1: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[aps,prd,amssymb, amsmath,preprint,nofootinbib,nobibnotes]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7: %%
8: %\textwidth6.5in \textheight8.7in \oddsidemargin0.0in
9: %\topmargin-0.5in
10: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower3pt\hbox{\hskip0pt$\sim$}}
11: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} %less than or approx. symbol
12: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
13: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} %greater than or approx. symbol
14: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
15: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
16:
17: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
18: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
19: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
20: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
21: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
22: #1 % and print #1
23: \else % / is bigger
24: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
25: / % and print /
26: \fi} %
27:
28:
29: \begin{document}
30: \draft
31: \title{Squark Pair Production in the MSSM with Explicit CP Violation}
32: \author{Ahmet T. Alan$^{a}$, Kerem Canko{\c c}ak$^{b}$ and Durmu{\c s} A.
33: Demir$^{c}$}
34: \affiliation{$^{a}$Department of Physics, Abant Izzet
35: Baysal University, Turkey, TR14280} \affiliation{$^{b}$Department
36: of Physics, Mu{\~g}la University, Turkey, TR48000}
37: \affiliation{$^{c}$ Department of Physics, Izmir Institute of
38: Technology, IZTECH, Turkey, TR35430}
39: %\date{\today}
40: \preprint{IZTECH-P01/2007\; October 2007}
41: \begin{abstract}
42:
43: We analyze effects of the CP-odd soft phases in the MSSM on the
44: pair-productions of colored superpartners in $p\, p$ collisions at
45: the LHC energies. We find that, among all pair-production
46: processes, those of the scalar quarks in the first and second
47: generations are particularly sensitive to the CP-odd phases, more
48: precisely, to the phases of the gluinos and neutralinos. We
49: compute pair-production cross sections, classify various
50: production modes according to their dependencies on the gluino and
51: neutralino phases, perform a detailed numerical analysis to
52: determine individual as well as total cross sections, and give
53: a detailed discussion of EDM bounds. We find that
54: pair-productions of first and second generation squarks serve as a
55: viable probe of the CP violation sources in the gaugino sector of
56: the theory even if experiments cannot determine chirality, flavor
57: and electric charge of the squarks produced.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61: \maketitle
62:
63: \section{Introduction and Motivation}
64: Supersymmetric extension of the standard model of particle physics
65: (SM) is one of the most plausible scenarios for new physics to be
66: discovered at the LHC. Supersymmetry is to be a blatantly broken
67: symmetry of nature as indicated by negative searches at LEP (and
68: also at Tevatron). This breaking should occur softly $i.e.$ in a
69: way not regenerating the quadratic divergences. The soft-breaking
70: sector of the theory consists of a number of dimensionful
71: parameters (see the review volume \cite{Chung:2003fi}): the
72: gaugino masses $M_{\widetilde{g}, \widetilde{W}, \widetilde{B}}$,
73: trilinear couplings ${\bf Y_{u,d,e}^{A}}$ and sparticle masses $M_{H_u}^2 \cdots {\bf
74: M_{E}}^2$. These parameters, forming up the soft-breaking lagrangian
75: \begin{eqnarray}
76: \label{soft} -{\bf L}_{soft} &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[ M_{\widetilde{g}}
77: \lambda_{\widetilde{g}}^{a} \lambda_{\widetilde{g}}^{a} + M_{\widetilde{W}}
78: \lambda_{\widetilde{W}}^{i} \lambda_{\widetilde{W}}^{i} + M_{\widetilde{B}} \lambda_{\widetilde{B}}
79: \lambda_{\widetilde{B}} + \mbox{h.c.}\right]\nonumber\\
80: &+&M_{H_d}^{2} H_d^{\dagger} H_d + M_{H_u}^{2} H_u^{\dagger} H_u
81: -\left[\mu B {H}_d \cdot {H}_u + \mbox{h.c.}\right]\nonumber\\
82: &+&\left[\widetilde{Q} \cdot {H}_u {\bf Y_u^A} \widetilde{U}^c
83: +{H}_d \cdot \widetilde{Q} {\bf Y_d^A} \widetilde{D}^c + {H}_d \cdot
84: \widetilde{L} {\bf Y_e^A}
85: \widetilde{E}^c + \mbox{h.c.}\right]\nonumber\\
86: &+& \widetilde{Q}^{\dagger} {\bf M_Q}^{2} \widetilde{Q} +
87: \widetilde{U}^{c \dagger} {\bf M_U}^{2} \widetilde{U}^c
88: +\widetilde{D}^{c \dagger} {\bf M_D}^{2} \widetilde{D}^c
89: +\widetilde{L}^{\dagger} {\bf M_L}^{2} \widetilde{L} +
90: \widetilde{E}^{c \dagger} {\bf M_E}^{2} \widetilde{E}^c
91: \end{eqnarray}
92: are the main goal of measurements to be carried out at the LHC.
93: The $\mu$ parameter, gaugino masses, trilinear couplings and
94: off-diagonal entries of the squark and slepton masses are the
95: sources of CP violation beyond the SM. Likewise, sfermion
96: mass-squareds and trilinear couplings are sources of flavor
97: violation beyond the SM.
98:
99: The experiments at the LHC are expected to confirm massive
100: superpartners if nature is supersymmetric around Fermi energies.
101: Clearly, if measurements at the LHC will suffice to construct the
102: soft-breaking lagrangian (\ref{soft}) or if measurements will ever
103: lead to a unique supersymmetric model requires a dedicated
104: analysis of collider signals and model predictions \cite{nima}
105: (see also the dedicated review volume \cite{pape}). A further
106: question concerns role of the soft masses in CP and flavor
107: violating phenomena, and this can be achieved after a full
108: experimentation of various meson decays and mixings
109: \cite{flavor-cp}. In this work, we intend to contribute this
110: enormous project by a detailed analysis of squark pair production
111: at $p p$ collisions. These processes have been analyzed in the
112: past \cite{cross,cross1} (with increasing precision in
113: \cite{Beenakker:1996ch,Beenakker3,tilman}) by considering only the
114: (dominant) SUSY QCD contributions. Moreover, spin asymmetries
115: have been analyzed in \cite{wyler}. Our motivation for and certain
116: salient features of squark pair-production processes can be
117: summarized as follows:
118: \begin{enumerate}
119:
120: \item Squarks and gluinos are expected to be produced copiously
121: (via several channels as depicted in Fig. \ref{dia} for a generic
122: squark flavor $\widetilde{q}$). This is not the case for leptons,
123: neutralinos and charginos whose direct productions are initiated
124: by quark--anti-quark annihilation, only.
125:
126: \item Squark pair production is dominated by SUSY QCD
127: contributions $i.e.$ gluino exchange. However, it is important to
128: consider also the exchange of electroweak gauginos since
129: interference of gluino-- and gaugino--mediated amplitudes can be
130: sizeable.
131:
132: \item As illustrated in Fig. \ref{dia}, $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}^{\star}$
133: production receives significant SM contributions from photon, $Z$
134: and gluon exchanges in the $s$-channel. In addition, there are
135: purely supersymmetric contributions from $t$-channel gluino and
136: neutralino exchanges. The whole process is $p$-wave. The
137: dependence on the supersymmetric CP-odd phases involves only the
138: difference between neutralino phases, in particular, there is no
139: dependence on the phase of the gluino mass. The reason is that the
140: vertices connecting to $\widetilde{q}$ and $\widetilde{q}^{\star}$
141: interfere destructively due to complex conjugation.
142:
143: The production of $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}$ pairs proceeds
144: solely with the sparticle mediation, as shown in Fig.1 part (c).
145: This purely supersymmetric amplitude describes an $s$-wave
146: scattering, and thus, near the two-squark threshold $\widetilde{q}
147: \widetilde{q}$ events can dominate $\widetilde{q}
148: \widetilde{q}^{\star}$ ones. Moreover, unlike $\widetilde{q}
149: \widetilde{q}^{\star}$ production amplitude, $\widetilde{q}
150: \widetilde{q}$ production involves both neutralino and gluino
151: phases due to constructive interference between the two vertices
152: connecting to $\widetilde{q}$ lines. Thus, number of such events
153: must exhibit a stronger sensitivity to CP-odd phases than those
154: pertaining to $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}^{\star}$ production.
155:
156: \item
157: Productions of various squark pairs are governed by Feynman
158: diagrams in Fig. \ref{dia}. It is clear that pair-production of
159: third generation squarks, stop and sbottom
160: \cite{beenakker2,stoppair} (as well as charm squark, to a lesser
161: extent) receives only a tiny contribution from the third diagram
162: in Fig. \ref{dia} (a) and from the two diagrams in Fig. \ref{dia}
163: (c). In other words, stops and sbottoms are produced dominantly in
164: $\widetilde{t}_i \widetilde{t}_j^{\star}$ and $\widetilde{b}_i
165: \widetilde{b}_j^{\star}$ modes (with a tiny contamination of
166: $\widetilde{t}_i \widetilde{t}_j$ and $\widetilde{b}_i
167: \widetilde{b}_j$ final states). The reason is that heavy quarks
168: form an exceedingly small fraction of the proton substructure and
169: flavor mixings (especially between the first and other two
170: generations) are suppressed by the FCNC bounds \cite{flavor-cp}
171: (Various observables, including the ones pertaining to the Higgs
172: sector, can be significantly affected if sizeable flavor violation
173: effects are allowed in sfermion soft mass-squareds
174: \cite{flavor-cp2}). This then, however, implies the absence of CP
175: violation effects in production of third generation squarks; more
176: explicitly, given physical masses and mixings of stops and
177: sbottoms then their production rates do not depend on any
178: additional parameter, in particular, the CP-odd phases. This
179: observation holds for all stop and sbottom pair-production modes
180: including $\widetilde{t}_1 \widetilde{t}_2$ and $\widetilde{b}_1
181: \widetilde{b}_2$ since the only contributing phase, the phase of
182: the LR block in their mass-squared matrices, factors out.
183:
184: Unlike sbottoms and stops, squarks in first and second generations
185: can be produced with significant rates via all the diagrams in
186: Fig. \ref{dia}. Therefore, one expects up, down, strange and charm
187: scalar quarks, especially scalar up and down quarks, to be
188: produced in significant amounts at the LHC such that
189: \begin{itemize}
190: \item their mass and gauge eigenstates (especially for scalar up
191: and down quarks) are identical due to their exceedingly small
192: Yukawa couplings,
193:
194: \item flavor and gauge eigenstates of scalar up and down quarks
195: are identical whereas scalar strange quark might possesses
196: significant flavor mixings with scalar bottom quark,
197:
198: \item they feel only gaugino contributions and hence their
199: production rates are viable probes of CP violation in the gaugino
200: sector.
201: \end{itemize}
202:
203: \item In general, in SUSY-QCD sector, pair-production of colored particles
204: involves not only the squark pairs but also gluino pairs and gluino-squark
205: events. The reason we focus mainly on the squark pair-production is
206: that gluino pair-production and gluino-squark associated production are not
207: sensitive to CP-odd phases in the theory. In this sense, given the
208: pair-productions of colored particles then one knows that it is only
209: the pairs of first and second generation squarks that can have a
210: significant sensitivity to the CP-odd phases.
211:
212: \end{enumerate}
213: In accord with these observations, in this work we discuss
214: pair-productions of the squarks belonging to first and second
215: generations only, and focus on their sensitivities to SUSY CP-odd
216: phases by considering $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}$ and
217: $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}^{\star}$ events in a comparative
218: fashion.
219:
220: There is no doubt that electric dipole moments (EDMs) are the prime observables which determine
221: the allowed sizes of the supersymmetric phases. However, the fact that EDMs can cancel out for a
222: wide range of CP-odd phases (except for the $\mu$ parameter which must be nearly real)
223: \cite{cancel,cancel1,cancel2}, the fact that EDMs and squark pair-production processes depend on
224: different combinations of the phases (see for instance the slepton pair-production \cite{thomas}),
225: the fact that EDMs can receive sizeable contributions from Higgs exchange while squark production
226: cannot \cite{biz}, the fact that EDMs are sensitive to CP-violating new physics beyond the MSSM
227: \cite{beyondmssm}, and finally the fact that EDMs are sensitive to even the phases occurring at
228: two-loop level \cite{2loop} all encourage us to study impact of the CP-odd phases on squark pair-
229: production since, despite ${\cal{O}}(1)$ values for phases, EDMs can be sufficiently suppressed in
230: certain regions of the SUSY parameter space \cite{cancel,cancel1,cancel2}. Consequently, we
231: will first analyze squark pair-production in an mSUGRA-like scenario with all the phases varying
232: in their full ranges. Then we will discuss impact of EDMs in a separate section
233: by considering certain EDM-favored parameter domains already obtained in the literature.
234:
235: It is expected that at energies probed by LHC experiments the SUSY
236: QCD corrections can be substantial. From the dedicated analysis of
237: \cite{Beenakker:1996ch} we know that $\sigma_{NLO} \approx
238: \sigma_{LO}$ when $m_{\widetilde{q}}/m_{\widetilde{g}} \sim 1$,
239: and this will be indeed the case at least for squarks of first two
240: generations. Moreover, when the decoupling/renormalization scale
241: $Q\sim m_{\widetilde{q}}$ again LO and NLO cross sections lie
242: closer. Therefore, lack of NLO corrections in cross sections which
243: will be computed in Sec. II below may not cause a substantial error
244: in estimates (at least for analyzing effects of supersymmetric CP
245: odd phases). However, in any event, for a precise prediction of
246: the event rates at the LHC it is necessary to take include NLO
247: corrections $i.e.$ associated K-factors \cite{Beenakker:1996ch}.
248:
249: In the next section we will provide analytical expressions of the
250: cross sections for pair-production of squarks of first and second
251: generations. In Sec. III we will give a general discussion of the
252: phase sensitivities of the cross sections. In Sec. IV we will pick
253: up a specific post-WMAP benchmark point within minimal
254: supergravity (mSUGRA), and for the purpose of studying effects of
255: CP-odd phases, fold its universality pattern by switching on
256: non-universal CP-odd phases for gaugino masses at the unification
257: scale. In here we will also provide a detailed
258: numerical/analytical discussion of events with squark pairs at the
259: LHC. In Sec. V we will discuss impact of the EDMs on the cross sections by
260: considering EDM-favored parameter domains already present in the literature.
261: In Sec. VI we conclude.
262:
263: \section{Squark pair production in $p p$ collisions}
264: In this section we discuss pair production of squarks of varying
265: chirality and flavor. We will analyze $\widetilde{q}_{a}\,
266: \widetilde{\hat q}^{\star}_{a}$ and $\widetilde{q}_{a}\,
267: \widetilde{\hat q}_{a'}$ type final states ($a, a' = L, R$) where
268: $\hat q$ and $q$ may or may not be identical. Here $\widetilde{q}$
269: stands for any of the squarks $\widetilde{u}$, $\widetilde{d}$,
270: $\widetilde{s}$, $\widetilde{c}$. Therefore, the $2 \rightarrow 2$
271: scatterings
272: \begin{eqnarray}
273: { p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{q}_a \widetilde{\hat
274: q}^{\star}_{a'}\ + X}\label{sqsqbar}
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: and
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: { p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{q}_a\; \widetilde{\hat q}_{a'} +
279: X}\label{sqsq}
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: are the main processes to be investigated. Below we discuss these
282: scatterings one by one by including both SUSY QCD and SUSY
283: electroweak contributions.
284:
285: \subsection{$\widetilde{q}_a\, \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{a'}\ $ production}
286: The squark pair production via $p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde
287: q\widetilde {q}^{\star} +X$ is initiated either by $q\,
288: \overline{q}$ annihilation or by gluon fusion. The relevant
289: Feynman diagrams are depicted in Fig.~\ref{dia}.
290:
291: The production of squark pairs, as initiated by $q\, \overline{
292: q}$ annihilation, involves gluon, photon and $Z$ boson exchanges
293: in the $s$-channel as well as gluino and neutralino exchanges in
294: the $t$-channel (see Fig.1 part (a)). After color and spin
295: averaging the differential cross section for $\widetilde{q}_L
296: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L}$ production takes the form
297: \begin{figure}
298: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
299: \includegraphics[width=10cm]{dia1.eps}
300: %\includegraphics[width=10cm]{2.2.eps}\\
301: %\includegraphics[width=8cm]{3.3.eps}
302: \caption{Feynman diagrams for squark pair production. Part (a)
303: stands for processes started by quark--anti-quark annihilation,
304: (b) for gluon fusion and (c) for quark-quark scattering into
305: squark pairs.}\label{dia}
306: \end{figure}
307: %\newpage
308: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq1}
309: \frac{d\hat\sigma(q^{\prime}\,
310: \overline{q}^{\prime}\rightarrow\widetilde q_L\,
311: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_L)}{d\hat t}&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat s^2}
312: \left(\hat t\hat u-m_{\widetilde{q}_L}^4\right) \left[ \delta_{q'
313: q} {\cal T}_{\mbox{FC}} + \left(1 - \delta_{q' q}\right) {\cal
314: T}_{\mbox{FV}}\right]
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: where FC and FV stand, respectively, for flavor-conserving and
317: flavor-violating, and associated quantities are given by
318: \begin{eqnarray} \label{fc}
319: {\cal T}_{\mbox{FC}} &=&\alpha_s^2\Big[\frac{2}{\hat
320: s^2}+\frac{1}{(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}-\frac{2}{3\hat
321: s(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}\Big]\nonumber\\
322: &+&\alpha^2\Big[\frac{9 e_q^4}{\hat s^2}+\frac{9|A_{q_L i}|^2|A_{q_L
323: j}|^2}{2s_W^4(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat t-
324: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Big]+\frac{2\alpha_s\alpha e_q^2}{\hat
325: s}\Big(\frac{2}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}\Big)\nonumber\\
326: &-&\frac{\alpha}{s_W^2}\Big(\frac{4\alpha_s}{\hat s(\hat t-
327: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}+\frac{3\alpha e_q^2}{\hat s(\hat
328: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}\Big)|A_{q_L i}|^2\nonumber\\
329: &+&\frac{\alpha C_{qLL}(\hat s-M_Z^2)}{s_W^2[(\hat
330: s-M_Z^2)^2+\Gamma_Z^2 M_Z^2]}\Big[\frac{9\alpha
331: C_{qLL}\left(C_{qLL}^2+C_{qRR}^2\right)}{2 s_W^2(\hat
332: s-M_z^2)}\nonumber\\
333: &+&\frac{4\alpha_s C_{qLL}}{(\hat t-
334: M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}+\frac{9\alpha e_q^2
335: \left(C_{qLL}+C_{qRR}\right)}{\hat s} -\frac{3\alpha
336: C_{qLL}}{s_W^2(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}|A_{q_L
337: i}|^2\Big]
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: and
340: \begin{eqnarray}
341: \label{fv} {\cal T}_{\mbox{FV}} &=& \frac{1}{\hat
342: s^2}\Big[2\alpha_s^2 +9\alpha^2 e_{q'}^2 e_q^2\Big] +\frac{(\hat
343: s-M_Z^2)C_{qLL}}{s_W^2[(\hat s-M_Z^2)^2+\Gamma_Z^2
344: M_Z^2]}\Big[\frac{9\alpha^2 \left(C_{q'LL}^2+C_{q'RR}^2\right)
345: C_{qLL}}{2 s_W^2(\hat s-M_Z^2)}\nonumber\\
346: &+&9\alpha^2 e_{q} e_{q'}\frac{(C_{q'LL}+C_{q'RR})}{\hat
347: s}\Big]
348: \end{eqnarray}
349: where summations over $i, j$ ( which label the neutralino
350: eigenstates) are implied. The couplings $C_{q LL}$ are given by
351: \begin{eqnarray}
352: C_{u LL}&=&\frac{1}{\cos\theta_W}(-\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{2}{3} \sin^2
353: \theta_{W})\;,\;\;C_{d LL}=\frac{1}{\cos\theta_W}(\frac{1}{2}-
354: \frac{1}{3} \sin^2 \theta_{W})
355: \end{eqnarray}
356: for up-- and down--type quarks, respectively. The
357: neutralino-quark-squark couplings are collected in $A_{q_L i}$,
358: and their explicit expressions are given below.
359:
360: The differential cross section for $\widetilde{q}_R\,
361: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R}$ production is obtained from (\ref{eq1})
362: by replacing $A_{q_L i}$ by $A_{q_R i}$, $C_{u LL}$ and $C_{d LL}$
363: by
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: C_{u RR}= \frac{1}{\cos\theta_W}(\frac{2}{3} \sin^2 \theta_W)
366: \;,\;\; C_{d RR} = \frac{1}{\cos\theta_W}(-\frac{1}{3} \sin^2
367: \theta_W)\,,
368: \end{eqnarray}
369: and finally $m_{\widetilde{q}_L}$ by $m_{\widetilde{q}_R}$.
370:
371: A short glance at (\ref{fc}) and (\ref{fv}) reveals that flavors
372: of annihilating quarks differ from those of the produced squarks
373: thanks to gauge boson mediation, only. The reason is that such
374: $s$-channel diagrams do not communicate flavor information from
375: $\mid \mbox{in} \rangle$ to $\mid \mbox{out} \rangle$ states. One
376: also observes that FC-scatterings proceed solely with the gauge
377: boson mediation because of the fact that quark-squark-gaugino
378: vertices are taken strictly flavor-diagonal. This is an excellent
379: approximation given the bounds on such vertices from FCNC
380: processes \cite{flavor-cp}. However, one keeps in mind that, in
381: principle, $q'\, \overline{q}$ annihilation can produce third
382: generation squarks first, and they might subsequently get
383: converted into second generation squarks to the extent that $B$
384: and $D$ physics permit. This possibility is neglected in our
385: analysis.
386:
387: Since gauge bosons cannot couple to (s)quarks of distinct
388: chirality, $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R} +
389: \widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L}$ production proceeds
390: solely with sparticle exchange
391: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq3}
392: \frac{d\hat\sigma(q \overline{q}\rightarrow\widetilde q_L\widetilde{
393: q}^{\star}_R+\widetilde {q}_R\widetilde{q}^{\star}_L)}{d\hat
394: t}&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat s^2}\Biggm\{\frac{2\alpha_s^2
395: M_{\widetilde{g}}^2 \hat s}{(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2
396: )^2}\nonumber\\&+&\frac{9\alpha^2 \hat s M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}
397: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}}{s_W^4(\hat t-
398: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2
399: )}(A_{q_R i}A_{q_R j}^{\star}A_{q_L j}A_{q_L i}^{\star})\Biggm\}
400: \end{eqnarray}
401: where FV transitions are forbidden by the reasons mentioned above.
402:
403: The neutralino-quark-squark couplings $A_{Li, Ri}$ appearing in
404: (\ref{fc}), (\ref{fv}) and (\ref{eq3}) are given by
405: \begin{eqnarray}
406: A_{q_R i}=\tan\theta_W e_q N_{i1}^{\star}\;,\;\; A_{q_L i}=[T_{3q}
407: N_{i2}-\tan\theta_W (T_{3q}-e_q) N_{i1}]
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: where $N_{i j}$ are obtained by diagonalizing the neutralino mass
410: matrix
411: \begin{eqnarray}
412: M_{\widetilde\chi^0}=\left(%
413: \begin{array}{cccc}
414: M_{\widetilde{B}} e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{B}}}& 0 & -M_Z \cos\beta \sin\theta_W & M_Z \sin\beta \sin\theta_W \\
415: 0 & M_{\widetilde{W}} e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{W}}} & M_Z \cos\beta \cos\theta_W & -M_Z \sin\beta \cos\theta_W \\
416: -M_Z \cos\beta \sin\theta_W & M_Z \cos\beta \cos\theta_W & 0 & -\mu \\
417: M_Z \sin\beta \sin\theta_W& -M_Z \sin\beta \cos\theta_W &-\mu& 0
418: \end{array}%
419: \right)
420: \end{eqnarray}
421: via $N^* M_{\widetilde\chi^0} N^{-1}=\mbox{diag.}
422: (M_{\widetilde\chi_1^0},...,M_{\widetilde\chi_4^0})$. Here
423: $M_{\widetilde{B}}$ and $M_{\widetilde{W}}$ designate absolute
424: magnitudes of the U(1)$_Y$ and SU(2)$_L$ gaugino masses, and
425: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ and $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$ their
426: phases. We find it useful to separate modulus and phase of the
427: gaugino masses for ease of analysis. It is clear that Higgsinos
428: contribute to squark pair production via only Higgsino--gaugino
429: mixings $i.e.$ the off-diagonal entries $N_{31, 41}$ and $N_{32,
430: 42}$ in $A_{q_L i, q_R i}$.
431:
432:
433: Having completed quark--anti-quark annihilation, we now analyze
434: $\widetilde{q}_{L,R} \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L,R}$ productions
435: initiated by gluon fusion. From Fig.\ref{dia} (b) the
436: differential cross section is found to read
437: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq4}
438: \frac{d\hat\sigma(g g \rightarrow
439: \widetilde{q}\widetilde{q}^{\star})}{d\hat
440: t}&=&\frac{\pi\alpha_s^2}{\hat s^2}\bigg\{\frac{3(\hat t-\hat
441: u)^2}{16\hat s^2}+\frac{(\hat t+m^2)^2}{6(\hat
442: t-m^2)^2}+\frac{(\hat u+m^2)^2}{6(\hat u-m^2)^2}+\frac{3(\hat
443: t-\hat u)(4m^2-\hat s+4\hat t)}{64\hat s(\hat
444: t-m^2)}\nonumber\\
445: &-&\frac{(4m^2-\hat s)^2}{96(\hat t-m^2)(\hat u-m^2)}+\frac{3(\hat
446: u-\hat t)(4m^2-\hat s+4\hat u)}{64\hat s(\hat
447: u-m^2)}-\frac{7(4m^2-\hat s+4\hat t)}{192(\hat
448: t-m^2)}\nonumber\\
449: &-&\frac{7(4m^2-\hat s+4\hat u)}{192(\hat
450: u-m^2)}+\frac{7}{24}\bigg\}
451: \end{eqnarray}
452: after color and spin averaging. Here $m$ stands for
453: $m_{\widetilde{q}_L}$ or $m_{\widetilde{q}_R}$, whichever is
454: produced.
455:
456:
457: \subsection{$\widetilde{q}_a\, \widetilde{q}_{a'}$ production}
458: In obvious contrast to $\widetilde{q}^{\star}\widetilde q$
459: production, the partonic process that leads to $\widetilde
460: q\widetilde q$ production proceeds with sole sparticle mediation.
461: Indeed, at tree level $pp \rightarrow \widetilde q \widetilde q
462: +X$ scattering is initiated by quarks, and proceeds with
463: $t$-channel gaugino exchanges as shown in Fig.\ref{dia} (c).
464: Fermion number violating $qq \rightarrow \widetilde q \widetilde
465: q$ reaction occurs because of the Majorana nature of gauginos. The
466: color and spin averaged parton level differential cross section
467: for $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ production is given by
468: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq5}
469: \frac{d\hat\sigma(qq \rightarrow \widetilde q_L \widetilde
470: q_L)}{d\hat t}&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
471: s^2}\Biggm\{\alpha_s^2\Bigg[\frac{ M_{\widetilde{g}}^2\hat
472: s}{(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}+\frac{M_{\widetilde{g}}^2 \hat
473: s}{(\hat u- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2 )^2}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{
474: M_{\widetilde{g}}^2
475: \hat s}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)(\hat u- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}\Bigg]\nonumber\\
476: &+&\frac{9\alpha^2}{2 s_W^4}\Bigg[\Big(\frac{1}{(\hat
477: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat t-
478: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}+\frac{1}{(\hat u-
479: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
480: u- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Big)(A_{q_L i}^{\star})^2(A_{q_L j})^2\nonumber\\
481: &+&\frac{1}{3(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat u-
482: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2 )}[(A_{q_L i})^2(A_{q_L
483: j}^{\star})^2+(A_{q_L i}^{\star})^2(A_{q_L j})^2] \Bigg](\hat s
484: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0} M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0})\nonumber\\
485: &+&\frac{\alpha_s \alpha}{2 s_W^2} \Biggm[\frac{4}{(\hat t- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)(\hat u- M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}\nonumber\\
486: &+&\frac{4}{(\hat u- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)(\hat t-
487: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}\Biggm](\hat s M_{\widetilde{g}}
488: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0})[(A_{q_L
489: i})^2e^{-i\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}}+(A_{q_L
490: i}^{\star})^2e^{i\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}}]\Biggm\}
491: \end{eqnarray}
492: which bears a manifest sensitivity to the gluino phase
493: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$, as indicated by the last term. This is
494: one of the most important differences between $\widetilde{q}_a\,
495: \widetilde{q}_{a'}$ and $\widetilde{q}_a\,
496: \widetilde{q}_{a'}^{\star}$ productions: while the former involves
497: phases of each neutralino and gluino exchanged the latter does
498: only the relative phases among neutralino states.
499:
500: The cross section for $\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}_{R}$
501: production follows directly from (\ref{eq5}) after replacing
502: $A_{q_L i}$ by $A_{q_R i}$.
503:
504: The spin and color averaged $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{R} +
505: \widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}_{L} $ production cross section is
506: given by
507: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq6}
508: \frac{d\hat\sigma(q\, q \rightarrow \widetilde q_L \widetilde
509: q_R+\widetilde q_R \widetilde q_L)}{d\hat t}&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
510: s^2}(\hat t \hat u-m_{\widetilde q_L}^2m_{\widetilde
511: q_R}^2)\Biggm\{2\alpha_s^2\Bigg[\frac{1}{(\hat
512: t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}+\frac{1}{(\hat
513: u- M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\Bigg]\nonumber\\
514: &+&\frac{9\alpha^2}{s_W^4}\Bigg[\Big(\frac{1}{(\hat t-
515: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(t-
516: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\nonumber\\&+&\frac{1}{(\hat u-
517: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat u-
518: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Big)(A_{q_L i}^{\star}A_{q_R
519: i}^{\star}A_{q_L j}A_{q_R j})\Bigg] \Biggm\}.
520: \end{eqnarray}
521: whose dependence on the $CP$-odd phases is similar to
522: Eq.~(\ref{eq3}).
523: \subsection{$\widetilde{q}^{\star}_a\, \widetilde{q}'_{a'}\ $ production}
524: Having completed analyses of $\widetilde{q}^{\star}\widetilde q$
525: and $\widetilde q\widetilde q$ productions, we now focus on
526: $\widetilde{q}^{\star}\widetilde q'$ type final states with $\widetilde
527: q \in \left\{ \widetilde u, \widetilde c\right\}$, $\widetilde
528: q'\in \left\{ \widetilde d, \widetilde s\right\}$ and vice versa.
529: Such final states, carrying $\pm 1$ electric charge, receive
530: contributions from $s$-channel $W^{\pm}$ plus $t$-channel gaugino
531: exchanges. The differential cross section for $\widetilde
532: q_L\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_L$ production is given by
533: \begin{eqnarray}
534: \label{qlqlp} \frac{d\hat\sigma}{d\hat t}(q\bar {q'}\rightarrow
535: \widetilde q_L\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_L)&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
536: s^2}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{[(\hat
537: s-M_W^2)^2+\Gamma_W^2M_W^2]}\Big[\frac{9\alpha^2\mid C_{q' q }\mid^2
538: }{8s_W^4}+\frac{2\alpha_s\alpha(\hat
539: s-M_W^2)C_{q' q }}{s_W^2(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}\\
540: &-&\frac{9\alpha^2C_{q' q }[(\hat
541: s-M_W^2)Re(A_{q'Li}^{\star}A_{qLi})+\Gamma_WM_WIm(A_{q'_L
542: i}^{\star}A_{q_L i})]}{2s_W^4(\hat
543: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}\Big]+\frac{\alpha_s^2}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\nonumber\\
544: &+&\frac{9\alpha^2A_{q_L i}^{\star}A_{q_L j}A_{q'_L
545: j}^{\star}A_{q'_L i}}{2s_W^4(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
546: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Bigg\}(\hat t\hat
547: u-m_{\widetilde{q}_L}^2 m_{\widetilde{q}'_L}^2)\nonumber
548: \end{eqnarray}
549: where $C_{q' q}$ are the elements of the CKM matrix having the
550: experimental mid-point values $\mid C_{u d} \mid = 0.9745, \mid
551: C_{u s} \mid = 0.2240, \mid C_{u b} \mid = 0.037, \mid C_{c d}
552: \mid = 0.2240, \mid C_{c s} \mid = 0.9737, \mid C_{c b} \mid =
553: 0.0415, \mid C_{t d} \mid =0.094, \mid C_{t s} \mid = 0.040, \mid
554: C_{t b}\mid = 0.999$. As before, sum over $i,j=1,2,3,4$ is
555: implied.
556:
557: Similarly, the differential cross section for $\widetilde
558: q_R\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_R$ production is given by
559: \begin{eqnarray}
560: \frac{d\hat\sigma}{d\hat t}(q\bar {q'}\rightarrow \widetilde
561: q_R\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_R)&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
562: s^2}\Bigg\{\frac{\alpha_s^2}{(\hat
563: t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}+\frac{9\alpha^2[A_{q_R i}^{\star}A_{q_R
564: j}A_{q'_R j}^{\star}A_{q'_R i}]}{2s_W^4(\hat
565: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
566: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Bigg\}(\hat t\hat u-\widetilde
567: m_{\widetilde{q}_R}^2 m_{\widetilde{q}'_R}^2)
568: \end{eqnarray}
569: which differs from (\ref{qlqlp}) by the absence of $W^{\pm}$
570: contribution. Indeed, $\widetilde q_R\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_R$
571: production proceeds via only the gluino and neutralino exchanges.
572:
573: Finally, squarks with distinct electric charges and
574: chiralities possess the following differential cross section:
575: \begin{eqnarray}
576: \frac{d\hat\sigma}{d\hat t}(q\bar {q'}\rightarrow \widetilde
577: q_L\widetilde {q'}^{\star}_R+\widetilde q_R\widetilde
578: {q'}^{\star}_L)&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
579: s^2}\Bigg\{\frac{2\alpha_s^2{M_{\widetilde{g}}^2}\hat s}{(\hat
580: t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\nonumber\\&+&\frac{9\alpha^2\hat
581: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}[A_{q_L
582: i}^{\star}A_{q'_R i}A_{q'_R j}^{\star}A_{q_L j}+A_{q_R
583: i}^{\star}A_{q'_L i}A_{q'_L j}^{\star}A_{q_R j}]}{2s_W^4(\hat
584: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}
585: \Bigg\}
586: \end{eqnarray}
587: which is generated by gluino and neutralino exchanges, only.
588:
589:
590:
591: \subsection{$\widetilde{q}_a\, \widetilde{q}'_{a'}\ $ production}
592: In this subsection we discuss production of squarks having
593: distinct electric charges and chiralities with no involvement of
594: anti-squarks. We start with $\widetilde {q_L} \widetilde {q'_L}$
595: production
596: \begin{eqnarray}
597: \frac{d\hat \sigma}{d\hat t}(q q'\rightarrow \widetilde {q_L}
598: \widetilde {q'_L})&=&\frac{\pi}{36\hat
599: s^2}\Bigg\{\frac{9\alpha^2U_{k1}^{\star}V_{k1}^{\star}U_{l1}V_{l1}}{s_W^4(\hat
600: u-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}^2)(\hat
601: u-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_l^{\pm}}^2)}\hat
602: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}M_{\widetilde{\chi}_l^{\pm}}
603: \nonumber\\&+&\frac{8\alpha_s^2}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\hat
604: sM_{\widetilde{g}}^2+\frac{36\alpha^2[A_{q_L i}^{\star}A_{q_L
605: j}A_{q'_L i}^{\star}A_{q'_L j}]}{s_W^4(\hat
606: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
607: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\hat
608: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}\nonumber\\&+&\frac{8\alpha_s\alpha(U_{k1}^{\star}V_{k1}^{\star}e^{i\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}}+U_{k1}V_{k1}e^{-i\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}})}{s_W^2(\hat
609: u-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}^2)(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)}\hat
610: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}M_{\widetilde{g}}\nonumber\\&+&\frac{12\alpha^2Re[U_{k1}^{\star}V_{k1}^{\star}A_{q_L
611: i}A_{q'_L i}]}{s_W^4(\hat u-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}^2)(\hat
612: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)}\hat
613: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_k^{\pm}}M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0} \Bigg\}
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: which receives contributions from gluino, neutralino as well as
616: chargino exchanges. It is the left-chirality nature of squarks
617: that involves $t$-channel chargino contribution.
618:
619: In contrast to $\widetilde {q_L} \widetilde {q'_L}$ production,
620: $\widetilde {q_R} \widetilde {q'_R}$ production does not receive
621: contributions from chargino exchange since first and second
622: generation squarks do not have significant couplings to Higgsinos.
623: Indeed, one finds
624: \begin{eqnarray}
625: \frac{d\hat \sigma}{d\hat t}(q q'\rightarrow \widetilde {q_R}
626: \widetilde {q'_R})&=&\frac{\pi}{36\hat
627: s^2}\Bigg\{\frac{8\alpha_s^2}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\hat
628: sM_{\widetilde{g}}^2+\frac{36\alpha^2[A_{q_R i}^{\star}A_{q_R
629: j}A_{q'_R i}^{\star}A_{q'_R j}]}{s_W^4(\hat
630: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
631: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\hat
632: sM_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0} \Bigg\}
633: \end{eqnarray}
634: which is a pure $t$-channel effect.
635:
636: Finally, squarks with unequal charges and chiralities are
637: produced with the cross section
638: \begin{eqnarray}
639: \frac{d\hat \sigma}{d\hat t}(qq'\rightarrow \widetilde q_L
640: \widetilde q'_R+\widetilde q_R\widetilde q'_L)&=&\frac{2\pi}{9\hat
641: s^2}(\hat t\hat
642: u-m_{\widetilde q_L}^2 m_{\widetilde q_R}^2)\Bigg\{\frac{2\alpha_s^2}{(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{g}}^2)^2}\nonumber\\
643: &+&\frac{9\alpha^2[A_{q_L i}^{\star}A_{q'_R i}^{\star}A_{q_L
644: j}A_{q'_R j}+A_{q_R i}^{\star}A_{q'_L i}^{\star}A_{q_R j}A_{q'_L
645: j}]}{2s_W^4(\hat t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_i^0}^2)(\hat
646: t-M_{\widetilde{\chi}_j^0}^2)}\Bigg\}
647: \end{eqnarray}
648: which involves only gluino and neutralino exchanges. Therefore,
649: $\widetilde {q_L} \widetilde {q'_L}$ production is unique in that
650: it is the only pair-production process which involves chargino
651: $i.e.$ wino mediation.
652:
653: In the expressions above, $i,j=1,2,3,4$ are neutralino indices
654: with implied summations. The charginos are designated by $k,l=1,2$
655: indices with again implied summations. The chargino mixing
656: matrices $U$ and $V$ are obtained via
657: \begin{eqnarray}
658: U^{\star} M_{\chi^{\pm}} V^{-1} = \mbox{diag.} \left(
659: M_{\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}}, M_{\widetilde{\chi}_2^{\pm}}
660: \right)
661: \end{eqnarray}
662: where
663: \begin{eqnarray}
664: M_{\chi^{\pm}} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{\widetilde{W}} e^{i
665: \varphi_{\widetilde{W}}} &
666: \sqrt{2} M_W \cos \beta \\
667: \sqrt{2} M_W \sin \beta & \mu \end{array} \right)
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: is the mass matrix of charged gauginos and Higgsinos.
670:
671: \section{Phase Sensitivities of Individual Cross Sections}
672: In this section we perform a comparative analysis of various cross
673: sections in terms of their dependencies on the CP-odd phases. Our
674: discussions will be mainly schematic as we leave exact numerical
675: analysis to the next section.
676:
677: \begin{table}[tbp]
678:
679: \begin{center}
680:
681: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
682: \hline Squark Pair & Insensitive to & Directly sensitive to &
683: Indirectly sensitive to\\\hline\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\,
684: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & -- &
685: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$,
686: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_R\,
687: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & -- &
688: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
689: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\,
690: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & -- &
691: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
692: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ & -- &
693: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
694: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ & $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline
695: $\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}_{R}$ & -- &
696: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ &
697: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$, $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline
698: $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ &
699: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
700: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\,
701: \widetilde{q'}^{\star}_{L}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & -- &
702: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$,
703: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_R\,
704: \widetilde{q'}^{\star}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & --
705: &$\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
706: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\,
707: \widetilde{q'}^{\star}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & -- &
708: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
709: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q'}_{L}$ & --&
710: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
711: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ & $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline
712: $\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q'}_{R}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ &
713: $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$,
714: $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q'}_{R}$ &
715: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ & $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ &
716: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$, $\varphi_{\mu}$\\\hline
717: \end{tabular}
718: \end{center}
719: \caption{\label{table1}{ Productions of various squark pairs of
720: varying chirality and flavor. Shown in the second column are the
721: phases to which production cross section is insensitive. The third
722: column shows phases coming from the gauginos exchanged. The last
723: column, the fourth column, shows those phases which enter the
724: cross section via only the mixings among neutral and charged
725: gauginos and Higginos $i.e.$ mixings in neutralino and chargino
726: mass matrices. }}
727: \end{table}
728:
729: Table \ref{table1} shows phase dependencies of pair-production cross
730: sections for various chirality and flavor combinations. It is
731: clear from the table that each cross section possesses a specific
732: dependence on gaugino phases, and in future collider
733: studies (like LHC or NLC) this may be used to establish
734: existence/absence of CP-violating sources in the gaugino sector in
735: a way independent of the phases of the trilinear couplings as well
736: as Higgs mediation effects.
737:
738: For a comparative analysis, consider first $\widetilde{q}_L
739: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L}$ production. This process is initiated
740: by quark--anti-quark annihilation or by gluon fusion whose cross
741: sections are given in (\ref{eq1}) and (\ref{eq4}). The latter is
742: completely blind to CP--odd phases. The former, on the other hand,
743: is independent of $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$, and feels
744: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$, $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$,
745: $\varphi_{\mu}$ via mixings in the neutralino mass matrix, only.
746: The reason is that the two quark-squark-gaugino vertices, which
747: arise in $t$-channel gaugino exchange diagrams, are complex
748: conjugate of each other. Similar observations also hold for
749: $\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R}$ production.
750:
751: Notably, this phase-dependence of $\widetilde{q}_L\,
752: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{L}$ (and of $\widetilde{q}_R\,
753: \widetilde{q}^{\star}_{R}$ ) production radically differs from that
754: of $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ (and of $\widetilde{q}_R\,
755: \widetilde{q}_{R}$) production. First of all, there is no
756: $s$-channel vector boson exchange contributions to
757: $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ production; it is a pure
758: $t$-channel process mediated solely by the gauginos. Next, and more
759: importantly, the phases of the two quark-squark-gaugino vertices
760: interfere constructively giving thus a pronounced phase sensitivity
761: to $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ (and $\widetilde{q}_R\,
762: \widetilde{q}_{R}$) production. These observations hold also for
763: charged final states $i.e.$ $\widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_L$ type
764: squark pairs.
765:
766: The main point is that for $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{\hat
767: q}^{\star}$ type final states the sensitivity to CP-odd phases is
768: restricted to those in the neutralino/chargino sector, and depends
769: crucially on how strong the gauginos/higgsinos mix with each
770: other. In particular, when $M_{\widetilde{W},\widetilde{B}} \gg
771: M_{W, Z}$ the cross section for $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{\hat
772: q}^{\star}$ production becomes independent of the CP-odd phases.
773: On the other hand, for for $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{ \hat q}$
774: production sensitivity to CP-odd phases is maximal, and is
775: independent of the strength of mixing in neutralino/chargino
776: system. For instance, $\widetilde{q}_L\,
777: \widetilde{q}_{L}/\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}_{R}$ production
778: is a sensitive probe of $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}, \widetilde{W},
779: \widetilde{B}}/\varphi_{\widetilde{g}, \widetilde{B}}$. Clearly,
780: the difference between $\widetilde{q}_L\, \widetilde{q}_{L}$ and
781: $\widetilde{q}_R\, \widetilde{q}_{R}$ production cross sections,
782: with known masses of squarks, is a viable measure of
783: $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$.
784:
785: In general, depending on chirality, charge and flavor structures
786: of the squark pairs produced, the squark pair-production cross
787: sections exhibit different types of sensitivities to CP-odd phases
788: (and various soft masses as well). The main advantage of the
789: pair-productions of squarks belonging to first and second
790: generations is their potential of isolating the gaugino masses in
791: a way independent of the Higgs sector parameters and triliear
792: couplings.
793:
794: In the next section we will study squark pair production cross
795: sections at the LHC for a specific yet phenomenologically viable
796: supersymmetric parameter space.
797:
798: \section{Squark Pair Production at LM1}
799:
800: In this section we perform a detailed numerical study of squark
801: pair production at the LHC with special emphasis on the effects of
802: the gaugino phases.
803:
804: The subprocess cross sections which were calculated in the previous
805: section will be used to estimate squark pair production events at a
806: $p\, p$ collider with $\sqrt {\cal{S}}=14\, {\rm TeV}$ appropriate
807: for LHC experiments. For instance, the total hadronic cross section
808: for $\widetilde{q}_a\,\widetilde{q}^{\star}_{a}$ production takes
809: the form
810: \begin{eqnarray}
811: \label{cross1} \sigma\left({ p\, p \rightarrow
812: \widetilde{q}_a\,\widetilde{q}^{\star}_{a} + X}\right) =
813: \int_{\frac{4 m_{\widetilde{q}_a}^2}{{\cal{S}}}}^{1} d \tau
814: \int_{\tau}^{1} \frac{d x}{x} \Bigg\{ f_{g}\left(x, Q^2\right)
815: f_{g}\left(\frac{\tau}{x}, Q^2\right)
816: \sigma\left(g\, g \rightarrow \widetilde{q}_a\,\widetilde{q}^{\star}_{a}\right)+\nonumber\\
817: \left(f_{q'}\left(x, Q^2\right)
818: f_{\overline{q}'}\left(\frac{\tau}{x}, Q^2\right) +
819: f_{\overline{q}'}\left(x, Q^2\right) f_{q'}\left(\frac{\tau}{x},
820: Q^2\right) \right) \sigma\left(q'\, \overline{q}' \rightarrow
821: \widetilde{q}_a\,\widetilde{q}^{\star}_{a} \right) \Bigg\}
822: \end{eqnarray}
823: where structure functions $f_i(x,Q^2)$ represent the number
824: density of the parton $i$ which carries the fraction $x$ of the
825: longitudinal proton momentum. The initial state partons scatter
826: with a center--of--mass energy $\hat{s}=\tau\, {\cal{S}}$. All couplings
827: and masses in the partonic reactions are defined at the scale $Q$,
828: the renormalization and factorization scale, which has to lie
829: around $m_{\widetilde{q}_a}$. The QCD corrections give rise to
830: scale dependence of the structure functions, and $f_i(x,Q^2)$ can
831: be evaluated at any scale $Q$ using the Altarelli-Parisi
832: equations. In our calculations we use CTEQ5 parton distributions
833: \cite{CTQ5}. All pair-production processes are calculated in a way
834: similar to (\ref{cross1}).
835:
836: The explicit expressions for cross sections in Sec. III show that, for
837: analyzing the pair-productions of squarks in first and second generations
838: one needs only a subset of the model parameters be fixed. The relevant
839: parameter set includes
840: \begin{eqnarray}
841: \mid \mu \mid\,,\; M_{\widetilde{g}}\,,\; M_{\widetilde{W}} \,,\;
842: M_ {\widetilde{B}} \,,\; m_{\widetilde{q}_{L,R}}^2\,,\; \tan\beta\,,\;
843: \varphi_{\mu}\,,\;\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}\,,\;
844: \varphi_{\widetilde{W}}\,,\; \varphi_{\widetilde{B}}
845: \end{eqnarray}
846: where it is understood that each parameter is evaluated at energy scale
847: where experiments are carried out $i.e.$ around a ${\rm TeV}$
848: for the LHC experiments.
849:
850: None of these parameters is known a priori. All one can do is to determine
851: their allowed ranges via various laboratory ($e.g.$ the
852: lower bound on chargino mass, $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ decay rate
853: etc.) and astrophysical ($e.g.$ the WMAP results for cold dark
854: matter density) observations. In this sense, mSUGRA (the
855: constrained MSSM) serves as a prototype model where several
856: phenomenological bounds can be analyzed with minimal number
857: of parameters. The mSUGRA scheme is achieved by postulating certain
858: unification relations among the soft mass parameters in (\ref{soft}). In explicit
859: terms,
860: \begin{eqnarray}
861: \label{gut}
862: &&M_{\widetilde{g}}^0 = M_{\widetilde{W}}^0 = M_{\widetilde{B}}^0 =
863: M_{1/2}\nonumber\\
864: &&\left(M_{H_u}^{2}\right)^0 =\left(M_{H_d}^{2}\right)^0 = m_0^2\nonumber\\
865: &&\left({\bf Y _{u,d,e}^A}\right)^{0} = A_0 \left({\bf Y_{u,d,e}}\right)^0\nonumber\\
866: &&\left({\bf M_{Q}}^{2}\right)^0 = \left({\bf M_{U}}^{2}\right)^0 = \left({\bf M_{D}}^{2}\right)^0 =
867: \left({\bf M_{L}}^{2}\right)^0 = \left({\bf M_{E}}^{
868: 2}\right)^0= m_0^2 {\bf 1}
869: \end{eqnarray}
870: so that not only the gauge couplings but also the scalar masses (into a common value $m_0$),
871: the trilinear couplings (into a common value $A_0$ times the corresponding Yukawa matrix), and
872: the gaugino masses (into a common value $M_{1/2}$) are unified. The bilinear Higgs coupling $B$
873: is traded for the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass, and $\mu$ parameter is determined by the
874: requirement of correct electroweak breaking. The superscript $^0$ on a parameter in (\ref{gut})
875: implies the GUT-scale value of that parameter $e.g.$ $\left({\bf M_{Q}}^{2}\right)^0 \equiv {\bf
876: M_{Q}}^2(Q=M_{GUT})$ where $Q$ is the energy scale.
877:
878: Under the assumptions made in (\ref{gut}), a general MSSM (parameterized by (\ref{soft}) given
879: in Introduction) reduces to mSUGRA (the constrained
880: MSSM) which involves only a few unknown parameters. Within the framework of mSUGRA, after LEP
881: \cite{post-lep} as well as WMAP \cite{post-wmap} a set of
882: benchmark points (at which all the existing bounds are satisfied)
883: has been constructed. In the language of experimentalists \cite{CMS},
884: there exist a number of benchmark points LM1, LM2, $\cdots$ LM9 at
885: which detector simulations are carried out. For instance, the
886: benchmark point LM1 (similar to point B in \cite{post-lep} and
887: identical to point B' in \cite{post-wmap}) corresponds to
888: \begin{eqnarray}
889: \label{lm1} m_{0}= 60\ {\rm GeV}\,,\; M_{1/2}=250\ {\rm GeV}\,,\;
890: A_0 = 0\,,\; \tan\beta= 10
891: \end{eqnarray}
892: with $\mu>0$. The parameter space we consider is wider than this
893: mSUGRA pattern in that universality pattern is respected in moduli
894: but not in phases. In other words, the gaugino masses (possibly
895: also the trilinear couplings in a setting with $A_0 \neq 0$) are
896: universal in size but not in phase (see also \cite{tarek}). To
897: this end we fold LM1 to a new point LM1' by switching on
898: CP-violating phases of gaugino masses at the GUT scale. More
899: explicitly,
900: \begin{eqnarray}
901: \label{lm1p} M_{\widetilde{g}}^0 e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{g}}^0}=
902: M_{1/2}\ e^{i \varphi_3}\,,\; M_{\widetilde{W}}^0 e^{i
903: \varphi_{\widetilde{W}}^0} = M_{1/2}\ e^{i \varphi_2}\,,\;
904: M_{\widetilde{B}}^0 e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{B}}^0}= M_{1/2}\ e^{i
905: \varphi_1}
906: \end{eqnarray}
907: at the GUT scale. The $\mu$ parameter is necessarily complex: $\mu
908: = \mid \mu \mid e^{i \varphi_{\mu}}$. The rest of the parameters,
909: including $M_{1/2}$ in (\ref{lm1p}), are fixed to their values in
910: (\ref{lm1}). For determining the impact of these GUT-scale phases
911: on SUSY parameter space at the electroweak scale it is necessary
912: to solve their RGEs with the boundary conditions (\ref{lm1p}).
913: With two-loop accuracy, one finds for gaugino masses
914: \begin{eqnarray}
915: \label{gaugino-soln} M_{\widetilde{B}}e^{i
916: \varphi_{\widetilde{B}}} &=&105.088\, e^{i\varphi_1} -0.229\,
917: e^{i\varphi_2}-2.811\, e^{i\varphi_3}\nonumber\\
918: M_{\widetilde{W}} e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{W}}}&=&-0.074\,
919: e^{i\varphi_1} +198.763\,
920: e^{i\varphi_2} -7.410\, e^{i\varphi_3}\nonumber\\
921: M_{\widetilde{g}} e^{i \varphi_{\widetilde{g}}} &=&-0.332\,
922: e^{i\varphi_1} -2.684\, e^{i\varphi_2} + 605.705\, e^{i\varphi_3}
923: \end{eqnarray}
924: and for squark soft mass-squareds
925: \begin{eqnarray}
926: \label{squark-soln} {m}_{\widetilde{Q}}^2&=& (560.725)^2
927: \left(1 - 4.66\, 10^{-5} \cos\varphi_{12}-8.86\, 10^{-4}
928: \cos\varphi_{13}- 1.19\, 10^{-2}
929: \cos\varphi_{23}\right)\nonumber\\
930: {m}_{\widetilde{u}_R}^2&=& (542.317)^2 \left(1 - 6.49\,
931: 10^{-6} \cos\varphi_{12}-1.64\, 10^{-3} \cos\varphi_{13}- 6.65\,
932: 10^{-3}
933: \cos\varphi_{23}\right)\nonumber\\
934: {m}_{\widetilde{d}_R}^2&=& (540.119)^2 \left(1 - 2.31\,
935: 10^{-7} \cos\varphi_{12}-1.13\, 10^{-3} \cos\varphi_{13}- 6.44\,
936: 10^{-3} \cos\varphi_{23}\right)
937: \end{eqnarray}
938: all of which being given in ${\rm GeV}$. The angle parameters
939: appearing in soft mass-squareds are defined as $\varphi_{ij} =
940: \varphi_i - \varphi_j$ with $i,j=1,2,3$. These semi-analytic
941: solutions prove quite useful while interpreting weak-scale
942: parameters in terms of the GUT-scale ones. For instance, as
943: follows from (\ref{squark-soln}), squark soft mass-squareds are
944: found to feel GUT-scale phases very weakly. In fact, largest
945: contribution comes from $\varphi_{23}$ and it remains at $1 \%$
946: level. The squark soft mass-squareds entering the cross sections
947: are obtained by including the D-term contributions:
948: \begin{eqnarray}
949: \label{squark-phys} \left({m}_{\widetilde{u}_L}^2\right)^{D-term} &=&
950: {{m}_{\widetilde{Q}}}^2 +
951: \frac{1}{6} (4 M_{W}^2 - M_{Z}^2) \cos 2\beta \nonumber\\
952: \left({m}_{\widetilde{d}_L}^2\right)^{D-term} &=& {m}_{\widetilde{Q}}^2 -
953: \frac{1}{6} (2 M_{W}^2 + M_{Z}^2) \cos 2\beta \nonumber\\
954: \left({m}_{\widetilde{u}_R}^2\right)^{D-term} &=& {m}_{\widetilde{u}_R}^2 +
955: \frac{2}{3} (M_{Z}^2 - M_{W}^2) \cos 2\beta \nonumber\\
956: \left({m}_{\widetilde{d}_R}^2\right)^{D-term} &=& {m}_{\widetilde{d}_R}^2 -
957: \frac{1}{3} (M_{Z}^2 - M_{W}^2) \cos 2\beta
958: \end{eqnarray}
959: which are the physical squared-masses of the squarks belonging to
960: first and second generations. (In what follows we will drop the superscript
961: $^{D-term}$ for simplicity of notation.).
962:
963: Returning to gaugino masses (\ref{gaugino-soln}), the two-loop
964: contributions are found to modify both moduli and phases of the
965: gaugino masses at the weak scale. However, these effects do not
966: exceed a few percent; the largest departure from one-loop scheme
967: occurs in $M_{\widetilde{W}}$, due to gluino mass, and it is at
968: ${\cal{O}}(4 \%)$ level. Similarly, $M_{\widetilde{B}}$ undergoes
969: an ${\cal{O}}(3 \%)$ modification due to gluino contribution. On
970: the other hand, running of the gluino mass is influenced in a less
971: significant way by the masses of electoweak gauginos.
972: Consequently, depending on precision with which certain
973: observables are measured, in some cases one can employ the
974: following approximate relations
975: \begin{eqnarray}
976: \label{gaugino-approx} \varphi_{\widetilde{g}} \approx
977: \varphi_3\;,\;\;\varphi_{\widetilde{W}} \approx \varphi_2\;,\;\;
978: \varphi_{\widetilde{B}} \approx \varphi_1
979: \end{eqnarray}
980: along with $M_{\widetilde{g}} \approx M_3$, $M_{\widetilde{W}}
981: \approx M_2$ and $M_{\widetilde{B}} \approx M_1$. Hence, though we
982: deal with constrained MSSM with complex gaugino masses at the GUT
983: scale, as given in (\ref{lm1p}), one might regard whole analysis
984: as being carried out in unconstrained MSSM with squark masses in
985: (\ref{squark-phys}) and gaugino masses in (\ref{gaugino-approx}).
986: In this sense, the numerical results that follow can be
987: interpreted within unconstrained MSSM with explicit CP violation
988: and fixed moduli for sparticle masses. However, one keeps in mind
989: that precision with which certain observables are probed can be
990: sensitive to two-loop effects encoded in (\ref{gaugino-soln}). In
991: such cases, (\ref{gaugino-approx}) represents a too bad
992: approximation to utilize.
993:
994: In the numerical calculations below we take $\varphi_{\mu} =0$ so
995: that $\mu$ parameter is real positive (as required by $b
996: \rightarrow s \gamma$ for instance \cite{bsgam}). This choice can
997: be useful also for not violating the EDM bounds \cite{cancel} in
998: spite of ${\cal{O}}(1)$ values for rest of the phases in
999: (\ref{lm1p}). We test our numerical results against PYTHIA
1000: predictions \cite{pythia} in those regions of the parameter space
1001: where all phases vanish.
1002:
1003: In what follows, for clarity of discussions, we divide numerical
1004: analysis into subparts according to what squarks are observed with
1005: what property. This kind of fine-graining of squark production
1006: could be useful for interpretation of the signal in simulations as
1007: well as experimentation.
1008:
1009: \subsection{Squark Pair-Production: Definite Flavor and Definite Chirality}
1010: In this subsection we analyze productions of squarks with a
1011: definite flavor and chirality in regard to their dependencies on
1012: the CP-odd soft phases of the gluinos and neutralinos.
1013:
1014: We start analysis by illustrating the dependencies of $\sigma(p\,
1015: p \rightarrow \widetilde{q} \widetilde{q}^{\star})$ and
1016: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{q} \widetilde{q})$ upon the
1017: CP-odd phases $\varphi_{1, 2, 3}$ for $\widetilde{q} =
1018: \widetilde{u}$ $i.e.$ the pair-productions of scalar up (or,
1019: effectively, scalar charm quarks). Depicted in Fig.
1020: \ref{fig-sig-up_0} are $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{q}
1021: \widetilde{q}^{\star})$ and $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1022: \widetilde{q} \widetilde{q})$ for $\varphi_1 =0$, and the ones in
1023: Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_pi2} are the same cross sections for
1024: $\varphi_1 = \pi/2$.
1025:
1026:
1027: As observed in the top panel of the left column, $\sigma(p\, p
1028: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star}) \approx
1029: 378\ {\rm fb}$ in agreement with the PYTHIA prediction
1030: \cite{pythia}. It falls down to $\approx 352\ {\rm fb}$ as
1031: $\varphi_{3}$ varies from 0 to $\pi$. However, as $\varphi_2$
1032: varies from $0$ to $\pi$, in steps of $\pi/4$, $\sigma(p\, p
1033: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ is seen to
1034: reverse its behavior at $\varphi_2 = 0$; it equals $\approx 354\
1035: {\rm fb}$ at $\varphi_3 =0$ and $\approx 376\ {\rm fb}$ at
1036: $\varphi_3 = \pi$. Clearly, explicit $\varphi_3$ dependence of
1037: this cross section stems solely from the two-loop contributions of
1038: the gluino mass to isospin and hypercharge gaugino masses in
1039: (\ref{gaugino-soln}). More explicitly, dependence on the phases
1040: (apart from squark masses (\ref{squark-soln}) and gaugino masses
1041: $M_{\widetilde{W}, \widetilde{B}}$ in (\ref{gaugino-soln})) comes
1042: from $\left|A_{q_L i}\right|^2 \approx (1/4) \left|N_{i 2} - 0.18
1043: N_{i 1}\right|^2$ which is obviously dominated by $N_{2 2}$
1044: contribution $i.e.$ the isospin gaugino. Therefore, $\varphi_{3}$
1045: dependencies of $M_{\widetilde{W}}$ and $\varphi_{\widetilde{W}}$
1046: dominantly determine the sensitivity of $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1047: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ on GUT-scale phases
1048: $\varphi_{1,2,3}$. The total swing of the cross section $i.e.$ the
1049: difference between its extrema is $\approx 26\ {\rm fb}$.
1050:
1051: In a strict unconstrained MSSM framework (expressed by approximate
1052: relations in (\ref{gaugino-approx})), this top panel at the left
1053: column of Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_0} would be plotted against
1054: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ and it would be a series of horizontal
1055: lines. In this sense, manifest $\varphi_3$ dependence of
1056: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1057: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ signals departure from strict
1058: unconstrained MSSM limit in which gluino phase is expected to give
1059: no contribution to $\widetilde{q}\, \widetilde{q}^{\star}$
1060: production, in general.
1061:
1062: The observations made above hold also for $\sigma(p\, p
1063: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ cross
1064: section given in the top panel in the middle column of Fig.
1065: \ref{fig-sig-up_0}. The main difference lies in the fact that
1066: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1067: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ involves $\left| A_{q_R i}\right|^2 =
1068: 0.14 \left|N_{i 1}\right|^2$ which is dominated by $N_{1 1}$
1069: $i.e.$ the hypercharge gaugino. $N_{1 1}$ is less sensitive to
1070: $\varphi_{2,3}$ than $N_{2 2}$, and hence comparatively milder
1071: phase-dependence of $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1072: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ than $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1073: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$. The cross section
1074: exhibits a total swing of $18\ {\rm fb}$ which can roughly be
1075: estimated from $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1076: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ swing given the dependencies of
1077: $M_{\widetilde{B}}$ and $M_{\widetilde{W}}$ in
1078: (\ref{gaugino-soln}) on $\varphi_3$.
1079:
1080: Depicted in top panel of the right column of Fig.
1081: \ref{fig-sig-up_0} is $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1082: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$. Unlike $\widetilde{u}_R
1083: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star}$ production, and like $\widetilde{u}_L
1084: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star}$ production, $ \widetilde{u}_L
1085: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star}+ \widetilde{u}_R
1086: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star}$ production cross section exhibits a
1087: strong sensitivity to phases; its total swing is $\sim 22\ {\rm
1088: fb}$. The reason for this is clear: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1089: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ involves $A_{q_L i}
1090: A_{q_R i}^{\star}=0.183 N_{i 1} N_{i 2} - 0.0335 N_{i 1}^2$ which
1091: combines constructively the phases of isospin and hypercharge
1092: gauginos. Therefore, this pair production mode, like
1093: $\widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star}$ production, exhibits
1094: a strong sensitivity to $\varphi_3$ due to the fact that it
1095: involves phases of both $M_{\widetilde{W}}$ and $M_{
1096: \widetilde{B}}$ in an additive fashion.
1097:
1098: Given in the bottom panels of Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_0} are
1099: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$ (the
1100: left panel), $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1101: \widetilde{u}_{R})$ (the middle panel) and $\sigma(p\, p
1102: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ (the right panel).
1103: The figure shows it explicitly that $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1104: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$, compared to $\sigma(p\, p
1105: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ atop,
1106: exhibits a much stronger variation with $\varphi_3$ and
1107: $\varphi_2$. In accord with discussions in Sec. III above, this
1108: pronounced dependence follows from $t$-channel exchange of gluino
1109: and isospin gaugino with direct dependence on their phases (See
1110: Table \ref{table1}). Therefore, $\widetilde{u}_L
1111: \widetilde{u}_{L})$ production is a sensitive probe of the gluino
1112: and wino phases (and of the hypercharge phase depending on mixing
1113: in the neutralino mass matrix). One notes that, in unconstrained
1114: MSSM limit one would have a similar pattern for $\sigma(p\, p
1115: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$.
1116:
1117: A striking illustration of phase sensitivities of cross sections
1118: is provided by $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1119: \widetilde{u}_{R})$ shown in the middle panel. This process
1120: proceeds with gluino and bino exchanges in $t$ channel, and thus
1121: it is a highly sensitive probe of $\varphi_3$. Its $\varphi_2$
1122: dependence is rather weak as expected from (\ref{gaugino-soln}).
1123:
1124: As shown in the right panel, $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1125: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ possesses the smallest swing:
1126: its extrema differ by $49\ {\rm fb}$ which is much smaller than
1127: $500\ {\rm fb}$ swing of $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1128: \widetilde{u}_{L})$ and $304\ {\rm fb}$ swing of $\sigma(p\, p
1129: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R})$. The reason for
1130: this milder dependence on $\varphi_3$ results from destructive
1131: combination of phases contained in $A_{q_L i} A_{q_R i}$. This
1132: aspect has been detailed while analyzing $ \widetilde{u}_L
1133: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star}+ \widetilde{u}_R
1134: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star}$ production. One notes, in particular,
1135: that variation of the cross section with $\varphi_3$ is extremely
1136: suppressed for $\varphi_2= \pi$ due to the aforementioned
1137: cancellation effects.
1138:
1139: Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_pi2} shows the same cross sections plotted in
1140: Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_0} for $\varphi_1 = \pi/2$. This repetition
1141: is intended for determining how cross sections vary with the phase
1142: of the hypercharge gaugino. A comparative look at these two
1143: figures reveals some interesting aspects of $\varphi_1$
1144: dependence. First of all, $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1145: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$, $\sigma(p\, p
1146: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$,
1147: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1148: \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$, $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1149: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$ and $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1150: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ exhibit rather small changes
1151: as $\varphi_1$ changes from 0 to $\pi/2$. This is actually
1152: expected since these production modes are dominated by GUT-scale
1153: isospin and gluino phases. On the other hand, $\sigma(p\, p
1154: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R})$ undergoes
1155: observable modifications as $\varphi_1$ changes from 0 to $\pi/2$.
1156: This process proceeds exclusively with $t$-channel gluino and
1157: bino exchanges. Indeed, while $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1158: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}) \sim 1000 + 150 \cos \varphi_3\
1159: {\rm fb}$ at $\varphi_1 =0$ it changes to $\sigma(p\, p
1160: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}) \sim 1000 - 140
1161: \sin \varphi_3\ {\rm fb}$ at $\varphi_1 =\pi/2$. This strong
1162: variation with $\varphi_{1,3}$ makes $\widetilde{u}_R
1163: \widetilde{u}_{R}$ a viable probe for hunting CP-odd phases. One
1164: notes that similar $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}, \widetilde{B}}$
1165: dependencies are also expected in the unconstrained MSSM.
1166:
1167: For the sake of completeness, we plot in Figs.
1168: \ref{fig-sig-down_0} and \ref{fig-sig-down_pi2} the same
1169: production modes for down-type (scalar down or strange) squarks.
1170: Their dependencies on $\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_3$ are similar to
1171: what we found on up-type squark production. Their variation with
1172: $\varphi_1$ is also similar. Clearly, difference between pair
1173: productions of up-type and down-type squarks follow from
1174: differences in squark masses (down-type squarks weigh relatively
1175: heavier than up-type ones after taking into account the $D$-term
1176: effects) and from changes in the couplings $i.e.$ $\left(A_{u_L
1177: i}, A_{u_R i}\right) \rightarrow \left(A_{d_L i}, A_{d_R
1178: i}\right)$ and $\left(C_{u LL}, C_{u RR}\right) \rightarrow
1179: \left(C_{d LL}, C_{d RR}\right)$. For the LM1 point under concern,
1180: down-type squark pair-production turns out to be significantly
1181: smaller than that of the up-type squarks. This is eventually tied
1182: up to difference between the squark masses and to various
1183: couplings.
1184:
1185:
1186: Depicted in Figs. \ref{fig-sig-updown_0} and
1187: \ref{fig-sig-updown_2} are cross sections for associated
1188: production of up-type and down-type quarks for $\varphi_1 =0$ and
1189: $\varphi_1= \pi/2$, respectively. Typically, cross sections are
1190: seen to exhibit significant variations with $\varphi_2$. This is
1191: not surprising at all: chargino sector plays an essential role in
1192: these production modes. This is also confirmed by the manifest
1193: $\varphi_1$ independence of the cross sections. There is one
1194: exception here: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1195: \widetilde{d}_{R})$ which exhibits a relatively stronger
1196: dependence on $\varphi_1$ because of the fact that $ p\, p
1197: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R}$ proceeds with
1198: gluino and bino mediations, only. The largest swing occurs in
1199: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L})$
1200: which changes by $\sim 500\ {\rm fb}$ as $\varphi_3$ changes from
1201: $0$ to $\pi$.
1202:
1203: \begin{figure}
1204: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1205: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1206: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1207: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1208: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1209: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1210: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1211: \caption{Up squark pair-production cross sections (in fb) at the
1212: LHC as functions of $\varphi_3$ for $\varphi_1=0$ and several
1213: values of $\varphi_2$. Left: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1214: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ (top panel) and
1215: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$
1216: (bottom panel). Middle: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1217: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ (top panel) and $\sigma(p\, p
1218: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R})$ (bottom panel).
1219: Right: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1220: \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ (top panel) and $\sigma(p\, p
1221: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ (bottom
1222: panel).}\label{fig-sig-up_0}
1223: \end{figure}
1224:
1225: \begin{figure}
1226: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1227: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1228: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1229: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1230: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1231: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1232: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1233: \caption{ The same as in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_0} but for
1234: $\varphi_1 = \pi/2$. }\label{fig-sig-up_pi2}
1235: \end{figure}
1236:
1237:
1238: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% dd
1240: \begin{figure}
1241: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1242: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1243: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1244: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1245: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1246: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1247: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1248: \caption{The same as in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_0} but for pair
1249: production of down or strange squarks. }\label{fig-sig-down_0}
1250: \end{figure}
1251:
1252: \begin{figure}
1253: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1254: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1255: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1256: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1257: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1258: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1259: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1260: \caption{ The same as in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-up_pi2} but for pair
1261: production of down or strange squarks.}\label{fig-sig-down_pi2}
1262: \end{figure}
1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1264: \begin{figure}
1265: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1266: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1267: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1268: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1269: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1270: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1271: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1272: \caption{Up-down squark pair-production cross sections (in fb) at the
1273: LHC as functions of $\varphi_3$ for $\varphi_1=0$ and several
1274: values of $\varphi_2$. Left: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1275: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L}^{\star})$ (top panel) and
1276: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L})$
1277: (bottom panel). Middle: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R
1278: \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ (top panel) and $\sigma(p\, p
1279: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R})$ (bottom panel).
1280: Right: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L
1281: \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ (top panel) and $\sigma(p\, p
1282: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R})$ (bottom
1283: panel).}\label{fig-sig-updown_0}
1284: \end{figure}
1285:
1286:
1287: \begin{figure}
1288: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1289: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1290: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1291: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1292: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1293: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1294: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1295: \caption{The same as in Fig. \ref{fig-sig-updown_0} but for
1296: $\varphi_1=\pi/2$.}\label{fig-sig-updown_2}
1297: \end{figure}
1298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ratios %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1299:
1300: \begin{figure}
1301: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1302: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1303: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1304: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1305: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1306: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1307: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1308:
1309: \caption{ Ratios of up squark pair-production cross sections at the
1310: LHC as functions of $\varphi_3$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel), $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel) and several values of $\varphi_2$. Left: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1311: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1312: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1313: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{L}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Middle: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1314: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1315: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1316: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Right: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1317: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1318: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1319: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{u}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel).}\label{fig-upratio}
1320: \end{figure}
1321:
1322:
1323: \begin{figure}
1324: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1325: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1326: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1327: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1328: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1329: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1330: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1331:
1332: \caption{ The same as in Fig. \ref{fig-upratio} but for down
1333: squark production.}\label{fig-downratio}
1334: \end{figure}
1335:
1336:
1337: \begin{figure}
1338: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1339: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_ll_phi1_0_x.eps}
1340: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_rr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1341: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_lr_phi1_0_x.eps}
1342: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_ll_phi1_2_x.eps}
1343: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_rr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1344: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_lr_phi1_2_x.eps}
1345:
1346: \caption{ Ratios of up-down squark pair-production cross sections at the
1347: LHC as functions of $\varphi_3$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel), $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel) and several values of $\varphi_2$.
1348: Left: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1349: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1350: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1351: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Middle: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1352: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1353: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1354: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Right: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1355: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1356: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1357: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel).}\label{fig-updownratio}
1358: \end{figure}
1359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1360:
1361: Shown in Figs. \ref{fig-upratio}, \ref{fig-downratio} and
1362: \ref{fig-updownratio} are ratios of the cross sections for
1363: $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{\hat q}$ production to those for
1364: $\widetilde{q} \widetilde{\hat q}^{\star}$. These figures are
1365: intended for determining the relative population of
1366: squark--anti-squark and squark-squark pairs in collider
1367: environment at the LHC. Fig. \ref{fig-upratio} dictates that
1368: $\widetilde{u} \widetilde{\hat u}$ production cross section is
1369: 2--3 times larger than $\widetilde{u} \widetilde{\hat u}^{\star}$
1370: production cross section. Therefore, for a given luminosity, only
1371: 30--50$\%$ of up-type squark pairs will be up--anti-up squarks.
1372: Contrary to up squark sector, the corresponding ratios in
1373: down-type squark sector remain ${\cal{O}}(1)$ as is seen in Fig.
1374: \ref{fig-downratio}. Therefore, one expects down-type
1375: squark--squark and squark--anti-squark pairs to be produced
1376: approximately equal in number. This manifest difference between
1377: up-- and down--squark pair production could be useful in collider
1378: searches for squarks (from their decays into certain leptonic
1379: final states, for example).
1380:
1381:
1382: Perhaps the most interesting is up--down production. Indeed, as is
1383: seen in Fig. \ref{fig-updownratio}, $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1384: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1385: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{L}^{\star})$ ranges from 10-20
1386: depending on the phases while $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1387: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1388: \widetilde{u}_R \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ is approximately fixed
1389: to 20. These numbers imply that the number of squark--anti-squark
1390: pairs are only $\sim 5-10\%$ of the squark-squark pairs for these
1391: modes. Unlike these similar-chirality modes, the
1392: dissimilar-chirality mode $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1393: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1394: \widetilde{u}_L \widetilde{d}_{R}^{\star})$ is ${\cal{O}}(1)$.
1395: Clearly, none of these ratios exhibit a strong variation with
1396: $\varphi_1$.
1397:
1398:
1399: From all these three figures, Figs. \ref{fig-upratio},
1400: \ref{fig-downratio} and \ref{fig-updownratio}, we conclude that
1401: squark--squark production cross sections are, at least for LM1
1402: under consideration, larger or equal to squark--anti-squark
1403: production. The main reason for this, apart from the impact of
1404: squark masses themselves, is the proportionality of squark--squark
1405: production cross sections to the exchanged gaugino mass. Indeed,
1406: squark--anti-squark production involves transferred momentum
1407: rather than the gaugino mass in the $t$-channel (see also
1408: \cite{thomas}).
1409:
1410: The analysis in this subsection requires a knowledge of what
1411: squark with what chirality is produced. For numerical results
1412: illustrated in Figs.\ref{fig-sig-up_0}--\ref{fig-updownratio} to
1413: make sense experiments must be able to differentiate among
1414: $\widetilde{q}_L$, $\widetilde{q}_R$, $\widetilde{q}_L^{\star}$
1415: and $\widetilde{q}_R^{\star}$. The chirality information can be
1416: inferred from their decay pattern:
1417: \begin{eqnarray}
1418: \widetilde{q}_R \rightarrow (\mbox{quark jet}) +
1419: \slashchar{P}_T\;,\;\; \widetilde{q}_L \rightarrow (\mbox{quark
1420: jet}) + (\mbox{leptons}) + \slashchar{P}_T
1421: \end{eqnarray}
1422: where a detailed study of such detection modes have been given in
1423: \cite{CMS} and references therein.
1424:
1425: Other than chirality there is the question of flavor. Indeed, in a
1426: real experimental situation it could be quite difficult to know if
1427: the 'left-handed squark' produced is $\widetilde{u}$ or
1428: $\widetilde{c}$ or $\widetilde{d}$ or $\widetilde{s}$. From the
1429: scratch we know that $\widetilde{u}$ and $\widetilde{c}$ are
1430: hardly differentiable except for their small mass splitting and
1431: possible flavor-violation effects between $\widetilde{c}$ and
1432: $\widetilde{t}$ squarks. In fact, all the $\widetilde{u}
1433: \widetilde{u}$ or $\widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star}$ cross
1434: sections plotted above may be regarded as half of the
1435: $\widetilde{u}$ or $\widetilde{c}$ production cross sections.
1436: Similar observations hold also for $\widetilde{d}$ and
1437: $\widetilde{s}$ productions. To this end, there is a degree of
1438: flavor-blindness in cross sections plotted in
1439: Figs.\ref{fig-sig-up_0}--\ref{fig-updownratio}. However, for the
1440: figures above to make sense one has to know if the squark produced
1441: is up-type or down-type or their anti-particles. This, indeed,
1442: could be a quite difficult task since it necessitates a detailed
1443: knowledge of the electric charges of the debris produced by the
1444: collision (which should, in principle, be possible by measuring
1445: curvatures of the particle tracks in the detector).
1446:
1447: \subsection{Squark Pair-Production: Definite Flavor and Indefinite Chirality}
1448: In this subsection we perform a chirality-blind analysis of the
1449: squark pair-production by summing over all chirality combinations
1450: allowed. Depicted in Fig. \ref{fig-uptotal} are $\sigma(p\, p
1451: \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}) = \sum_{X=L,R; Y=L,R}
1452: \sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_X \widetilde{u}_{Y})$ (left
1453: panel) and $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}
1454: \widetilde{u}^{\star}) = \sum_{X=L,R; Y=L,R} \sigma(p\, p
1455: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_X \widetilde{u}_{Y}^{\star})$ (middle
1456: panel) and their ratios being given in the right panel. Similar
1457: structures with explanations in figure captions are given in Fig.
1458: \ref{fig-downtotal} (for down squark pair production) and in Fig.
1459: \ref{fig-updowntotal} (for associated production of up and down
1460: squarks). In all three figures the upper panels stand for
1461: $\varphi_1=0$ and lower panels for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$. From these
1462: figures we infer that:
1463: \begin{itemize}
1464: \item The chirality-blind cross sections are at the $pb$ level, and
1465: therefore, given the planned luminosity at the LHC, one expects a
1466: large number of events with high-enough statistics for examining
1467: the CP violation effects.
1468:
1469: \item The chirality-blind cross sections as well as their ratios do exhibit
1470: significant variations with CP-odd soft phases. If possible
1471: experimentally, detectors could infer if there are CP violation
1472: sources in the underlying model by comparing $\widetilde{q}\,
1473: \widetilde{\hat{q}}$ and $\widetilde{q}\,
1474: \widetilde{\hat{q}}^{\star}$ productions within a specific model,
1475: say, the MSSM.
1476:
1477:
1478: \item The figures suggest that typically
1479: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u})$ /
1480: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star})
1481: \preceq 3$, $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{d}
1482: \widetilde{d})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{d}
1483: \widetilde{d}^{\star}) \preceq 1.2$, and $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1484: \widetilde{u} \widetilde{d})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1485: \widetilde{u} \widetilde{d}^{\star}) \preceq 3.5$. These ratios
1486: vary slightly with $\varphi_1$ and significantly with $\varphi_2$
1487: and $\varphi_3$. They give an idea of what contamination of
1488: $\widetilde{q}\, \widetilde{\hat{q}}$ pairs are expected to be in
1489: $\widetilde{q}\, \widetilde{\hat{q}}^{\star}$ signal and vice
1490: versa.
1491: \end{itemize}
1492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1493:
1494: The material in this subsection could be useful in situations
1495: where experimentalist does care only on two promt transverse jets.
1496: However, for the plots Fig. \ref{fig-uptotal}, \ref{fig-downtotal}
1497: and \ref{fig-updowntotal} to be useful one needs a precise
1498: knowledge of what net charge the debris in two regions of the
1499: barrel carries. It is with this information that one can compare
1500: cross sections plotted above with a specific model.
1501:
1502:
1503: \begin{figure}
1504: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1505: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_phi1_0_x.eps}
1506: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_phi1_0_x.eps}
1507: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_phi1_0_x.eps}
1508: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_phi1_2_x.eps}
1509: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uubar_phi1_2_x.eps}
1510: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{uu_rat_phi1_2_x.eps}
1511:
1512: \caption{The chirality-blind up-squark pair-production cross
1513: sections $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}) =
1514: \sum_{ X=L,R; Y=L,R} \sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_X
1515: \widetilde{u}_{Y})$ and $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}
1516: \widetilde{u}^{\star}) = \sum_{X=L,R; Y=L,R} \sigma(p\, p
1517: \rightarrow \widetilde{u}_X \widetilde{u}_{Y}^{\star})$ at the LHC
1518: as functions of $\varphi_3$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel),
1519: $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel) and several values of
1520: $\varphi_2$. Left: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u}
1521: \widetilde{u})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1522: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u})$ for
1523: $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Middle:
1524: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1525: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star})$
1526: for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel). Right: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1527: \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=0$ (top panel) and
1528: $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u})$ / $\sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1529: \widetilde{u} \widetilde{u}^{\star})$ for $\varphi_1=\pi/2$ (bottom panel).}\label{fig-uptotal}
1530: \end{figure}
1531:
1532:
1533: \begin{figure}
1534: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1535: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_phi1_0_x.eps}
1536: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_phi1_0_x.eps}
1537: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_phi1_0_x.eps}
1538: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_phi1_2_x.eps}
1539: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ddbar_phi1_2_x.eps}
1540: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{dd_rat_phi1_2_x.eps}
1541:
1542: \caption{ The chirality-blind down-squark production cross
1543: sections with the conventions employed in Fig. \ref{fig-uptotal}.}
1544: \label{fig-downtotal}
1545: \end{figure}
1546:
1547:
1548: \begin{figure}
1549: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1550: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_phi1_0_x.eps}
1551: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_phi1_0_x.eps}
1552: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_phi1_0_x.eps}
1553: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_phi1_2_x.eps}
1554: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{udbar_phi1_2_x.eps}
1555: \includegraphics[width=5cm]{ud_rat_phi1_2_x.eps}
1556:
1557: \caption{The chirality-blind up-and-down squark production cross
1558: sections with the conventions employed in Fig. \ref{fig-uptotal}.}
1559: \label{fig-updowntotal}
1560: \end{figure}
1561:
1562: \subsection{Squark Pair-Production: Indefinite Flavor and
1563: Indefinite Chirality}
1564:
1565: In this subsection we perform a flavor--and--chirality--blind
1566: analysis in that we examine situations in which experimentalist
1567: measures only the rate of producing two high-$\slashchar{P}_T$
1568: jets (disregarding all the leptons and other stuff accompanying
1569: the jet). In this case, direct counting of number of such events
1570: can give an idea about CP-violation sources in the underlying
1571: model. This is exemplified in Fig. \ref{fig-total} by plotting the
1572: total squark pair-production cross section
1573: \begin{eqnarray}
1574: \label{total-sq}
1575: \sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \mbox{squark pair}) = \sum_{
1576: \left\{q,\hat{q}\right\} \in \left\{u,c,d,s\right\}; X=L,R; Y=L,R}
1577: \left[ \sigma(p\, p \rightarrow \widetilde{q}_X
1578: \widetilde{\hat{q}}_{Y}) + \sigma(p\, p \rightarrow
1579: \widetilde{q}_X \widetilde{\hat{q}}_{Y}^{\star})\right]
1580: \end{eqnarray}
1581: which is completely blind to what flavors with what charges and
1582: chiralities are being produced.
1583:
1584: This dependence on the soft phases implies that LHC events started
1585: by two high-$\slashchar{P}_T$ jets (disassociating into secondary,
1586: tertiary jets plus leptons plus missing $\slashchar{E}_T$) are
1587: already sensitive to variations in CP-odd phases in gluino and
1588: neutralino sectors of the theory. The advantageous aspect of this
1589: kind of search is that experimentalist does not need to identify
1590: jet charges, leptons, chiralities, missing energy {\it etc}. At
1591: this point a crucial question arises: How does one know that two
1592: high-$\slashchar{P}_T$ events are originating from squarks but not
1593: from two gluinos or from a gluino and a squark? This is indeed a
1594: non-trivial question to answer, and its answer lies in
1595: identification of the final-state particles at the level of Subsection A,
1596: above. Nevertheless, pair-production of squarks differs from those of the gluino
1597: and associated production of gluino and squark in one crucial aspect: Gluino-gluino
1598: and gluino-squark productions are independent of the CP-odd soft
1599: phases. This is a highly advantageous property of squark-pair production
1600: events over the other two since while fitting experimental data to a
1601: specific model, say MSSM, it can be inferred from event rates
1602: (illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig-total}) whether the model
1603: accommodates CP violation sources or not.
1604:
1605:
1606:
1607:
1608: \begin{figure}
1609: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
1610: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{qq_phi1_0_x.eps}
1611: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{qq_phi1_2_x.eps}
1612: \caption{Dependence on the soft phases of the total squark
1613: pair-production cross section defined in (\ref{total-sq})
1614: in the text. The left-panel stands for $\varphi_1=0$ and right-panel does for
1615: $\varphi_1=\pi/2$.}\label{fig-total}
1616: \end{figure}
1617:
1618:
1619: \section{Squark Pair-Production and EDM Bounds}
1620: In the previous section we have determined sensitivities of
1621: the cross sections on the soft CP-odd phases by letting
1622: phases to vary in their full ranges and by taking soft
1623: mass parameters at the LM1 point. However, given that EDMs
1624: of electron, neutron and atoms can put stringent limits
1625: on the sizes of CP-odd phases, it is
1626: necessary, for completeness of the analysis, to give
1627: a discussion of the EDM bounds. The material in this section
1628: parallels that of \cite{cancel2} where
1629: authors provide a dedicated study of the EDM bounds,
1630: and compute certain CP-violating observables at a
1631: linear collider within the EDM-favored parameter
1632: regions.
1633:
1634: The EDM bounds on CP-odd phases depend crucially
1635: on what values are taken for soft mass parameters
1636: themselves \cite{cancel,cancel1,cancel2}. Gaugino phases,
1637: which are the prime CP-odd parameters for squark (as well as slepton)
1638: pair-production, become relevant only when gaugino masses are
1639: non-universal (at least in phase, as assumed in Sec. IV, above).
1640: The pair-production cross sections of the squarks in first and second generations
1641: are independent of what values are assigned to triliear
1642: couplings: They can be universal or non-universal. These
1643: two cases have been analyzed as 15-parameter MSSM and 23-parameter
1644: MSSM scenarios in \cite{cancel2}. For non-universal gaugino
1645: masses one finds a rather wide parameter space in which
1646: EDMs cancel out with ${\cal{O}}(1)$ values for gaugino phases.
1647: Indeed, setting $\varphi_2=0$ by using the U(1)$_R$
1648: freedom of the MSSM, one finds that $\varphi_{\mu}$ is imprisoned
1649: to lie close to $0$ or $\pi$ whereas all the rest of the phases wander
1650: in $\left[0,2\pi\right]$ interval when gaugino and sfermion masses as well
1651: as trilinear couplings are allowed to vary within $\left[0, 1\ {\rm TeV}\right]$
1652: band (see Figs. 4-9 of \cite{cancel2}). Consider, for instance, Fig.4 or Fig.7 of
1653: \cite{cancel2}. These figures suggest that $\varphi_{\widetilde{B}}$ and
1654: $\varphi_{\widetilde{g}}$ are not constrained at all; they vary in their
1655: full range. In such regions, as expected from the analysis in previous
1656: section, the squark pair-production cross sections will exhibit
1657: strong variation with the phases.
1658:
1659: The parameter regions depicted in Figs. 4-9 of \cite{cancel2} and
1660: subsequent discussion of CP-violating observables at a linear collider
1661: indicate that a similar analysis can be carried out for hadron
1662: colliders, in particular, the LHC. In analyzing the correlation
1663: between EDMs and pair-production processes (of sleptons or
1664: squarks) one keeps in mind that latter is sensitive to
1665: relative phase among the gauginos, only. On the other hand,
1666: EDMs depend generically on relative phase between gaugino masses and
1667: trilinear couplings (or $\mu$ parameter) \cite{thomas}.
1668:
1669: \section{Conclusion and Future Prospects}
1670: In this work we have analyzed systematically effects of finite
1671: CP-odd phases of soft-breaking parameters on squark
1672: pair-production in $p\,p$ collisions at the LHC energies. Our
1673: observations and results can be summarized as follows:
1674: \begin{itemize}
1675: \item Out of all pairs (squark-squark,
1676: gluino-gluino, squark-gluino) of colored particles, only the
1677: squark production exhibits an explicit dependence on the SUSY
1678: CP-odd phases. Out of all pairs of squarks, only those belonging
1679: to first and second generations exhibit a significant dependence
1680: on the phases.
1681:
1682: \item Pair-productions of squarks in first and second generations
1683: are sensitive to CP-odd phases in neutralinos and gluinos, only.
1684: They thus enable one to examine CP violation sources in the ino
1685: sector besides the processes that directly probe inos (neutralino
1686: or chargino pair productions).
1687:
1688: \item Depending on the chirality, flavor and electric charge of a given pair of
1689: squarks, pair-production rates change (see Table \ref{table1}),
1690: and this change needs not be small (see
1691: Figs.\ref{fig-sig-up_0}--\ref{fig-updownratio}). In particular,
1692: squark--squark and squark--anti-squark production rates differ
1693: significantly for up-type squark pairs and associated production
1694: of up-and-down squarks.
1695:
1696: \item The cross sections exhibit significant variations with the
1697: phases even if flavor, chirality and electric charge of the squark
1698: pairs are left unmeasured (see Figs. \ref{fig-uptotal},
1699: \ref{fig-downtotal}, \ref{fig-updowntotal} and especially Fig.
1700: \ref{fig-total}). In Fig.\ref{fig-total}, the total swings of
1701: the cross sections $i.e.$ the difference between their
1702: extrema vary between $\approx 0.5\ {\rm pb}$ to $ 4\ {\rm pb}$,
1703: which should be a measurable signal at the LHC.
1704:
1705: \item The discussions in Sec.V show that there are rather
1706: wide regions in SUSY parameter space where EDMs are sufficiently
1707: suppressed (via cancellation of various contributions) with
1708: ${\cal{O}}(1)$ phases for gauginos. In such regions of the parameter
1709: space, squark pair-production must feel phases significantly (similar
1710: to ones shown in Sec.IV).
1711:
1712:
1713: \end{itemize}
1714: In light of these observations and results, we find squark
1715: production processes as an important probe of CP violation sources
1716: in the theory.
1717:
1718: In spite of their clear and guiding aspects, the results above are
1719: far from being sufficient for a definitive conclusion since:
1720: \begin{itemize}
1721: \item The analysis in Sec. IV is restricted to a specific benchmark point
1722: LM1. It is necessary to cover different portions of the SUSY
1723: parameter space, as wide as possible, so as to determine golden
1724: regions for putting discovery limits.
1725:
1726: \item The results above far from telling what will
1727: actually happen in a given LHC detector. Indeed, detector
1728: responses, background, jet identification, cuts, \dots all are to
1729: be implemented before reaching a definite answer for signal
1730: significance. The work in this direction is in progress
1731: \cite{nasuf}.
1732:
1733: \item The discussions of the EDM bounds in Sec.V, though
1734: sufficient for having a 'proof of existence' of parameter
1735: regions with ${\cal{O}}(1)$ CP-odd phases, must be rectified
1736: with a full scan of the parameter space so as to determine
1737: correlation among EDMs and cross sections. In any case,
1738: the EDM bounds are to be incorporated by
1739: assuming from the scratch that squarks of first two generations
1740: are light enough to be pair-produced at the LHC.
1741:
1742: \item It is necessary to rectify the LO cross sections discussed
1743: here by incorporating NLO QCD effects. They are expected to
1744: stabilize results against variations in renormalization/decoupling
1745: scale, and their contributions are expected to be ${\cal{O}}(20
1746: \%)$ level.
1747:
1748: \item In general, identification of sparticles at hadron colliders is a
1749: nontrivial task as it involves the reconstruction of the masses,
1750: couplings and chiralities from incomplete (due to missing energy
1751: signals) final states comprising leptons and jets. Although
1752: several studies of the supersymmetric parameter space have already
1753: resulted in a set of benchmark points (see \cite{post-lep} and
1754: references therein), a full and precise determination of the
1755: spectrum calls for more general techniques for sparticle
1756: identification \cite{CMS}, and might eventually require a
1757: complementary lepton collider \cite{denegri}. Nevertheless, as
1758: confirmed by the phase-dependencies of the total cross sections in
1759: Figs. \ref{fig-uptotal}, \ref{fig-downtotal} and
1760: \ref{fig-updowntotal}, it is possible to extract important
1761: information about CP violation characteristics of the ino sector.
1762:
1763: \end{itemize}
1764: The results of this work, with reservations just listed, show that
1765: squark pair-production is an important process to probe CP
1766: violation sources in the theory in addition to testing various
1767: aspects pertaining to flavor structures and scale of the new
1768: physics.
1769:
1770:
1771: \section{Acknowledgements}
1772: D. A. D. thanks CERN Theory Division where part of this work was
1773: done. The work of D. A. D. and K. C. were partially supported by
1774: the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
1775: through project 104T503. The work of D. A. D. was partially
1776: supported by Turkish Academy of Sciences through GEBIP grant.
1777:
1778: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1779:
1780: \bibitem{Chung:2003fi}
1781: D.~J.~H.~Chung, L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~F.~King, J.~D.~Lykken and L.~T.~Wang,
1782: %``The soft supersymmetry-breaking Lagrangian: Theory and applications,''
1783: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 407}, 1 (2005)
1784: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312378].
1785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312378;%%
1786:
1787: \bibitem{nima}
1788: N.~Arkani-Hamed, G.~L.~Kane, J.~Thaler and L.~T.~Wang,
1789: %``Supersymmetry and the LHC inverse problem,''
1790: arXiv:hep-ph/0512190.
1791: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512190;%%
1792:
1793: \bibitem{pape}
1794: L.~Pape and D.~Treille,
1795: %``Supersymmetry facing experiment: Much ado (already) about nothing (yet),''
1796: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\ {\bf 69}, 2843 (2006).
1797: %%CITATION = RPPHA,69,2843;%%
1798:
1799:
1800: \bibitem{flavor-cp}
1801: J.~S.~Hagelin, S.~Kelley and T.~Tanaka,
1802: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 415}, 293 (1994);
1803: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B415,293;%%
1804: F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
1805: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477}, 321 (1996)
1806: [arXiv:hep-ph/9604387];
1807: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604387;%%
1808: S.~Pokorski, J.~Rosiek and C.~A.~Savoy,
1809: %``Constraints on phases of supersymmetric flavour conserving couplings,''
1810: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 570}, 81 (2000)
1811: [arXiv:hep-ph/9906206].
1812: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906206;%%
1813:
1814:
1815: \bibitem{cross}
1816: S.~Dawson, E.~Eichten and C.~Quigg,
1817: %``Search For Supersymmetric Particles In Hadron - Hadron Collisions,''
1818: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 1581 (1985).
1819: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,1581;%%
1820:
1821: \bibitem{cross1}
1822: V.~D.~Barger, K.~Hagiwara, W.~Y.~Keung, R.~J.~N.~Phillips and
1823: J.~Woodside,
1824: %``Multi - Jet Events With Missing Transverse Momentum From Squark Pair
1825: %Production At The Cern P Anti-P Collider,''
1826: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32}, 806 (1985).
1827: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D32,806;%%
1828:
1829:
1830: \bibitem{Beenakker:1996ch}
1831: W.~Beenakker, R.~Hopker, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1832: %``Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders,''
1833: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 492}, 51 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9610490].
1834: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610490;%%
1835:
1836: \bibitem{Beenakker3}
1837: W.~Beenakker, R.~Hopker, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1838: %``Squark production at the Tevatron,''
1839: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 2905 (1995)
1840: [arXiv:hep-ph/9412272].
1841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412272;%%
1842:
1843: \bibitem{tilman}
1844: T.~Plehn, D.~Rainwater and P.~Skands,
1845: %``Squark and gluino production with jets,''
1846: arXiv:hep-ph/0510144.
1847: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510144;%%
1848:
1849: \bibitem{wyler}
1850: T.~Gehrmann, D.~Maitre and D.~Wyler,
1851: %``Spin asymmetries in squark and gluino production at polarized hadron
1852: %colliders,''
1853: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 703}, 147 (2004)
1854: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406222].
1855: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B703,147;%%
1856:
1857: \bibitem{beenakker2}
1858: W.~Beenakker, M.~Kramer, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1859: %``Stop production at hadron colliders,''
1860: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 515}, 3 (1998)
1861: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710451].
1862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710451;%%
1863:
1864: \bibitem{stoppair}
1865: G.~Bozzi, B.~Fuks and M.~Klasen,
1866: %``Non-diagonal and mixed squark production at hadron colliders,''
1867: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 035016 (2005)
1868: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507073].
1869: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507073;%%
1870:
1871: \bibitem{flavor-cp2}
1872: D.~A.~Demir,
1873: %``Higgs boson couplings to quarks with supersymmetric CP and flavor
1874: %violations,''
1875: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 571}, 193 (2003)
1876: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303249];
1877: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303249;%%
1878: J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,
1879: %``New Higgs effects in B physics in supersymmetry with general flavour
1880: %mixing,''
1881: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609}, 102 (2005)
1882: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410323];
1883: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410323;%%
1884: %``Probing the flavour structure of supersymmetry breaking with rare
1885: %B-processes: A beyond leading order analysis,''
1886: JHEP {\bf 0508}, 094 (2005)
1887: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506146].
1888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506146;%%
1889:
1890: \bibitem{cancel}
1891: A.~Bartl, T.~Gajdosik, W.~Porod, P.~Stockinger and H.~Stremnitzer,
1892: %``Electron and neutron electric dipole moments in the constrained
1893: %MSSM,''
1894: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 073003 (1999)
1895: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903402];
1896: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,073003;%%
1897:
1898: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
1899: %``The neutron and the lepton EDMs in MSSM, large CP violating phases, and the
1900: %cancellation mechanism,''
1901: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 111301 [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 60}
1902: (1999) 099902] [arXiv:hep-ph/9807501];
1903: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807501;%%
1904: M.~Brhlik, G.~J.~Good and G.~L.~Kane,
1905: %``Electric dipole moments do not require the CP-violating phases of
1906: %supersymmetry to be small,''
1907: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 115004 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9810457].
1908: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810457;%%
1909:
1910: \bibitem{cancel1}
1911: S.~Abel, S.~Khalil and O.~Lebedev,
1912: %``EDM constraints in supersymmetric theories,''
1913: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 151 (2001)
1914: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103320].
1915: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B606,151;%%
1916:
1917: \bibitem{cancel2}
1918: V.~D.~Barger, T.~Falk, T.~Han, J.~Jiang, T.~Li and T.~Plehn,
1919: %``CP-violating phases in SUSY, electric dipole moments, and linear
1920: %colliders,''
1921: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 056007 (2001)
1922: [arXiv:hep-ph/0101106].
1923: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,056007;%%
1924:
1925: \bibitem{thomas}
1926: M.~E.~Peskin,
1927: %``Systematics of slepton production in e+ e- and e- e- collisions,''
1928: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 13}, 2299 (1998)
1929: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803279];
1930: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803279;%%
1931: S.~D.~Thomas,
1932: %``CP-odd phases in slepton pair production,''
1933: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 13}, 2307 (1998)
1934: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803420].
1935: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803420;%%
1936:
1937: \bibitem{biz}
1938: D.~A.~Demir, O.~Lebedev, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,
1939: %``Electric dipole moments in the MSSM at large tan(beta),''
1940: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 680}, 339 (2004)
1941: [arXiv:hep-ph/0311314].
1942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311314;%%
1943:
1944: \bibitem{beyondmssm}
1945: A.~T.~Alan,
1946: %``Effects of the CP odd dipole operators on gluino production at hadron
1947: %colliders,''
1948: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 115006 (2005)
1949: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508252];
1950: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,115006;%%
1951: M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,
1952: %``Flavor and CP violating physics from new supersymmetric thresholds,''
1953: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 091801 (2006)
1954: [arXiv:hep-ph/0510254].
1955: %%CITATION = PRLTA,96,091801;%%
1956:
1957: \bibitem{2loop}
1958: K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,
1959: %``CP-odd phase correlations and electric dipole moments,''
1960: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 075001 (2005)
1961: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506106].
1962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506106;%%
1963:
1964:
1965: \bibitem{CTQ5}
1966: H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.} [CTEQ Collaboration],
1967: %``Global {QCD} analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton
1968: %distributions,''
1969: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 375 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9903282].
1970: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903282;%%
1971:
1972:
1973: \bibitem{post-lep}
1974: M.~Battaglia {\it et al.},
1975: %``Proposed post-LEP benchmarks for supersymmetry,''
1976: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22}, 535 (2001)
1977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106204].
1978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106204;%%
1979:
1980: \bibitem{post-wmap}
1981: M.~Battaglia, A.~De Roeck, J.~R.~Ellis, F.~Gianotti, K.~A.~Olive
1982: and L.~Pape,
1983: %``Updated post-WMAP benchmarks for supersymmetry,''
1984: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33}, 273 (2004)
1985: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306219].
1986: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306219;%%
1987:
1988:
1989: \bibitem{CMS}
1990: S.~Abdullin {\it et al.} [CMS Collaboration],
1991: %``Discovery potential for supersymmetry in CMS,''
1992: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28}, 469 (2002)
1993: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806366].
1994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806366;%%
1995:
1996: \bibitem{tarek}
1997: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
1998: %``SUSY QCD and SUSY electroweak loop corrections to b, t and tau masses
1999: %including the effects of CP phases,''
2000: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 095003 (2003)
2001: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 68}, 019901 (2003)]
2002: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301110].
2003: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301110;%%
2004:
2005: \bibitem{bsgam}
2006: D.~A.~Demir and K.~A.~Olive,
2007: %``B --> X/s gamma in supersymmetry with explicit CP violation,''
2008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 034007 (2002)
2009: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107329].
2010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107329;%%
2011:
2012: \bibitem{pythia}
2013: T.~Sjostrand, S.~Mrenna and P.~Skands,
2014: %``PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual,''
2015: JHEP {\bf 0605}, 026 (2006)
2016: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603175].
2017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603175;%%
2018:
2019: \bibitem{nasuf}
2020: K.~Cankocak, D.~A.~Demir and N.~Sonmez, CMS Physics Simulation
2021: Study (in progress).
2022:
2023: \bibitem{denegri}
2024: D.~Denegri, priviate communication.
2025:
2026: \end{thebibliography}
2027:
2028:
2029: \end{document}
2030: