
115: detectability. Dilepton mass edges from both $\tz_2$ and $\tz_3$ decays
116: may be measurable in the dilepton $+$ multi-jet $+\eslt$ channel.
117:
118:
119: \vspace{0.8cm}
120: \noindent PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 12.60.Jv, 11.30.Pb, 13.85.Rm
121:
122: \end{abstract}
123:
124: %12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
125: %14.80.Ly Supersymmetric partners
126: %11.30.Pb Supersymmetry
127: %13.85.Rm Limits on production of particles
128:
129: \end{titlepage}
130:
131: \section{Introduction and motivation}
132:
133: The determination of the average density of cosmological cold dark
134: matter (CDM)~\cite{wmap}
135: %
136: \begin{equation}
137: \Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2 = 0.111^{+0.011}_{-0.015} \ \ (2\sigma)\;,
138: \label{wmap}
139: \end{equation}
140: imposes a stringent constraint on any beyond the Standard Model
141: framework featuring a weakly interacting massive particle stable on
142: cosmological time-scales.\footnote{We quote the value obtained by the
143: WMAP collaboration by combining their data with that from the Sloan
144: Digital Sky Survey.} In particular, (\ref{wmap}) poses a severe
145: constraint on $R$-parity conserving supersymmetry (SUSY) models where
146: the lightest neutralino ($\tz_1$) is the lightest supersymmetric
147: particle (LSP)~\cite{kamion}.
148:
149: Although it is possible to reconcile the value of $\Omega_{\rm
150: CDM}h^2$ determined by the WMAP team~\cite{wmap} with the thermal
151: neutralino relic abundance $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ expected in the
152: framework of the minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) model~\cite{msugra},
153: agreement with (\ref{wmap}) is obtained only within narrow regions, most
154: of which are close to the boundary of the allowed parameter space.
155: While the smallness of these regions reflects the impressive precision
156: achieved in the determination of $\Omega_{\rm CDM}$, the fact that they
157: lie close to phenomenologically constrained portions of the parameter
158: space reflects a general result in the mSUGRA setup: except in the case
159: where sparticles are light (the so-called bulk region), $\Omega_{\rm
160: CDM}h^2$ is considerably smaller than the typical mSUGRA expectation
161: for $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$. Special neutralino annihilation
162: mechanisms can, however, be operative in the Early Universe, enhancing
163: the LSP pair annihilation rate and consequently suppressing its relic
164: abundance to acceptable values. In mSUGRA, instances of such
165: mechanisms are resonant neutralino annihilations through $s$-channel
166: Higgs exchange diagrams~\cite{Afunnel}, the edges of parameter space
167: where the LSP co-annihilates~\cite{coann} with either a light
168: stau~\cite{stau} or a light stop~\cite{stop}, or where $|\mu|$ is small
169: enough so that the LSP features a substantial higgsino component
170: (the hyperbolic branch/focus point (HB/FP) region)~\cite{hb_fp}. Several
171: groups have examined the signals expected in collider experiments,
172: as well as via direct and indirect searches for neutralino dark matter
173: in underground detectors, assuming that the parameters are in one of
174: these WMAP-allowed regions of the mSUGRA
175: model.
176:
177: Motivated by the fact that the correlations between the WMAP measurement
178: and expectations in other experiments may be model-dependent, there have
179: been a number of recent studies that have relaxed the universality
180: assumption, that is the hallmark of the mSUGRA framework. Allowing for
181: non-universal Higgs boson mass (NUHM) parameters allows for an extended
182: region of {\sp parameter space where resonant annihilations occur or/and
183: where $|\mu|$ is sufficiently small}~\cite{nuhm}, while non-universality
184: {\sp in the} $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ GUT scale gaugino mass parameters allows
185: agreement between $\Omega_{\tz_1}$ and $\Omega_{\rm CDM}$ either via {\sp an enhanced wino fraction in the LSP}~\cite{winodm},
186: or via bino-wino coannihilation~\cite{bwca}.
187: These extended scenarios can be distinguished
188: from one another, as well as from the minimal mSUGRA scenario, because
189: they {\sp give rise to different outcomes} for collider signals and {\sp for the anticipated detection rates at} dark matter search experiments.
190:
191: Another option to obtain a consistent thermal neutralino relic density
192: is to {\em reduce} the magnitude of the GUT scale $SU(3)$ gaugino mass
193: $M_3$ relative to the magnitude of the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gaugino
194: masses~\cite{belanger,m3dm} (the so-called low $|M_3|$ dark matter model
195: (LM3DM)). As explained in Ref.~\cite{m3dm}, a lowered relic density
196: occurs because {\sp a smaller value for} $|M_3|$ also induces lower
197: values {\sp for the} squark masses and {\sp the trilinear scalar
198: couplings} via the {\sp running dictated by the (coupled)}
199: renormalization group equations (RGEs). The RGE running also
200: yields a suppression in the absolute size of the soft breaking Higgs
201: mass squared parameter $|m_{H_{u}}^2|$, which, in turn, lowers the magnitude of
202: the weak scale superpotential mass parameter $|\mu |$ (fixed by the
203: value of $M_Z$), so
204: that the lightest neutralino develops a significant higgsino component,
205: {\sp giving rise to} mixed higgsino dark matter (MHDM)\footnote{Although
206: the gluino mass is reduced from its usual value, the gluino - LSP mass
207: splitting is still large so that gluino co-annihilation can be safely
208: neglected in the evaluation of the $\tz_1$ relic
209: density~\cite{profumo}.}. Agreement with WMAP is then obtained because
210: {\sp the} neutralino annihilation {\sp rate is enhanced by larger
211: annihilation amplitudes into gauge and Higgs boson pairs, and
212: co-annihilation with the lightest chargino and the next-to-lightest
213: neutralino further suppress the final LSP relic density}.
214:
215: In the LM3DM scenario, we {\sp generically} expect {\sp the ratio of the gluino to
216: lightest chargino} mass $m_{\tg}:m_{\tw_1}$ {\sp to} be {\it smaller} than the
217: {\sp corresponding value $\sim 3-3.5$ expected} in models with universal GUT
218: scale gaugino masses and large $|\mu|$. This ratio is important when
219: comparing collider searches for sparticles {\sp with LEP and} the Fermilab
220: Tevatron. Assuming that $m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1}$ is not too small and that
221: $m_{\tnu} \ge 200$~GeV, consistency with LEP2 experiments requires
222: $m_{\tw_1}>103.5$ GeV. For models with gaugino mass unification and
223: large $|\mu |$, this bound implies that gluinos must have mass greater
224: than $\sim 300-350$ GeV. Such large mass gluinos are difficult to
225: search for at the Tevatron, {\sp as} their production cross {\sp section is} rapidly suppressed {\sp with increasing masses}.
226:
227: In the LM3DM model, {\sp instead, relatively light gluinos} (values {\sp
228: of the gluino mass} as low as $m_{\tg}\sim 200$ GeV would be consistent
229: with {\sp the} LEP2 constraints) can be copiously produced in hadronic
230: collisions, and the currently operating Fermilab Tevatron is the obvious
231: facility to search for these new matter states. {\sp To-date},
232: experiments at the Tevatron have searched for gluinos in their multi-jet
233: plus $\eslt$ data sample, and exclude gluinos lighter than {\sp roughly}
234: 200~GeV, irrespective of the squark mass, from their analysis of the Run
235: 1 data~\cite{gluinolim}. Very recently, the D\O \ collaboration, from an
236: analysis of 310~fb$^{-1}$ of data has obtained a new limit~\cite{dzero}
237: of $m_{\tg} > 233$~GeV. Unlike the multi-lepton plus jets plus $\eslt$
238: analyses based on cascade decays of gluinos, inclusive $\eslt$ analyses
239: are largely independent of the details of the spectrum in the
240: electroweak {\sp ``-{\em ino}''} sector\footnote{These analyses are not
241: completely independent of chargino and heavier neutralino masses because
242: the transverse momenta of the $\tz_1$ LSPs, and hence the $E_T^{\rm
243: miss}$ spectrum, does depend on the cascade decay patterns. Moreover,
244: sometimes a lepton veto is also imposed on the SUSY signal.}.
245:
246: Within any framework with unification of gaugino masses, $m_{\tg} \sim
247: (3-3.5) m_{\tw_1}$, and the published limits from CDF and D\O \
248: are pre-empted by the LEP limit $m_{\tw_1}\agt 103$~GeV on the chargino mass.
249: Within the LM3DM scenario, {\sp instead}, the gluino is relatively light, and the
250: impact of the LEP chargino limit on the Tevatron gluino search is
251: clearly reduced, so that it is possible that data from Tevatron
252: experiments may probe a range of {\sp the} LM3DM model parameter space not
253: accessible {\sp to} LEP2, either in the current data sample, or in the data
254: {\sp sample expected} to be accumulated at the Tevatron before the
255: LHC completes about a year of operation.
256:
257: In this study we explore the prospects for detection of gluino pair
258: production within the framework of the LM3DM scenario. The {\sp
259: remainder of the} paper is organized as {\sp follows. In Sec. 2 we
260: discuss the parameter space and sparticle mass spectra expected in the
261: LM3DM model. In Sec. 3, we discuss signal rates and backgrounds for
262: gluino pair discovery in the jets $+\eslt$ channel. In Sec. 4, we show
263: that discovery in the clean trilepton $+\eslt$ channel is unlikely. In
264: Sec. 5, we show that detection in the dilepton plus multi-jet $+\eslt$
265: is {\sp a viable possibility}, and that the associated $m(\ell^+\ell^-
266: )$ distribution can give the characteristic mass edges indicative of the
267: $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}$, and, possibly, also of the $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}$
268: mass difference. {\sp Finally,} we summarize our results in Sec. 6.
269:
270:
271: %\section{The low ${\bf M_3}$ dark matter model and its parameter space}
272: \section{The low ${\bf |M_3|}$ dark matter model}
273:
274: The low $|M_3|$ dark matter model differs from mSUGRA only in that the
275: GUT scale gluino mass parameter $M_3$ {\sp needs} not be equal to
276: $m_{1/2}=M_1=M_2$. The parameter space of this model is thus given by,
277: %
278: \begin{equation}
279: m_0, m_{1/2}, M_3, A_0, \tan\beta, sign(\mu),
280: \label{eq:par}\end{equation}
281: %
282: where $m_{1/2}$ is taken to be positive without loss of generality, but
283: $M_3$ can take either sign. For any {\sp set of values} for the {\sp parameters in} (\ref{eq:par}), we can vary $r_3 \equiv M_3/m_{1/2}$ so as to increase
284: the higgsino content of the LSP {\sp and to drive the} LSP
285: annihilation rate {\sp to yield a relic LSP density} $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2$ in
286: agreement with (\ref{wmap}). In order to get $|\mu|$ small enough, we
287: must {\sp``{\em slow down}''} the RG evolution of $m_{H_u}^2$ from
288: its GUT scale value of $m_0^2$ to a negative value at the weak scale --
289: remember that $m_{H_u}^2({\rm weak}) \sim -\mu^2$ as long as $\tan\beta$
290: is not very small -- which, in turn, requires a smaller value of $X_t
291: \equiv m_{Q_3}^2+m_{t_R}^2+m_{H_u}^2+A_t^2$ than in mSUGRA. Since gauge
292: coupling effects always {\it increase} squark mass parameters as they
293: evolve from the GUT scale {\sp down} to the weak scale, and since the large $SU(3)$
294: gauge coupling contributes dominantly to this increase, smaller values
295: of $X_t$ are obtained by choosing $|M_3({\rm GUT})|$ to be {\it smaller}
296: than its mSUGRA value of $m_{1/2}$.
297:
298: We provide a panorama of the LM3DM scenario in Fig.~\ref{fig:mgl}, where
299: we show contours of fixed gluino mass in the $m_0-m_{1/2}$ plane with
300: $\tan\beta=10$, $A_0=0$ and $\mu > 0$, {\sp and} where at each point in
301: this plane $r_3$ has been chosen to obtain the central value {\sp given
302: in} (\ref{wmap}) for the LSP relic density. We use Isajet v7.74 for
303: sparticle mass calculations~\cite{isajet}. The grey (red) region is
304: excluded because either electroweak symmetry in not properly broken or
305: the LSP becomes charged or colored. The black (blue) region is excluded
306: by {\sp the LEP2 negative search results for charginos}. The wiggles in
307: the plot curves reflect numerical issues related to the precision with
308: which we require the neutralino relic abundance to saturate the WMAP
309: central value for the CDM abundance (\ref{wmap}), and also any numerical
310: instabilities in the code for the determination of $\mu$ as a function
311: of $r_3$. On the extreme left of the plot where the gluino mass
312: contours dive, the $\tz_1$ is dominantly a bino since (due to light
313: sleptons) the $r_3$ value there need not deviate severely from $\sim 1$.
314: As we move to larger values of $m_0$ {\sp at fixed $m_{1/2}$}, much
315: smaller values of $r_3$ are needed {\sp for the neutralino relic
316: abundance to match the CDM density} in (\ref{wmap}), and we {\sp step}
317: into the MHDM region which, as explained above, {\sp also features} a
318: small value of $m_{\tg}$. Indeed we see that for $m_0 \agt 1$~TeV, the
319: gluino could be lighter than even 200~GeV in a region of parameter space
320: unconstrained by the negative results of sparticle searches
321: at LEP2.
322: %
323: \begin{figure}[!t]
324: \begin{center}
325: %\mbox{\hspace{-0.5cm} \epsfig{file=lm3dm_nm3_mgl.eps,width=8cm} \epsfig{file=lm3dm_pm3_mgl.eps,width=8cm}}
326: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_nm3_mgl.eps,width=8cm}
327: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_pm3_mgl.eps,width=8cm}
328: \end{center}
329: %\vspace*{-2cm}
330: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:mgl} Contours of $m_{\tg}$ in the $m_0\ vs.\
331: m_{1/2}$ plane for {\sp the} LM3DM model, where $M_3(M_{GUT})$ has been {\sp set,} at
332: every point {\sp of the parameter space}, to the value such that $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2=0.11$. We take $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$, $m_t=175$ GeV, and {\sp consider $M_3<0$ in the left panel and $M_3>0$ in the right panel}. The grey (red) regions are excluded because either the electroweak symmetry cannot
333: {\sp be} correctly broken, or because the LSP is charged. The black (blue) shaded
334: regions are excluded by the LEP2 bound on the chargino mass. }
335: \end{figure}
336: %
337:
338: As an example of the relation {\sp between} sparticle masses in this
339: region of parameter space, we show in Fig. \ref{fig:mass} the value of
340: $m_{\tg}$, together with the chargino and neutralino masses (the
341: sfermions are too heavy to be accessible at the Tevatron) versus
342: $m_{1/2}$ for the slice of the plane in Fig.~\ref{fig:mgl} {\sp at
343: fixed} $m_0=1500$ GeV. This $m_0$ value is representative of the range
344: needed for which $|M_3({\rm GUT})|$ has to be significantly reduced from
345: its mSUGRA value in order to obtain agreement with the observed value of
346: $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2$. While in mSUGRA one expects the masses
347: $m_{\tg}:m_{\tw_1}:m_{\tz_1}$ to be in the ratio $\sim 7:2:1$, {\sp we
348: find here that with MHDM, the typical ratio is rather} $\sim 2.5:1.5:1$,
349: so that not only is the $m_{\tg}-m_{\tw_1}$ mass gap reduced, but the
350: $m_{\tw_1}-m_{\tz_1}$ mass gap is {\sp suppressed} as well. Another
351: noteworthy feature is that because of the {\sp smallness} of $|\mu|$,
352: there is {\sp sizable} mixing between gauginos and higgsinos resulting
353: in {\it three} relatively light neutralinos, while the heavy chargino
354: and the heaviest neutralino (which are dominantly wino-like) are
355: considerably split from their lighter siblings. While all the masses
356: increase steadily with $m_{1/2}$, for the $M_3 > 0$ curves (solid lines)
357: we see sharp glitches at very low $m_{1/2}\sim 270$ GeV where
358: $m_{\tz_1}<M_W$: for $m_{1/2} < 270$~GeV, very low values of $r_3$ are
359: needed since $\tz_1\tz_1\to W^+W^-$ annihilation in the early universe
360: becomes kinematically suppressed. There are similar glitches for
361: negative $M_3$ (dashed lines), but these occur for $m_{1/2}$ values
362: excluded by the LEP2 constraints, and are not seen in the
363: figure because we terminate the curves on the left when the chargino
364: mass falls below its LEP2 limit.
365: %
366: \begin{figure*}[!t]
367: \begin{center}
368: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_mass_1500.eps,width=10cm}
369: \end{center}
370: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
371: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:mass} Gluino, chargino and neutralino masses versus
372: $m_{1/2}$ for the LM3DM model where $M_3(M_{GUT})$ has been lowered at
373: every point to {\sp obtain} $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2
374: =0.11$. {\sp We take here $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$, $m_t=175$ GeV and $m_0=1500$ GeV}. The solid curves {\sp correspond to} $M_3>0$, while the dashed
375: curves {\sp to} $M_3<0$. We {\sp cut} the curves on the left when the
376: chargino mass falls below its LEP2 bound. }
377: \end{figure*}
378: %
379:
380: {\sp Prior to} discussing whether Tevatron experiments can probe
381: supersymmetry in this region of parameter space we need to {\sp study}
382: the decay patterns of the gluino and {\sp of} its daughter
383: sparticles. For reasons detailed in Ref.~\cite{m3dm}, the radiative
384: decays $\tg \to g\tz_i$ dominate for the gluino masses of interest at
385: the Tevatron. In the upper frames of Fig.~\ref{fig:bfs}, we show the
386: branching ratio for these various radiative decays of the gluino for
387: $M_3 >0$ (left frame) and $M_3<0$ (right frame), together with that for
388: the sum of all its {\sp three-body} decays (labeled 3), versus
389: $m_{1/2}$. We adopt {\sp here} the same parameter set as in
390: Fig. \ref{fig:mass}. As {\sp in the preceding figures, we set $M_3$} so
391: {\sp that $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2 =0.11$, the WMAP central value for the CDM
392: abundance~\cite{wmap}}. We see that -- depending on the sign of $M_3$
393: -- gluinos lighter than $\sim 420-475$~GeV dominantly decay radiatively.
394: For small to medium values of $\tan\beta$, where bottom quark Yukawa
395: couplings can be neglected, the partial width for the various radiative
396: decays is mainly governed by the $\tH_u$ content of the
397: neutralino~\cite{m3dm,glrad}, and accounts for the ordering of the
398: branching fractions for these decays. The sharp rise in the branching
399: fraction for the three body decays is due to the opening up {\sp of
400: decays} to the wino-like $\tz_4$ and $\tw_2$, both of which have large
401: $SU(2)$ gauge couplings to $\tq_L$: when these modes are not phase space
402: suppressed, they rapidly dominate the decay width. Note that unlike
403: the tree-level decay, the radiative decay to the dominantly wino-like
404: $\tz_4$ is dynamically suppressed because the higgsino component of the
405: wino-like state is always small. Although we have shown the results for
406: {\sp the particular choice of} $m_0=1.5$~TeV, we have checked that these
407: results are qualitatively unaltered for $m_0$ values in the range
408: between 1 and 2~TeV.
409: %
410: \begin{figure*}[!t]
411: \begin{center}
412: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_bf_tb10_1500.eps,width=12cm}
413: \end{center}
414: %\vspace*{-1.2cm}
415: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:bfs} The curves (labeled $\tz_i$) in the upper
416: panels show the branching fractions for the radiative decays $\tg \to
417: \tz_i g$ of the gluino versus $m_{1/2}$ for LM3DM model where
418: $M_3(M_{GUT})$ has been adjusted at every point to attain mixed higgsino
419: dark matter with $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2 =0.11$, while the curve labeled 3
420: denotes the corresponding
421: branching fraction for the sum of all three body decays of
422: the gluino. The {\sp (barely visible) unlabeled} lowest curves in {\sp the upper panels indicate}
423: $B(\tg \to \tz_4 g)$ which is {\sp find to lie} always below the percent level.
424: %becomes kinematically allowed
425: %for $m_{\tg} \agt 350$~GeV, but since its branching fraction is always
426: %below the percent level, we do not show it here.
427: The lower frames show
428: the total leptonic branching fractions for the decays, $\tz_2 \to
429: \ell\bar{\ell}+X$, $\tz_3 \to \ell\bar{\ell}+X$ and $\tw_1 \to \ell +X$,
430: adding in all possible decay chains for the particular lepton topology.
431: The left (right) frames are for $M_3 > 0$ ($M_3 < 0$). {\sp Everywhere, we fix}
432: $m_0=1500$~GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $m_t=175$.}
433: \end{figure*}
434: %
435:
436: For large values of $\tan\beta$, the value of $r_3$ required to get
437: $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2 =0.11$ is larger; as a result,
438: the gluino is relatively heavier than $\tz_4$ or $\tw_2$, and its
439: tree-level decays become dominant. {\sp However, bearing in mind the possibility} that the {\sp cosmological}
440: dark matter {\sp can very well consist} of several {\sp components, lower values} of
441: $r_3$ (which would {\sp lead to $\Omega_{\tz_1}<\Omega_{\rm CDM}$}) {\it are not
442: excluded}. Within the LM3DM framework, Tevatron experiments can, and
443: should, search for gluinos in this large $\tan\beta$ portion of the
444: parameter space since it has not been excluded by LEP2 searches.
445: By the same token, if dark matter has several components, it is possible
446: that the {\sp gluinos are even} lighter than what we obtain here (see, {\it e.g.} Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}), {\sp and the resulting LEP2 excluded
447: region could as well be} smaller than {\sp what we show}.
448:
449: In the lower frames of Fig.~\ref{fig:bfs} we show the cumulative
450: leptonic branching fractions for the daughter neutralinos and charginos
451: versus $m_{1/2}$. For $\tw_1$ and $\tz_2$, this is simply the usual branching
452: ratio $B(\tw_1 \to \ell\nu\tz_1)$ and $B(\tz_2\to \ell\bar{\ell}\tz_1)$,
453: but for $\tz_3$ the two leptons can come from either its primary decay,
454: or from the leptonic decays of daughter neutralinos\footnote{In
455: principle, there could be contributions from $\tz_3\to W^\pm \tw_1^\mp$,
456: but these decays are kinematically inaccessible over the entire {\sp parameter space range shown in the} plot.}.
457: The branching fractions shown in these lower frames can be used in
458: conjunction with those in the upper frames
459: and the gluino production cross sections to
460: estimate cross sections (before any cuts) for various multi-lepton
461: topologies in di-jet events at the Tevatron.
462:
463:
464: \section{Search in the jets ${\bf +\eslt}$ channel}
465:
466: In this section, we examine whether the Fermilab Tevatron can detect
467: gluino pair production in the LM3DM model in the multi-jet $+\eslt$ mode,
468: assuming 5 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity that is projected to be
469: accumulated by each experiment at the Tevatron. We generate signal and background events
470: using Isajet 7.74, with a toy detector simulation containing hadronic
471: calorimetry ranging out to $|\eta | <4$, with cell size
472: $\Delta\eta\times\Delta\phi =0.1\times 0.262$. We adopt hadronic
473: smearing of $\Delta E=0.7/\sqrt{E}$ and EM smearing of $\Delta
474: E=0.15/\sqrt{E}$. We adopt the Isajet GETJET jet finding algorithm,
475: requiring jets in a cone size of $\Delta R=0.5$ with $E_T^{{\rm jet}}>15$ GeV.
476: Jets are ordered from highest $E_T$ ($j_1$) to lowest $E_T$. Leptons
477: within $|\eta_{\ell}| < 2.5$ ($\ell=e, \ \mu$) are classified as
478: isolated if $p_T(\ell )>5$ GeV and a cone of $\Delta R=0.4$ about the
479: lepton direction contains $E_T<2$~GeV. Finally,
480: if a jet with $|\eta_j|\le 2$ has a $B$-hadron with $E_T \ge 15$~GeV
481: within $\Delta R \le 0.5$, it is tagged as a $b$-jet with an efficiency
482: of 50\%.
483:
484: To find optimal cuts, we generated 100K signal events for the case where $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV,
485: $m_0=1500$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $\mu >0$. For this point,
486: $M_3=79.69$ GeV yields $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2=0.12$. We have also generated
487: SM background event samples from $W$ + jets production, $Z$ + jets
488: production, $t\bar{t}$ production and vector boson pair
489: production\footnote{We do not estimate QCD backgrounds which, we
490: assume, are negligible after the cuts described below~\cite{dzero}.}. The
491: $W$ or $Z$ + jets sample uses QCD matrix elements for the primary parton
492: emission, while subsequent emissions are generated from the parton
493: shower. We adopt a set of cuts similar to those used by the D\O \
494: collaboration in Ref.~\cite{dzero}, but optimize the $\eslt$ and $H_T$
495: cut values for this framework. Our final set of cuts are listed in Table
496: \ref{tab:cuts}, where we divide the signal topologies into $\ge
497: 2$-jets+$\eslt$, $\ge 3$-jets+$\eslt$ and $\ge 4$-jets+$\eslt$, while vetoing
498: isolated leptons. The constituent background rates from the major
499: background sources are listed in Table \ref{tab:bg}. From these rates,
500: we can compute the signal observability level needed for a given
501: integrated luminosity, using the following criteria: (1)~the statistical
502: significance $S/\sqrt{B} \ge 5\sigma$, (2)~$S/B \ge 25$\%, and (3)~$S\ge
503: 10$ events.
504: %which we
505: %take to be 5 fb$^{-1}$ for the Fermilab Tevatron.
506: %
507: %\TABLE{
508: \begin{table}[!t]
509: \begin{center}
510: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
511: \hline
512: cut & $2j+\eslt$ & $3j+\eslt$ & $4j+\eslt$ \\
513: \hline
514: $\Delta\phi (j_1,j_2)<165^\circ$ & yes & yes & yes \\
515: isol. lep. veto & yes & yes & yes \\
516: $n_j$ & $\ge 2$ & $\ge 3$ & $\ge 4$ \\
517: $|\eta_{j_i}|<0.8$ & $j_1,j_2$ & $j_1,j_2,j_3$ & $j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4$ \\
518: $80^\circ < \Delta\phi (\eslt ,j_1)<150^\circ$ & yes & yes & yes \\
519: %$60^\circ < \Delta\phi (\eslt ,j_2)<150^\circ$ & yes & yes & yes \\
520: $\Delta\phi (\eslt ,j_2)$ & $50^\circ - 150^\circ$ & $50^\circ -
521: 150^\circ$ & $60^\circ - 150^\circ$ \\
522: $\eslt$ & $\ge 120\ {\rm GeV}$ & $\ge 100\ {\rm GeV}$ & $\ge 75\ {\rm GeV}$ \\
523: $H_T$ & $\ge 220\ {\rm GeV}$ & $\ge 150\ {\rm GeV}$ & --- \\
524: \hline
525: \end{tabular}
526: \end{center}
527: \caption{\small\it Cuts used for the analysis of multi-jet $+\eslt$ signatures in the
528: LM3DM model.
529: }
530: \label{tab:cuts}
531: \end{table}
532: %
533:
534: %
535: %\TABLE{
536: \begin{table}[!t]
537: \begin{center}
538: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
539: \hline
540: BG & $2j+\eslt$ & $3j+\eslt$ & $4j+\eslt$ \\
541: \hline
542: $t\bar{t}(175)$ & $6.6\pm 0.3$ & $12.3\pm 0.5$ & $14.9\pm 0.6$ \\
543: $W+jets$ & $8.9\pm 1.4$ & $15.5\pm 1.9$ & $12.1\pm 1.7$ \\
544: $Z+jets$ & $11.0\pm 0.7$ & $17.2\pm 0.9$ & $9.0\pm 0.7$ \\
545: $total$ & $26.5 $ & $45.1 $ & $36.0 $ \\
546: \hline
547: \end{tabular}
548: \end{center}
549: \caption{\small\it SM backgrounds in ${\rm fb}$ after cuts listed in Table \ref{tab:cuts} for
550: the multi-jet $+\eslt$ signatures in the LM3DM model.
551: }
552: \label{tab:bg}
553: \end{table}
554: %
555:
556: {\sp Our results} for the SUSY reach of the Tevatron within the LM3DM
557: framework are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:jets} versus $m_{1/2}$ for the same
558: parameter choices as in Fig. \ref{fig:mass}. Assuming an integrated
559: luminosity of 5~fb$^{-1}$, we have checked that the reach in each of the three
560: $n$-jet + $\eslt$ event topologies is limited by the $5\sigma$
561: criterion. The minimum cross section for observability of the signal is
562: shown by the dashed horizontal line, while the signal is indicated by the
563: solid (dashed) curve for $M_3>0$ ($M_3<0$) for ({\it a})~$\ge
564: 2$-jets+$\eslt$ events, ({\it b})~$\ge 3$-jets+$\eslt$ events and ({\it
565: c})~$\ge 4$-jets+$\eslt$ events. We see in each of frames ({\it a})-({\it
566: c}) that the 5 fb$^{-1}$ reach extends out to $m_{1/2}\sim 330-340$ GeV,
567: corresponding to a reach in $m_{\tg}$ according to Fig. \ref{fig:mass}
568: of $\sim 320$ GeV. Within the LM3DM framework, this corresponds to a
569: reach in $m_{\tw_1}\agt 170$ GeV, and thus extends well beyond that of
570: LEP2 experiments.
571: %
572: \begin{figure*}[!t]
573: \begin{center}
574: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_tev_reach.eps,width=12cm}
575: \end{center}
576: %\vspace*{-2.5cm}
577: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:jets} The SUSY reach of the Fermilab Tevatron with 5
578: fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity in the multi-jet $+\eslt$ channel for
579: ({\it a}) di-jet events, ({\it b}) tri-jet events, ({\it c} four jet events,
580: and ({\it d})~trilepton events for LM3DM model where $|M_3(M_{GUT})|$ has
581: been adjusted at every point to {\sp get} $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2 =0.11$. We fix $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$, $m_t=175$
582: GeV {\sp and $m_0=1500$ GeV}, a slice representative of {\sp the LM3DM parameter space under investigation here}. The solid curve is for $M_3>0$, {\sp while the dashed curve corresponds to} $M_3<0$. }
583: \end{figure*}
584: %
585:
586:
587: \section{Search in the trilepton ${\bf +\eslt}$ channel}
588:
589: We have also examined the reach of the Fermilab Tevatron in the much
590: touted inclusive trilepton channel\cite{trilep} where the leptons arise from the decays of charginos and
591: neutralinos produced via $p\bar{p}\to \tw_1\tz_i+X$, or via cascade
592: decays of gluinos.
593: Since, as discussed above, the mass gap between $\tw_1/\tz_2$ and the
594: $\tz_1$ LSP is not large, we expect the lepton spectra to be relatively
595: soft. Hence, for this study, we adopt the soft lepton cuts SC2
596: introduced in the first paper of Ref.~\cite{new3l}, where the background
597: was found to be 1.05 fb. The reach in the inclusive trilepton channel
598: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:jets}({\it d}) where we see that signal is
599: always below the 5$\sigma$ observability level. This is, in part, due to
600: the fact that the kinematically favored $\tw_1\tz_{2,3}$ production
601: now dominantly occurs via the weak isodoublet
602: higgsino components of the chargino and
603: neutralino which have a smaller coupling (than the weak iso-triplet
604: coupling characteristic of the mSUGRA framework) to the $Z$ boson.
605: We conclude that in the
606: case of the LM3DM model, the best search channel is the multi-jets
607: $+\eslt$ channels.
608:
609: \section{Search in the jets + OS-dilepton ${\bf +\eslt}$ channel}
610:
611: The relatively low value of $|\mu|$ is the characteristic feature of the
612: LM3DM model. As a result, three (rather than two) neutralinos tend to be
613: relatively light and mixed, whereas gaugino-higgsino mixing increases the
614: masses of the
615: heavier chargino
616: and the heaviest neutralino. It is,
617: therefore, reasonable to ask whether it is possible to identify their
618: production via the cascade decays of gluinos at the Tevatron. We are
619: thus led to investigate the observability of the signal in the multi-jet
620: + opposite sign (OS) dilepton + $\eslt$ channel, where the leptons have
621: the same flavor.
622: %Since $\tg\tg$ production is expected to occur at observable rates in the
623: %LM3DM model for $m_{\tg}\alt 350$ GeV, it is reasonable to check further
624: %signal channels, especially those containing leptonic $\tz_2$ and $\tz_3$
625: %decays,
626: This channel is of special importance since it has been long known
627: that the dilepton invariant mass spectrum from $\tz_i\to
628: \tz_1+\ell\bar{\ell}$ contains a kinematic cut-off at
629: $m_{\tz_i}-m_{\tz_1}$. The mass edge(s), if visible, can serve as the
630: starting point for reconstructing sparticle cascade decays, and for
631: obtaining information on sparticle masses~\cite{dileptons}.
632:
633: Toward this end, we examine the signal in the
634: multi-jet$+\ell\bar{\ell}+\eslt$ channel, where $\ell =e$ or $\mu$. We
635: extract signal events containing two opposite-sign/same flavor isolated
636: leptons plus jets plus missing transverse energy, and compare the signal
637: with SM backgrounds from $t\bar{t}$ production,
638: $Z\to\tau\bar{\tau}+{\rm jets}$ production and vector boson pair production
639: ($W^+W^-,\ Z^0Z^0$ and $W^\pm Z^0$ production). By requiring hard
640: missing $E_T$ ($\eslt >75$ GeV), we reject much of the background from
641: $Z^0$ production, while by requiring a veto of events with a tagged
642: $b$-jet we reject much of the $t\bar{t}$ background with hardly any loss
643: of signal. Finally, requiring at least 2 jets in the events improves the
644: statistical significance of the signal. The surviving background rates
645: in fb, along with signal in the LM3DM framework for $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV
646: and other parameters as in Fig. \ref{fig:mass}) are listed in Table
647: \ref{tab:bg2}. The corresponding reach in the $\ge
648: 2$-jets+$\ell\bar{\ell}+\eslt$ channel is once again governed by the
649: $5\sigma$ criterion, and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reach_2j2l} versus
650: $m_{1/2}$, with other parameters as in
651: Fig. \ref{fig:mass}, for 5 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. We see
652: that it extends out to $m_{1/2}\sim 310-320$ GeV, {\it i.e.} slightly
653: lower than the reach in the multi-jet$+\eslt$ channels.
654: %
655: %\TABLE{
656: \begin{table}[!t]
657: \begin{center}
658: \begin{tabular}{lc}
659: \hline
660: BG & $2j+\ell\bar{\ell}+\eslt$ \\
661: \hline
662: $t\bar{t}(175)$ & $11.6\pm 0.5$ \\
663: $Z\to\tau\bar{\tau}+jets$ & $5.6\pm 0.5$ \\
664: $WW,\ WZ,\ ZZ$ & $7.6\pm 0.6$ \\
665: $total$ & $24.8 $ \\
666: $signal\ m_{1/2}=300\ GeV$ & $21.4\pm 0.6$ \\
667: \hline
668: \end{tabular}
669: \end{center}
670: \caption{\small\it SM backgrounds and signal for $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV in ${\rm fb}$
671: after cuts listed in text for
672: the multi-jet $+\ell\bar{\ell}+\eslt$ signatures in the LM3DM model.
673: }
674: \label{tab:bg2}
675: \end{table}
676: %
677:
678: %
679: \begin{figure*}[!t]
680: \begin{center}
681: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_tev_2j2l.eps,width=12cm}
682: \end{center}
683: \vspace*{-0.8cm}
684: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:reach_2j2l}
685: The SUSY reach of the Fermilab Tevatron
686: in the $\ge 2~$jets$+\ell\bar{\ell}+\eslt$
687: channel for the case
688: of $m_0=1500$ GeV, $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $m_t=175$ GeV assuming
689: an integrated luminosity of 5~fb$^{-1}$.
690: We dial $M_3(M_{GUT})$ {\sp for each $m_{1/2}$ so that $\Omega_{\tz_1}h^2
691: =0.11$}.
692: }
693: \end{figure*}
694: %
695:
696: In order to examine the detectability of any dilepton mass edges, we show
697: the opposite-sign/same-flavor
698: dilepton invariant mass spectrum from the signal and background
699: in Fig. \ref{fig:mll}, for
700: the case of $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV, and other parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mass}.
701: The hatched distribution comes from the various background sources
702: listed in Table \ref{tab:bg2}, which includes a peak at
703: $m(\ell\bar{\ell})=M_Z$ from $Z$-pair production. The signal plus
704: background is shown by the open histogram. In this case, a
705: distinct mass edge can be seen at $m_{\tz_2}-m_{\tz_1}\sim 59$ GeV.
706: %In fact, since $\tz_3$ is relatively light in models with MHDM, the decay
707: Remarkably, the mass edge from $\tz_3\to\tz_1\ell\bar{\ell}$ is also
708: seen at at $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}\sim 86$ GeV. This higher mass edge will
709: be somewhat obscured by $Z$-width effects, which are not included in our
710: simulation of $ZZ$ production.
711: %\footnote{We have also included only
712: %$Z \to \tau\tau$ events in our simulation of the background from $Z+j$
713: %production.}.
714: The point, however, is that the value of
715: $m_{\tz_3}-m_{\tz_1}$ in our study is only
716: fortuitously close to $M_Z$, and in general, it may be possible to see
717: even the second mass edge at the Tevatron! Observation of this second
718: mass edge would provide a strong {\sp hint for a} small value of
719: $|\mu|$.
720:
721: %
722: \begin{figure*}[!t]
723: \begin{center}
724: \epsfig{file=lm3dm_mll_2j2l.eps,width=8cm}
725: \end{center}
726: %\vspace*{-1.4cm}
727: \caption{\small\it \label{fig:mll}
728: The spectrum of opposite sign/same flavor dilepton invariant mass in
729: background (hatched) and signal-plus-background (open histogram), for the case
730: of $m_0=1500$ GeV, $m_{1/2}=300$ GeV, $M_3=79.69$ GeV.
731: We also take $A_0=0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $m_t=175$ GeV. The arrows
732: denote the theoretically expected positions of the corresponding mass edges.
733: }
734: \end{figure*}
735: %
736:
737: \section{Summary and concluding remarks}
738:
739: Within the mSUGRA model, or any other supersymmetric setup with
740: unification of the soft SUSY breaking gaugino
741: mass parameters at the GUT scale, the lower limit $m_{\tw_1} \ge 103$~GeV from
742: LEP2 experiments excludes gluinos with masses smaller than about
743: 300-350~GeV, leaving little room for gluino searches at the Fermilab
744: Tevatron. This is, however, a {\it model-dependent} conclusion, and, as
745: {\sp already} stressed elsewhere~\cite{wss}, Tevatron experiments should
746: search for gluinos independently of the constraints from LEP2.
747:
748: {\sp We provide here a specific example,} the so-called low $|M_3|$ dark matter framework
749: (LM3DM), {\sp where} the universality of the GUT scale gluino mass parameter
750: with the corresponding $SU(2)$ and hypercharge gaugino mass parameters {\sp is relaxed},
751: {\sp while the} universality of {\sp all} other soft SUSY breaking parameters {\sp is retained,} as in the
752: mSUGRA {\sp setup}. Adjusting the magnitude of $M_3({\rm GUT})$ (which can have
753: either sign) to low values leads to SUSY spectra with relatively
754: {\sp suppressed values} of $|\mu|$, {\sp entailing, in turn, a larger LSP higgsino fraction}, which {\sp can then lead} to an LSP relic density in
755: agreement with the {\sp observationally preferred} central value (\ref{wmap}) of $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2$ for
756: any value of {\sp the} other {\sp soft} SUSY breaking parameters.
757:
758: The LM3DM framework leads to characteristic differences in the
759: sparticle spectra from the usually studied frameworks with unified
760: gaugino masses, or with anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking. In particular,
761: {\sp low values of $|M_3|$ imply} that {\sp the $m_{\tg}/m_{\tw_1}$ ratio} is
762: significantly smaller in the LM3DM model {\sp compared to the mSUGRA case,} so that experiments at the
763: Tevatron will be able to explore regions of parameter space not {\sp already ruled out by} LEP2.
764:
765: The main result of {\sp the present} study is the reach of the Fermilab
766: Tevatron experiments within the LM3DM framework, shown in
767: Fig.~\ref{fig:jets} and Fig~\ref{fig:reach_2j2l}. {\sp The} best reach
768: is obtained in the inclusive multi-jet + $\eslt$ channels, while the
769: reach in the multi-jet plus opposite sign dilepton channel is only
770: slightly {\sp less effective}. Assuming an integrated luminosity of
771: 5~fb$^{-1}$, {\sp expected} to be {\sp delivered to each experiment}
772: within the next two years of {\sp operations at the Tevatron}, the reach
773: extends {\sp up to} $m_{1/2}=350$~GeV which, for $M_3 > 0$ corresponds
774: to $m_{\tg}\sim 325$~GeV and $m_{\tw_1}\sim 170$~GeV, significantly
775: beyond the reach of LEP2. Combining the two experiments will yield an
776: even higher reach.
777:
778: The concomitant smallness of $|\mu|$ within this framework implies {\sp that
779: both} $\tz_2$ and $\tz_3$ may be accessible via {\sp gluino decays, offering} another interesting opportunity to Tevatron
780: experiments, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:mll}: the invariant dilepton
781: mass spectrum for events with $\ge 2$ jets + OS dileptons + $\eslt$, with
782: a veto on $b$-tagged jets (to reduce the background from $t\bar{t}$
783: production), may yield mass edges from both $\tz_2 \to
784: \ell\bar{\ell}\tz_1$ and $\tz_3 \to \ell\bar{\ell}\tz_1$
785: decays. Observation of two mass edges would strongly suggest a small
786: value of $|\mu|$.
787:
788: In summary, if SUSY is realized as in the LM3DM model, a framework
789: consistent with all constraints from particle physics and cosmology,
790: experiments at the Tevatron will be able to probe regions of parameter
791: space not accessible at LEP 2 before the LHC experiments turn on and
792: collect data for physics analysis.
793: We urge our colleagues on the CDF and D\O \ experiments to
794: search for gluinos irrespective of constraints from chargino searches
795: since these are based on the {\it untested}
796: assumption of gaugino mass unification.
797:
798: \section*{Acknowledgments}
799: We would like to thank A. Belyaev and J.-F. Grivaz for useful discussions.
800: This research was supported in part by grants DE-FG02-97ER41022,
801: DE-FG02-95ER40896, DE-FG03-92-ER40701, DE-FG02-ER41291,
802: and DE-FG02-05ER41361 DE-FG02-04ER41308 from the United
803: States Department of Energy, NASA NNG05GF69G from NASA
804: and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
805: %
806: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
807: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
808: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
809: \small
810: %
811: \bibitem{wmap} D. N. Spergel {\it et al.} (WMAP Collaboration),
812: \astroph{0603449} (2006).
813: %
814: \bibitem{kamion} For recent reviews, see {\it e.g.}
815: C. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest,\prep{267}{195}{1996};
816: A. Lahanas, N. Mavromatos and D. Nanopoulos,
817: \ijmpd{12}{2003}{1529};
818: M. Drees, \hepph{0410113};
819: K. Olive, ``Tasi Lectures on Astroparticle Physics'', \astroph{0503065}.
820: %
821: \bibitem{msugra}
822: A.~Chamseddine, R.~Arnowitt and P.~Nath,
823: \prl{49}{1982}{970};
824: R.~Barbieri, S.~Ferrara and C.~Savoy,
825: \plb{119}{1982}{343};
826: N. Ohta, \ptp{70}{1983}{542};
827: L.~J.~Hall, J.~Lykken and S.~Weinberg, \prd{27}{1983}{2359};
828: for reviews, see H.~P.~Nilles, {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 110} (1984) 1, and
829: P. Nath, \hepph{0307123}.
830: %
831: \bibitem{Afunnel} M. Drees and M. Nojiri, \prd{47}{1993}{376};
832: H. Baer and M. Brhlik, \prd{53}{1996}{597} and \prd{57}{1998}{567};
833: H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante,
834: P. Quintana and X. Tata, \prd{63}{2001}{015007};
835: J. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
836: \plb{510}{2001}{236}; L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri and T. Nihei,
837: \jhep{0108}{024}{2001}; A. Djouadi, M. Drees and J. L. Kneur,
838: \jhep{0108}{2001}{055};
839: A. Lahanas and V. Spanos, \epjc{23}{2002}{185}.
840: %
841: \bibitem{coann} K.~Griest and D.~Seckel, \prd{43}{1991}{3191};
842: J.~McDonald, K.~Olive, and M.~Srednicki, \plb{283}{1992}{80};
843: S.~Mizuta and M.~Yamaguchi, \plb{298}{1993}{120}.
844: %
845: \bibitem{stau} J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. Olive,
846: \plb{444}{1998}{367}; J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and M. Srednicki,
847: \app{13}{2000}{181};
848: M.E. G\'{o}mez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, \prd{61}{2000}{123512}
849: and \plb{487}{2000}{313};
850: A. Lahanas, D. V. Nanopoulos and V. Spanos, \prd{62}{2000}{023515};
851: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and Y.~Santoso,
852: \npb{606}{2001}{59};
853: H. Baer, C. Balazs and A. Belyaev, \jhep{0203}{2002}{042}.
854: %
855: \bibitem{stop} C.~B\"ohm, A.~Djouadi and M.~Drees,
856: \prd{30}{2000}{035012};
857: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive and Y.~Santoso, \app{18}{2003}{395};
858: J.~Edsj\"o {\it et al.}, JCAP {\bf 04} (2003) 001
859: %
860: \bibitem{hb_fp} K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath,
861: \prd{58}{1998}{096004}.
862: J.~Feng, K.~Matchev and T.~Moroi, \prl{84}{2000}{2322} and
863: \prd{61}{2000}{075005}; see also
864: H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, \prd{52}{1995}{2746} and
865: \prd{53}{1996}{6241}; H. Baer, C. H. Chen, M. Drees, F. Paige and X. Tata,
866: \prd{59}{1999}{055014}; for a model-independent approach, see
867: H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas, S. Profumo and P. Ullio,
868: \jhep{0510}{2005}{020}.
869: %
870: \bibitem{nuhm} V.~Berezinsky {\it et al.}, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5}
871: (1996) 1; P.~Nath and R.~Arnowitt, \prd{56}{1997}{2820};A.~Bottino
872: {\it et al.} \prd{59}{1999}{095004} and \prd{63}{2001}{125003};
873: J. Ellis, K. Olive and Y. Santoso, \plb{539}{2002}{107};
874: J. Ellis, T. Falk, K. Olive and Y. Santoso, \npb{652}{2003}{259};
875: H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and X. Tata,
876: \prd{71}{2005}{095008} and \jhep{0507}{2005}{065};
877: C. Lester, A. Parker and M. J. White, \hepph{0609298};
878: L.Solmaz, \hepph{0609162}.
879: %
880: \bibitem{winodm}
881: A. Birkedal-Hansen and B. Nelson, \prd{64}{2001}{015008} and
882: \prd{67}{2003}{095006};
883: H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, E. Park and S. Profumo,
884: \jhep{0507}{2005}{046}.
885: %
886: \bibitem{bwca} H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas, A. Mustafayev, E. Park and S. Profumo
887: and X. Tata, \jhep{0512}{2005}{011}
888: %
889: \bibitem{belanger} Y.~Mambrini and E.~Nezri, \hepph{0507263};
890: G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, A. Pukhov and
891: A. Semenov, \npb{706}{2005}{411}.
892: %
893: \bibitem{m3dm} H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, E. Park, S. Profumo and X. Tata,
894: \jhep{0604}{2006}{041}.
895: %
896: \bibitem{profumo} S.~Profumo and C.~Yaguna, \prd{69}{2004}{115009}.
897: %
898: \bibitem{gluinolim} B. Abbott {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration),
899: \prl{83}{1999}{4937};
900: T. Affolder {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
901: \prl{88}{2002}{041801}.
902: %
903: \bibitem{dzero} V. M. Abazov {\it et al.} (D0 Collaboration),
904: \plb{638}{2006}{119}.
905: %
906: \bibitem{isajet} ISAJET v7.74, by H. Baer, F. Paige, S. Protopopescu and
907: X. Tata, \hepph{0312045}.
908: %
909: \bibitem{glrad} H. Baer, X. Tata and J. Woodside,
910: \prd{42}{1990}{1568}.
911: %
912: \bibitem{trilep} H. Baer and X. Tata, \prd{47}{1993}{2739}.
913: %
914: \bibitem{new3l} H. Baer, M. Drees, F. Paige, P. Quintana and X. Tata,
915: \prd{61}{2000}{095007};
916: V. Barger and C. Kao, \prd{60}{1999}{115015} and
917: K. Matchev and D. Pierce, \plb{467}{1999}{225}. For a review, see
918: S.~Abel {\it et al.} \hepph{0003154}.
919: %
920: \bibitem{dileptons} H. Baer, K. Hagiwara and X. Tata, \prd{35}{1987}{1598};
921: H. Baer, D. Dzialo-Karatas and X. Tata, \prd{42}{1990}{2259};
922: H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, \prd{48}{1993}{5175};
923: H. Baer, C. H. Chen, F. Paige and X. Tata, \prd{50}{1994}{4508};
924: I. Hinchliffe {\it et al.}, \prd{55}{1997}{5520}
925: and \prd{60}{1999}{095002};
926: H. Bachacou, I. Hinchliffe and F. Paige, \prd{62}{2000}{015009};
927: Atlas Collaboration, LHCC 99-14/15.
928: %
929: \bibitem{wss} See {\it e.g.} H.~Baer and X.~Tata, {\em Weak Scale
930: Supersymmetry}, Cambridge University Press (2006).
931: \end{thebibliography}
932:
933: \end{document}
934:
935:
936: